Land Transport Management Bill

I move, That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the excellent work they have done on the bill. The committee listened very carefully to the many considered submissions it received, and the bill has been improved as a result. I would like to offer a special word of thanks to Helen Duncan who chaired the select committee for the most part, but had to step aside towards the end of the committee’s considerations for health reasons. Thanks also to the Hon Roger Sowry, who stepped in at short notice to complete the process.

The bill broadens the focus of land transport funding, encourages more long-term planning, and allows for greater funding flexibility. The bill also represents a further example of the ongoing collaboration between the Labour-Progressive Government and the Green Party on transport issues signalled in the cooperation agreement signed after the last election. I would also like to acknowledge the input of the United Future party, particularly around issues to do with alternative funding transport mechanisms.

The bill reflects a multimodal approach. It is an important step in implementing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. I was heartened by the support that the principles underpinning the bill received from submitters. However, many submitters sought changes to improve the implementation of the bill. Some thought that the decision-making framework set in the bill was too complex, while others were concerned about consultation. Many submitters also called for more funding tools to be made available, in addition to the bill’s tolling and public-private partnerships, and others argued that these provisions were too restrictive. The select committee has addressed these issues.

The bill integrates the New Zealand Transport Strategy into land transport funding and management decision-making processes. The bill’s purpose reflects the New Zealand Transport Strategy’s vision, as do the objectives of Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. The strategy’s objectives are used as important criteria for decision makers to take into account. Decision makers need to make decisions after carefully considering and balancing each of the strategy’s objectives. The committee has worked hard to ensure that the decision-making criteria throughout the bill have been made as consistent as possible, whether as Transfund approving funding for a busway or the Minister making a decision on a tolling scheme. Overlaps and duplications have been addressed.

Some submitters argued strongly that efficiencies should be included in the bill as an explicit decision-making criterion. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has recommended that this be done. In my view, efficiency is implicit in the concept of sustainability, which is ingrained in the bill’s purpose and elsewhere. None the less, I believe there is value in stating this explicitly. The committee has recommended that it become one of Transfund’s criteria for approved funding, and this is a good proposal. This is a critical decision-making point of the bill. Transfund, of course, is responsible for allocating some $1.2 billion of land transport funding.

The committee has also recommended explicitly linking the key documents in the bill with the bill’s purpose. These documents include land transport programmes prepared by Transit and local government, the Annual National Land Transport Programme, prepared by Transfund, and Regional Land Transport Strategies prepared by regional councils. This approach strengthens the relationship between these documents to the bill’s strategic framework. Land transport programmes and the national land transport programme are also combined with 10-year financial forecasts. This ensures that programmes have a long-term view.

The committee also recommended that the strategic nature of regional land transport strategies be emphasised by requiring that strategies identify the transport outcomes sought by the regions and the strategic options for obtaining these outcomes. To underpin these changes the membership of the committees that prepare these strategies also needs to be changed. Regional land transport committees will now need to consist of interests that reflect the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy, as well as representatives of local government, Transfund, and the Land Transport Safety Authority. The regional land transport committees must also take into account the views of network providers like Transit.

Regional land transport strategies will also need to contain a traffic demand management strategy. Traffic demand management is becoming an increasingly important way of dealing with the pressure on our roading infrastructure. It is simply not possible to build our way out of congestion. Traffic demand management measures can range from better integration of traffic management systems to travel blending, which incorporates the use of more than one mode of travel within a single journey. Other examples include walking school buses, teleworking, and special public transport services for major events.

The bill also allows regional councils to own public transport infrastructure and services. The committee has suggested deleting the complicated approval process set out in the bill, and instead utilising the provisions of the Local Government Act. This is a very good proposal, and I support it.

A number of submissions raised concerns about a new power for the Minister to give instructions in relation to funding priorities. This was set out in clause 14 of the bill as introduced. The committee has recommended that this power be deleted and, instead, that we rely on the Minister’s powers to issue general directions on Government policy as set out in schedule 1. The power to use directions was carried over from the existing Act. Such directions must be published in the Gazette and presented to the House. The Minister cannot give directions on individual projects.

