货运行业的重要性

我想先说一个显而易见的事实：我们非常清楚货运行业对新西兰成功的重要性。

货运让我们的国家持续运转。当你们的行业运行良好时，整个经济就运行良好；当它出现问题时，一切都会放缓。

当我们在海外超市看到印有银蕨标志的新西兰产品时，那种自豪感并不是偶然产生的。这背后依赖的是一个高效运转的货运体系，它将产品从农场运输到工厂，从工厂送到港口，最终走向全球货架。

无论是恒天然（Fonterra）的牛奶、银蕨农场（Silver Fern Farms）的肉类，还是佳沛（Zespri）的奇异果，这些出口产品都依赖顺畅的货运系统。没有它，经济会停滞；有了它，我们才能繁荣发展。

当我们说“我们在倾听行业声音”时，这是真话。

我们已经推出了一项清晰的货运行动计划，重点是提升生产力，让系统运行得更好。

这项计划的核心是把基础工作做好：确保货运网络清晰且优先明确，确保投资方向正确，并在出现问题时系统更可靠、更具韧性。

与此同时，我们已经恢复了国家货运需求调查（National Freight Demand Study），因为好的决策必须建立在可靠数据之上。

长期以来，我们在规划系统时缺乏一幅清晰、最新的图景——货物在全国如何流动、流向哪里，以及这些趋势如何变化。

恢复这项调查，将为我们提供必要的数据支持，使我们能够更好地规划、优先投资，并做出更明智的循证决策。

但恢复这项调查不仅是为了政府本身的利益，更是为了你们的利益。你们表示依赖这些数据，我们听到了。

---

货运咨询委员会

我们为持续获得可操作、基于现实的建议所采取的一个重要举措，是成立了货运咨询委员会（Freight Advisory Council）。

我在去年10月设立该委员会，是为了从实际操作系统的人那里获得务实建议。

我特别要感谢今天在场的委员会成员，以及作为关键成员的Transporting New Zealand，你们的投入非常宝贵。

在燃料危机期间，这一点尤为明显。

委员会在危机高峰期定期召开会议，为我们提供建议，并从现实角度检验我们的政策，帮助我们避免制定一些“纸面上可行、现实中不可行”的方案。

我了解到，该委员会目前正重新聚焦于中长期问题，例如系统数据质量、劳动力问题，以及潜在长期高油价对货运和供应链的影响。

我期待看到这些讨论的成果。

---

官僚负担（Red tape）

我想谈一个这个行业一直在反映的问题——过度的行政监管（red tape）。

这些问题往往不是重大新闻事件，而是大量细小、技术性的规则、许可和限制，它们每天都在拖慢你们的工作。

现实是，很多问题甚至不会进入部长的视野。

因为单个来看，它们不够大、不够紧急，通常又过于技术化，因此被搁置。

久而久之，它们被堆积到“难题篮子”里。

但当这些问题累积起来，就会降低生产力，提高企业成本，并最终拖累整个经济。

我对这些无意义的规则阻碍行业发展的情况已经感到厌烦。我承诺要把它们从“难题篮子”里拿出来处理。

我们的《陆路运输规则改革计划》是一个重要起点，用于打通改革流程，清理积压问题，让系统持续运转。

---

重型车辆生产力改革

我们已经取得了一些进展，今天我也宣布一系列新措施。

我正在推进一揽子重型车辆生产力改革。这些改革很务实，不花哨，但更重要的是，它们是永久性的。

其中部分措施已作为燃料应对计划的一部分加速推进，包括：

• 允许1类驾驶员驾驶稍重的零排放车辆
• 允许2类驾驶员驾驶更重的电动巴士
• 取消一些已不再合理的许可要求

这些属于燃料应对计划第一阶段，将有助于缓解当前压力。

与此同时，我也已经就其他永久性规则改革作出最终决定，包括：

• 取消“H牌”以降低合规成本并减少执法混乱
• 消除规则不一致性，使制度更简单易懂
• 取消“加速驾驶许可程序”
• 将拖拉机及特殊车辆限速统一为40公里/小时
• 引入三种新的超限运输引导车辆标识

