All road users should contribute in proportion to their use of the country's roads, Transport Minister Chris Bishop says.
This comes as changes have been proposed not only to the country's Road User Charges system, but also to tolling in New Zealand with Bishop saying the Government is planning to introduce annual CPI adjustments to make tolling "fairer and more predictable" compared to having ad-hoc increases.
(The CPI - consumers price index - is New Zealand’s official measure of inflation for households).
Changes to the Road User Charges (RUC) system were announced by the Government in August. At the time, Bishop said all vehicles - whether they’re petrol, diesel, electric or hybrid - would eventually be paying for roads based on distance and weight through electronic road user charges.
Bishop in August said Cabinet had agreed to a series of legislative changes that would shift how New Zealand drivers pay for the country's roading network - through electronic road user charges, rather than petrol tax.
This means New Zealand drivers, who currently pay a Fuel Excise Duty (FED, or petrol tax), which is about 70 cents per litre of petrol, would be transitioning to the electronic road user charges system.
Currently, diesel, electric and heavy vehicles pay RUC based on distance travelled.
These changes are being made through the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill, which passed its first reading on Tuesday.
Speaking at the Future Roads Conference, a conference for the New Zealand roading sector, in Hamilton on Wednesday, Bishop said tolling was a key tool for bringing forward investment.
Changes to tolling in the Bill include corridor tolling, which "will allow tolling on parts of an existing road where users clearly benefit from a new project in the same corridor", Bishop said.
He said through the Bill, there would also be "new tools to manage diversion from toll roads, including restricting heavy vehicles from unsuitable alternative routes like they do overseas, and allowing toll revenue to help maintain those alternative routes when councils can’t”.
Bishop said the Government would also be introducing annual CPI adjustments “to make tolling fairer and more predictable, as well as shifting liability from the driver to the registered person to improve collection efficiency”.
Annual CPI adjustments would replace ad-hoc increases to tolling.
RUC system
Bishop said the Bill would make critical changes to prepare the transport sector for the Government’s plans to transition the light vehicle fleet to RUC.
“The current system was designed in the 1970s and still relies on manual paperwork and stickers on windscreens. That’s not good enough in 2025.”
The Bill would shift the current RUC system - it is mostly paper based which means people have to check their odometers and buy RUC in 1000 kilometre chunks - to a system that allows payment models like subscriptions or post-payment. There would also be in-vehicle technology to record distance.
On the topic, last week Bishop said: “These changes are the first step towards replacing petrol tax with RUC for light petrol vehicles. We’ll assess the improved system in 2027 before deciding on next steps for transitioning the remaining 3.5 million vehicles."
With the first reading done and passed by Parliament, the Bill is now heading to the Transport and infrastructure Select Committee, with the Government expecting the legislation to pass in 2026.
Roads of National Significance programme
Bishop said the Roads of National Significance programme (RoNs) was its largest and most ambitious project as a government.
The New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi describes RoNs as “a package of major transport projects”.
These include areas in Northland with Port Marsden Highway to State Highway 1 Whangārei, a second Mt Victoria Tunnel in Wellington, and State Highway 1 Belfast to Pegasus Motorway and Woodend Bypass in Canterbury.
Bishop said he wanted to be upfront about the challenges the Government faces when it comes to these projects, sharing that the RoNs projects were expensive.
“Based on current estimates, delivering the RoNS programme in full over the next 20 years would cost $56 billion."
“Funding this entirely from petrol tax and road user charges, would require a one-off 70% increase. Equivalent to a 49 cent per litre increase in petrol tax.”
“To be clear, this 49 cent per litre increase, would only allow the RONS to be delivered,” Bishop said.
Crown funding
Bishop told the audience the National Land Transport Fund was already “massively subscribed”.
“Our transport system is supposed to be user pays. In other words, road users pay petrol tax and road user charges and the money goes out the other end on maintenance, upgrades and new projects.”
