Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5554] 
Road User Charges Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Road User Charges Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I thank members and officials for their work on this very important bill. The bill will achieve two things. Firstly it will enable the exemption of light electric motor vehicles from the requirement to pay road-user charges and secondly it will ensure adequate notice of road-user charge increases. 
Over the years motor vehicles have given New Zealanders opportunities to travel and travel more freely now than at any other time in the past and motor vehicles have brought huge improvements in economic growth and prosperity. However part of the price of that freedom has been a contribution to global climate change toxic emissions and indeed noise. These problems are not due to the roads or our motorists; rather they are due to the motors of our vehicles. Recent advances in vehicle technology will see zero-emission or very low-emission vehicles in our market as early as 2010. These new vehicles will be powered either wholly or partly by electricity. 
Electric vehicles are beneficial: while providing the choice of flexible and personalised transport they are more efficient and cheaper to run than conventional vehicles. They will reduce our need to import fossil fuels and when combined with smart metering technology will increase road and electricity security against energy disruptions. Electric vehicles release little or no toxic emissions and they have the potential to substantially reduce transport greenhouse gas emissions. 
This bill seeks to allow exemptions for owners of light electric motor vehicles from paying road-user charges. The 4c per kilometre saving would provide an incentive for those people who have bought light electric motor vehicles. The exemption is intended to operate until 2013 and is limited to light electric motor vehicles. In 2013 the exemption will cease and owners of light electric motor vehicles will revert to paying the full costs they impose on the roading network—an important principle of our road-funding system. 
The second important issue this bill addresses is the provision of notice for an increase to road-user charges. These charges are a significant cost to commercial transport operators. They are a tax and no reasonable Government would increase a tax overnight without warning. The bill proposes a very reasonable period of 6 weeks’ notice before these charges are increased; the possibility of Government revenue loss through large-scale pre-purchasing of road-user charges at cheaper rates is neatly averted. Road-user charge licences for heavy vehicles will expire 1 month after an increase comes into effect. Refunds of road-user charges for unused kilometres will be automatically provided at the time a new licence is purchased. No additional resources from Government or businesses will be required. The 400000 owners of light diesel motor vehicles will not be subject to the expiry provision. The lower cost of road-user charge licenses for these vehicles substantially reduces the incentive for large-scale pre-purchasing. 
Again I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and officials for the very prompt work on this bill. The bill will help to encourage light electric motor vehicles on to our roads which will lead to cleaner and quieter streets lower fuel bills and fewer greenhouse gases. The bill provides a transparent notification system for increases to road-user charges while safeguarding the Government’s revenue. This is a very good bill and I commend it to the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the third reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: How’s your landlady? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am sorry? 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: How’s your landlady? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Out of all the choices of people I would much rather have her than some other people I know in terms of kindness and things like that. 
We are in support of this bill— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Seen the Harry Potter movies? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: What was that Maurice? I would have thought National members would be the last members to raise anything to do with housing this week. I am amazed they want to do that. All it shows is that there is a lot of disloyalty over there at the present time. 
This bill is in the name of the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce and who is the No. 1 beneficiary of Bill English’s problems this week? It is Steven Joyce. So is it not interesting that all those members are climbing over one another to praise Steven Joyce as he marches towards the deputy prime ministership and the finance portfolio in this country? That was a nasty little dig by Paula Bennett to try to get one over Bill English in order to grease up to Steven Joyce as she looks for further promotion within the Government. I am very disappointed that she would do something like that; I think it is a real black mark against her name in that particular regard. 
The third reading of this bill is welcomed by Labour although it is very timid legislation. Through the Committee stage we highlighted the concerns we had that the Minister and the Government have not used the chance of this legislation to be far bolder and show a little bit more vision with regard to the development of light electric motor vehicles in New Zealand. The bill as the previous speaker said has two parts: the first covers the exemption for light electric motor vehicles from road-user charges and the second covers the period in which road-user charges may be purchased after the Government has announced an increase in those fees—and I will come to that point second. In dealing with the exemption for light electric motor vehicles I say that the bill does not go far enough. It is disappointing that it is anticipating only 300 of these vehicles being on the road between now and 2013. 
One of the issues that the Minister would not address in the Committee stage was why the opportunity was not taken to set a bolder target for those vehicles to be on our roads in order to send a very clear signal from Government that it was showing the leadership required to get a diversity of vehicles fuelled by different means through our motor vehicle fleet. I think that is a missed opportunity and many questions were put to the Minister that he did not answer. For example he was asked why a percentage figure of our fleet was not set rather than a number. When we consider how many cars each family has we realise that 300 cars is a very very small number indeed; 300 cars would pretty easily cover two or three streets in a small provincial town. But if the Minister had set a percentage figure even one as low as 1 percent that would have been a chance for the country to see how serious the Government was for light electric motor vehicles to be developed. 
