This page created 27 October 1999

Minister of Transport Maurice Williamson

1. Yes. We believe the funding and managing of our roading system needs to be broadly restructured. With a four per cent increase in traffic flows each year, our roads cannot cope. We are considering a proposal where people would pay fairly for their road use, rather than up to 60 per cent of their rates being used on our roads, regardless of how often they use them. The proposal says roading activities would be run by four to eight local road companies. These would be owned by local authorities who would appoint the directors.

2. The proposal is for roads to be run on a commercial basis by these companies. They would be owned by local authorities and not privatised.

3. We believe property-based rates for funding roads should be abolished and rates reduced by legislation. We believe it's unfair for rates to pay for roads, regardless of how often a landowner uses the roads.

4. Under the proposal, Local Government would own the road companies, having a major influence on decision making in their communities. They would also appoint the directors of the companies.

5. Regional councils currently manage all passenger transport subsidy programmes and there are differences in the existing subsidy programmes of different regional councils, no doubt reflecting different regional needs. Under the Government's proposal, these services would be funded by regional councils, who would be able to levy the proposed road companies for the monies they received from the Government.

6. With direct user charging, there would be no need for excise duty.

7. The user pays principle would be extended to tolls for new roads and infrastructure such as bridges. The motorist would not be taxed by means of the non-roading excise on petrol for these. Local Government rates would no longer be used for roading. Some of the very large projects such as the doubling of lanes on the Auckland to Hamilton motorway anti Transmission Gully will not happen for 15 to 20 years if we don't allow some form of tolling. ~

8. Under the pay-as-you-go system, not enough money had been collected from premium payers to fully pay for the costs of past claims within the motor vehicle account. This resulted in a significant outstanding claims liability of about $1.4 billion up until July this year. The $260 million in reserves has been necessary to ensure a buffer for any cashflow shortages.

9. Millions of dollars is already used for road safety initiatives. If the money received from speed camera infringements was used for this purpose, it would merely free up money that is already used for this purpose.

ACT spokesman Owen Jennings

1. ACT believes that the current system is inefficient, distortinary, lacking accountability and unjust. Congestion in the main cities, outmoded charging in rural areas, taxing roads for general revenue and unsafe highways are a few of the poor quality outcomes. The decision-making needs rationalising and commercialising better pricing should be employed, new technology should be adopted and choice should be introduced.

2. Privatisation may be an option in the future but ACT believes it does not need to be introduced at this time for significant gains to be made from restructuring.

3. Yes.

4. ACT believes that Local Government should have a role in planning.

5. ACT believes that sensible reforms will deliver important gains and until they are instituted no decision should be made about public transport funding. Social goals should be delivered transparently.

6. Yes.

7. New technology provides for a more direct, accurate and fairer system for raising revenue. There should be a carefully planned, transparent change from the current inequitable system to the new method without double charging.

8. No.

9. Yes, after covering costs.

Labour transport spokesperson Harry Duynhoven

1. Yes, Labour recognises that roading needs restructuring, mainly to increase efficiency. There are 70 roading entities and what we hope to achieve is a reduction in that number by co-operation among local authorities. We do not need to commercialise the roading network to make it efficient. There is no coherent national transport strategy, or indeed a policy on roading; and because of this each region operates independently. Labour wants a more coherent integration in the provision of public transport, regional land transport plans and the development of the highway network. This may be achieved by amalgamating in each area the operations of state highways: and local authority roads. National quality standards need to be set for roads with central funding from Transfund.

2. No, absolutely not. The public good element of roading is vital to New Zealanders.

3 . Each area and its elected representatives should decide what they spend their money on. However it is our view that there should be some element of property rates for funding roads, particularly taking into regard the non-vehicular use of roading, amenity values etc. In general we believe the rates component of roading should be substantially reduced over time.

4. Absolutely. There should be local accountability in the provision of roads and decision-making, with input from the people in the areas the decision will affect.

5. We have a strong commitment to public transport so it can be developed and enhanced to reduce demands on: roading and to meet social obligations. Our policy states quite clearly that there will be significant government monies continuing to go into public passenger transport.

6. We agree in principle and will work towards a position that when the economy improves the amount of excise duty going to general revenue will be reduced.

7. No. We will, however, consider a practice that has been used to advantage in New Zealand in the past and certainly is now becoming more common overseas for private companies or local government to institute a build/operate/toll and transfer system for new roads as an alternative to the existing road. It may be, for example, that new motorway developments of by-pass roads, bridges etc, can be built by private industry, operated by them for a period with a toll, and then transferred at the completion of the contract period, of say fifteen or twenty years, to the Crown. This is one way of getting infrastructural developments without impact on the taxpayer, but the requirement will be on the roading authorities to fully maintain an existing road for use by anyone who chooses not to pay the toll. We are adamantly against instituting tolls on existing roads.

8. We will reverse the privatisation of ACC. The $47.10 increase in the cost of relicensing is simply a tax by another name.

