Call for road tax money to go back into region
Jeff Ryan, who has said he will run for mayor, has filed a petition to the House of Representatives calling for 'road user charges and fuel excise tax paid in a region be left in that region to pay for roading infrastructure projects and other vital projects'.
'I believe that road user charges and fuel excise tax should be used to pay for roading within the region it was paid.
'Councils are reliant on ratepayers to pay for roads.
'I feel ratepayers can't afford it, and this is stifling economic growth in our towns.'
Ryan said working out the finer details wasn't up to him, he just wants to push for more funding for the regional roads rather than 'Auckland's slush fund'.
'It's not fair on councils to keep footing the bill for roading when people in their region have already paid for it by road user tax or fuel tax.'
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Transport said there are 'no current plans to move to a system in which RUC and FED are used only in the region in which they were paid'.
Ryan hopes to change that through his petition, which is open for signatures until October 31.
There is a one-signature minimum requirement for a petition to be presented to Parliament, and an MP needs to accept it for it to be presented to the House.
Once presented, it is referred to the petitions committee which then decides where the petition should go.
South Island Minister and Rangitata MP James Meager said he has not been contacted to present the petition.
'I will consider it but want to be clear that I am not preferencing any particular candidate or endorsing the proposal.
'As local MP, presenting petitions is part of the role.'
He described land transport revenue as 'often lumpy'.
'Investment may be higher in some regions for a period of time and then lower in future to allow a focus on investment in different locations.
'The transport network provides economic benefits on a national level that do not necessarily accrue to the region where the investment is made.
'There would be administrative and implementation challenges in more closely aligning regional revenue and expenditure.'
He provided the example that it's difficult to assign FED and RUC to a particular region 'as we do not have good data on vehicle movements at this level of granularity and there would likely be data quality issues between regions'.
'There's also the issue of what do you do for regions where perhaps the excise and RUCs are collected elsewhere, but the wear and tear on the roads is still happening.
'Ultimately, we need to invest in the infrastructure that we need as a country not just as a region.'
The disparity of road funding has been highlighted by Canterbury mayors.
According to Canterbury Mayoral Forum figures, Canterbury represents around 12% of New Zealand's population, contributes12% of national GDP, and has over 16% of the national roading network.
The region only received 6% of the NZTA funding in the 2023/24 year.
Figure from NZTA show the national total of road user charges and fuel excise duty collected was $3.735 billion in 2023/24.
In the 2024/25-year (with some claims still to be finalised), NZTA has funded $2.5billion to territorial authorities, which excludes State Highways and KiwiRail funding, contributing to a total spend (local share plus NZTA share) of $4.5billion.
Canterbury councils received $171,941,592 of NZTA funding, or 6%, which contributed to an overall total spend of $318,422,870.
At a more local level, the Selwyn District Council's annual plan pointed to a funding disparity.
The document states that NZTA spent $105m in Selwyn over the past 10 years, 'which is less than $150 per capita each year compared to a national average of $950 each year'.
'If NZTA investment had been consistent around the country, over $500m in additional transport projects would have been funded in Selwyn over the last 10 years.'
Mayor Sam Broughton said New Zealand needs to upgrade its road funding model and 'move to electronic RUC for all vehicles to pay for the roads we use'.
'Otherwise, the burden just falls back on ratepayers—and that's not sustainable.'
The issues with the current road funding model is most noticeable in Canterbury he said.
'Our roads carry 15% of the vehicle kilometres travelled but received just 5% of national road funding.
'Every other region receives its percentage share of the national fund from central government in line with the amount of travel on their roads.'
He said Selwyn is 'feeling the pressure of the co-funding we get from the government for our roads not keeping up with their cost or use'.
'We maintain over 2,500 km of roads and more than 120 bridges.
'In the past three years, the cost to maintain and upgrade these has jumped by up to 40% in some cases. But the funding hasn't increased to match that.
'This puts us in tough positions, like having to choose between making safety upgrades outside schools or fixing dangerous intersections.'
Ashburton Mayor Neil Brown said, with the fourth largest roading network in the country, he feels Mid Canterbury is missing out.
'We are underfunded and the statistics show that.'
He said that keeping road taxes in the region of origin is one option, one that has been raised before, and while it may improve the situation for Ashburton, it would create issues for others.
'Canterbury would certainly win from it as there is a lot of money spent on fuel tax here that never comes back.
'But we are one big country and there are other areas that have a low spend and big road network that would miss out.