Light electric motor vehicles are such a great idea and reinforce all the work that the previous Government had done around the sustainability agenda to make sure that the single biggest area for most families in terms of fossil fuel emissions—that is people’s participation in the transport sector—could be covered. For many families who think about how they can make a real difference to climate change it will be in the area of transport that they are able to make the biggest difference to their emissions. Electric cars are obviously one way in which that could happen. We have to increase the proportion of these vehicles in our fleet on the roads. Combining both a greater quantity and the fact that New Zealand has such a strong supply of renewable energy would have brought together those great ideas. I hope that will happen with this bill and that we will have 300 of these cars between now and 4 years’ time but I fear that the wrong signals are being given or that the signals are not being given strongly enough with the passage of this bill here today. We know that cars that rely on oil engines or petrol and need to be filled up at the gas station are harmful sources of fuel because they are non-renewable sources and emissions from cars are something that we are all concerned about. By flipping over to electric vehicles we see that both of those things can be changed. 
I want to pick up on a point made by National member the Hon Tau Henare yesterday. He referred to a documentary called  
Who Killed the Electric Car? 
. In politics it is very easy to have conspiracy theories put to members or to the community about how things can be affected but I think that documentary clearly showed that not only Governments but corporations as well can send the wrong signals by the decisions they make. One thing that reminds me of that point is the style shape and design of the cars that were chosen in order to make them unattractive to consumers. A very deliberate decision was made to try to limit sales of that particular type of vehicle. I believe that the Government has a role to play in this area that can be quite influential and I encourage it to take up that role in a stronger way. 
We know that at the moment the availability of these cars in our market is currently very very low. The purchase price is around double the cost of what a conventional vehicle would be and that puts them out of the reach of many many working families particularly those who are facing harder times as unemployment rises at a seemingly unstoppable rate. Today it is at 6 percent of our labour market. Global manufacturers have not seen New Zealand as a priority to send cars down to because they have not seen a market that is ready and willing to go. That is the tragedy of the bill. 
The role of Government is to remove barriers. This bill partly does that and that is why Labour is voting for it. We offer the Government congratulations on that part but so often within this area of sustainability and climate change we are not seeing the Government being bold enough which is what our country needs. New Zealand relies so heavily on a stable climate. Often the people who stand to lose the most from climate change are themselves the most reluctant to make a change but I think it is the role of Parliament and the Government to look at that. I point the Government’s attention as I did during the second reading to Denmark. It has outlined a huge programme to try to kick-start a proper electric motor vehicle fleet a US$135 million plan to try to get that going and the New Zealand Government should be trying to focus on that as strongly as it can. 
Finally I turn to the area of road-user charges that the bill contains in its second part. The previous Government ordered a review of road-user charges because there are a number of legitimate questions in this area around fairness where costs should fall and the emerging types of vehicles that have environmental efficiency. We have just been discussing electric vehicles and they are of course covered by the bill but there are also diesel-powered sedans and light diesel vehicles. They are becoming more and more popular on the consumer market. How those are all treated is a subject of some considerable debate and angst within the transport industry. The review was set up last year to try to come up with some potential options or solutions in that respect. I certainly welcomed that review. 
The review came out of a period when the National Party had been very very critical of an increase in those road-user charges. There was 18 years between increases in the fees and when the increases were finally put forward we saw the then National transport spokesperson Maurice Williamson back when he was alive politically lead a charge of National MPs around the country. They said that those were the most terrible disgraceful increases they had ever seen and that it was terrible that the Labour Government had raised road-user charges. Yet nowhere in this debate have National members got up and said that they believe road-user charges should be lowered to the level they were last year. I have been intrigued by that because I thought that last year’s high principle would have been this year’s delivery. I thought that National members were so genuine in their outrage last year that they would have reduced those road-user charges. But—surprise surprise—they have not done that. I would love to know from the next speaker why all of a sudden they believe that the road-user charges are now at an appropriate level when last year those members joined protests all around the country because the charges were so outrageous. Equally the cost of diesel has fallen since that time— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No we just joined the protest because it was anti-Labour! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh so the member says that he joined the protest only because it was anti-Labour. I hope that the members of the trucking industry who listened to the Hon Tau Henare when he turned up realise now that maybe he did not really believe what he was saying. That is a very interesting revelation. When he gives speeches they are more about his political party view in terms of the Government of the day than about the substance of what he is saying around that. 