There were concerns expressed that the bill’s consultation requirements were far too onerous. The bill as introduced provided for consultation on land transport programmes, 10-year financial forecasts, and tolling and concession agreements. It should be remembered that the existing Transit New Zealand Act provides for consultation on land transport programmes with many groups. The recommendation to combine programmes with 10-year financial forecasts means that a whole layer of consultation has been removed by the committee. There was also some inconsistency between the lists of groups that should be consulted, and the committee has recommended changes to address this issue—another good change.

The committee has also recommended a closer link between the new Local Government Act and the Land Transport Management Bill. Local authorities, which are responsible for 80 percent of the land transport system, must consult under the provisions of the Act. The principles and processes under the Act have been brought into the bill to give greater clarity about who should be consulted and how they should be consulted. In addition, it has been made clear that local government does not need to consult under the provisions of the bill if it has already consulted on its long-term council community plan. This was something that local authorities called for in their submissions. Further, the tolling and concession agreement provisions provide that consultation is not required if there has already been consultation under the bill, or any other enactment on the proposal to toll or enter into a concession agreement.

As far as tolling and concession agreements are concerned, the bill as introduced puts into place a generic framework for approving tolling schemes and concession agreements. Tolling schemes require approval by Order in Council, while concession agreements require ministerial approval. At present, toll arrangements require special legislation. Many submitters supported the Government’s move to make these tools available as an alternative way of funding roading projects. While some argued for strong conditions for such schemes, many felt that the provisions were too restrictive. When dealing with roads, which are so critical to communities, a balance needs to be found between the need for public control and private sector investment.

A major issue that concerned many in local government and the private sector was the requirement for approval at a very late stage in the process. There was concern that this would discourage investment because there would be an unwillingness to invest in developing projects if there was no certainty that approval would come. The committee has arrived at a very good pragmatic solution. Early conditional approval can now be given after the Minister has considered core criteria, such as whether the project would contribute to the purpose of the bill, and the outcome of any public consultation. Conditional approval can then be issued. This means approval can come before tenders are issued, and the successful tenderers can know with certainty what preconditions they need to meet before beginning tolling or entering into a concession agreement.

The committee has also ensured that the decision-making criteria for tolling and concession agreements are as consistent as possible. There are, however, some unique features of such arrangements that need to be considered. The bill as introduced made it clear that tolling could be used only for new roads. Existing roads could be included only if there was an engineering reason for them to be included. Many submitters argued that tolling should be possible on existing roads, and some went so far as to say that widespread tolling should be allowed, such as the congestion pricing in London. The committee, quite sensibly, concluded that allowing such schemes would go well beyond the policy of the bill. The Government has some sympathy with the argument that more funding tools should be made available. To this end, the Government is working with the Auckland region to investigate such approaches and would look to include any new mechanism in future legislation, if required. The committee has, none the less, recommended that there should be some additional flexibility to include existing roads where the existing road is physically or operationally integral to the new road. The toll revenue, though, must be used for the new road. The committee has also made it clear that emergency vehicles should be exempted from tolls.

As far as concession agreements are concerned, there was concern that the bill was too inflexible in how it treated risk. For example, the public sector was precluded from compensating the private sector if traffic forecasts were not met. Such issues are normally matters for commercial negotiation and have been removed. However, a broader provision has been included that will not deter future options of sustainable transport solutions. The committee has recommended that leasing be allowed for concession agreements. The bill as introduced allowed only licence agreements. Leasing is a more familiar instrument for investors, so this change will give them greater certainty. The successful Melbourne City link project uses leasing.

Some submitters argued that the proposed term of 35 years should be extended. The committee was satisfied that a term of this length was suitable for most purposes. It has, however, recommended that the term can be extended for 10 years if there are exceptional circumstances two-thirds of the way through the concession agreement’s term.

In summary, the select committee has made some very, very good changes to the bill, and I recommend to the House that it now be read a second time.

This is a bill of lost opportunities, but I will come to that in a moment. I want to start by wishing Helen Duncan, the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, all the best. I know she would want to be here today to speak on the bill. The submissions heard on the bill agreed almost unanimously with the principles in the legislation. However, they almost unanimously disagreed with the detail. Submitter after submitter said that they supported the bill in principle but that its detail meant it would not work.

