Submissions from the Bus and Coach Association and Energy Resources Aotearoa were also studied.
Lead author and Otago University PhD student in public health Dr Alice Miller said they looked at a cross-section of trade associations from the road transport sector.
“The organisations we looked at, we classed five of them as the ‘road lobby’, in that they were largely lobbying for road-based transport policy.”
Miller said they supported policies around driving, taking freight on trucks, more investment into road infrastructure and EV-charging infrastructure, and biofuels or hydrogen investment.
But policies that would improve active and public transport – and have health benefits, Miller said – were met with many reasons why they shouldn’t be implemented.
“They also were supporting individual behaviour change interventions, to try and educate people about the emissions of vehicles they were driving.”
The emphasis on individual actions and consumer choice – rather than talking about actions at a company or industry level – was an example of the way these groups worked in a similar way to industries like tobacco lobbyists, Miller said.
“One of the key findings is that we found the commercial road lobby groups were spinning and framing their arguments in similar ways as other harmful industries do when they’re trying to resist a policy that doesn’t suit their interests.”
“They deflected the responsibility for reducing emissions from the industry back onto individuals, distracting from the fact the vehicles that they’re producing are causing a lot of harm and damage.”
To back up arguments in support of more road spending, Miller said the groups often talked about improving road safety through better infrastructure.
“The way that road safety was discussed ignored other major health harms from road transport, and distracted from the key fact that everyone is safer when we invest properly in high-quality bus and train services, and in safe spaces to walk and cycle.”
Miller said these arguments often combined and became “circular” – effectively blocking policies that would shift transport away from reliance on private vehicles.
“We saw this overarching story, which went, ‘Yes, we think people should be encouraged to walk and cycle, but at the moment it’s just unviable for people to travel without a car because we don’t have good enough alternatives’.
“But, in other areas of the submissions, there was lots of arguments saying, ‘well, we shouldn’t reallocate funding from roads, or road space, from cars to other types of transport – to walking, to cycling, to public transport – because we need to invest that money in roads to improve road safety outcomes’.
“So then you kind of go around and make a circular argument, whereby nothing changes.”
These strategies are similar to those used by other powerful industries to resist a policy they don’t like, Miller said – like tobacco, junk food, or alcohol.
And the policies New Zealand’s road lobby did not approve of were mostly those shifting away from trucks and cars, to increased walking and cycling.
Those policies, Miller said, had positive public health benefits and were some of the most effective for emissions reduction.
“Policymakers need to carefully consider the vested interests of the different stakeholders they interact with, and more questions need to be asked about who is really in control of our transport policy decisions,” she said.
Organisations reject claims
RNZ approached all the organisations dubbed as the “road lobby” within the study for a response.
Most denied being similar to the tobacco industry and reiterated their support for emissions reduction.
A spokesperson for the Motor Trade Association (MTA) said it advocates for its members and for motorists more widely and rejects any comparison to the tobacco industry.
The spokesperson said that the MTA supports emissions reduction for transport.
“It should be noted that the vast majority of New Zealanders still rely on and enjoy using private vehicles as a means of transport for work, leisure and essential purposes,” the spokesperson said.
A BusinessNZ Energy Council (BEC) spokesperson said they reject the suggestion of being “anti-climate-positive transport solutions”.
BEC executive director, Tina Schirr, claimed key aspects of the study’s analysis were incorrect, and highlighted their support for biofuels, hydrogen and electrification.
“It’s doubtful the researchers reviewed any of our submissions in detail, otherwise they would have seen our clear support for low-carbon fuels and technologies throughout.”
An Automobile Association (AA) spokesperson said it advocates on behalf of its members and their views are gathered before responding to government proposals.
“The AA recognises the significant challenge climate change presents and is committed to supporting our members to transition to more sustainable mobility solutions over time.”
“The AA disagrees with some of the characterisations and inferences in the paper but respect the rights of the researchers to look at issues and put forward their perspective.”
Transporting NZ said it is committed to decarbonisation and wants to increase low and zero-emission truck uptake.
Motor Industry Association CEO, Aimee Wiley, said their advocacy supports evidence-based decision-making.
“Ultimately, the transition to zero emissions is a marathon, not a sprint,” she said, emphasising the need to avoid unnecessary economic, market or financial disruption.
The full University of Otago study is freely available to access online here.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