We know that the money collected in road-user charges goes to the National Land Transport Fund. We use that fund to build our roads and to try to improve our infrastructure in respect of rail and so many other things we need in order to get New Zealand moving. When the Government talks about the seven roads of national significance they are paid for out of the National Land Transport Fund. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call in the third reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. There is a global movement towards the use of cleaner greener cars and that includes electric cars. The Government has a role to play in this change. It needs to take a lead and through this bill the Government is making a start. 
There is no doubt that road-user charges have been a barrier to the uptake of electric cars. An increase in the number of electric cars on our roads will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector as well as the harmful emissions affecting air quality. It will also decrease reliance on imported fossil fuels and improve energy security. 
This bill provides for 42 days’ notice of a road-user charge increase. That has been done to minimise the potential harm and revenue loss caused by the pre-purchasing of road-user charges by the heavy motor vehicle industry following notification of a road-user charge increase. The bill provides that heavy vehicle road-user charge licences will expire 1 month after an increase comes into effect. The changes in road-user charge rates that cannot be passed on to consumers in a timely manner impacts on their businesses. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I went over to the United States in 1992 on one of those “CIA” trips. I was there for a month and we were entitled to have a bit to do with putting our own agenda together. I found myself in Pasadena talking to a guy called Paul MacCready. Paul MacCready has since passed away but before he did he managed a few things. He got a pterodactyl to fly. He took part in the Alice Springs to Darwin solar races each year and continued to clean those up. 
Paul MacCready was the guy who invented the Gossamer aircraft the first aircraft that was human-powered and heavier than air and he invented a thing called the Impact which was an electric vehicle. I sat down with him for the day just to get a sense of where his head was at and he taught me a really important lesson. It was that politicians should not pick technologies; politicians should back technologies. 
In 1992 the Government of California had said—and as my colleague Darren Hughes said earlier—that there was a case for the Government to set a percentage target so it did. It said that all vehicles to be sold from the year 2000 or thereabouts in Los Angeles would be zero-emission vehicles. But Mr MacCready said that the politicians had made a mistake because they had picked a technology instead of backing it. They should have watched what technology was coming forward. It was not zero-emission vehicles back in 1992; it was hybrids. He could see them coming out of Japan and he could see that that would be the next wave to be followed maybe by plug-in hybrids and then maybe by electric vehicles. 
Now 17 years later Mr MacCready has been proved right and the time for a Government to back this new technology—zero-emission vehicles; electric cars—has come. So Labour members support this legislation but in the same breath we say that it is insufficient. We are not suggesting great subsidies or anything of the sort but we wonder whether taking road-user charges off zero-emission vehicles will make much of a difference when one considers not only the capital cost but the entire lack of infrastructure. 
No planning is going on around the advent of electric vehicles into this country. There is no planning law about what type or types of recharging we might have—induction plug-in or whatever. There is no standard set for safety around those forms of recharging. We do not have any infrastructure in place for the advent of these vehicles so the early movers will have to make it up as they go along. If we are to have 350 or something electric vehicles in this country by a certain period— 
Sue Moroney 
: 300 in the next 5 years. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well by the law of averages that will mean 10 in my home town of Dunedin and those 10 electric vehicle users will not have a place to plug in in the central city unless there is planning for that. They will not be able to be assured of safe ongoing recharging at home or anywhere else unless there is planning for it. And they certainly will not be able to go on a trip—not into Central Otago—because there will not be anything there for them to charge into or easily charge into. So it is an infrastructure issue. The Government needs to do more in the electric vehicle space than it has done. I commend what the Government has done. It is a good step forward but it is not a sufficient step forward by any means. 
I wonder whether the Government would ever consider getting together a group of people who have an interest in this matter—potential users potential services—and asking them when we should start training mechanics to look after these vehicles when they need servicing. We do not have that now so will we be doing DIY maintenance on electric vehicles? Will people be phoning up some trained electrician who is very interested in electric cars? 
The point is we will have to have that trained electrician or have that knowledge before people buy the vehicles. That is why I think the Government has not done enough. We need a skills infrastructure we need a physical infrastructure and we need a plan. But we do not have any of those; we simply have the removal of road-user charges. 
I refer now to the other matter in this legislation. I well remember a bunch of truck drivers rolling into the streets of Dunedin and elsewhere around the country late last year. They were outraged by the fact that the then Minister of Transport had taken steps so they could not rort an increase in charges as if such Government action was unusual. Has no one ever been in this House when under urgency tax changes have gone through in the dead of night? That is the precise action of a Government when it is looking to put up charges. It does so suddenly so that people have certainty about what they are going to pay—more or in some cases less—the following day. That is normal but when the Minister of Transport did so it was an outrage. So a bunch of truck drivers came into town blocked up the roads and basically said: “We know that we don’t pay enough but we don’t want to pay any more.” 
