
The government heralded its plan to move New Zealand’s entire vehicle fleet to road-user charges as a fairer method of funding road maintenance.
For owners of electric and diesel vehicles, this is nothing new. They already pay road-user charges based on the distance travelled.
But for petrol vehicles, it is a shift away from fuel excise duty, or petrol tax, which is currently about 77 cents per litre of fuel. As it is linked to the price of petrol, more fuel-efficient petrol vehicles pay relatively less than gas guzzlers for every kilometre travelled.
Much of the policy detail is yet to be worked out, but if all of the country’s vehicles paid road-user charges, this would provide opportunities to do more than raise revenue for road building and maintenance.
New Zealand would become the first country to charge all vehicles a distance-based fee and, used in creative ways, this could save money and deliver better societal outcomes, such as safer roads and lower pollution.
How fuel revenue is collected
Fuel excise duty is currently collected at source, when refined fuel either leaves the refinery or is imported. Some other costs are included, such as a fee for New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme, currently around 13 cents per litre. These are simple to collect, have low compliance costs and are essentially unavoidable.
Road-user charges are a distance-based payment. Licenses are pre-purchased in increments of 1,000 kilometres and various rates apply depending on vehicle weight and axle configuration. Heavier electric vehicles (more than 3.5 tonnes) are currently exempt until June 2027.
This system has higher compliance and administration costs than fuel excise duty. It also has a greater risk of evasion, because to some extent, it relies on vehicle owners’ honesty.
With all vehicles moving to road-user charges, everyone will pay for every kilometre they travel on the roads, with increased rates for heavier vehicles (currently anything above 3.5 tonnes). The plan is that this will be administered electronically through some device in or on the vehicle. This already happens with many freight vehicles.
In most freight vehicles, the technology includes GPS and allows freight companies to monitor the performance of their vehicles and drivers. But rolling out electronic road-user charges across the whole vehicle fleet creates interesting opportunities beyond just raising revenue.
Opportunities and challenges
The move to a distance-based scheme could discourage some people from selecting more fuel-efficient vehicles because a road-use system does not encourage that. This could lead to increased greenhouse gas and other emissions.
However, rather than using a uniform road-user charge based solely on vehicle weight and distance travelled, rates could vary based on a range of criteria, including emissions, and pay for other traffic-related costs to society and the environment.
For instance, around 300 people die each year in road crashes, and thousands more are injured. This costs NZ$9-10 billion annually. To help pay, New Zealand could collect higher road-user charge rates for vehicles more likely to cause crashes, based on safety ratings.
Traffic-related air pollution causes more than 2,000 deaths per year, costing New Zealand around $10 billion. Road-user charges could be used to pay for this by charging a higher rate for vehicles that emit more pollution.
The same could be done for noise pollution. And if the electronic road-user charge device is GPS-enabled, vehicles travelling near the most vulnerable citizens – such as near schools during pick-up and drop-off – could be charged more.
This may deter some people from dropping children off right outside the school gate, which in turn could have the added benefit of making walking and cycling feel safer due to less traffic, attracting more people to use active transport and helping create neighbourhood greenways.
But why stop there? New Zealand could use electronic road-user charges to encourage all sorts of other behaviours. For example, lower rates might encourage vehicles to use highways and main roads instead of cutting through quiet residential streets.
Road-user charges could be used to set a congestion price, manage on- and off-street parking and monitor speed limits without the need for any additional technology, saving on setting up separate congestion and parking pricing schemes and speed cameras.
Some will argue this is an invasion of privacy. But as Minister of Transport Chris Bishop indicated, the privacy commissioner will oversee it.
If New Zealand becomes the first country to charge all vehicles for the use of roads, this an opportunity to lead in innovation.
Simon Kingham, Professor of Human Geography, University of Canterbury
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
10 Comments
Let's tax this to demonstrate our commitment to virtue signalling vanity projects
"...this would provide opportunities to do more than raise revenue for road building and maintenance." Road users (& ratepayers) are already paying for other people's privileges eg cycle lanes
"...around 300 people die each year in road crashes, and thousands more are injured. This costs NZ$9-10 billion annually" using NZTAs artificially created life values? - which they trebled in secret a few years ago to $12M so as to help "justify" their agenda
https://newsroom.co.nz/2023/05/01/govt-to-pay-three-times-the-price-for…
Wouldn't need cycle lanes if cars drove at a safe speed, maybe say 10kmh. Sound like a better plan?
Better yet, have a pedestrian walk in front of every car waving a red flag
You just put the unemployment rate into the negatives.
Okay, so assuming there is no push back by the general population to having their cars monitored by a government appointed entity (let's be honest here, with a National led government it will be a privately owned business) I see issues:
Petrol taxes used to go into the Consolidated Fund, which was used for all sorts of expenditure back in the day. Does this still happen? Either way, not a new idea.
Charging/fining people for something they did a couple of weeks ago does not change people's behaviour - especially if the registered owner of the car wasn't driving it at the time. This just makes it a revenue gathering activity.
Watch out when using safety ratings as a basis for decision making. A few years ago a generation of Suzuki Swifts had its safety rating drop dramatically. Was this because it was an inherently dangerous car? No, it was because it was cheap to buy and run so was favoured by young drivers who tended to have more accidents, so it featured more in crash (and ACC) statistics.
Also, as I've commented before in other articles on this scheme, don't be surprised if the tax take actually drops. RUCs can be avoided - take a visit to rural communities (and the far north in particular) to get an idea of the opportunity for avoidance/evasion. No WOF, no licence (rego)? No RUCs! Add to this the cost of introducing and operating the new system - as it hasn't been devised yet it cannot have been costed so how do we know if there will be enough money for fanciful projects?
I imagine Bish will give some flippant offhand remark like, "Oh, it'll hardly cost anything", much in the same tone as his old career, "Oh, that ciggie won't hurt you". he may of course not be in government come 2027 when it is supposed to start.
A Consolidated Fund does not change behaviour. What will change behaviour is when the amount you pay into that fund is based on what you do.
Paying into a Consolidated Fund changes the politicians behaviour, yet another pork barrel slush fund for the incumbent party cf Provincial Growth Fund, Regional Infrastructure Fund...
Hey Simon. Piss off with your gps tracker.
A myriad of committees studying, refining and debating the best use of this new nudging tool. Employing fine members of academia, along with lawyers, transport lobbyists and IT consultants. All will be able to enjoy many a long lunch sliding into hours and hours of billable.
NZ will indeed lead the way.
Something about this proposal doesn't feel right. The ability to move freely as a private individual or in the course of business should not be made into some revenue generating project for a load of private sector ticket clippers. We did that already with our electricity network.
The roading network is a public utility that underpins nearly everything else in the economy. Users of the utility whether business or personal do not pay the full cost and that is a good thing - to shift the cost of the roading network significantly onto its users will undermine the private sector side of the economy in a major way.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.