Beaumont Carol: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Road User Charges Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5565] 
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.