Congestion charging backed, but with tweaks

Monday, 12 May 2025

Mags Palmer who owns Mags fish and chip shop in Mt Maunganui is outraged at the thought of more costs for people, this time a congestion charge.

Councils want greater control over proposed congestion charging schemes, amid concern about the levy on peak-hour traffic being costly.

Parliament’s transport select committee on Monday heard submissions from mayors, think tanks, legal experts and privacy advocates about the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill, which will allow for congestion charging, or time of use charging, regimes to be set up.

Many submitters were in favour of congestion charging, though raised issue with Government control of potential schemes, cost of the system, the use of the revenue gathered, and the use of data obtained in its operation.

New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom, representing advocacy group Local Government New Zealand as its transport forum chair, said his organisation wanted less control from NZTA over the scheme and more local input.

Under the proposed law, a congestion charging scheme - most likely to be implemented in Auckland - would be run by a “scheme board” of six representatives of the local authority, and representatives of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

Congestion charging in Auckland is wanted by the council, and the Government is legislating to allow this.

However, a NZTA representative would be chairperson, the agency would have 50% of the voting rights, and the deciding vote in the event of a deadlock.

Holdom said the board should be split 65% local representatives and 35% from NZTA. The transport agency should also be required under law to keep the running cost of congestion charging systems at a minimum, so it did not extract revenue from it.

He said the legislation was also too vague about how collected revenue should be applied.

Using the likely example of Auckland, he said revenue should be applied to the specific location it was gathered - such as south of the Harbour Bridge.

New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom says his organisation wants less control from NZTA over the scheme and more local input. (File photo)

“So I'm not talking about individual roads or anything like that, because I think we've got to be admin light … People are driving too much cost into these systems, they’re overthinking things, and over managing risk. This is where you’ve got to trust Auckland Council as well to make good decisions.”

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown said more council input was needed in the congestion charging regime.

“If this is seen as a Wellington power grab it won't get across the line with Aucklanders.

“We also need to make sure this scheme doesn't become unmanageable or too easy to evade by giving too many exemptions to everyone that I'm sure will be turning up and asking you for.

“Unemployed people don't need to get to work at 8-9am on a weekday, and we all pay the same price for fuel.”

However, Auckland Transport executive programme director Mark Lambert, appearing alongside Brown, said the bill needed the flexibility to mitigate impacts on vulnerable user groups.

Automobile Association policy director Martin Glynn similarly said the association’s members were concerned about adverse impacts on people’s ability to access work, education, and healthcare.

The bill should allow for targeted measures to remedy significant adverse impacts, he said, as was commonplace in such systems overseas.

Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown says more council input is needed in the congestion charging regime.

“At a principal level, we don't support exemptions. We think everyone's contributing to the problem. But reality wise, they may be needed for some vulnerable groups.

“Generally the low income people live in peripheral suburbs and with their workplaces, be they factories or in suburban areas, are not well serviced by public transport.”

NZ Initiative senior fellow Nick Clark said congestion charging was “necessary and economically-sound” and the case for it was compelling.

“Policy experience from cities like London show that exemption creep undermines the effectiveness of congestion pricing schemes.”

Equity problems it caused were better remedied through “complementary measures like income support or a congestion dividend, rather than by compromising the pricing itself”.

Retail NZ advocacy manager Ann-Marie Johnson suggested retail customers may pay the levy twice over, as businesses paying the cost through deliveries would pass it onto their customers, who were already paying it to enter the city.

“We recognise there are certainly advantages in improving or in solving congestion, but there are also the wider costs to think about,” she said.

Auckland University Associate Professor Gehan Gunasekara said it was encouraging that privacy had been considered in the bill, but aspects such as the definition of personal information and the retention of data needed to be tightened.

'The public needs to have confidence that these congestion charging schemes are to be used for that purpose and that purpose only, and it's not going to be a back door for law enforcement and other people to keep a permanent record of where people go and how often they use the roads.“

Thomas Beagle, from the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, said the Swedes had banned the re-use of data from congestion schemes, which his council wanted to see in New Zealand.

“If you're not prepared to go as far as a total ban on access, at least, couldn't we stop this ridiculous system where everyone from transit authorities, to retailers, to banks, fall over themselves to give private and personal information to police upon request.

“Police should have to get a production order before the data is handed over.”