KEY POINTS:
Timing is everything, both in politics and protest. On that count, the Government scored a spectacular own-goal with its announcement of increased road-user charges, while truck drivers have hit paydirt with their demonstration today in Auckland and other cities. A poll, unscientific as it may be, on this newspaper's website yesterday showed a large majority of respondents supported the truckies' protest, even though some stood to be inconvenienced by the choking of city-centre streets by heavy rigs. The truckies, it seems, have become the poster boys for widespread discontent.
It is not hard to see why. The hiking of road-user charges, under a system that involves owners of diesel trucks buying road use in advance, rather than paying tax at the pump, came at a time when freight carriers were already struggling to cope with record fuel prices and other cost increases. Their plight struck an immediate chord with those under similar pressure at the pump and in the supermarket. The Government should have been aware of the perils of this association. If it was, it pressed ahead anyway.
Equally, the new charges were announced at almost the same time as confirmation of the Government's rail buy-back. Because truckies and KiwiRail compete for freight, the hike in road-user charges risked conveying the impression that, having secured the railways, the Government was immediately tilting the playing field their way. This is, of course, an irrational notion. Both announcements were the fruit of many months of work. But their timing provided a fertile field for those happy to dabble in conspiracies. Better political management would have ensured the two developments were spaced so far apart that any such inference could not be drawn.
This appalling timing has skewed any discussion on whether the increased road-user charges are justified, as well as a wider issue. Transport Minister Annette King says she wants trucking firms to pay their fair share of the money required to build highways and maintain existing roads. That is a reasonable objective, and an appropriate rebalancing is obviously in the interests of all road-users. Trucking firms, contrary to their protests, must have been aware that a rise was likely, if only because there had been only one increase in the charges for vehicles over six tonnes since 1989.
The Government, however, lost this debate before it began. The truckies have taken full advantage of their new-found status, embellishing their case and predicting dire consequences from the increased charges. According to Annette King, the Road Transport Forum's own research suggests a 10 per cent increase in the road-user charges would add only about 1 per cent to operating costs. If so, claims that trucking firms will be forced out of business or that prices paid by consumers will rise steeply seem overly dramatic.
Trucking representatives have also done little to dispel some red herrings. One is that road-user charges are diverted from roading to other Government spending. They, with all fuel tax and car registration fees, go into the national land transport fund. Such distractions are unhelpful, especially when the Road Transport Forum has justified questions about the whole road-user charges framework. It is complex, thereby inviting high administrative costs and rates of evasion. In Australia, trucking firms pay a fuel tax. This seems far simpler, not only in administration but in ensuring truckies pay their fair share of road construction and upkeep.
That is the debate we should be having. Regrettably, the Government's wretched timing has rendered it virtually impossible. City motorists and commuters will face the consequences of its misjudgment today. It says much that most are happy to welcome the truckies to the centre of town.
