More questions than answers on binding cannabis referendum

Remember the referendum that was Brexit, where people in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar merrily voted to leave the European Union, until they realised that that actually meant, and that it was binding?

In hindsight, quite a lot of people felt they didn’t really have enough information and didn’t quite realise what would happen after they made that tick on a referendum paper. Some were quite shocked it was binding.

We are worried that New Zealand voters will find themselves in a similar position come the 2020 general election day, 19 September, when they vote on whether or not to legalise recreational cannabis use in New Zealand. That’s recreational, not medicinal.

We believe there is not enough information to make a vote that the current coalition Government would consider binding.

The only information available from the Government is a badly written and half-finished Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill – Draft for Consultation. It looks a bit like a copy and paste job at this stage and I’m not sure anyone with a law degree has been involved to this point. This is a Bill that people will be asked if they support (yes), or not (no).

We were surprised to hear Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern answer a question in Parliament this week on the referendum by saying: ‘‘what we prepared is a draft bill so that there will be that full information to members of the public – that if they support the bill, that is the legislation that at least three parties in this House have said that they will then support to enact” (Hansard).

We think maybe the Prime Minister hasn’t read the bill. There are holes you could drive a truck through. Some of those for us are around road safety and workplace health and safety. The bill is silent on these matters.

In fact, the Minister who introduced the bill (Hon Andrew Little) was quoted as saying that exploring the risks of drugged driving and workplace impairment would be pushed back until after the referendum vote. Vote now and see what happens later!

We don’t believe that’s good enough. In this country, employers and Boards are bound by strict health and safety legislation – that if flouted can result in them going to prison – and we cannot see how this bill in any way correlates to that legislated responsibility.

This bill, if enacted, will have serious consequences for safety sensitive industries, such as trucking.

So, we think the general public should be well informed before they answer a yes/no question. The picture they are drawn should be broader than them sitting in their lounge room with a joint and not worrying about being arrested.

We all share the roads – that’s pedestrians, cyclists, car and truck drivers – and everyone wants their loved ones to come home from work each day. Yet already, the number of people being killed by drug impaired drivers on New Zealand roads is higher than those killed by drivers above the legal alcohol limit.

International research shows that with legalisation of cannabis comes higher use and new users. It shows that a lot of the people who currently purchase cannabis illegally, continue to use those suppliers after legalisation, because of price. It shows that people aren’t that well aware or informed of the impact of using cannabis and driving. It shows an increase in road accidents in areas where recreational cannabis is legal.

There is no harm minimisation. There are new markets and money to be made. And the black market remains as it always has.

Higher risk on the roads automatically means higher insurance premiums across the board – insurance is risk priced and you pay on probability. When households and businesses are already managing tight finances, they shouldn’t be surprised by expenses that should be made clear up front.

There is also a whole bureaucracy that will be put in place to manage cannabis legalisation. The bill references a Cannabis Advisory Committee, Cannabis Appeals Authority, and Cannabis Regulatory Authority for starters. How much will all that cost and will it be funded by the tax payer?

There are so many unanswered questions about unintended consequences.

We believe the referendum cannot be binding until people are properly informed on what they are voting for, or against. We don’t want ideology and social engineering. We want facts and figures. This is reality, not fantasy land.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Minister bags her own Government’s infrastructure announcement

On 2 February, Julie Anne Genter provided judgement to the world on “the good, bad and the ugly” of the recent Government infrastructure announcement, via an article in The Spinoff.

A casual observer would not recognise that the author was in fact, Associate Minister of Transport, with actual responsibility for the package. It is just plain weird for her to be passing judgement on its key elements and stating that the New Zealand Upgrade “falls short” on what is required to “reduce climate pollution, ensuring people have enough to thrive, and protecting nature”.

That however, is the nature of the current coalition Government. Once upon a time, Cabinet responsibility meant that collectively made decisions were appropriately backed by all Ministers, and their Associates. Now, not so much.