“But in recent years, Crown funding has been tipped in more and more, which comes from general taxation – in other words, all taxpayers,” Bishop said.
Bishop said capital contributions from general taxation had to compete with “every other important priority” the Government has to fund.
“Every dollar of extra Crown capital we put into roading is a dollar that can’t go into health, or education, or defence, or any of the other calls on capital the Crown has.
“Of course, all of these areas have significant deficits and similar funding challenges.”
Bishop said he was an advocate for Crown capital helping to fund roads but was making the point that there were “difficult trade-offs”.
One option was to lift petrol tax and RUC, he said.
“Petrol tax is due to go up by 12c per litre in 2027, by six cents on 1 January 2028, and 4 cents in each year after that.
“There is obviously a limit to what Kiwis will accept both economically and politically,” Bishop said.
“As I’ve said, to deliver all of the RoNS, petrol tax and RUC would have to rise by 70% or 49c per litre. This would be on top of the planned increases we’ve set out for 2027 onwards.”
He said public-private partnerships were not a “magic money tree’ but a procurement tool.
“They are essentially the Government taking out an extra mortgage to build a road sooner. So yes, they help in terms of procurement and driving efficiency, but the projects still have to be paid for.”
And as for tolls, Bishop said while they’re useful, they don’t fully fund roads.
“Not even close. New Zealand just doesn’t have the traffic volumes. They are critical tools in helping fill in the funding stack, and provide important ongoing revenue for maintenance costs.
“But they are not going to pay for these roads by themselves.”
Bishop said the same was true for infrastructure levies and the Government had other priorities in the land transport space.
“We have critical public transport projects to fund, as well as the second harbour crossing in Auckland, which will be the most expensive infrastructure project ever built in New Zealand.”
'Hard choices lie ahead'
Bishop said while the Government was committed to delivering RoNS, “delivering them all tomorrow is not realistic”.
“What we need is a credible, long-term pipeline of transport projects with a variety of funding options and in a logical sequence,” he said.
“I’ve been calling this a Major Transport Projects Pipeline, or MTPP. It includes the RoNS but also major public transport projects we need to advance as well.
“That’s what we are committed to, as well as demonstrating a realistic funding track, synced to what the market can actually sustain. We’re working hard on that now and will have more to say soon,” Bishop said.
“This is going to be hard. Hard choices lie ahead. Not everyone is going to get what they want, exactly when they want it,” Bishop said.
“Some roads won’t be starting for many years. This is not going to be easy. But it will be worth it.”
47 Comments
Well said.
As a tax payer then I'm already paying for the roads. Indeed twice as I also pay RUC for my Ranger.
I am very sceptical about what this government is trying to do here.
"All road users should contribute in proportion to their use of the country's roads, Transport Minister Chris Bishop says.": no mention of cyclists?
How much damage do you think a cycle does to the road?
It’s not only about damage.
Most of the infrastructure cost isn't so much for the cyclists, it's just to protect them from the vehicles. I'd quite happily bike to work on a dirt path if it was available.
Well if we’re moving to full user pays then every user must pay. Right?
Not that I think there’s any point in charging cyclists, just that it’s a bit of a shit argument.
Its nothing to do with damage, cyclists don't pay for the roads they use.
Neither do those pesky humans walking on footpaths, better go after them too (sarc)
.
I think damage is roughly proportional to the weight on the axle to the fourth power. So, a 1000kg car will do more damage than a 100kg bike+rider by a factor of around 10,000.
Happy to pay a cent or two for every ride to cover by cost but I'm not convinced it will be worth the tax-man's time. If I promise to only ride twice a day I could set up an annual standing order for a dollar or two?
Bishops' comment was about use, not damage
Sort of comment I'd expect from a Party hack.
Or why make it?
he said based on "distance and weight"
weight's probably a pretty good proxy for damage
Not a proxy for use.
What is use's impact, if not damage.
Logic tends to outflank mantra.
