Could motorists pay more under road user charges?
The government is inching closer to replacing petrol tax with electronic road user charges on all light vehicles, in what Transport Minister Chris Bishop calls the biggest shake-up of road funding in half a century.
He says it'll be fairer and will be like paying a power bill or Netflix each month and will be in place by 2027.
The changes will put an end to the existing two-tier system, in which petrol users pay a fuel excise duty of about 70 cents a litre at the pump, while diesel, electric and heavy vehicles pay paper-based road user charges based on distance travelled.
However, Labour says the timing of the coalition's transition to a universal road user charges system risks "clobbering" motorists with more costs.
AA's policy director Martin Glynn said his organisation was also worried about how much motorists would have to pay under the new scheme.
He told Morning Report he was unsure if it would be more expensive.
At present the minimum road user charge kicked in once a light vehicle had travelled 1000km.
That was $76 and $12-$13 for an administration fee.
With private providers being brought in to run the revised scheme they would need to be making money, Glynn said.
"We really want to see the administration costs be as low as possible."
He agreed with the minister that with more vehicles becoming more fuel efficient, the current petrol tax penalised those with older vehicles.
"It's become more unfair over time and it's going to become more unfair if we don't change."
The current system of buying RUCs was "a bit clunky", he said.
Those using diesel or a heavy vehicle purchased RUCs online from the NZ Transport Agency or they could go to an agent.
Motorists needed to keep an eye on their odometer to ensure they stayed up to date.
The other problem was the the RUC came in the mail and needed to be displayed on the dashboard.
AA supported Bishop's plan to make the system fully electronic.
Annual warrant of fitness checks were the main way to ensure compliance at present.
"But it's fair to say it's difficult to enforce being an annual system so there's a fair degree of evasion and avoidance and that's something that will have to be addressed in the transition."
Heavy vehicles already have an ERUC, a device in the trucks that monitors kilometres and location.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Autocar
an hour ago
- NZ Autocar
Government to replace petrol tax with electronic RUCs
Cabinet is working to transition New Zealand's 3.5 million light vehicles to paying for our roading network through electronic road user charges. This will replace the petrol tax, says Transport Minister Chris Bishop. 'The abolition of petrol tax, and the move towards all vehicles (whether they be petrol, diesel, electric or hybrid) paying for roads based on distance and weight, is the biggest change to how we fund our roading network in 50 years,' Mr Bishop says. 'Right now, New Zealanders pay Fuel Excise Duty (FED, or petrol tax) of about 70c per litre of petrol every time they fill up at the pump with a petrol car. Diesel, electric, and heavy vehicles pay Road User Charges (RUC) based on distance travelled. 'This revenue is funnelled into the National Land Transport Fund which funds the building of new roads and maintaining our existing ones. 'For decades, petrol tax has acted as a rough proxy for road use, but the relationship between petrol consumption and road usage is fast breaking down. For example, petrol vehicles with better fuel economy contribute less FED per kilometre towards road maintenance, operations, and improvements. 'We are also seeing a fast uptake of fuel-efficient petrol hybrid vehicles. In 2015, there were 12,000 on our roads, while today there are over 350,000. 'As our vehicle fleet changes, so too must the way we fund our roads. It isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and who can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often.' 'This is a change that simply has to happen. The government has recognised reality and is getting on with the transition. 'The Government's plan will eventually see all vehicles pay based on actual road use (including weight) regardless of fuel type. 'The transition will happen in stages, beginning with legislative and regulatory reform to modernise the current RUC system and enable private sector innovation. 'The current RUC system is outdated. It's largely paper based, means people have to constantly monitor their odometers, and requires people to buy RUC in 1000km chunks. 'We're not going to shift millions of drivers from a simple system at the pump to queues at retailers. So instead of expanding a clunky government system, we will reform the rules to allow the market to deliver innovative, user-friendly services for drivers. 'A handful of E-RUC companies already do this for about half of our heavy vehicle fleet and there are several companies, both domestic and international, with innovative technology that could make complying with RUC cheaper and easier.' Key legislative changes the Government is progressing include: 'The changes will support a more user-friendly, technology-enabled RUC system, with multiple retail options available for motorists,' Mr Bishop says. 'Eventually, paying for RUC should be like paying a power bill online, or a Netflix subscription. Simple and easy. 'I expect to pass legislation in 2026, followed by an updated Code of Practice for RUC providers. We will also engage with the market in 2026 to assess technological solutions and delivery timelines. In parallel, NZTA and Police will upgrade their systems to support enforcement in a digital environment. 'By 2027, the RUC system will be 'open for business', with third-party providers able to offer innovative payment services and a consistent approval process in place. 'At this stage, no date has been set for the full transition of the light vehicle fleet. That's a deliberate choice, as we're focused on getting the system right rather than rushing its rollout. 'This is a once-in-a-generation change. It's the right thing to do, it's the fair thing to do, and it will future proof how we fund our roads for decades to come.'
