Fenton Darien: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5345] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the second reading of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. The Minister alluded to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s consideration of this issue. We did it very sketchily thus there is a very brief report back to the House. Labour remains concerned about the rushed process and unconvinced that it was necessary. The report-back period was less than a month including a 2-week adjournment and the Minister of Transport has still not provided any explanation or justification as to why the bill had to be dealt with so quickly. The problem with this is that we are not seeing the proper scrutiny of legislation that we would expect to see from our Parliament because we are constantly being told that bills have to be reported back faster than would ordinarily be the case. This is not good lawmaking. The process means that until today there were still unanswered questions and we had to wait until today to hear the answers to the questions that both Annette King and I raised in the first reading debate. The answers did not come up in the select committee and I appreciate that the Minister has attempted to address those questions today. 
Although Labour is supporting this bill we will be watching very carefully to see how it plays out and whether the system as outlined by the Minister actually works. As noted in the select committee report we are concerned about the issue of the time frame for the exemption of electric vehicles from road-user charges and again I acknowledge that I was pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment to the 2013 expiry date. My colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons raised this issue in her first reading speech to the House and it is also alluded to in the select committee’s report. In the short time that we had to deliberate on the bill Labour and the Greens agreed that the exemption period should not be indefinitely extended but we also agreed that the time frame for exemption should be in the primary legislation. That is not happening in this bill. We remain concerned about that because we believe the exemption represents a subsidy from low-income motorists to those who can afford electric vehicles which are as the Minister said very expensive—very expensive. If the time frame for the exemption is not in primary legislation then it remains open to the Minister to decide that time frame even though he has given a commitment today—and I was pleased to hear it because the exemption becomes a subsidy from those who cannot afford the relatively high cost of an electric vehicle to those who can. 
 The reason that Labour does not like the bill and is opposed to it is that we believe in lending a helping hand to those most in need. For example why should a low-income family managing on a minimum wage contribute a percentage of their taxes towards other people who would like to buy an electric vehicle. The fact that someone is considering such a purchase suggests that he or she does not need any help from the taxpayer. In addition we heard from the Minister for ACC Nick Smith that he is considering the idea of lower registration fees for safer and more modern vehicles which again would unfairly penalise people on lower incomes. We need to think about these things as we look towards further technology. Members on this side of the Chamber and I think across Parliament recognise there is a problem. We all support doing something about it but we need to take into account the varying situations of the population. 
When the Minister for ACC came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee a couple of weeks ago he said that one area to look at was the motor vehicle account where the motor vehicle levy is a flat fee. He said: “I am advised that if we all had 5-star safety vehicles that would knock 40 or 50 percent off the cost of the motor vehicle account yet we all pay the same motor vehicle levy. Is there a capacity to provide greater financial incentives in that area?” That said to me that those 5-star safety vehicles would be generally newer and like electric vehicles more expensive. So Labour would have a problem with the idea of supporting cheaper registration fees for those who can afford new cars. It is the same sort of subsidy—that is from the poor to the rich. The price differentiation might well be acceptable to the Government but Labour believes that it is contrary to the values of fairness and equity—values that most New Zealanders believe in. If we are not careful with these sorts of measures we could be heading for a situation like the information divide where some families still do not even have a phone. They are absolutely out of the loop in a society that is increasingly reliant on the World Wide Web yet those people are information poor and continue to be so. That makes them increasingly disadvantaged. So we have to be careful that in creating incentives for changes in the vehicle fleet towards lower emissions and safer vehicles we do not create a class of people who are unable to access subsidies and better more efficient cars or who end up paying more than the better-off because they are unable to replace their older vehicle. 
One of the purposes of this bill as stated in the explanatory note is to “encourage the uptake of light electric motor vehicles which are expected to improve the efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet decrease reliance on imported fossil fuels improve energy security and reduce the vehicular emissions affecting air quality and greenhouse gas levels.” That is a very laudable purpose and Labour supports it although I have to say the Government’s record so far on these things is pretty patchy. It is interesting that while we are debating this bill there is another process going on. The Government is proposing a rule change to allow heavier trucks on the roads. I want to take a moment to talk about that because it is causing concern up and down the country. That rule change will encourage a transfer of freight from rail and coastal shipping which are both very efficient and clean modes of transport back on to the emission-producing fossil-fuel guzzling and very dangerous heavy trucks on our roads. The Government I have noticed is running into some trouble with that consultation. The New Zealand Transport Agency’s assessment of the effect of that rule on State highways local roads and bridges fails to provide a sensible cost-benefit analysis. In fact it has looked only at the benefits; it has not looked at the costs. We know that 306 State highway bridges would require strengthening or detailed investigation and an estimated $85 million would be required to fund the work over a period of several years. Of those bridges only 13 have already been included on the approved 2009-12 bridge replacement and upgrade programme due to their current condition. So in the South Island no section of State Highway 1 has bridges that can support 50-tonne trucks. In the North Island no section of State Highway 1 from Taupo to Wellington has bridges that can support 50-tonne trucks. In addition we heard the other day that the Auckland Harbour Bridge has missed out on the list of highway upgrades needed for heavier trucks. Hamilton— 
David Bennett 
: Nothing about bridges in this bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Hamilton—the city of that member—is concerned about the impact of heavy trucks on its local roads and on road safety when traffic volumes and levels of heavy freight are set to compound in the coming years. It supports sustainable transport progress which involves transitioning more of the freight carried by trucks on to rail. So it seems to me that this proposed change somewhat contradicts the efforts of the Government to try to reduce the emissions and the traffic on our roads and to have more efficient vehicles. 
The bill is pretty timid and I think I have said that before. We could be doing so much more. If we look to the UK it is investing £250 million to promote low carbon transport vehicles over the next 5 years and it will be offering subsidies of up to £5000. Now that would take care of the issue about the low paid not being able to afford more efficient vehicles. Denmark has announced a $135.8 million investment in an electric car charging network in the country. That is very interesting and is worth looking into because New Zealand has many similarities with Denmark. If that nation can be so adventurous and forward-thinking particularly in a time of recession then why not New Zealand? Labour supports this bill. We think it is pretty timid. However we are going along with it. I have raised concerns today and as I said we will be watching carefully and we will be watching the “heavy truck” debate as it escalates through the country because quite frankly the Government has botched the issue.