In a case of having her cake and eating it too, Julie Anne Genter agrees with a Green pressure group that it was disappointing that incredibly expensive motorway projects made up the lion’s share of the New Zealand Upgrade and that it is “nowhere near what we need.”

She then goes on to attack “transport” saying every sector must pull its weight in cleaning up our act and that we have been one of the worst in recent years. Of course, the usual arguments are then prevailed upon about transporting more freight by sea and rail. She mentions the need to electrify the vehicle fleet (no other options though) and of course doesn’t mention any incentives for business that are well within her power to fight for now.

Our industry needs to be on guard when we reflect on the new roads promised in the New Zealand Upgrade. Firstly, there are two or three elections between now and the start of some projects. It’s concerning that Julie Anne Genter goes on to say that she will be reviewing the scope of projects like Mill Road and the Tauranga Northern Link to make sure they include continuous bus lanes and off-road cycleways. To me, this sounds as though the traditional four lane road that we thought we had been promised could well be compromised – becoming two lanes for cars and trucks (one in each direction) and two lanes for buses and bikes – and be subject to a “green wash”.

The other really serious concern for our industry – and any Kiwi keen on moving around and having a productive economy – is that if this incarnation of Government alters post-election on 19 September to a Labour-Green coalition; how safe are any of the announcements we value from the New Zealand Upgrade package? If the Greens are a stronger voice in the next Government, the demands of their extreme elements will only grow. Businesses should be worried.

In the “green wash” we have to also watch the fantasy this Government has created around rail. This week we submitted on a Bill before Parliament proposing to give yet more money to subsidise rail, and to take it from the fund paid for by road users to maintain and build roads. I’ve labelled this highway robbery. We can only see roads further run down and unsafe as the largesse to KiwiRail continues unchecked.

Rail’s environmental benefits over road are simply illusionary. Any level of success for rail transport is entirely dependent on truck transport. Measuring environmental performance solely on the basis of the relative performance of the truck versus train, instead of the reality of point-to-point sender to receiver, is a very narrow perspective, typically favoured by academics without any interest in economics.

And despite the socialist desire to control markets, customers actually decide how they want to send their goods. The vast majority favour road. Rail freight’s strength is in long-distance transportation (over 500km) of high volumes of relatively low value products, such as coal. It’s interesting to see the Green movement promoting that.

The reality is, this Government spurns business and makes decisions based on ideology alone.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Devil will be in the detail in road spending lolly scramble

This Government is very good at making big announcements, but delivery has proved to be its Achilles heel. 10,000 KiwiBuild homes promised, but not able to be delivered. Auckland’s light rail has a “stretch” timeline; now apparently 2030. Child poverty is going up, not down, with school principals saying child poverty is the worst they’ve seen as the school year started this week.

So, when the Government announced on Wednesday a big spend of $5.3 billion on roads, our excitement was tempered by a look for the detail. The devil is in the detail.

Through this term of Government, we have heard a lot of negativity about roads, including the Transport Minister Phil Twyford saying: “There has been an over-investment in roads and motorways for decades in this country”.

A change of heart came a day after the date for the 2020 general election was announced by the Prime Minister, and a big handful of the lollies in the road spending scramble landed in the pivotal political city of Auckland, and Northland, where New Zealand First is hoping to secure its five percent threshold.

But let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth, it is good to now have an “infrastructure Government” and a whole bunch of roads in the pipeline.

We are only sorry a couple of years have been wasted in getting on with building the vital arterial roads in New Zealand, and this is reflected in some of the timelines. The Melling interchange won’t be completed until 2026. For one of the roads we have lobbied hard for, four lanes for the Ōtaki to north of Levin stretch of State Highway 1, construction won’t start until 2025 and finishes in 2029. That’s another three terms of Government.

The Chair of the Horowhenua business and residents group Build the Road has publicly thanked the RTF for our support in pushing for this vital stretch of highway and advice with their campaign. Still, they must be disappointed about the nine year wait.

