Shearer David: Road User Charges Bill — Second Reading 
Shearer David: Road User Charges Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21038] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Road User Charges Bill. The purpose of the bill is to continue the road-user charges system by imposing charges on heavy vehicles and certain other vehicles for their use of the roads that are in proportion to the cost that those vehicles generate. We know that obviously trucks cause disproportionately more damage to our roads than ordinary cars. Several thousand car trips equal one or two truck trips in terms of creating damage to our roads so it is only right that we look at where the costs of the repair and maintenance of our roads come from and that those users pay their fair share. 
As my colleague Darien Fenton was just saying Labour is supporting this bill but there are a number of aspects we are not happy with. One of them as Ms Fenton pointed out is the degree of consultation that has taken place. A number of major users are opposed to this bill. Toll New Zealand which is a large company and actually a very responsible company—it uses both road and rail and is moving goods right across New Zealand on a variety of modes of transport—is unhappy with the bill. Toll NZ is prepared to embrace electronic monitoring of its transport fleet and its road-user charges. It has adopted an electronic system called EROAD which is from a company based on the North Shore. That company although we do not herald it as much as we could has sold its product into the European markets particularly into the Scandinavian markets. 
The system works simply on the basis of having an electronic sensor on the windscreen rather than a hubodometer on the hub of the vehicle. It uses a Global Positioning System (GPS) to measure where the truck is moving to and from. The ingenious part of this piece of technology is that even if the GPS is not working the revs of the engine and the vibration of the vehicle are monitored and measured. Even if the GPS is not functioning the computer can still measure approximately how far the vehicle has moved along the road. It transmits that information back both to the company and to the billing authority for the road-user charge and the charge is able to be calculated and a bill sent to the company concerned. No longer does one have to go and check hubodometers; one can do that from the windscreen of the truck itself. The other ingenious part of this technology is that if anyone tries to take it off the windscreen it immediately sends a signal to say the device has been tampered with and the appropriate intervention can be made. 
Interestingly many companies in New Zealand are opposed to this device. Toll NZ is one of the few companies that has adopted it. It is using the device as are a number of the Scandinavian countries where EROAD has been able to market this product. It is now a fantastic piece of New Zealand intellectual property being marketed and sold offshore. It is a shame that we cannot bring the device into New Zealand in a more widespread fashion because if we did we would be able to demonstrate to other potential markets across the world that we have confidence in this device for electronic tracking of vehicles to calculate their road-user charges. By demonstrating that confidence we would help to promote that product further overseas. That has not yet happened. 
I mention that product because it is related to this legislation. If we are to have legislation like this and to make some changes as Darien Fenton outlined then we should also have the most up-to-date electronic capacity in order to use this legislation much more effectively. As I said EROAD is one of a couple of companies able to do that. 
Coming back more specifically to the bill—and I stress again that many of the people who will be affected by this bill were upset because they did not think they were being consulted sufficiently—it basically moves from nominated weights to gross weights for the setting of road-user charges. At the moment road-user charges are based on the distance travelled and the weight carried. An operator currently has to estimate the actual gross weight to be carried; he nominates it in advance. Under the changes proposed in this bill the usual maximum allowable weight of the vehicle will be decided in advance and the road-user charge will be charged on that gross figure supposedly to simplify the process a bit. That is what Nathan Guy said will happen. 
The problems and there are a number of problems stem from the fact the existing truck fleet has been purchased to work within an existing system. We have a real problem in relation to the impact of reclassifying and changing the trucking fleet. The costs and the difficulties of changing midstream are largely unknown. There definitely will be some unseen costs that have not yet been recognised. 
Under the present system the first tonne of weight is charged at a rate much lower than that of the last tonne. The last tonne is charged at a higher rate because it is the weight at the top end of the scale—the reverse of the marginal cost—that is doing the most damage to the road. If a tonne is added to a 39-tonne truck that makes it a 40-tonne truck and that extra tonne does a lot more damage than the first tonne carried by the truck. 
Under the new system charges will have to be set for an average weight in each class. If the Government still wants to collect the same amount of road-user charges in each class—and I am sure it does—then operators with trucks within that average weight band will have to pay more to cover lost revenue than operators of heavier trucks at the top end of the scale. Effectively it looks like the operators of heavier trucks the trucks doing more damage will actually pay less and the operators of lighter and medium-sized trucks will actually be paying more. 
There is a lot more to this bill than just that issue and that is the reason Labour is supporting it. But I highlight these points because it seems certainly from what we have heard from some of the submitters that submitters did not feel they were consulted sufficiently. I believe them when they say that and they can take the matter into their own hands as they did in 2008. 
It seems to me that when looking at who should pay what and the fairness of the system the operators of heavier trucks which are in fact doing more damage may actually end up paying less. That does not seem quite right to me. Personally I have some reservations around that part of the bill. However as we have said before we will be supporting this bill for other reasons although we have spoken about our opposition to some of those parts I mentioned. Thank you.