It became apparent during the select committee process that we could make this bill work. I wrote to the Minister and offered the National Opposition’s support in working with the Government to deliver legislation to the House that would enable Auckland’s roading issues to be dealt with, public-private partnerships to grow, and roading issues in other parts of the country to be dealt with by a combination of road tolls, public-private partnerships, congestion charging, and allowing Transit to borrow. The Minister and the Government chose to ignore that letter. They did not respond to it, at all. Instead, they chose to ditch the United Future party—transport was one of the major issues for that party when it came to the House—and cuddle up with the Greens to deliver back to the House a Labour-Green bill that every group that came to the committee has since said will not work. The Automobile Association said the bill would not deliver. Business New Zealand made the same sorts of comments—namely, that the bill fails to solve the problems. The Auckland chamber of commerce said the bill is a wasted opportunity by the Government. The Road Transport Forum worried that the bill would not deliver on the Government’s roading objectives, at all. The Employers and Manufacturers Association in Auckland was damning in its criticism of the bill.

Every group lined up and said that the bill would not work, including the Minister. The Minister said in the House today that it became apparent that we want to give Auckland a whole range of new options to be able to develop its roading network, but it is not in the bill. That is why a joint action group was set up to work in parallel with the legislation and report early next year. If we are to believe the Minister, the Government, which just a few weeks ago voted against National Opposition amendments to allow for widespread congestion pricing, and no doubt will vote against them in the House in a few weeks’ time—the Minister nods that it will—will come back in March, full of spring in the new year, and vote for them. It will decide that the joint action group will deliver what this bill cannot deliver.

I tell people in Auckland that this legislation is a lost opportunity. The Government is stringing them along. Aucklanders need to know that this Government is engaged in a cynical exercise of stringing them along and trying to make them believe that the same Ministers and the same Labour Party members who will vote against solutions in this House over the next few weeks will miraculously change their minds and vote for those amendments in March. We do not believe that. More important, as I travelled around Auckland, I noted that the vast majority of groups in Auckland did not believe it, either. This bill has been years in the pipeline. The Minister’s predecessor, the Hon Mark Gosche, promised it 4 years ago. He promised it would solve Auckland’s problems, but it does nothing of the sort.

I shall talk about some areas where the bill lets Auckland and New Zealand down. It will not deliver Transmission Gully for Wellingtonians. No one believes it will. In fact, the other weekend Darren Hughes told people to stop whingeing. He told Wellingtonians to stop whingeing about Transmission Gully, that there was not the money to do it, and that the money was going to Auckland. The people on the Kapiti Coast are still struggling with that. The bill will not deliver Transmission Gully. It will not deliver any public-private partnership, other than the Tauranga Harbour Bridge. We have gone through so much and have listened to so many submissions for nothing. The groups that looked at the bill when it was introduced said it would not work. They went to Mr Swain who told them to make strong, robust submissions and the Government would change the bill. The groups made strong, robust submissions and the Government did not change it. Mr Swain decided to cuddle up with the Greens rather than change the bill.

I am worried about some other parts of the bill. The international financiers who came before the committee said that 35 years would not work, and when we talked with them after their submission they said that 35 years, plus 10, would not work. Why will the Government not listen to them? Why will the Government not listen to the people who are financing projects around the world? When they say this will not work, what does the Government not understand about that?

I am worried about a bill that defines land transport as coastal shipping, so that land transport money can be diverted into coastal shipping subsidisation. The foreign flag bearer that comes to New Zealand from the Panama Canal and picks up some freight and carts it around New Zealand on its way back to South America will be subsidised by the New Zealand taxpayers from their road transport fund. They do not think their petrol money is subsidising foreign-owned shipping companies. Why have Labour and the Greens insisted on that being in this bill? Why have Labour and the Greens consistently voted against a cap being included in the bill to stop the raiding of petrol money, so that a maximum of only 10 percent can go into public transport? Labour and the Greens have consistently voted against that. They want an unlimited amount of road transport money available for things such as public transport. Road users will be appalled when they find out that that is what will be happening to their money.

This bill has been a lot of effort to get a second bridge in Tauranga. That is the total upshot of this bill. I say to the House today that the National Party will be moving a series of amendments through the Committee stage—the sorts of amendments that the Minister is whispering around Auckland he will support next year. We will test the Government and the Auckland Labour members to see whether they are prepared to vote for the solutions—solutions that the Mayor of Auckland tells us Labour members are pretty keen on in private. We will see whether they are pretty keen on them in public. We will see whether they are prepared to vote for them in public. I do not think they will. I think that Labour Party members are saying one thing in Auckland and a different thing in Parliament. The Auckland Labour members will be tested on that over the next few weeks. I think that will become a test for this Labour Government.