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
Lessons in bipartisanship from a de facto single-party state
At the national infrastructure conference, politicians from both major parties talked a big game about bipartisanship. But their actions tell a different story. The opening keynote at Infrastructure New Zealand's annual conference, Building Nations, was titled 'A Bipartisan Vision to Drive Infrastructure Investment'. It was a highly relevant headline. 'Bipartisanship' is the big buzzword in infrastructure right now. The speaker was Andrew Tan, a high-ranking civil servant in Singapore, talking about some of his country's major projects. That's right, New Zealand is learning about bipartisanship from a country that has had the same party in power since 1959. The second international address was by Dr Alex Katsanos, who spoke about the national infrastructure plan in his home country of Hong Kong. Yes, the place where only pro-Beijing 'patriots' are allowed to run for office and opposition parties have been barred from office and forced to disband. Both Singapore and Hong Kong are remarkable success stories of using infrastructure to support rapid economic growth. New Zealand can learn many things from them. Tan detailed Singapore's massive public housing programme, its urban greening and river cleanups. All highly commendable – but it wasn't achieved through bipartisanship. I asked Tan after his speech if it was ironic for New Zealand to look to Singapore for lessons on bipartisanship. He assured me that 'we do have an opposition, and it's growing stronger' [the Workers' Party currently has 12 of 99 seats in parliament, its largest-ever contingent] and the opposition supported the government's infrastructure programme. 'For Singapore, we've always seen the challenge as more external than internal, which is why it's necessary for us to have a very cohesive government, a cohesive society, and for everyone to work together.' Large infrastructure firms have consistently demanded more bipartisan long-term infrastructure planning. That's because big stuff takes a really long time to build. The infrastructure industry wants more certainty to know it can invest, hire staff and plan for the future. When politicians keep cancelling each other's projects, it creates a shock to the system and leaves less faith in the market. Both National and Labour have promised they're working on it. 'We are genuinely trying to achieve as much consensus on these big issues as we can,' said infrastructure minister Chris Bishop. Opposition infrastructure spokesperson Kieran McAnulty, sitting next to him on stage during an afternoon panel discussion, agreed. 'The stop-start-stop-start, we've got to end it.' The problem is that it is easy to say your opponents should be bipartisan in supporting your ideas. It's harder to agree to support your opponents' ideas. Both parties have been highly ideological in their infrastructure decisions. In 2017, the incoming Labour-led government scrapped a series of major highways. In 2023, the incoming National-led government scrapped light rail in Auckland and Wellington and the iRex project for new Interislander ferries. When I asked Bishop about this after his speech, he said, 'Those particular projects – that we campaigned on cancelling – actually, most people think were too expensive, unaffordable, unconsentable and unbuildable.' Which is entirely fair from a political standpoint; the government has the mandate to cancel those projects. But it's not bipartisanship either. Labour and the Greens may have been happy to negotiate a reset of those projects, but they certainly didn't want them scrapped. It's not just about big attention-grabbing projects. The industry leaders in the room were more frustrated about the 212 Kāinga Ora housing projects and 100 school builds the government has cancelled since 2023, disrupting a pipeline of contracts and employment that many businesses thought they could rely on. Bishop was asked about this twice, once in a media standup and once on stage by moderator Katie Bradford. Both times, he obfuscated, pointing out that Kāinga Ora built more homes in 2024 than 2023 – but not admitting any fault or even acknowledging that the cancellations happened. Labour MPs were willing to acknowledge some mistakes. McAnulty said some of the 2017 projects shouldn't have been cancelled. Chris Hipkins admitted Auckland Light Rail had become