And while there are some great hits in the announcement, there are some equally important misses. At the 2018 road transport industry conference, Transport Minister Phil Twyford intimated that the East-West (Penrose-Onehunga) link in Auckland was going to happen. But it wasn’t mentioned in Wednesday’s announcement. More than 7,000 freight vehicles drive through Onehunga each day and congestion in the area needs to be eased if we want to get serious about boosting the economy.

Then there’s the South Island; not many lollies went there. Yet we are seeing speed limits reduced to accommodate the poor state of roads, at the expense of businesses using those roads. State Highway 6 from Blenheim to Nelson is an example, where road freight transporters are telling us reduced speeds over a long stretch of road will cost them considerable time and money, ultimately adding to the cost of everything.

It’s not rocket science to understand that with the base of our economy in tourism and exports we need roads that are fit for purpose throughout New Zealand. That is, at least four lanes, and engineered properly for the conditions, speed limit and in consideration of both the commercial and public use of these roads. This is another area where we have concerns. Some of the four-laning is not necessarily what we envisage – two lanes in each direction allowing free flow of traffic. We will all need to look very carefully at each road as it comes up for construction.

We are also worried about the lack of engineering expertise at the New Zealand Transport Agency, and the availability of workers required to construct massive infrastructure.

In promoting the infrastructure announcement, the Prime Minister keeps talking about getting “freight off the road and onto rail” and this is the mantra of New Zealand First as it tries to resurrect rail routes that were left fallow because they simply didn’t stack up against road freight. As one witty commentator noted, “Winston Peters invoking Julius Vogel for his rail announcement. Vogel was PM in the 1870s.” That about sums up rail.

Freight movement is driven by the market. The National Freight Demand Survey commissioned by the Ministry of Transport last year (October 2019), showed freight delivered in New Zealand is 93 percent by road (up 16 percent since 2012) and 5.6 percent by rail (down 17 percent since 2012).

It is important to note that:

  • With 93,000km of road and only 4,000km of rail, rail will never be able to meet the essential demands of delivering goods to New Zealanders
  • Only three to seven percent of the road freight task is contestable by rail – moving heavy coal being one of the main tasks that better suits rail
  • Rail offers no fuel consumption benefits for freight carried less than 400kms
  • 80 percent of freight is delivered within a region, and that is not contestable by rail
  • Road users pay for roads, but rail is heavily subsidised by the Government
  • Road delivers door-to-door, throughout New Zealand, rail doesn’t
  • Road is more resilient than rail when it comes to natural disasters
  • In Auckland and Wellington, rail has a commuter function (though you might want to speak to some of the commuters about that)
  • Not everyone lives in Auckland and Wellington and outside of those cities, good luck finding public transport
  • Trucks enable every movement of freight by rail

It would be good to finally hear this Government acknowledge that roads remain the lifeblood of the New Zealand economy – pretty much everything you need, every day, comes to you on a truck.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Country’s fastest roads are saving lives

My holiday reading included a Stuff article stating that two of the country’s fastest roads are actually saving lives.

“No one has died on either the Cambridge section of the Waikato Expressway, or the SH2 Tauranga Eastern Link Toll road, since they opened just over two years ago, figures released to Stuff show,” the article said.

These roads are rated at 110kmh. The increased speed limit of 110kmh was implemented on 11 December, 2017, on both sections of road.

In the article Police credited good road engineering for the safety of the roads.

We have also seen on the newish Kapiti Expressway north of Wellington. With a speed limit of 100km/h, there have been no fatal crashes between March 2017 and February 2019, and less serious and minor injury crashes than the previous route over the same period, which has speed limits of 60-80km/h. In 2015-2016 the previous route had a lower speed limit and one fatal crash and more serious and minor injury crashes than the expressway. This demonstrates better design and engineering of roads leads to fewer accidents, injuries and deaths.

This is in line with experiences in other jurisdictions – if the road is well engineered, safety is improved. The most notable example is the Autobahnen (highways) in Germany, where much of the roads have no speed limit. The number of crashes, and injury and death rates from those crashes, is lower on the Autobahnen than on either urban or rural roads in Germany.

The German government adopts the principle that motorists can decide for themselves what is the appropriate speed for the conditions and their skill set; they can calculate their own risk.

