3. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Did she, following last year’s increases in road-user charges, give Road Transport Forum NZ an assurance that operators would be given a month’s notice of any such increases in the future?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this
No such assurance was given. The Minister wrote to the Road Transport Forum in April, and again in July 2007, acknowledging the concern of the forum that notice needed to be given of any increase in road-user charges. The July letter noted that officials were working with the forum to investigate ways of increasing the notice of increases in road-user charges while not adversely impacting on revenue. No specific assurance was given as to the nature or timing of any particular measure. Officials subsequently indicated to the forum that the Minister had agreed that an appropriate amendment would be included in a bill being prepared to amend the Road User Charges Act of 1977. Again, no assurance was given as to any change or the timing of that change.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Why does the Minister continue to deny that such an assurance was given to the Road Transport Forum, when an email sent to the chief executive of the forum from the Ministry of Transport on 5 September 2007 said: “I have outlined a proposed solution that the Minister has indicated should be included in an RUC amendment bill to be introduced to the House later this year. The proposed amendment to the RUC Act would mean that 1 month’s notice could be given for any increases in the RUC in future.”?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The quote given by the member is quite correct, but he has failed to acknowledge that no assurance was given on timing, or on when, indeed, the change would be put in place. [ Interruption] If the members listened to the answer, that would help. The Minister’s response to Mr Friedlander, a former National Minister, will be tabled shortly, if approval is given by the Opposition.
Darien FentonHon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
I have seen a press release issued by the Hon Maurice Williamson in which he says “The increase is estimated to push up the costs of running a 20-tonne truck by more than $56,000 a year.” I am advised that in order for that figure to be even remotely possible, the most common type of 20-tonne truck would need to travel at an average of, wait for it, 330 kilometres per hour—that is, over 200 miles an hour—24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. What utter twaddle!
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Why does the Minister of Transport continue to deny that such an assurance was given to the Road Transport Forum, when she actually received a letter from its chief executive, dated 21 September 2007, stating: “The Ministry of Transport has now advised us that you have agreed to a solution being included in an RUC amendment bill to be introduced to the House later this year. My board have asked me to write to you to thank you for listening to our concerns that I raised with you on behalf of our members, and thank you for the steps that you and your officials are taking to address them.”?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
In response, I shall quote from the reply of the Minister of Transport to that letter: “You will be aware, as I am, that had the Government provided further notice of the increases, there would have been a significant amount of pre-purchasing of road-user charges at the old RUC rates. This large-scale pre-purchasing would have defeated the purpose of the increase. I understand my officials have informed you that, as it stood, an additional $18 million of road-user charges was purchased on Friday, that is, on the Friday between the announcement and the effect, as compared with the Friday of the previous week.” This is about hypothecation; it is actually about the amount of moneys going to roading. Maurice Williamson voted against hypothecation. National wants to be on both sides of the issue: it wants to argue one way to the road-user community—the truckies—and it wants to argue the other way to the taxpayer.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Why should anyone believe that the Minister ever intended to implement the 1-month expiry criterion for road-user charges, when it was actually her own Labour Government that repealed such a provision in the Act, back in March 2002? In other words, it was there, Labour took it out, and now Labour is giving some sort of false promise that it will put it back.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The member, clearly, either missed the point or did not understand it. In the notice period of 2 days given for the last road-user charge increase—which, by the way, was the only road-user charge increase to date in the last 20 years—around $18 million of road-user charges were pre-bought. In other words, other road users subsidised the trucking industry, as we have done for years. The other thing worth looking at is the amount of evasion of road-user charges going on in the trucking industry, but I do not expect that the National Party would ever support concern about that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Why is the Minister troubling the country with this policy, when the alternative is to have every road in this country run by four private companies, as was proposed in the Jim McClay report to the National Party that was adopted by Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Transport, and as was proposed to a local body conference in Queenstown when he was last Minister?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