'It needs to be a combination of thing to even things out' How does it work?
Road TaxesThe spokesperson for the Ministry of Transport explained that revenue collected from Road User Charges and Fuel Excise Duty goes into the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) – a dedicated fund to maintain, improve, and build new roads, as well as funding public transport, road safety, and walking and cycling.
'The Government's approach to land transport expenditure is based on revenue being invested in projects that deliver the highest national benefit, while giving consideration to regional priorities.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
Wall Street falls after employers slash hiring and tariffs roll out
The US stock market had its worst day since May after the government reported a sharp slowdown in hiring and President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from a number of US trading partners. The S&P 500 fell 1.6%, its biggest decline since May 21 and its fourth straight loss. The index also posted a 2.4% loss for the week, marking a sharp shift from last week's record-setting streak of gains. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 1.2%, while the Nasdaq composite fell 2.2%. Worries on Wall Street about a weakening economy were heavily reinforced by the latest report on job growth in the US, employers added just 73,000 jobs in July. That is sharply lower than economists expected. The Labor Department also reported that revisions shaved a stunning 258,000 jobs off May and June payrolls. ADVERTISEMENT Markets also reacted to the latest tariff news. President Donald Trump announced tariff rates on dozens of countries and pushed back the scheduled effective date to August 7, adding more uncertainty to the global trade picture. "The market has been felled by a one-two punch of additional tariffs, as well as the weaker-than-expected employment data — not only for this month, but for the downward revisions to the prior months," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA. Trump's decision to order the immediate firing of the head of the government agency that produces the monthly jobs figures will only fuel the market's uncertainty, Stovall added. The surprisingly weak hiring numbers led investors to step up their expectations for an interest rate cut in September. The market's odds of a quarter-point cut by the Federal Reserve rose to around 87% from just under 40% a day earlier, according to data from CME FedWatch. The question now: Will the Fed's policymakers consider a half-point cut next month, or even a quarter-point cut sometime before their next committee meeting, Stovall said. The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 4.21% from 4.39% just before the hiring report was released. That's a big move for the bond market. The yield on the two-year Treasury, which more closely tracks expectations for Fed actions, plunged to 3.68% from 3.94% just prior to the report's release. The Fed has held rates steady since December. A cut in rates would give the job market and overall economy a boost, but it could also risk fueling inflation, which is hovering stubbornly above the central bank's 2% target. ADVERTISEMENT An update on Thursday (local time) for the Fed's preferred measure of inflation showed that prices ticked higher in June, rising to 2.6% from 2.4% in May. The Fed has remained cautious about cutting interest rates because of worries that tariffs will add more fuel to inflation and weigh down economic growth. The central bank, though, also counts "maximum employment" as one of its two mandates along with keeping prices stable. Issues with either of those goals could prompt a shift in policy. The Fed held rates steady again at its most recent meeting this week. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has been pressured by Trump to cut the benchmark rate, though that decision isn't his to make alone, but belongs to the 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee. "What had looked like a Teflon labour market showed some scratches this morning, as tariffs continue to work their way through the economy," said Ellen Zentner, chief economic strategist for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. "A Fed that still appeared hesitant to lower rates may see a clearer path to a September cut, especially if data over the next month confirms the trend." Businesses, investors and the Fed are all operating under a cloud of uncertainty from Trump's tariff policy. The latest moves give 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands another seven days, instead of taking effect on Friday, as Trump stated earlier. Companies have been warning investors that the policy, with some tariffs already in effect while others change or get extended, has made it difficult to make forecasts. Walmart, Procter & Gamble and many others have warned about import taxes raising costs, eating into profits and raising prices for consumers. ADVERTISEMENT Internet retail giant Amazon fell 8.3%, despite reporting encouraging profit and sales for its most recent quarter. Technology behemoth Apple fell 2.5% after also beating Wall Street's profit and revenue forecasts. Both companies face tougher operating conditions because of tariffs, with Apple forecasting a USD$1.1 billion (NZ$1.8 billion) hit from the fees in the current quarter. Exxon Mobil fell 1.8% after reporting that profit dropped to the lowest level in four years and sales fell as oil prices slumped as OPEC+ ramped up production. All told, the S&P 500 fell 101.38 points to 6,238.01. The Dow dropped 542.40 points to 43,588.58, and the Nasdaq gave up 472.32 points to finish at 20,650.13. Stocks fell across the world. Germany's DAX fell 2.7% and France's CAC 40 fell 2.9%. South Korea's Kospi tumbled 3.9%