I acknowledge that road-user charges always bring debate around the margins that road-user charges are never set perfectly and that there is always room for debate about this or that aspect of them. I know that; I have been a Minister of Transport myself for a time. It is an ongoing thing but when the Government decided that road-user charges needed to go up—and that decision was backed by quite careful analysis—and when the truck drivers of the nation started running into town one did wonder whether a former National Party member for New Plymouth who currently runs the Road Transport Forum the trucking forum was behind some political motivation. Hearing some of the chatter across the House today confirms for me that that was a political act designed to do damage to a Government rather than to protest an issue. 
I think that this Government’s solution of a limited ability to pre-buy is a really good one and I congratulate the Government on it. But let us not suggest that there is anything new or unreasonable about making a sudden decision to increase a charge or a tax. That is normal in democracies and it is normal in this democracy. So I do not want to hear any of that from the National Government. With those remarks I welcome this legislation and I hope it makes its untrammelled progress through the House. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on the third reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill because in fact all of that which can be said about this bill already has been—and quite a bit more besides I have to say. I will touch on one issue and it is an issue that the member for Dunedin North has discussed and I want to give a slightly different perspective on the matter of consultation. As Mr Hodgson rightly recalls there was considerable disquiet around the announcement of the increase in the road-user charges made last year by the previous Minister of Transport and there is no doubt that the road transport industry in the face of increasing diesel charges and other increases in the costs of doing business was quite annoyed about that. But there is a bit of rewriting of history going on about the trigger that caused the truck protest which caused gridlock in the Octagon and in the main streets of just about every city in New Zealand. That was around— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Pretty good to have trucks in the Octagon. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It was a very impressive display I have to say. There were trucks of all shapes and sizes around both sides of the Octagon and Moray Place and it brought the centre of the city to a standstill. The reason it happened was not that the road-user charges went up; the reason was that the Minister promised in 2007 that she would give the industry a month’s notice. Then she justified not doing that by saying that people would have rushed out and bought lots of road-user charge licences. The point was that she said she would do something and she did not. That is what got people so angry. As long as Labour Opposition members continue to deny that that was the cause of the problem and continue to rewrite history then my suggestion is that they will be sitting on that side of the Chamber for a very long time to come. 
But I acknowledge as Mr Hodgson and others on the other side have that this is good legislation. I do not believe it is timid; I think it is a very sensible response to a situation. It balances the needs of the Crown to avoid the sort of arbitrage that could go on with the need of road users to have plenty of time to plan for any future increases. I congratulate the Minister—one more flight of sycophancy before I sit down! I certainly commend the bill to the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. This is sensible legislation timid though it is. It is sensible because the initial work on it was done by the previous Labour Government. It seems that the only sensible pieces of legislation that the Government is bringing before the House happen to be legislation that had already been worked on by Labour and this bill is yet another example of that. 
This legislation causes us to reflect on exactly where our whole transport policy is going in this country. Although this bill is about reducing road-user charges for owners of electric cars I think we should stop and reflect on what that actually means. Is this a big bold move or is it timid? We know that the estimates are that there will be something in the order of 300 of these electric motor vehicles in New Zealand in the next 5 years. So in 5 years’ time there will be about 300 of these cars. My colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson talked about what that would mean in his neck of the woods—it means 10 electric cars would be owned in Dunedin. 
I am from the Waikato and roughly 10 percent of what happens in this country happens in that region. That would mean a grand total of 30 motor vehicles in the entire Waikato region—I am talking about 10 percent of our country—in the next 5 years. I think I can quite correctly guess without the backing of officials to tell me this information the 30 families in the Waikato who will have the financial resources to buy the very latest model on the market. It will not be the people we heard about today who are losing their jobs. So many people are losing their jobs in the recession because the Government does not have a plan for job creation. It will not be those people. The 300 people on the very highest incomes—probably business owners and landowners—will be the fortunate people in the Waikato who will benefit from not having to pay road-user charges because they happen to be the ones who will be able to afford the very latest thing on the market. I do not think we should fool ourselves—that will be the impact of this legislation. 
What is the Government doing in this area of transport? I want to broaden this discussion out and look at the whole transport area. We have heard the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce refer to himself as the Minister for land transport. I think it tells us quite a lot that he refers to himself as the Minister for land transport when in fact transport involves sea rail and a whole lot of other areas of transport that do not happen to involve land transport. So I think we have some questions to ask the Minister over what he sees as being in his portfolio. 
