Land transport deregulation in AA Motor World

Motor World June/July 1983

Motor World June/July 1983

It's the June/July 1983 issue of the AA members' magazine, Motor World, and it's reporting on its cover page the deregulation of land transport, most specifically freight movement.  The Bill going through Parliament, during the final term of the Muldoon Administration, was to remove the distance limit on road freight competing with rail.  It would also remove the quantitative licensing system for road freight, intercity passenger coach services, rental cars and harbour ferries (based on applicants demonstrating sufficient demand for their business) to a qualitative based system, which would be based on meeting basic standards around experience, safety and financial capability.  The removal of the 150km limit was to occur gradually, with an exemption fee being able to be paid, until 1986 when there would be no need for such a licence at all.

The AA was concerned that it would result in the growth of larger, articulated trucks, on the state highways, making it more difficult and dangerous for car drivers to pass them.  Concern about how it would reduce the "pleasure and relaxation" of motoring was highlighted. Noting the effects of wind and noise, along with emissions.

It also claimed that the increase in truck traffic would require stronger pavements, road widening, more passing lanes, bridge strengthening and crawler lanes, and this should happen before deregulation.  The belief was that it was better to invest "now" rather than wait for future revenue from road user charges.  It called for heavy vehicle users to bear a higher proportion of the costs of maintaining the highway system.

The second report notes one canned food manufacturer estimated it would save $1.5m per annum (1983 dollars) if it could deliver from the factory to North Island markets by road.  However, the Road Transport Association (which represented the trucking industry) was highly wary of competition, no doubt because many of its members' business consisted of servicing railheads and providing short to medium delivery.  It said that rail should retain protection unless a road carrier could "prove" it could offer a better service.   

At the time it is worth noting the Ministry of Transport employed traffic officers who did both road safety enforcement and enforcement of transport licensing, so there was concern about how much effort traffic officers put into enforcing the 150km limit vs. enforcing safety rules. 

It was also noted that the Labour Opposition opposed the legislation and launched the "save rail" campaign, but ultimately did not overturn the reforms.  Indeed, it raised road user charges significantly during its first term in order to achieve better cost recovery of road maintenance expenditure from the trucking industry.

While not strictly about roads, this indicated a significant change in how New Zealand's roads were used, as well as heralding a dramatic change for the then New Zealand Railways Corporation, which would spend the subsequent years focusing on the parts of the domestic freight business it could be competitive in.