Beware ‘gifts’ from politicians
It is often said that politicians have a knack for giving with one hand and taking with the other. That is a skill perfected by the finest pickpockets and magicians, the sleight of hand that creates the essential distraction, and then the rabbit, seemingly out of thin air.
Motorists appear to have received a number of early Christmas presents: first the Government promises action on a Commerce Commission report demonstrating how the fuel companies are fleecing us, and how to go about stopping it; and second, the National Party devises a plan to remove fuel taxes altogether, but still top up the National Land Transport Fund that pays for roading infrastructure. That calls to mind something else often said at such times: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.
National transport spokesman Chris Bishop’s idea to remove the fuel taxes, which add about 70 cents to a litre of petrol, depending on where you live, appears at first glance to make some sense.
Bishop has played up the idea that the current taxes are borne, perhaps unfairly, by those with older, less fuel-efficient vehicles, allowing the more wealthy drivers with newer, more fuel-efficient cars or electric vehicles to avoid paying their share towards maintaining and upgrading our roading network.
He says a universal road-user charge would be a fairer way to recognise and pay for that impact: the more you drive, the more you pay. Some may see the rabbit drawn dramatically from a hat, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .
A National government keen to build more roads and prioritise regional carriageways is going to need to replace the $4 billion the bowser contributes to that effort every year, so you either pay through fuel excise or you pay by way of roaduser charges. Bishop suggests a government could make contributions to that fund from other sources, presumably to ease the burden of a new road-user charge. But no matter where they get it from, it makes little difference. Either way, you still pay. Any changes would be phased in over the medium to long term, says Bishop, but the policy still appears short-sighted. Punters drawn in by the ruse of cheaper petrol are likely to be less careful about its consumption. Rather than encouraging people to take public transport or invest in more sustainable options, less pain at the fuel pump might keep them in their gas-guzzling cars longer. That could run counter to Bishop’s suggestion of congestion charges in city centres. Those encouraged to stay in their cars and use them more could in fact find themselves waiting longer and paying more.
Also, those considering an electric vehicle will have less reason to do so. Reducing the high cost of petrol would remove one of the compelling arguments for making the transition and cutting our reliance on fossil fuels.
Taken in combination with his party’s dismissal of the Government’s plans for discounts on EVs, what does this say about National’s commitment to combating climate change?
Encouraging people out of their cars, reducing congestion on our roads and supporting genuine, sustainable public transport in our biggest cities. Now that would be quite the magic trick.