Yesterday while debating this same bill I asked the Minister—and he did respond—whether he supported the proposal for a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. I was astounded—absolutely stunned—by his response. He stood in this very debating chamber and said he did not think he could give it his support because he could not understand how a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland might ease congestion on the roads. What sort of response is that from a Minister of Transport? He cannot understand that putting 70 to 100 people on a train in the morning when they would normally commute by car between Hamilton and Auckland would ease congestion on the road. I invite the Minister to drive from Hamilton to Auckland on any day of the week so he might understand that by the time he gets to the southern Auckland motorway the 70 to 100 cars that would not be on the road if we had a rail passenger process in place would be adding to the congestion on the southern Auckland motorway. I am not sure how the Minister thinks people from Auckland drive in a car and get to Auckland. Perhaps he thinks they do not use the southern motorway somehow but that is exactly the problem. 
The Minister obviously has not been well advised. He certainly has not got on top of his portfolio and he certainly seems to think that roading is the only way we can actually manage transport in this country. I have to say that the Minister is completely out of touch with New Zealanders. 
On the very good Labour MPs’ blog Red Alert I have blogged about the proposal to have a commuter train run from Hamilton to Auckland. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Who responded? 
SUE MORONEY 
: It has the highest number of comments and responses of any of the blogs on that website. It has smashed the record. That tells us that New Zealanders understand exactly what is going on with this Government. New Zealand responded to the blog which did have a very provocative title. The title was “Why do the Nats Hate Rail so Much?” and boy have those responses poured forth. People have come forward and given their stories. They have told us what they think about National members going around putting down a proposal for a rail service in Hamilton. National MPs are running around in Hamilton saying they do not want another rail passenger service in Hamilton. Why would they do that? 
That is the very question I have asked on that blog site. I asked: “Who’s prepared to hazard a guess on the real reason the Nats oppose rail transport?”. I do not think I could read out some of the responses in the House but here is a smattering of them. This comment is from a person using the name of Flower. She says: “As a Waikato girl by birth Aucklander by nature and living in Hamilton by choice”—go Hamilton—“I am thoroughly delighted by the idea of a regular train gig chugging the willing and the weary between the hustle and pace of Auckland and the tranquillity and bliss of Kirikiriroa. For Hamilton needs this and if David Bennett can not see the rail cars for truck tyres then more fool him. This isn’t just about getting those Hamilton[ians] to Auckland but getting Aucklanders to Hamilton! This city is growing it’s awakening it’s progressive and dare I say it [is] quite happening.” 
That is the sort of vision that ordinary New Zealanders are coming forward with—which this Government completely lacks. There is no leadership and no vision in this area. In the Government’s view the only thing that will transport things or people around this country will be private cars clogging up our roads. If we continue down that track we will continue to have the same old problem over and over again. 
It is not just ordinary New Zealanders who are concerned about this. I want to quote a couple of councillors in the Waikato. The councils are currently considering their submissions to this National Government’s fast tracking of the juggernaut proposal. This is the proposal to get larger trucks on our roads. Our roads are not designed and built to carry these trucks by the way but the Government will fast track this proposal through. I think it is absolutely clear from reading the comments of Waipa and Waikato district councillors that they have been bullied by the Government on this issue. Here is a quote from councillor Peter Lee who happens to be the deputy major of Waipa District Council. He says: “Get the freight off the road and on to rail. The Government seems determined to get more freight on the road despite owning a rail network.” I could not have said it better myself. Another councillor Michael Cox suggested that the rail argument should not be mentioned in a council submission because it would be seized upon by the Government “as a reason to damn it.” That is the word going around the local bodies in the Waikato region. The Government does not want rail and if someone dares to speaketh its name his or her submission will be damned. That is the message local bodies are picking up from the Government. 
I will continue and talk about what the Waikato District Council had to say about the rule. The council felt so bullied by the Government on this issue that even though it said that it knew that its roads could not cope with the juggernaut trucks and it knew about how much it would cost ratepayers and taxpayers in the future to have all the freight going by road in the much larger trucks—even though it knew all of that—one of the local people said in a council meeting: “If we submit in opposition it will be swept aside.” That particular council decided to go ahead and not put in its submission in opposition to the rule even though it quite clearly opposes the rule because it has been bullied by the Government to not talk about rail. People do not dare speaketh its name because the National Government will not take any notice of anyone who is advocating the very clear benefits of rail transport. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 If there is any doubt in people’s minds about why Labour lost the last election Sue Moroney’s speech will answer it. We heard from that previous speaker that she does not know anything at all about the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. She never once talked about what is in the bill. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Well you tell us. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will tell the member who has just arrived from his afternoon sleep. 
David Garrett 
: Who’s that fella? What’s his name? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I do not know; he has not been here very long. The bill is about electric cars electric motor vehicles being exempt from the road-user charges until 2013. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What about the hybrids? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What about hybrids? That member is a hybrid; we are not here to discuss his whakapapa. I want to concentrate on the previous speaker Sue Moroney. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You don’t. Surely you don’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I do not want to but I have to. 