Sweden has the lowest road toll in the EU. Sweden has more than 2000km of motorway and a further 6000km of expressway. The speed limits on its motorway network are up to 120km/h.

In fact, moves to lower speed limits in Europe centre more on environmental arguments – less CO2 emissions at lower speeds – than on a road safety focus, and they are often politically motivated.

If we look at the French Government – its 2018 decision to cut the speed limit on country roads by 10km/h, to 80km/h, was a major factor in the rise of the gilet jaunes (yellow vests) protest movement. Many people in rural France saw the move as an example of President Emmanuel Macron’s urban elitism – a failure to understand the needs of people outside cities, who are totally reliant on their cars.

While there is no doubt that excessive speed causes road crashes to have consequences on the serious end of the scale, the New Zealand Government’s laser-like focus on speed alone, is concerning. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) believes 87 percent of New Zealand roads have speed limits too high for the conditions. They cannot seriously think it is viable to reduce speed limits on 87 percent of our roads, and keep our economy as an export nation moving and growing.

Most other developed countries have faster speed limits because they have better roads. The equation is not difficult to grasp – well engineered roads are safer. We believe that rather than slowing us down on the road, and subsequently slowing down our economy, the Government needs to be strategic and transparent in its decision-making. We need a long-term plan around what New Zealand requires from its transport network and investment has to be evidence-based.

The other holiday reading has of course, been the tragedy that is unfolding daily in Australia as bushfires grow and merge and more people, animals, homes, towns, and regions are impacted.

I want to do a shout out to the truckers of Australia who have been pulling out all stops to get water and essential supplies to those people, animals and areas who need it most.

This is a clear example of how vital roads and trucks are in times of natural disaster as the most reliable lifelines.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Road users should fund roads, not rail

This week, the Government laid down the track to siphon money out of the state purse for building and fixing roads and into the bottomless money pit that is rail.

With the first reading in Parliament of the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill, the Government is on its way to extending the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) to subsidise rail. That means, the fuel tax and road user charges that people who use roads pay to help fund those roads, will now be “competitive” dollars, available to rail. It doesn’t matter if you don’t use rail, you’ll still be paying for it when you use the road. And given the fund is already not enough to pay for roads, you can expect to pay more for everything to add the dollars needed to prop up the Government’s pet project, rail.

While the legislation introduces track charges for rail service providers that will place revenue into the NLTF, there is little detail on this and it is unlikely this money will come close to funding the likely draw-downs for rail. And rail projects going through the NLTF will not have to go through the rigour roading projects do – they can just be signed off direct by the Minister of Transport.

Let’s be clear, KiwiRail is a State-Owned Enterprise that is supposed to make its own way by making a profit. We think the NLTF should be ring-fenced for roads and other funding sources should be found for rail.

It is also clear there is a place for rail.

Rail is important in cities, where it is electric and it can provide public transport to ease road congestion and reduce emissions. As a user of commuter rail, I know it’s effective at removing vehicles off roads and therefore, relieving congestion. To continue to do that, public transport must be convenient, affordable and reliable.

Outside the cities, New Zealanders rely on roads because there is no public transport and the distances travelled are too great for most people to walk or cycle. They use roads, and they pay for them. The Government’s carless nirvana is a wee way off yet.

Rail’s place in the regions needs to be considered with economics and facts, and without all the romanticism and emotion that seems to be associated with it when it comes to the freight tasks.

In its rather breathless press release backing the Government’s Bill, the Rail and Maritime Transport Union said:

“As the smoke from Australian bush fires stains New Zealand glaciers the colour of old blood, we are all forced to consider the burning urgency of confronting and defeating climate change.

“The only way to do that is through dramatic reduction in carbon emissions, and the only way to do that is by replacing dirty and inefficient modes of transport with cleaner and greener technology. Rail is the future we’ve been waiting for, and we don’t have any time to delay.”