Yes, it is well known that the National Party is wildly in favour of privatisation. But let us look at what has happened to roading. Total Government investment in roading is forecast to be $3.1 billion in 2008-09, compared with an investment of just over $1 billion in the last year of the National Government’s administration of the country. We have invested three times the amount, the money to pay for it has to come from somewhere, and the trucking industry should pay its share in the same way that road users who use petrol pay their share.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Does the Minister find it ironic that early this afternoon Mr English was calling for continued taxpayer subsidies of a private rail operator, and Mr Williamson is now calling for taxpayer subsidies of heavy-truck operators; does he recognise a taxpayer-funded money-go-round when he sees it?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
There is a very old National Party dictum that goes something like “privatise the profits and socialise the losses”. Certainly, in the case of National Party members, what they are about is subsidising their mates.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Does the Minister of Transport have any appreciation at all of just how much financial strain the road transport sector is under at present because of skyrocketing fuel costs; did she not think that now would be the very worst time to hit the industry with what some operators could call a killer punch, or does she just not really care?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
—if I am given a moment, I will—the increase will amount to something in the order of 1 percent of the operating costs of the trucking industry. The increase in fuel charges is vastly in excess of that; this increase is a relatively small impost compared with the increase in fuel charges, as the member himself has admitted. Road users who use petrol have had a vast increase in costs. Road-user charges are something like 8 percent of the operating costs of the trucking industry; the increase will be about 1 percent of the costs.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Why did the Minister not have regard to the fact that we need international stabilisation of fuel prices over the short term, before imposing such artificial costs now, which will exacerbate a current and possibly short-term problem?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The Minister is right; there are a number of costs that we could consider in terms of running all the roading, automotive, and transport structures in New Zealand. One of those costs is relicensing fees. To give just one example, the cost of relicensing a car in New Zealand is around $200; in most states in Australia the cost is more than $700. The same applies to the trucking industry in terms of licensing costs for heavy motor vehicles. That makes a huge difference, in terms of base costs, before 1 tonne of freight is carried for 1 kilometre, let alone fuel costs. New Zealand has the fifth-lowest fuel costs in the OECD.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Does the Minister not think there is a real conflict of interest here, when on the very day that the Government becomes the owner of the competing mode of land transport—namely, KiwiRail—it socks the road transport industry with a massive increase in Government charges? What is next: a return to the 40-mile limit on the carriage of goods by trucks, or maybe the buying out of trucking companies as well as the ferries, the airline, and the railways?
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The member is quite right; it was coincidentally on the same day. That is due to the fact that 30 June happens to be the end of the financial year. On the same day, changes to road-user charges were also announced, as was the National Land Transport Programme, which included the State highways forecast—a record $2.7 billion for the development of the New Zealand transport network. The programme more than doubles the 11 percent increase in funding for roading, and provides 24 percent more funding for public transport than was provided last year. Currently, we have increased the amount of money spent on public transport 15 times. I think we are doing really well.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
I seek leave to table four documents. The first is an email from the Ministry of Transport saying the amendment would be made last year.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
The second document that I seek leave to table is a letter from Tony Friedlander to Annette King, thanking her for introducing the amendment last year.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
The third document that I seek leave to table is a press release from the Road Transport Forum calling the Minister’s action over the increases a deliberate deception.
Madam SPEAKERLeave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. If members object, would they please shout it out.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
The fourth document that I seek leave to table is an amendment made to the Act back in March of 2005 that removed the 1-month notification.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
I also seek the leave of the House to table four documents. The first two are letters from the Minister of Transport to the Road Transport Forum’s Mr Tony Friedlander on the topic of road-user charges
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the Minister needs to give an indication of the date of those letters.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The next item that I seek leave to table is a report from Brian Rudman seeking any evidence that the National Party and Maurice Williamson have any ideas at all.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
The last document that I seek leave to table is a statement from Maurice Williamson dated 2 July—yesterday—where he outlines how a 20-tonne truck would incur $56,000—