a mess and his government overestimated how much they could do in a three-year term. Of course, it's much easier to admit failures when you're in opposition, but it left Bishop in the awkward position of arguing that the two sides needed to meet in the middle, while maintaining that his government had never done anything wrong and was right to cancel all the other side's projects. Hipkins complained about the government's empty rhetoric: 'The current government believes that bipartisanship means saying what they're going to do and then telling everybody else they have to agree with it.' He said Labour had attempted to compromise by attending the government's Infrastructure Investment Summit in March, with some caveats around the use of Public-Private-Partnerships, 'and then we had our attempts to compromise manipulated, misrepresented and used to attack us by the current government. That isn't going to create an environment where bipartisanship is going to be embraced and is going to be endured.' Bishop insists his issue isn't a matter of cars vs trams, it's about good project selection and management – 'we've got to make sure we're building the right projects at the right time'. But he's also a highly opinionated guy whose definition of 'the right projects' is highly correlated to the party whose idea it was. That's not to excuse Labour either. In government, it had a particularly bad record of excluding the opposition from decision-making, to the extent that National had no idea how much the iRex project had blown out until it received a post-election update from Treasury. Given their track records, neither party's words are worth too much. McAnulty and Bishop sat on stage together in front of a huge room of executives who were braying for bipartisanship and promised them exactly what they asked for. But it's hard not to believe both would prefer to govern more like Singapore.
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Concern drivers could pay more with new road user charges
Private companies will need to keep the costs of running the government's new road user charges scheme as low as possible, the AA says. The government is inching closer to replacing petrol tax with electronic road user charges on all light vehicles, in what Transport Minister Chris Bishop calls the biggest shake-up of road funding in half a century. He says it'll be fairer and will be like paying a power bill or Netflix each month and will be in place by 2027. The changes will put an end to the existing two-tier system, in which petrol users pay a fuel excise duty of about 70 cents a litre at the pump, while diesel, electric and heavy vehicles pay paper-based road user charges based on distance travelled. However, Labour says the timing of the coalition's transition to a universal road user charges system risks "clobbering" motorists with more costs. AA's policy director Martin Glynn said his organisation was also worried about how much motorists would have to pay under the new scheme. He told Morning Report he was unsure if it would be more expensive. At present the minimum road user charge kicked in once a light vehicle had travelled 1000km. That was $76 and $12-$13 for an administration fee. With private providers being brought in to run the revised scheme they would need to be making money, Glynn said. "We really want to see the administration costs be as low as possible." He agreed with the minister that with more vehicles becoming more fuel efficient, the current petrol tax penalised those with older vehicles. "It's become more unfair over time and it's going to become more unfair if we don't change." The current system of buying RUCs was "a bit clunky", he said. Those using diesel or a heavy vehicle purchased RUCs online from the NZ Transport Agency or they could go to an agent. Motorists needed to keep an eye on their odometer to ensure they stayed up to date. The other problem was the the RUC came in the mail and needed to be displayed on the dashboard. AA supported Bishop's plan to make the system fully electronic. Annual warrant of fitness checks were the main way to ensure compliance at present. "But it's fair to say it's difficult to enforce being an annual system so there's a fair degree of evasion and avoidance and that's something that will have to be addressed in the transition." Heavy vehicles already have an ERUC, a device in the trucks that monitors kilometres and location.