I see where the Nats are going - fleece the small-car owners (ie the poor) so the big car owners (the rich, their people) can pay relatively less.
The joke is that availability of bitumen, plus the fuel to lay it, will be the kicker. It will be paralleled by dwindling real incomes, and the result will be less road-use/fuel bought.
Goodbye GROWTH. And the ramifications are?
"The joke is that availability of bitumen, plus the fuel to lay it, will be the kicker. It will be paralleled by dwindling real incomes, and the result will be less road-use/fuel bought. ".....and the consequent usability of the entire network due to lack of maintenance.
Why we insist on increasing that future maintenance demand by further expansion when we are unable to maintain the existing network god only knows.
They are moving to user pays instead of everyone pays. If you use it more than me, you pay more then me, as it should be.
Imagine if food or power were subsidised by general tax, that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?
Bollocks.
It's user pays NOW - burn your petrol going k's, or don't.
This will increase the cost of driving (which I have not trouble with) but it won't solve the bigger dilemma.
Which is that GROWTH is now in the rear-view mirror. Meaning that most of these projects won't see the light of day.
Disincentivise road use, to pay for their fancy new roads?
Or privatise roads perhaps
A friend found policy papers on this buried in the NZTA website a couple of years (or more) ago, so I see this more as an ideology pushed by private transport hating NZTA staffers than it is a National party policy. I also have other issues with it and it's easier to refer back to the article on this written by Juha Saarinen back in August of this year.
The rocky road ahead to RUCs | interest.co.nz
My gas guzzling Ford Falcon (which I hardly use) will benefit, while my 1300cc commuter car will be paying more than before - until such time as RUC rates actually based on vehicle weight are introduced (which, IMHO, will never happen).
He did say: "all vehicles - whether they’re petrol, diesel, electric or hybrid - would eventually be paying for roads based on distance and weight"
NZTA consider the wear from vehicles <3.5T isn't significant & therefore irrelevant to be differentiated.
"Consider" sounds remarkably unscientific.
I was a bit unclear sorry. I meant weight differentiated in smaller increments, like a different rate every 1,000kgs.
And no, that's not hard to do. Currently, RUCs are applied to EVs based on Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM), which is provided by the manufacturer. A bit of competent programming could ensure that my suggestion be applied.
“the Government is planning to introduce annual CPI adjustments to make tolling "fairer and more predictable"
Not a problem when they’re taxing us, but for some reason none of our public servants deserve for their pay to increase with CPI…
Our tax brackets aren’t linked to CPI either.
As a South Islander I look forward to my transport spending refund because 95% of capital spending from the National Land Transport Fund is going to be spent in the North Island.
The NLTF receives the nations fuel taxes and road user charges and is meant to fund NZTA's various build projects in an even handed manner based on expert evaluation. But instead RoNS projects are being decided politically. This process will determine the entire transport build pipeline for the next 20 years. For the South Island this means the only projects we will see in the next 20 years to 2045 is a small motorway bypass north of Christchurch and another bypass south of Nelson. These are the two smallest RoNS projects in its enormous $50bn+ pipeline.
So given the user pays principle I look forward to my transport refund. Alternatively Bishop and co could put on their integrity pants and ensure the South Island road network gets the projects its users have paid for.
P.S. Bishop and co before they put on their integrity pants need to find some affordable underwear. NZ has infrastructure procurement costs in the top 10% of the OECD. This is not sustainable. Currently Wellington is the proverbial emperor with no clothes. It doesn't have trousers or underpants and it is not a good look.
Come on Brendon, it's clear that spending $4bn on an extra Mt Vic tunnel is NZs most urgent priority. The terrible state of SH1 between ChCh and Kaikoura, over which slowly crawls most inter island freight and tourism traffic, obviously must take a back seat to the pressing need for Wellington bureaucrats to save 10 minutes on their commute to the airport. It's always been the Roads of North Island Significance program, despite what Bishop and co may pretend.