这些改革预计将在年底前生效。

实际效果就是：更少文书工作、更大灵活性、更少不必要的限制。

让规则跟上现代车辆的发展，并减少现实中的运行障碍。

---

燃料危机应对

在燃料问题背景下，我们也认真评估了一系列临时监管调整方案。

我们分析了包括载重调整、超限运输、以及其他重型车辆政策在内的选项。

但大多数方案在短期内并不成立。

原因不是我们反对改革，而是数据和分析显示这些措施效果有限或实施周期太长。

例如载重限制调整：

模型显示，在最佳情况下，6个月内最多可节省约1600万升柴油。

但这只相当于当前约1.5天的全国柴油使用量。

与此同时，其带来的基础设施损耗成本约为1.5亿纽元。

在权衡之下，成本明显超过收益。

因此我们决定暂时保留该选项，仅在情况恶化时使用。

如果进入燃料应对第四阶段，我们已准备好有针对性的载重调整措施。

---

燃料应对未来阶段

在第二阶段，我们已准备好一系列临时措施，包括：

• 放宽超限车辆路线限制，使其可使用奥克兰主要高速公路
• 缩短运输距离，提高效率

我们已与NZTA及奥克兰交通局完成前期准备，确保措施可执行。

这为政府在需要时迅速行动提供了路径，但仍保持与问题规模相匹配的比例原则。

---

长期改革方向（VDAM）

从更长远来看，我们也在推进车辆尺寸与质量规则（VDAM）改革。

但政府立场非常明确：我们不打算补贴货运行业。

任何改革必须考虑基础设施影响，并通过制度合理分担成本。

这一原则在长期是可行的，但在短期燃料危机中并不现实。

关键有两点：

第一是基础设施规划
NZTA和地方道路管理机构可以将车辆变化纳入长期投资与维护计划。

第二是行业适应时间
企业可以逐步调整车辆结构、轴距配置以及采用新技术（包括零排放车辆），以提升效率并降低基础设施压力。

---

港口与供应链未来

最后，我希望政府更多思考港口与供应链之间的关系。

港口是整个系统的重要组成部分，我们需要确保相关政策设置是合理的。

我也期待交通与基础设施特别委员会关于港口及海事领域的调查报告。

MCERT（部长级委员会）将协助政府回应该报告，我本人也认为港口领域存在进一步改革的空间。

---

结语

感谢大家给予我今天发言的机会。

你们在陆路运输体系中扮演着至关重要的角色，我希望我们继续携手合作，实现共同目标。

祝愿大家在本次会议期间交流顺利，收获丰富的人脉与经验。

Importance of the freight sector

I want to begin by stating the obvious: we understand how critical the freight sector is to New Zealand’s success.

Freight is what keeps our country moving. When your sector is working well, the rest of the economy works well. When it’s not, everything slows down.

The pride we feel when picking up a product in an overseas supermarket and seeing the silver fern on the front doesn’t happen by chance. It’s made possible by a freight sector that moves our products efficiently from farm gate to factory and from factory to port – and ultimately to shelves around the globe.

Whether it’s milk from Fonterra, meat from Silver Fern Farms, or kiwifruit from Zespri, these exports rely on a freight system that works. Without it, our economy stalls. With it, we thrive.

When we say we’re listening to the sector, we mean it.

We’ve launched a clear action plan relating to freight, focused on lifting productivity and making the system work better.

That plan is about getting the fundamentals right. Making sure our freight networks are clear and prioritised, that we’re investing in the right places, and that the system is more reliable and resilient when things go wrong.

Alongside that, we’ve reinstated the National Freight Demand study because good decisions rely on good data.

For too long, we’ve been trying to plan the system without a clear, up-to-date picture of what’s actually moving around the country, where it’s going, and how that’s changing over time.

Bringing that study back gives us the information we need to plan properly, prioritise investment, and make smarter, evidence-based decisions.

But reinstating the study wasn’t really about the benefits to us – it was about the benefits to you. You told us that you rely on the data, and we listened.

Freight Advisory Council

One of the most useful steps we’ve taken to continue to get workable and informed advice has been establishing the Freight Advisory Council.

I set that up last October because I wanted practical advice from people who actually operate in the system.

I particularly want to acknowledge the Council today, and Transporting New Zealand as a key member, because that input has been invaluable.

You’ve seen this most clearly during the fuel response.

The Council met regularly during the peak of the crisis, advising us and stress testing our positions against real-world impacts, and helping us avoid getting caught up in solutions that might look good on paper but don’t actually work on the ground.

I understand the Council is turning its attention back to medium-to-longer term issues such as quality system data and the workforce, as well as assessing the impact of potentially structurally higher fuel prices on the freight and supply chains.

I look forward to seeing the products of these discussions.

Red tape

I want to address something I hear consistently from this sector – the sheer amount of red tape you’re dealing with.

Not big, headline-grabbing issues, but the accumulation of small, technical rules, permits and restrictions that slow you down every day.

The reality is a lot of these issues never make it anywhere near a Minister’s desk.

Individually, they don’t look big enough. They don’t look urgent enough. They’re often highly technical. So they get parked, pushed aside.

More often than not, they end up in the too-hard basket.

But when you add all of these issues up, they drive down productivity, add costs to your businesses and ultimately, a drag on the economy as a whole.

Well, I am fed up with these meaningless rules holding you up. I am committed to taking them out of the too hard basket.

Our Land Transport Rules Reform Programme is an important first step on unclogging the system – creating a pipeline of reform that clears the backlog and keeps the system moving.

Heavy vehicle productivity rule changes

We have already made good progress, some of which I want to announce today.

I am making a set of heavy vehicle productivity changes. They’re practical, not flashy – but importantly, they’re permanent.

Some of these have been accelerated as part of the Government’s Fuel Response Plan. That includes allowing Class 1 drivers to operate slightly heavier zero-emission vehicles, enabling Class 2 drivers to operate heavier electric buses, and removing permit requirements that frankly no longer make sense given the modern fleet.

These changes sit within Phase One of our national fuel response plan and will help ease some of the immediate pressure from the current situation.