The lack of transport infrastructure is hindering economic growth in this country—nowhere more so than in Auckland. The Government had an opportunity to go with any political party other than the Greens. National, New Zealand First, ACT, and United Future are at one on fixing that problem. Labour and the Greens are committed, not to solving the problem but to making it worse.

I congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which I now chair, on the work it has done on this bill. Like the two previous speakers, I would like to acknowledge the work of Helen Duncan. I hope she is listening today to the outcome of the work that the committee has done.

It is interesting to be able to follow a National Party speaker on a Land Transport Management Bill. Most of the National members are not old enough to remember National’s last attempts when it was in power, but I have not forgotten. When I became the Minister of Transport I found a dusty room, full of rubbish called “Better Transport, Better Roads”. That document was vilified by everybody in this country, and there is only one brave soul on the Opposition side of the House who is still promoting it. He has been suspended from the National Party, but he was still brave enough to get out there this year and tell Auckland people, at a meeting I went to on the North Shore, that that is the real answer. The National Party people who turned up to that meeting did not have a prayer; they did not have anything to say about transport to those interested local body people. Why? Because, as with everything else, the National Party does not yet have a policy on transport. National members say we should give them some time. They have been working on it for 15 years, and they still have not come up with any answers—not a sausage. We can see that, up and down the country, after 9 long years of that party and a few of its cohorts being in power. There was a transport deficit in this country that people are still seeing and still bemoaning.

This Government, in 4 years, already has a proud history and track record of overcoming many of those transport problems. What were they? Mr Key, who will speak for the National Party, will ask why we do not have efficiency right at the front of this bill. That will be in his speech. I offered some advice to Mr Key at the select committee. I said he should go to Northland and to the East Cape. This is where Governments told people to plant trees, in order to become rich. Those people were told the trees would grow to maturity in about 20-odd years, would then be cut down and taken away, and the people would make a fortune. Well, the theory was correct. The problem was that the previous National Government neglected to build any roads on which to transport the logs that were cut down in Northland and on the East Coast. Why? Because efficiency ruled National’s so-called transport policy. The only way to get a road built in the Northland and East Cape areas would have been if enough people had died on those roads. That was how that Government decided on the funding of roads—enough deaths on a road equalled a new road.

If we went to Auckland, where I live, we could not travel very fast because the roads had become more and more clogged, with 5 percent more traffic going on them every year. What was National’s solution? Nobody had died. People could not move because of the congestion, so they were safe, and that Government said it was sorry, but it was not going to build a single project in Auckland in 9 years—and it did not, except for a road for Murray McCully called the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT), to enable him to get to his Northland bach. That is why National built that road; it was pure pork-barrel politics. The previous National Government built that motorway to get people out of Auckland, but forgot to join it to anything so that they could get to it. People had to spend an hour moving through Auckland’s snail-like traffic to get up to the brand new motorway built to enable Murray McCully to get to his holiday home in the north. Efficiency will be what the National Party says is missing from the purpose of this bill. I invite Mr Key to get out there, do his job, and head a little bit north, where he will see what efficiency did to sensible decision-making. It was overwhelmed by the madness of the cost-benefit ratio system, which made no sense to anybody in this country except for the National Party politicians, who were too lazy to get on and design anything different.

When I became the Minister of Transport, I went around the country and listened to people. A Minister of Transport who listened! That was a new thing for local government and transport interests. They had not had one who did that for so long, with Mr Williamson and Mrs Shipley, that it was a very rare event to have somebody who was prepared to listen. Out of that listening came the policy that has been put into this bill by the current Minister and is now before the House. It will deal with a great many of the problems that transport faces and that New Zealanders face throughout this country.