The initial work on the bill was done by Labour. OK we will get that sorted out. Labour was here in Government for 9 years but it got nowhere. In 9 years Labour did all that work but in 8 months the National Government has been able to take the bill not only from its first reading but to the select committee and back into the House for its second reading Committee stage and now third reading. It has taken only 8 months. Just imagine what we can do if we are here for 9 years. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: 9 long years. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Nine long years. 
Sue Moroney talked about roads but said we have to concentrate on rail. She said that the Minister had not done anything about roads and that the National Government has not done anything about roads. We now have seven roads of significance roads that will lead to the economic development of various areas. Sue Moroney also talked about her massive blog that she has been blogging about. She told us that she has had a huge response. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Three people. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Some of my colleagues on this side of the House have been a bit disingenuous and said that only three people had commented on her blog. But I have to tell members that it is 10—only 10. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 71. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Ten. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 71. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Ten. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell the truth. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Ten. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell the truth. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Ten. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I just looked at it; it was 71. Tell the truth. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Ten people. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We do not have to have a commentary from each side. The point has been made. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Ten people blogged seven times and they changed their names. One of them was called Flower. Oh I am having fun. Seven people commented 10 times they changed their names and one of them is called Flower. What do we expect from a person with the name of Flower? 
This bill is all about the future. It is all about making a statement about electricity and about the new technology we can look forward to. But members opposite want us to go backwards and put freight on trains that do not even exist. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Back to the future. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Those members should tell that to the people of the north and the far north; we do not have any rails let alone trains. So what that member is talking about is a load of old hogwash. It is about going back to the future for the Labour Party. But National is concerned with the future and with enhancing new technology. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to join in the consensus in the House in supporting the Road User Charges Amendment Bill which will waive road-user charges for electric cars for 4 years. Why would anyone not support electric cars? After all they will make our fleet more efficient they do not have emissions they will reduce our dependence on oil and they will be a tiny step towards New Zealand becoming energy independent and so forth. Of course we support electric cars but we do have as others have mentioned some real questions about the underlying strategy behind the rather modest bill. 
Others have asked why the bill has been rushed through Parliament and wondered what the great rush is. I would like to speculate. There are two reasons for it. The first one and the previous speaker hinted at it is that National members can go around as David Bennett has done claiming that National is now somehow taking leadership in clean green transport. He can rush around saying “Look what we’re doing; we are giving incentives for using the electric car.” It is a great spin. 
The second reason is that it justifies in National members’ minds business as usual when it comes to transport which means building more and more roads for more and more cars. It does not matter because in this wonderful vision that David Bennett spoke about electric cars will be all over New Zealand. So everything will be fine! The presence of the cars will justify what National has just done. National has slashed $420 million out of the fund for alternative public transport and it is pouring all that money into building new roads. This bill is like a fig leaf; somehow the Government can justify this incredibly short-sighted policy because we will have electric cars. It also enables David Bennett and the previous speaker Tau Henare to go on and on about it. Tau Henare said: “Look at it. We are embracing the future. We are embracing new technology.” That is great stuff! 
There is one slight flaw: it is estimated that there will be only 30 electric cars by 2010 that within about 3 years there will be about 300 electric cars and maybe by 2020 there will be 30000 electric cars on the road. That hardly is a panacea. The problem is that electric cars are expensive. They cost two to three times as much as an ordinary car. How will New Zealanders fork out $40000 to $80000 for an electric car? Yes electric cars are great; we strongly support them. But let us not use them to provide a justification a panacea for increasing our focus on roads and for running down public transport like rail as previous speakers have mentioned. 
The bill also deals with the ability to alter the rates of road-user charges particularly referring to trucks. Trucks do enormous damage on our roads. A 40-tonne truck can easily cause as much damage to a typical road as 60000 one-tonne cars. As a result of this overweight trucks chronically underpay their fair share of road-user fees for the repair of roads and bridges. By damaging roads large trucks further degrade highway safety. My estimate related to damage done by a 40-tonne truck. Imagine how much damage will be done by 53-tonne trucks which National is about to unleash on our roads. These juggernauts are 72 feet long which is 6½ feet longer. We can be quite certain they will destroy our roads. If 40-tonne trucks can cause as much damage as 60000 cars God knows what damage will be done by 53-tonne trucks! I can be absolutely certain that trucks will not pay their fair share of road-user charges which are used to repair the damage they will do on our roads. 