Let’s not pretend this is a win for the environment. Outside the city boundaries rail is powered by diesel, the same as the trucks that are in fact, the preferred freight movement option. Trucks win every day because they deliver door-to-door, on time. Road carries 93 percent of New Zealand’s freight task. Rail carries six percent.

To have any comparative environmental benefits, a rail journey needs to be long, like about 400km at least. And one of the things that rail is good for is heavy loads, like bringing coal out of the mines to end-users; not a task favoured by the environmentalists.

We are sick of the rhetoric, double-standards, and of the Government demonising trucks. We are keen to look at better ways of funding both road and rail, but if it is to truly be a level playing field, rail needs to pay their way. Large parts of the rail network are very old and will need billions of dollars in new investment and we think that should come from Government borrowing, rather than the NLTF. That’s of course, assuming the case for pouring those billions of tax payer dollars into rail stacks up economically.

Merry Christmas, and if you are still waiting for a package for under the tree, it will come to you via road.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

 

Not enough information for cannabis referendum vote

At next year’s general election, the New Zealand public will vote yes or no to a referendum question around legalising recreational cannabis use throughout the country.

That vote will focus on the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, a draft of which was released by Justice Minister Andrew Little on 3 December.

The road freight transport industry has serious misgivings about this draft Bill. It is woefully incomplete, dangerously naïve, too narrow in focus, and lacking in critical detail. It is too incomplete to vote on and people need the full picture before such a vote.

For safety sensitive industries such as road freight transport, we cannot see how this Bill will in any way correlate to the strict health and safety legislation in New Zealand. In fact, in the section (8) that outlines the “Relationship between Act and other enactments”, there is no mention of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, which holds employers and Boards strictly liable for the health and safety of their workers.

The road is the truck drivers’ workplace, so we care a lot about road safety. We cannot see how this Bill will in any way contribute to safer roads, which is allegedly of critical importance to this Government. We already have a situation where the number of people being killed by drug impaired drivers on New Zealand roads eclipses those killed by drivers above the alcohol limit.

Indeed, in releasing the Bill, Minister Little was quoted as saying that exploring the risks of drugged driving and workplace impairment would be pushed back until after the referendum vote.

That is not good enough. People should be given all the facts before they vote on this Bill.

International research shows that where cannabis is legalised, consumption is higher and new users enter the market. So potentially, we have more drugged drivers on the road.

Deloitte has done a number of reports on Canada, which has legalised the use of recreational cannabis nationwide. They make for interesting reading.

The Deloitte report, A society in transition, an industry ready to bloom, surveyed current and likely cannabis consumers across Canada in early 2018, to gain insights into how consumption levels might change, what kinds of products consumers would be interested in, and how and where they’d like to purchase. They found that purchases by current and likely frequent cannabis consumers were set to rise up to 22 percent after legalisation.

The report says: “We see a more significant change in behaviour among less frequent consumers, both current and likely. After legalization, purchase frequency in this group is poised to raise 121 percent”.

It is incredibly naïve to believe that where there are commercial imperatives, anyone involved in making money from cannabis sales will in any way be focused on reducing consumption.

Research in the United States shows an increase in road crashes in states that have legalised marijuana, compared to states where marijuana is not legal. There is a need for more research in this area, but it is important to note. This evidence is incongruous with the New Zealand Government’s Road to Zero road safety strategy.

We don’t believe the Government is giving the full picture of the direct and unintended consequences of the Bill. Some big impact questions for safety sensitive industries need to be answered, particularly around liability when WorkSafe fines for workplace accidents are now well into six figures.

There are too many unanswered questions and after the referendum, that this current Government would consider binding, is too late for those answers. That’s what they call closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Worker freedom and flexibility being eroded by law changes

The Government’s move to “one size fits all” with its employment and immigration law changes will restrict the freedom and flexibility truck drivers currently enjoy.

With an election year coming, the unions are flexing their muscles. Fresh from making new employees be employed under terms consistent with the collective agreement for their first 30 days, as per changes to the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2018, they are chasing Fair Pay Agreements, and Multiple Employer Collective Agreements (MECAs). There is no interest in the wider road freight transport sector for MECA agreements.

