Adam Johnston Presents RUC on Rails’ Oral Submission to Parliament 2026

Today, RUC on Rails co-founder and CEO Adam Johnston appeared before Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee to present our oral submission on the Land Transport Revenue Amendment Bill.

The oral presentation expanded on our written submission and focused on one central issue: the Bill defines who may be considered a RUC provider, but does not clearly identify which participants in the wider delivery chain are excluded.

We support the Bill and its overall direction. New RUC providers should be approved, accountable, and subject to strong regulatory oversight. However, that responsibility should remain with the organisations that issue RUC licences and collect and forward revenue to NZTA.

Retailers, payment facilitators, software platforms, and intermediaries should not automatically become RUC providers simply because they help customers complete a transaction.

“We are not an incumbent provider. We are a new entrant attempting to participate in this market for the first time,” Johnston told the Committee.

“That distinction matters because incumbents and new entrants experience regulatory ambiguity very differently.”

Keeping the future RUC market accessible

During the presentation, Johnston used the example of a customer purchasing RUC through a local dairy.

Under this model, an approved RUC provider would issue the licence, manage the regulated transaction, and remain accountable to NZTA. The dairy would provide a convenient in-person payment and access point.

If processing the payment or facilitating the purchase were enough to make the dairy a RUC provider, the retailer would need to meet the same certification and compliance obligations as the organisation operating the underlying RUC system.

In practice, that would mean the dairy simply would not offer the service.

The same problem could extend to supermarkets, service stations, rural retailers, payment networks, and other businesses that could otherwise help make RUC more accessible.

“RUC needs to be accessible to everyone, not just fleets and not just digitally confident users,” Johnston said.

“If access relies only on a small number of vertically integrated or digital channels, we will unintentionally exclude people and increase non-compliance, particularly in rural and older communities.”

Avoiding an oligopoly by definition

The presentation also warned that unclear provider boundaries could unintentionally restrict the market to a small number of large organisations capable of managing the entire RUC supply chain themselves.

This would make entry significantly harder for smaller New Zealand technology companies and discourage retailers and service businesses from participating.

“Only organisations that can compete entirely end to end remain viable,” Johnston told the Committee.

“In practice, that is two to four incumbent providers with large vertically integrated supply chains. This will not be a competitive market. It is an oligopoly created by definition, not intent.”

RUC on Rails asked the Committee to clarify that RUC provider status applies to organisations that:

1. Issue RUC licences.

2. Collect and forward RUC revenue to NZTA.

Organisations that do not perform those core functions should be explicitly excluded from being treated as RUC providers merely because they facilitate access, process payments, or support a transaction.

The full video of Adam Johnston’s oral submission can be found here:

RUC on Rails Select Committee Submission Adam Johnston - 02-02-2026 - Recording.