One thing that road-user charges do not take into account is the cost of all the accidents that these juggernaut trucks cause on our roads. Trucks make up only 4 percent of our vehicle fleet yet cause 18 percent of the road toll. Despite knowing this we will allow trucks that are much bigger and considerably longer on our roads. We know that that will inevitably cause more accidents on our roads. How do we know that? Am I just scaremongering? No because the truth is that the longer the truck—6½ feet longer at 72 feet long—the longer it will take for people to pass it. It will be more difficult for these juggernaut trucks to go round the corners of our windy hilly roads in New Zealand without passing over the centre line as they do on many many State highways in New Zealand. Huge 53-tonne trucks will take longer to brake. If one has the misfortune to be involved in an accident with a 53-tonne truck one will come off even worse than if one was involved in an accident with a 40-tonne truck. 
New Zealanders are completely opposed to the juggernaut trucks. The previous speaker from Labour Sue Moroney blamed National for them but it must be said that Labour initiated the pilot study that is now being used as an excuse to allow these juggernaut trucks on our roads and to give them the green light. The stupidity of this proposal lies in the fact that our roads are far too narrow far too windy and far too hilly. They are just completely ill-suited for huge juggernaut trucks; that is why so many New Zealanders are alarmed. They are only just waking up to the fact that this is about to happen and they are horrified. They know that these trucks will not only cause destruction to roads and bridges but also will contribute to more accidents. People are worried. Unfortunately this will be one of those things that people wake up to only when it is a fait accompli. They will ask why on earth our Government allowed these huge juggernaut trucks on New Zealand roads that are completely ill-suited to them. 
I am glad to see that the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce is here in the Chamber. He is the one who will make the decision as to whether these juggernaut trucks will be permitted on our roads. I suspect that he has already made the decision and that the so-called consultation process was like most consultation processes—just a farce. The Green Party put in a submission. We wasted our time. We pointed out the sorts of things that I have pointed out in my speech. But we felt that making the submission was probably to no avail and that the Minister working hand in glove with the trucking industry had probably already committed to this legislation. He had probably committed to it before the election and it is just being rolled out now. 
Having said that there is one positive thing in this bill which is why we are supporting it: it will give some incentive for electric cars. That is a good thing but let us not pretend that having 30 electric cars on our roads next year and 300 more in a few years’ time will somehow justify pouring more and more money into roads. This will undermine rail. The other thing that I did not mention about those big juggernaut trucks is that heavy freight should be moved by rail. The Government owns the rail network. I ask why it is giving incentives so that these huge trucks will be carrying our heavy freight instead of the rail network. Why is the Government undermining the viability of the rail network in New Zealand? 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise again to speak in favour of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. The bill proposes to amend the Road User Charges Act 1977 to achieve two main outcomes. The first is to enable the exemption of light electric motor vehicles from the requirement to pay road-user charges and the second is to provide 42 days’ notice of increases to road-user charges. The road-user charge licences for heavy motor vehicles will expire 1 month after an increase comes into force. 
I intend to talk about both of those matters in a little more detail and perhaps recap some of the issues I raised in my previous contributions on the bill. But before I do that I note in relation to comments made earlier that my colleague Sue Moroney was talking about the level of interest in the rail network between Hamilton and Auckland. Some comments were made by Tau Henare about that matter. I will just confirm that 71 people so far have responded to Sue Moroney’s blog on that issue. 
First of all I will explain the changes in the bill in perhaps a little more detail. In relation to light electric motor vehicles certainly nobody could deny that it is a good idea to exempt those vehicles from road-user charges. We believe that the exemption reinforces the work Labour did in promoting electric vehicles. Electric vehicles will be the beginning of a new era of energy independence and low-emission transport. Increasing the proportion of electric vehicles in the fleet will decrease reliance on imported fossil fuels and improve energy security. 
As a country we are very lucky that we have a competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation which has the potential to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector. I intend to come back to that matter later. Light electric motor vehicles are also cheaper to operate per kilometre than conventional motor vehicles. However as others have commented there are some problems with them. First of all availability is currently low. Secondly their purchase price is at least double that of a conventional vehicle. Thirdly manufacturers do not rate New Zealand as a priority market. Therefore take-up rates are understandably low. 
The Government’s responsibility in relation to this matter is clearly to remove barriers to the take-up of electric motor vehicles. Removal of the road-user charges is a positive step but we all have to recognise that it is a minor one in the big picture. The Government needs to be much more adventurous in this area. It needs to look at some of the examples from overseas. For example Denmark is currently installing a network of recharging stations hooked up to wind turbines. That would be a useful thing to look at. 
We also had a discussion around how long the scheme would be extended for in terms of the exemption from road-user charges because clearly at the moment the exemption provides financial assistance to the owners of those cars. But given their price for the reasons I outlined earlier the technology will be available only to those with significant financial resources. Poor people will miss out and we certainly do not want to be in the situation where the poor are subsidising the rich. 