Again, National rubbishes the fact that some money will be spent on public transport. When National was in power, public transport funding was frozen for 5 years, at a particular point in time. Why? Because the National Party’s position was: “Public transport is going to be a small difference and the projects that are on the books are very expensive.” Since we became the Government, public transport funding in this country has doubled. We now have about 25 percent growth in the use of public transport. That is people on a bus, on a train, or on a ferry—not in a car, clogging up a motorway. Opposition members say it is terrible that we are spending money on something other than a road. Well, they would have people clogging up the motorways and moving nowhere, rather than have the very valuable transport corridors in Wellington and Auckland used to take significant numbers of people and put them in trains instead. It is far friendlier to the environment, and much better for the business traffic that is trying to get around those cities, if more people use public transport.

According to the National Party, it is a crime to use the money to fund public transport and ease congestion. Where else in the world is that approach taken? Absolutely nowhere but in New Zealand, under the National Party’s policy. Members should talk to the private sector operators who are running public transport. Stagecoach, one of the big bus companies that operates internationally, cannot believe the growth it is achieving in Auckland, because it is so much better than anywhere else in the world. The company’s chairman regularly comes down here and is just open-mouthed at the results his company is getting, in terms of carrying more people. More New Zealanders are using public transport. What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing! The most common-sense approach to a roading system that is clogged is to get more people off it and using an alternative. That is far more efficient than to have everybody sit in cars all on their own, clogging up a motorway and polluting the environment. We have to offer choice, and that is what this bill is about.

This bill is about looking for the sensible choices, and the sensible choices are, in many cases, roads. That is why in Auckland right now, there is motorway building like we have not been seen in Auckland for 15 years. The major choke point of the Auckland motorway system, the “Spaghetti Junction” area, is actually having work done on it. It had been left absolutely devoid of any plans—no money; nothing—by the previous National Government. National just said it was too hard to fix that choke point, so it would go and build another road somewhere in the rest of the country, because somebody had had a terrible accident on it. It was too hard for National to figure out how to solve that curly problem in the middle of Auckland.

The people down on the Auckland waterfront said to me that they need a motorway to go down to the port. At the moment it stops about 3 kilometres short of it. That motorway junction is well under way; Mr Swain opened a major piece of it not so long ago. Trying to go to Auckland airport via the Puhinui way, through Papatoetoe, was a big problem. What is there now is a very new and very, very efficient interchange, which was badly needed. The plans for Auckland are many. Opposition members ask: “What about the rest of the country?”. Bill English said that if Aucklanders want more roading projects in Auckland, then they should pay for them. He did not say that 5 years ago; he said that last February. So the message from Mr Sowry rings very loudly in Aucklanders’ ears, compared with his leader’s snub to Auckland ratepayers and taxpayers.

I see that on the weekend a wonderful road between Tauranga and Rotorua, cutting 30 minutes from the travel time, has just been opened. The local mayors applauded that as a wonderful project. So I say to Mr Brown that this Government is looking after that part of the country. This Government has also listened to the people of the Waikato, who said the cart track we have, called State Highway 1, between Auckland and Waikato is no good. The previous National Government left it for so much time, while so many people died on it, that it looked more like a cemetery than a State highway. Now I drive from Auckland to Waikato and hear all the grizzles about the roadworks that go on for kilometre after kilometre.

This is a good bill. It is practical, and it backs up the Government’s actions with a law that will take us into the future. I congratulate the Minister and the select committee on their fine work. This is a forward-looking bill, and is balanced in its outlook. It takes common-sense solutions, and it will be good for all New Zealanders long into the future. When that Better Transport, Better Roads document is in a museum as an oddity, this Government will be seen as having got on, done the work, and listened to the people in local government and in the transport industry who knew what they were talking about. As a result, we have a very fine bill for this Parliament to pass.

Let me start by expressing on behalf of New Zealand First our sympathies to Helen Duncan, and we wish her all the best. I know she would have liked to be here to debate this bill as it has been reported back, but she cannot. So on behalf of my colleagues I express our best wishes to her.

I am disappointed in Mr Gosche’s speech. As a former Minister, he did not touch on this bill at all. He told members what the National Government did not do—he was correct—and he told us what he has done, but it does not apply to this bill. This bill is about generic road tolling: establishing road tolls wherever, whenever. This bill is not about what National did not do. Although it might possibly address some of the shortfall, it is not aimed at the National Government in particular. It is aimed at establishing road tolls wherever, whenever.