9. Yes. We are committed to this and to improving driver training and education. Enforcement in my mind is a far wider approach than simply having the odd patrol car sitting on the side of the road with a speed camera or radar.

Alliance transport spokesperson John Wright

1. There are problems with roading funding in New Zealand, but the solutions so far proposed by the National Party Government are more about a particular economic philosophy than a practical response. Wholesale change is not necessary. Local body controlled roads should continue to be funded in part by a balanced revenue sharing arrangement with central government' but there should be more flexibility and accountability in transport funding.

2. No.

3. Rates funding of roads should not be abolished. The value, of the property and the existence/quality of roads are linked. An example is the development of higher value properties following the extension of a motorway. Reasonably roads for moving farm produce lower costs of getting produce to marker and add to the value of the property. Much of the current rates funding of roads goes on roadside facilities for pedestrians rather than vehicles and would still need to be funded through our rates even if moved to a strict user-pays model.

4. The Alliance believes that decisions should be made as closely as possible to the people they affect. Therefore local accountability and democracy should be strengthened, not reduced.

5. The extent of 'subsidy' or 'cost relief' should be based on agreed environmental and social goals locally within a policy framework set by central government. This is an area where local democracy can have real impact.

6. The Alliance is committed to a complete review of our taxation system including ~ the balance between direct and indirect taxes such as excise duties, tariffs and GST. A decision on the continued use of fuel tax for general fundraising or as a dedicated roading fundraiser would be part of the review.

7. The Alliance has no intention of introducing tolls. They are an inefficient method of collecting taxes. The tolls on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the Lyttelton Road Tunnel were cases in point.

8. Our intention is to restore ACC to a scheme based on the original Woodhouse principles. This would eliminate the need for the $47.10 'full funding' increase.

9. We have no specific policy on the dedicated use of fines for any particular purpose. However, the suggested use of speed camera revenues is worthy of further investigation.

New Zealand First Transport spokesperson Peter Brown

1. The major problems in regard to roading management and funding should be clearly identified, and the best acceptable solutions tabulated before a decision on the best administrative structure is made - not before the problems are spelt out as has been the case until now. Any solution should provide for an ability to borrow (in order to address problems requiring capital more promptly) and it should result in a fair level of charging based on vehicle type, problem creation, and usage.

2. No, definitely not.

3. An unfair burden falls on many ratepayers for roading costs, particularly in rural areas. It is reasonable that ratepayers pay something towards roading, for rights of access, etc, but basically roading costs should be met by the users. The ratepayers contribution needs to be eased.

4. It is essential local governments have influence on roading decisions in their respective areas.

5. The number of cars on our roads at peak times must be reduced, particularly in Auckland and some of our other cities. We must remove people from their cars and put them into public transport which therefore needs to be reliable, convenient, and at reasonable cost. Motorists create traffic congestion so it is reasonable to expect them to pay towards the solution. To get people to use public transport, we would use vouchers purchased at discount rates and used only for travelling. A taxpayer subsidy would likely be by formula on a tickets sold (passengers carried) basis.

6. The excise tax on petrol should be scaled back over a stipulated period to zero. The government wil1 still collect tax from fuel for the consolidated fund through GST. Additional costs for roading should be met by the users as far as is practicable in proportion to their use and the demands they make on roading.

7. Tolls on roads could help have new roads built more quickly. However, other factors should be considered, for example, a community's requirement for road, an alternative route being available, etc. Couple these requirements with progress being made on scaling back excise tax and addressing the rates problem, the prospect of toll roads is not so daunting.

8. No increase to ACC should to anyone if it cannot be justified. Ideally vehicle owner ACC charges should relate more to the safety of the vehicle and the usage and not simply be a standard fee. Consideration therefore should be given to scaling back the ACC component in vehicle registration charges.

9. Revenue from speed camera infringements should be used to pay for its collection, advancing road safety, driver training and education.

United Party transport spokesperson Peter Dunne

1. United will prioritise a certain proportion of spending for fuel efficiency and energy conservation programmes; set ACC premiums for motorists at a flat rate on a pay-as-you-go basis; evaluate the social, environmental and economic effects of road pricing policies; encourage a move away from nonrenewable fuels and introduce appropriate incentives for studies into alternative energy transport.

2. United generally does not support the privatisation of the roading network. Our policy allows for self-funding in certain circumstances, for example toll roads where an alternative route and transport system is available.

3. The same as above.

4. United generally supports local government continuing to influence decision-making roads in their localities.

5. We recognise the need for some level of subsidy to ensure public transport systems remain viable.

6. Our policy says fuel taxes collected within a specific region should be allocated to improvements in transport infrastructure and efficiency within that region.

7. We do not support road tolls as a general means of funding road use. In certain circumstances, where local regions will benefit from road improvement and access, tolls may be applicable as a means of partial funding.

8. United's view is that there must be sufficient funding to meet current and future claims.

9. We support measures to enhance road safety through improved driver training and education, better enforcement and safer roads. A certain proportion of speed camera revenue should be devoted to such measures.