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Making ‘New Zealand' country's official name added to NZ First's ever-changing list of bills
'Inconsistency in recent years in the way public agencies and officials describe the country – including partial or informal use of other names has created uncertainty regarding the legal foundation for making those choices.' Winston Peters has been frustrated lately by the use of "Aotearoa" in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell It's the eighth Member's Bill the party has announced this year, but due to the rules of Parliament, NZ First is only able to have four in the ballot at any one time. Only MPs who aren't ministers – NZ First has four backbenchers – can have Member's Bills and they can only have one in the ballot at a time. This has meant the party has had to shuffle out several of the bills it has previously announced, but which remain on NZ First's website as 'Our Member's Bills'. For example, the 'Conscience Acts Referendums Bill', which was revealed in March to remove conscience votes in Parliament and instead require some particular legislation to go to a national public referendum, no longer appears on Parliament's website. It was previously held in the name of NZ First MP Jamie Arbuckle. But he now has a bill protecting New Zealanders' right to use physical currency. Other bills to pulled out recently include a bill to have a binding referendum when deciding whether to add fluoride to drinking water, one to remove diversity, equity and inclusion aspects from the public service, and another to improve access to palliative care. In some instances, the bills have been overtaken by events. For example, the Government's Public Service Amendment Bill, which this week passed its first reading, intends to remove diversity provisions. When the party announced a Member's Bill to clarify the definition of a woman and man in law, it removed another bill that would fine people who use a single-sex toilet not matching their own sex. Peters said the new proposal addressed the issue more comprehensively. The party says if it could have all of its bills in the ballot at once, it would. Those not currently in the ballot, but which have been announced, remain current policy and could be returned. MP Andy Foster has had a number of bills under his name. Photo / Mike Scott The party's MP Andy Foster has been the sponsor of many of the bills, before they have then either been picked from the ballot, transferred to another MP or removed. For example, earlier this year, his bill to stop banks withdrawing services from clients for 'woke' reasons was picked from the ballot and began going through the parliamentary process. This meant he could add another to the ballot, which ended up being the bill to remove diversity elements from law. Eventually, however, this was dropped and he picked up another requiring government buildings to only display the official flag of New Zealand. But after the resignation of NZ First's Tanya Unkovich, this bill was transferred from Foster to new MP Dr David Wilson. Foster now has the bill about the country's name. The four bills currently in the ballot for NZ First are: Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill – Jenny Marcroft Cash Transactions Protection Bill – Jamie Arbuckle Display of Flags (Government Premises) Bill – Dr David Wilson New Zealand (Name of State) Bill – Andy Foster. NZ First MPs in Parliament. Photo / Mark Mitchell The newest bill comes after several showdowns between Peters and Parliament's Speaker Gerry Brownlee over the use of 'Aotearoa' in Parliament. Peters has bristled when other MPs have used it in questions. In March, Brownlee ruled 'Aotearoa' was 'regularly used' as a name for the country including by the country's geographic board. He noted it appeared on the country's passport and currency, and Parliament's rules allowed MPs to use English, te reo Māori or sign language. Peters subsequently told the Herald that Brownlee was 'wrong' as the matter had 'never gone to the people of this country'. The NZ First leader raised the issue again last week, leading Brownlee to reiterate his previous comments. Brownlee said: 'In his time serving New Zealand, in the capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he would've, over some five years or more, presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never had questioned the fact that our passport has the word Aotearoa on the front of it. 'It was always a New Zealand passport despite the use of that word. That is the end of the matter.' Following that, Minister for Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden confirmed the New Zealand passport would eventually be updated to have English appear before the te reo Māori text. In a release on Friday morning, Peters said 'a bunch of unelected bureaucrats, officials, government departments and politicians trying to change our country's name by stealth – with no permission or consent from the people'. 'The 'New Zealand (Name of State) Bill' confirms that 'New Zealand' is our country's official name, and it is only parliament and the people, not bureaucrats, government departments, or officials, that have the authority to make decisions about the name of the country.' NZ First's coalition agreement with National includes a commitment about not changing the country's name. 'Commit that in the absence of a referendum, our Government will not change the official name of New Zealand.' Jamie Ensor is a political reporter in the NZ Herald press gallery team based at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. In 2025, he was a finalist for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.