The Government continues to ignore businesses that are happily going about their business without the restrictive hands of the unions. The RTF has recently submitted on the Designing a Fair Pay Agreements System Discussion Paper and the Addressing Temporary Migrant Worker Exploitation: Consultation Document. It’s almost a fulltime job trying to keep up with all the changes this Government wants to make to restrict business.

We do not support the Fair Pay Agreements (FPAs) because they will distort the market and create a number of undesirable outcomes. Unionising the workforce will not alleviate a worker shortage, or improve conditions. Quite the opposite will occur; it will make the road freight industry less attractive to people who want flexibility, including women who are enjoying working in trucking because the can start work early and get home in time to manage the day and after-school activities for their children.

This is at a time when we are focused on increasing diversity in our industry and encouraging employers to provide the flexibility to encourage that.

We believe the proposals in this particular discussion document risk returning the road freight transport industry to pre-1991 bargaining conditions, which we do not support. We want to move forwards, not back 30 years.

The employment landscape has changed since the heyday of the unions back somewhere in history. FPAs will be expensive and slow for employers and consequently, employees, particularly for the small to medium sized companies that make up the bulk of the road freight transport industry.

We believe a voluntary approach is more balanced with today’s business environment. Government support for industries, such as ours, rather than the demonising we are seeing with statements such as “getting dangerous trucks off the road”, would be more useful in solving both the road freight industry’s worker shortages and getting people who are out of work into rewarding careers.

The anti-immigration stance of this Government is making it so difficult for employers to employ the seasonal visitor workforce, those workers are no longer even coming here.

Recent changes to immigration policy also conspire against improving conditions in the workplace. Making it almost impossible to hire migrant truck drivers to pick up some of the workload will only increase the workload for New Zealand drivers. There is enough work to go around, with the road freight task increasing. There seems to be no logic in play.

We accept there is opportunity in New Zealand for worker exploitation – that is for all workers, not specifically migrants. We believe the best approach to this is to ensure first, education about rights under the law. The second step is to ensure the investigative resource is available and suitably trained to carry out effective investigations across the whole supply chain.

In our industry, drivers want choices about how and when they work. Trucking varies tremendously between different companies, regions, freight types and vehicles used. National, or even regional awards, are not going to be flexible enough to allow for that variation, or to meet driver needs. With driver shortages, good drivers have flexibility and are well paid.

The next line of attack from the Government is going to be on independent contractors, that is, people who want to work for themselves. The impacts of that go right to the heart of our industry – many owner-drivers work on contract to larger companies. This issue is currently being debated by the trucking industry in California, where the industry is saying it will dramatically affect upwards of 70,000 drivers who will possibly elect to either leave the state, or the occupation entirely. Submissions close on 14 February 2020 on the Better protections for contractors: Discussion document for public feedback, which is another one for our pile.

You are left wondering when the Government will start listening to the experts in business who drive the economy.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Sustainability makes good business sense

Regardless of your views on climate change, having sustainable practices and goals is pretty much essential to a successful customer-facing business.

Customers are demanding good environmental measures through their supply chains and if you are in the business of trying to attract younger workers, they want to work for companies that take protecting the planet seriously.

Transport is responsible for about 18% of New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions each year, and the race is on to reduce that. While plenty of car brands are developing light vehicles to run on “clean and renewable” alternatives to fossil fuels, there has not been the same progress in truck manufacturing, because the fuel alternatives available present some challenges when upping the size scale.

So, it was exciting to attend the launch of New Zealand’s first long-haul, electric-vehicle road freighter this week. Auckland-based laundry business Alsco put the Hino truck on display at Eden Park, with Energy and Resources Minister Dr Megan Woods and Climate Change Minister James Shaw speaking at the event.

Alsco’s Group General Manager Mark Roberts had a great story to tell about the company’s sustainability journey and he spoke about taking the gamble to pioneer intercity electric vehicle freight movement. He said it wasn’t about waiting for the production to be perfect, but on starting today, to focus on three important business aspects – people, planet and prosperity. He outlined Alsco’s “big, bold, meaningful goals” for 2030, including reducing water use by one-third (remembering they are a laundry business); generating zero waste; reducing CO2, including by eliminating coal as an energy source; and converting one-third of the vehicle fleet to electric energy.