These accelerated changes were consulted on as part of a broader package of heavy vehicle productivity proposals.

Alongside the above changes, I am also pleased to announce that I have made final policy decisions on a number of other further permanent rule changes, including:

Removing H plates to reduce compliance costs and enforcement confusion
Removing inconsistencies in the rules to make them simpler and easier to comply with
Removing the Accelerated Licensing Process, and
Standardising speed limits for tractors and special-type vehicles to 40kmh.
Introducing three new load pilot vehicle signs to better inform motorists

These changes are expected to come into effect before the end of the year.

What that means in practice is less paperwork, more flexibility, and fewer unnecessary barriers getting in the way of doing your job.

It’s about making sure the rules keep up with the vehicles we now have on our roads — and cutting red tape where it’s causing real-world problems.

Now, we know this isn’t a complete solution. But it is a meaningful first step – and there is more coming as the work continues.

Fuel crisis

In the context of the fuel situation, we’ve also taken a very close look at a wider range of potential temporary regulatory changes.

We worked through a full set of options, including payload changes, overdimension travel, and a number of broader heavy vehicle proposals.

Most of these options didn’t make sense as a short-term response.

Not because we’re opposed to change, but because the analysis simply didn’t stack up. Some options would have delivered only marginal benefits or only applied to a small portion of the fleet.

Others would have taken too long to implement to make a meaningful difference in the short term.

And in some cases, the trade-offs were stark.

Take mass limits, for example. Officials modelled potential diesel savings of up to 16 million litres over six months in a best-case scenario. This is equivalent to about 1.5 days’ diesel use at current levels.

But achieving that would have come at a cost of around $150 million in additional infrastructure damage over the same period.

When it came down to it, the costs outweighed the benefits.

That’s why we made the call to keep this change in reserve and only do it if the situation worsens.

If we move into Phase Four of the Fuel Response Plan, we are ready to go with targeted payload changes. This is because at Phase Four the cost of diesel is likely to be materially higher, the need to conserve supply is more acute, and overall freight task and road damage would be correspondingly lower – meaning the benefit-cost balance is likely to look quite different.

Looking ahead to Phase Two, we’ve got a set of targeted, temporary changes ready to go if needed.

That includes lifting route restrictions on overdimension vehicles so they can use key Auckland motorways — cutting down travel distances and improving efficiency.

And we’ve done the groundwork with NZTA and Auckland Transport to make sure those changes stack up.

That gives us a pathway to act if we need to but in a way that is proportionate to the scale of the challenge.

Looking further ahead, there is more we can do to lift productivity, particularly through changes to the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass Rule.

But I want to be very clear about the Government’s position: we are not in the business of subsidising the freight sector. Any changes we make will need to ensure the effects on infrastructure are properly accounted for and managed through the system.

That position – that any changes need to reflect the user-pays principle – is workable in the longer term in a way it isn’t in the middle of a short-term fuel response. And that comes down to two key things.

First, infrastructure.

When changes to vehicle weights and dimensions are planned for, their effect on the network can be managed. NZTA and local road authorities can build those changes into their asset management planning, their maintenance programmes, and their long-term investment decisions.

That means roads, pavements and bridges can be designed, maintained and renewed to accommodate more productive vehicles rather than the Crown being left with an unplanned bill from accelerated wear.

Second, industry has time to adapt.

Short-term changes would focus on the existing fleet, putting more weight on their axles, which concentrates the impact on the network.

Over the longer term, operators can invest in things like different axle configurations that spread loads more effectively, and adopt newer vehicle technologies — including zero-emission vehicles — that improve productivity without the same level of infrastructure impact.

VDAM change, done properly, is about enabling a smarter, more efficient system over time.

And that’s exactly how we’re approaching the next phase of work.

We’re building it on real-world evidence and robust research, so that any changes we bring forward will lift productivity, deliver meaningful benefits for operators, and properly account for the impacts on the network, including how those costs are paid for.

And that work is already underway.

The fuel response work has given the longer-term VDAM programme a running start. To develop the regulatory relief options at pace, NZTA brought forward an initial assessment of state highway bridges, and commissioned Road Controlling Authorities to do the same on the local network.

That evidence – alongside the sector input and the policy analysis and modelling done at pace – now feeds directly into the next phases of heavy vehicle productivity reform.

Because if we’re going to do this, we want to do it properly and make sure it is grounded in engineering reality, not assumptions.

That’s what gives us confidence that the next phase of VDAM reform will be both ambitious and workable.

Potential for future reform

Finally, as Minister I also want the Government to turn its mind more to how our ports interconnect with freight and supply chains.

Ports are a critical component of the system and it is important to check that the settings are right. I hear a lot of commentary from freight stakeholders about ports.

I look forward to receiving the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee report on its inquiry into ports and the maritime sector.

MCERT will help the Government develop its response to that report, and I am keen for it to think about how ports fit into the system, as I do see the potential for reform there.

Conclusion

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you about the Government’s transport programme.

You play a vital role in the land transport system, and I want us to keep working together to achieve our shared goals.

I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference and make the most of the connections you build while you’re here.