The review on road-user charges was actually instigated by Labour and the previous Minister of Transport Annette King because there had not been a review in about 18 years. As I have noted previously during that period the ratio of trucks to cars changed enormously as did the weights being carried by those trucks. The upshot was an inequality between trucking firms and private motorists over who was paying for road maintenance. Operators of heavy trucks which were causing substantial damage were not paying their fair share. 
We have all noted during the course of the debate on this bill that Labour faced a revolt by truck drivers when we put up road-user charges with no notice. But there was a reason no notice was given. On the previous occasion when notice was given $17 million worth of pre-purchasing took place. That $17 million was $17 million of revenue lost to the Crown. So as a sensible Government would do we set up a process to work with the sector to put in place a regime that was fair to the Crown but also fair to the trucking industry. 
Ultimately the bill and the provisions around increasing road-user charges are the result. Effectively it is a balanced outcome whereby there will be 42 days’ notice of an increase. Truck drivers will be able to use road-user charges bought in advance for up to 1 month after any increase. Any pre-purchased road-user charges left over at that point will be able to be refunded. It is a good solution. As I said we support the bill. We also support the very sensible Supplementary Order Paper 33 which clarified one of the points in the bill. 
I will also comment on the process of passing the bill because one of the things we have found somewhat perplexing is why there has been a need to rush it through. The report-back period was just under a month with a 2-week adjournment included in that 1 month. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Were you on holiday? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: No we were not on holiday; I do not know about Mr Joyce. The Opposition has been given no explanation or justification from that Minister as to why the bill has had to be dealt with so quickly. The submissions on the bill were received and we did not get the opportunity to hear them orally. That is a huge mistake. One of the real strengths of our Parliament is our select committee process. It works very well. We have enormous numbers of people making submissions taking the time to share their ideas and thoughts and giving us feedback on the bills before the House. They add value to the legislation we pass. I do not know why on earth we could not hear from the submitters. 
We are not seeing the proper scrutiny of legislation that one would expect to see from our Parliament. The Government is constantly undermining the process reporting back bills faster than they need to be reported back and pushing through under urgency legislation on many important issues. The process question is one that is very troubling. Why the haste? As a new member I have absolute confidence in the select committee process and in the people of New Zealand having their opportunity to give us their feedback. The Government should seriously think about its behaviour in that regard. 
I will follow up some points made by Sue Kedgley about trucks because the significant part of the bill is in relation to road-user charges that apply to trucks. As Ms Kedgley has quite rightly pointed out the Government is currently planning to allow larger trucks on the roads. We believe that there will be many serious consequences of that decision. It has the potential to make our roads less safe and it will undoubtedly be bad for the environment. We agree with the Greens that rail and coastal shipping are better methods of moving heavy goods. Submissions have been heard on the matter and I guess we have to wait to see the outcome as to whether the concerns that are being raised will be taken account of. 
The heavy trucks potentially will not be paying their fair share of the cost. There are also safety and environmental issues. The possibility of road-user charges being replaced with a flat diesel tax that could exacerbate the already uneven playing field between roads rail and coastal is one that has been flagged up. 
One thing I have not yet had a chance to talk about in the debate on the bill is coastal shipping and I thought members would be quite interested in that. As well as talking about the problems with heavy trucks let us look at one of the alternatives. We have had some discussion around rail but let us look at coastal shipping. The previous Labour Government was developing coastal shipping because within a relatively short time frame our roads will be unable to cope with projected increases in total freight volume. An integration of roads with an upgraded rail and coastal shipping network is the only possible solution as we look to the future. One of the problems with the current Government is that it does not look forward and plan. Planning seems to be a problem for the Government. 
We developed a programme called Sea Change and $36 million was earmarked to help develop coastal shipping over the next 4 years. That programme has been cancelled by the National Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: Shame! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: It is an absolute shame. The target was for at least 30 percent of inter-regional freight to be carried by sea by 2040 up from the current 15 percent share. It is worth noting that in Japan which has a very similar geography to New Zealand domestic sea freight has more than twice the market share of sea freight here. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I take just a short call on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. We have debated it at length over a number of days and we have gone through all the big issues that could be debated. It is revolutionary legislation in the sense that we are supporting electric vehicles and showing leadership on environmental and transport issues. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Revolutionary in that they’re supporting the environment for a change. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Some members of other parties have not been able to stomach that but they do not realise the importance of showing that leadership on those issues. The National Government is quite happy to do that and our Minister of Transport is quite happy to provide that direction. This bill will be for the benefit of New Zealanders going forward. It is well overdue it is in our best interests and we commend it to the House. 
Bill read a third time.