It’s important to take a sustainability view across the business and to get staff buy-in. Those companies running heavy vehicles that haven’t thought about sustainability should start, right now. There is quite a bit that can be done, including adopting the current best technology to manage environmental considerations with fuel efficiency and reduced emissions. This will have an immediate positive impact on the environment.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) runs a low emission vehicles contestable fund. This supports projects that encourage innovation and investment in electric and other low emissions vehicles in New Zealand. It offers up to $7 million a year to co-fund projects with private and public sector partners and Alsco sourced some of this funding to start electrifying its fleet.

Alsco’s EV truck will do the Rotorua/Tauranga and Rotorua/Taupo routes, travelling about 286km/day. Fully laden, it will be up to 22.5 tonnes in weight.

It is estimated to save at least 25,000 litres of diesel and 67,610 kilograms of CO2e per year. Roberts said there was in fact, a compelling argument that supported the higher investment for a heavy EV compared to a diesel equivalent, due to a swift payback on operational expense. He said operational savings would justify the higher capital expense by recouping the additional investment in less and six months, thereafter providing a consistent financial advantage over a similarly tasked diesel truck.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw said in his speech that “innovation is a function of constraints”. There is no doubt that the constraints on fossil fuel vehicles are tightening and for the wider heavy vehicle industry, Alsco’s journey will be one to watch.

You can find out more about Alsco’s EVs and sustainability plans here.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Port move makes no sense

Anyone who has been to Rotterdam in the Netherlands will know it is a port city that embraces both its rich history, and its future as Europe’s largest sea port. Real estate with a view of the port is prized. Government has always considered the enormous economic might of the port in making decisions about Rotterdam’s development.

It would be good to see the New Zealand Government holding such pride in, and support for, the port in our largest city of Auckland, which is a critical part of the country’s infrastructure. Instead, Ports of Auckland has become a political football.

In December, the Cabinet of the New Zealand Government will consider relocating to Northport, in Northland, the movement of goods currently carried out by Ports of Auckland. The economic advice behind that proposal has been called into question by two reviews from economic analysts, released by Ports of Auckland this week.

Castalia’s report says it will cost about $6.7 billion to move the freight activities of the port in Auckland to Northland. That is almost four times higher than EY’s predicted net cost of $1.8 billion that has been used to sell the idea of the move.

As representatives of freight movers, the RTF strongly urges the Government to take a good look at all the facts and figures before making a decision. If the aim is to boost Northland’s economy, does that really stack up against the impacts for Auckland and the rest of New Zealand?

It’s clear that making Northport the main port for Auckland will require massive investment in road and rail, and frankly, it makes little sense from either an economics or a logistics position. Why would you move goods destined for delivery in Auckland and further south away from the closest port, when the road and rail infrastructure required to then get those goods from that far away port back to Auckland and beyond does not even exist?

You can’t just one day close a major port and open another one that same day. There would need to be overlapping operations for years, with costs galore that would have to be passed on down the line to the end consumer. New Zealand’s location at the bottom of the earth already makes it expensive to import and export goods; we can’t really afford to add to that.

Rather bizarrely, those advocating to relocate the port operations are only talking about freight. They want to keep the economic benefits of having cruise ships and their many well-heeled passengers spending their cash in Auckland. The port has to remain in some capacity, which defies logic.

It smacks of a desire to kick out the blue-collar industries because inner-city businesses and residents don’t like the look of them. Reverse sensitivity seems to be a peculiarity of New Zealanders. People move to the inner city and then don’t like the noise, or bars, or trucks, or cars, or people. International city dwellers at least understand where more than a million people gather – and let’s remember Auckland is a very small city in global terms – there is noise and a changing landscape.