New Zealand First will not support a generic road-tolling regime, nor will average New Zealanders. They do not want to see road tolls established here, there, and everywhere. But, I do not think that that will occur, if one examines the bill. I think this is a phoney bill about generic road tolling. The only area where I believe there is a strong chance of a road toll being established is in Tauranga, the city where I come from. There will be a road toll on the harbour bridge, where only about a year ago, it was taken off. Now it will go back on, on the harbour bridge link project. That link project qualifies by all the criteria to be a State-funded road—a State highway. Indeed, Transit executive management recommended to the board that the project become a State highway, and should therefore be funded out of petrol taxes, but the Transit board refused. The board overruled its management, it refused, and it will not give one reason why it will not recommend that the road become a State highway.

This bill is setting up Tauranga for road tolling in a most unfair manner. I am disappointed that Larry Baldock is supporting the bill. He is telling the people of Tauranga to support road tolls—never mind that the road should be a State highway and should qualify for State funding. He is saying: “Support road tolls. If you do not, you are a whinger.” Larry Baldock is telling people not to be whingers.

💬 Larry Baldock: Just giving them a choice.

I say to Mr Baldock that they should not have to have a choice.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Hobson’s choice, it’s called.

Hobson’s choice—that is what it is called. The harbour bridge link project in Tauranga should be funded—all $140 million of it—by petrol tax, road-user charges, and what have you. The people of Tauranga should not be asked to pay again.

There is an old saying: “Do it once, do it properly.” This bill does not do anything once, and it certainly does not do it properly. What we should be doing in this country now is identifying the total cost that is needed to bring our roads up to par; identify the areas and identify the total cost of what is required to bring them up to par. There are various estimates on this, ranging from $6 billion through to $10 billion or even $11 billion. New Zealand First believes we should look at borrowing the funding to address the issue in a meaningful manner and in a reasonable time frame.

It is absolutely disgraceful for the Prime Minister to come out and say that Transmission Gully is 10 years away before it can even be contemplated. That is absolutely disgraceful. I recognise, as Mr Gosche appeared to state, that the roads in this country have been starved of funds for years. Motor-vehicle levies have been used for the wrong reasons. Eighteen and a half cents per litre of petrol goes into the consolidated account. The consolidated account is almost awash with money, but the motorist is paying 18.5c per litre of petrol into the consolidated account. That is something like $600 million a year—very close to $600 million a year.

Despite what the Minister said, I believe, the other day in the House, petrol consumption is going up in this country. Vehicle numbers are going up and, notwithstanding that the modern vehicle is more economic in fuel use, petrol consumption is going up. So there are more and more payments of 18.5c per litre, per year being collected by the Government. Some of that money should go back to the road users—some of it. Eventually, it is our belief that all of it should go back, but in the initial instance, to address the shortfall and the problems we have in roading, we should be borrowing money. We should be funding that debt to get our roads up to speed and up to the level that the motorist requires. People are dying almost every weekend every year on the roads in New Zealand, because road design is not up to par. The roads in this country are not adequate.

We have 92,000 kilometres of roading in New Zealand, and only 60-plus percent is tar-sealed. Mark Gosche referred to a new road going between Tauranga and Rotorua. That is not a new road; it is a stretch of road that has just been tar-sealed. It has been waiting for tar-seal for years. It has been progressively tar-sealed, bit by bit, and been waiting for years to be completed. The car is here to stay.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Oh, no!

The Minister disbelieves that. Does he think that because he is going to pay $3 million to people to get on their bicycles or go walking—as the Greens want—people will get out of their cars in any meaningful numbers? I tell the Minister that if they do there will be more people killed on the roads than ever. There will be more pedestrians and cyclists killed right away if they are put to walking and cycling.

💬 Brent Catchpole: They’re certainly not going to use the trains in Auckland.

That is another issue, but, for the short term, we have to address the issue of roading in this country. In my view, we should have motorways going the whole length of the country. Motorists pay, and we should have a motorway from Auckland through to Wellington, and southwards. Indeed, there should be other motorways crossing the country, both in the North Island and the South Island.

Roading, and roading costs, have been seen as a cash cow to fund other ventures. Now we can afford it, so we should be putting more back into roading. We cannot do it in one hit by using the petrol fund money, but we can borrow the money and use the petrol fund money to pay the debt. In a relatively few years we could pay off some major projects in this country. The Minister knows it. That is why he is bringing in another bill to address Auckland issues. In another bill, I believe, he will announce something in December or early in the New Year. He knows that this bill does not go anywhere near addressing Auckland issues. He is nodding. This is just a sop to let people know that he is trying to do something. The only thing that is likely to result from this bill—and if I have my way it will not—is another toll being put on the Tauranga bridge.