Wellington is like a black hole. The greed of its politicians and bureaucratic elites is inescapable. No matter how underperforming they are the hole must be fed...
$27m of funding that was allocated for the nations housing needs are instead paying for Bishops Lower Hutt electorated cycling and walkability infrastructure whilst his government cuts that type of funding elsewhere in country.
A lack of integrity is not just something the Wellington police executive suffers from, the whole city stinks of it.
For clarification, Lower Hutt is a separate city from Wellington. Lower Hutt does of course have a stink about it, primarily from the Seaview sewage treatment plant.
The largest time saving transport project for the least amount of cost for the entire length of both the SH1 highway and the main trunk line would be moving the Picton Port to Clifford Bay.
But of course the politicised nature of transport project delivery in NZ means that project is not being considered in Wellington. Despite their being considerable private sector interest.
Maybe it's my social circle but my impression is that the tunnel is very unpopular in Wellington, especially amongst the bureaucrats who can see better than most what a waste of money it is. They all catch the bus to work.
Reckon it's mostly politicians and developers who support it, plus a few grumpy older commuters with no grasp of the costs.
Whenever someone cites OECD, a red flag should appear.
There are physical reasons, not ideological.
And most - if not all - of these moot projects won't happen. Because it is competition for the remaining resource which will dominate - and we won't be in the queue.
Use the bloody rail network that settlers literally died to build. It's incredible what we have given our small population. The roads would last decades if heavy traffic were mostly removed.
Mike. Yes, the same thoughts occur when I drive the route under discussion, observing the rail tracks that run parallel to or close by the road for longish stretches. But in much of NZ rail is unable to deliver as quickly or cost effectively as road most of the time and in service critical industries that's make or break.
My new super hybrid does 1100km to a tank of fuel and that is going to be normal for most cars in NZ within a few short years.
This story is about us not being able to afford road upkeep with extremely efficient cars based on fuel levies alone, any any other comment from the politicians is spin.
Or we accept a downgrade in the quality of the roading network. Shingle roads for other than the main highway network - like the 1950s.
Hilarious isn't it how we demand more efficient cars and less emissions for the sake of climate change, which then allows people to drive MORE for the same cost, effectively encouraging it, causing more road damage and cost, with less tax take from fuel. They've cut off their nose to spite their face and now everyone will pay.
Not correct. I drive exactly the same and buy a fraction of the fuel I used to. So I am not paying my share of road upkeep today.
An electronic road user charges system.
No real data on that, but if it's monitoring built in to vehicles to measure distance and whatever else they want logged the logistics of that are incredible and expensive. And I wonder who is going to pay?
Pre-pay as per now and you have to clear your balance to get a WOF
There will be no WOF by then. Other jurisdiction have ditched it - I was just in Queensland - and their accident stats are no worse. This Govt will let it go for the reason they've ditched so many limitations: GROWTH.
That's a lot of fossil fuels you burnt getting there and back. Tisk tisk
Having planted a serious forest 30 years ago, and stayed out of the ETS rort, I can probably lay claim to carbon neutrality more than most.
But I don't.
The old user pays myth. The more costs you transfer directly into the private sector the more expensive everything becomes for everyone. Paying the profit margin to private sector "owners" of infrastructure does not save the road user any money - it is going to make driving a car very expensive.
A poorly run, loss making government owned entity lowers costs in the private sector by absorbing losses as government deficit. The focus is not on 'saving the government money' but on providing a cost effective and subsidized service to support ordinary people and business alike. The cost of the roading network is not paid immediately by all of it's users for a very sound economic reason. One that the proposed policy completely overlooks.
“The current system was designed in the 1970s and still relies on manual paperwork and stickers on windscreens. That’s not good enough in 2025.”
The current system works.
Chris Bishop is going to institute another open-ended, undefined, do everything, un-costed, multi-decade, 10:1 budget blow-out government IT solution that won't.
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.