Castalia says the freight that currently flows out of Ports of Auckland would have to travel an extra distance to and from Northport of about 200km by rail and 150km by road. The additional freight task (approximately 400,000 twenty-foot container equivalent unit round trips between Auckland and Northport) will require additional transport infrastructure. On the possibly inaccurate assumption that 70 percent of the additional freight task was handled by rail, there would be more than 500 additional truck journeys per day travelling between Auckland and Northport for container traffic only, with more if the car import business uses the road network. This is just not feasible with the current road network between Auckland and Northport.

The freight task is increasing and the upper North Island is expected to account for most of New Zealand’s population and economic growth over the next 30 years. Ports of Auckland has a 30-year plan, which gives it the capacity to handle the expected freight increases.

On one hand you have an established business with a plan to match growth and on the other you have a pipe dream. The Government cannot sink billions of dollars into this without much better analysis than it currently has before it. New Zealand has to remember its place in the world and not price itself off the market on an act of sheer folly.

– Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

Evidence base means better buy-in for change

It’s good when government officials listen to industry. It means better policy and greater buy-in, if people feel they have some control over their own destiny.

It’s also good when policy, law, rules and regulations are shaped by robust evidence – it makes for credibility.

So, the Road Transport Forum (RTF) is working with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) as it looks at developing a replacement for the Operator Rating System (ORS) that has been used by Transport Service Licence (TSL) holders to understand how the regulator views their performance around compliance. ORS formally commenced in 2004 and many questions raised about its fairness have been raised over the years **.

RTF has been involved in workshops with NZTA to talk about how the system could work best for all.

We believe carrot works better than stick when it comes to applying road safety regulations to the road freight transport industry.

Trucking companies want to see their drivers return to base safely after every journey, without incident, and with no negative impacts on the safety of other road users. We want a safety system for commercial heavy vehicle operators that is based on most people doing the right thing, but has the capacity to work with those who fall below an acceptable safety standard.

New Zealand is highly regulated and road freight transport is bound by various laws (Acts of Parliament), regulation and rules. Businesses work best when regulation allows for innovation and productivity and doesn’t hinder individual freedom. The regulatory environment in New Zealand is expensive and that means costs for the end consumers that may not compare favourably with overseas competitors.

We want to see a transparent, risk-based regulatory approach, backed by evidence. The evidence shows us for example, only seven percent of accidents are as a result of faulty machinery, while 93 percent have other causes, including driver behaviour. We wouldn’t want to see an over-emphasis on compliance around machinery and gear when we know focusing more on human behaviour and driver distraction would yield us much greater improvements in reducing accidents and incidents on our roads.

The big opportunity in reviewing the ORS is to examine the data held by NZTA, to ensure the emphasis is on the right place. The industry must have confidence in the data and its interpretation and therefore, any subsequent actions taken by the regulator.

Another opportunity arising from this process could be a co-operative compliance model where an industry master code of practice is developed in line with an ORS replacement. This could be practice and process advice to guide operators in meeting standards and achieving best practice to improve safety outcomes. Independent assessment would be a vital component of such a structure, as would regulatory oversight, and any incentive offerings for operators going beyond compliance and being able to demonstrate an improvement in safety outcomes – both individually and industry-wide.

The road freight companies who are committed to safety for their staff and service for their customers could use best practice as a selling point for their business, as more customers seek assurance around the ethics of their business partners. We believe however a new system looks, regulator recognition of better practices through incentives should be key.

An ORS replacement is about the development of a shared lens between the road freight industry and the regulator. The aim of that lens is to improve safety and ensure that regulation is fair, reasonable and effective for all parties.

Where an operator doesn’t meet the standards, and subsequently compromises safety not only of their own staff, but of other road users, we support the regulator taking the appropriate action.

The goal is to end up with fewer accidents and incidents based on good operator performance, safer roads for everyone, and a regulatory environment that allows businesses to do what they do best.

We are committed to engaging in that process.

–  Nick Leggett, CEO, Road Transport Forum

** It’s important for operators to note, while the ORS has been suspended, NZTA continues to collect data on all TSL holders and is using its own internal assessment tools to judge compliance and take appropriate actions.