The Minister had to have a provision inserted in this bill—I think it is part of clause 53—to say that tolling can now apply in exceptional circumstances, when there is no alternative route. The legislation when first brought to the House was quite firm—there had to be an alternative route. But now it is weakened to the degree that in exceptional circumstances an existing route can be tolled, whether or not there is an alternative route. This bill will result—and I believe it is the Minister’s intention—in a new toll being imposed on the Tauranga Harbour Bridge. Let me say to members that New Zealand First will oppose that all the way. I do not know how Margaret Wilson will front up and say she is supporting this bill, when she tried to claim a lot of credit for taking off the last toll.

The ACT party is totally opposed to this bill, and I am surprised that when the Minister stood up, he did not more effusively thank the Green Party for its support in writing this bill. It is one of the worst-kept secrets in Wellington that Heather Simpson and Roland Sapsford were the real authors of this bill. Roland Sapsford is the Greens’ chief policy person, and works directly for Jeanette Fitzsimons. His title is “Advisory Group Coordinator”, according to one of his business cards, which also has the Parliamentary Service crest on it. He is also one of the campaigners who are particularly against the Wellington inner-city bypass, and he is a spokesperson for the pressure group Campaign for a Better City.

I believe that Paul Swain has his heart in the right place in respect of this bill, but his problem has been that many of the details in it were nutted out when Mr Gosche was Minister of Transport. My understanding is that officials were told by Ms Simpson what to write, and if they gave advice that was not welcomed, that advice was either ignored or they were told to go away and try again. I also understand that Mr Sapsford was involved in the process all the way through, and had a strong involvement in the bill’s development.

Despite all the work from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and all the submissions, we now see that efficiency is only one of the criteria to be used when roads are planned. But whose money are we using here? It is money obtained through road-user charges. A sum of $2 billion a year is collected from road-user charges, and at present not even all of that is used on roads. This bill will not add one new kilometre of motorway to the existing network.

When this bill was announced and people were asked about the eastern motorway in Auckland, Judith Tizard asked why that should proceed just so that people who lived in Pakuranga and Howick could have an extra half-hour in bed in the morning. Where does that arrogance ring a bell? It is the same sort of breath-taking arrogance we had from that Associate Minister of Transport when people complained about their rates being increased to fund railways that no one will ever go on because they will not go anywhere near the North Shore. She told those people to sell their houses and buy new homes. When there was an outcry that vehicle emissions testing would raise the costs of warrants of fitness, she told them to buy a new car.

As members have already pointed out, the other issue is that this tolling will apply only to Tauranga. That is a classic example of the return to parish-pump politics, which we got rid of years ago. It is one of the ways Labour has used to get support from United Future, and it has used this bill to keep the Greens happy. Under this bill, tolling of existing networks will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. If the situation in Auckland at the moment is not exceptional, I do not know what is.

Mr Swain talked about a new mechanism in future legislation that will solve Auckland’s traffic problems. Why not bring it into this bill right now, Mr Swain? He has had a golden opportunity to solve something that was started 30 years ago. That is when the western bypass and link-ups through Avondale and across the top were put on the planning board. They have boasted about starting on “Spaghetti Junction”, which has just added further to the confusion. Instead of developing “Spaghetti Junction”, the western bypass should have been developed—then we would have gone somewhere not just to solving the problem of the loss of economic growth in Auckland, but the loss of opportunity for business. Business people in Auckland, especially out in eastern areas like Tamaki, a big commercial area, can get out and do business only between 10 o’clock in the morning and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. The rest of the day is destroyed because they are sitting in those huge parking lots we call motorways. That situation contributes to vehicle emissions and dirty air in Auckland.

Road-user charges will now also be used for coastal shipping. That will mean a redistribution of taxes—again collected from the motorist—to subsidise New Zealand’s shipping organisations, which are crying because they have been subjected to more competition. Those taxes will be used to create more jobs for wharfies.

This bill will not deliver private sector involvement. As I said, we had the opportunity to get Auckland’s motorway solutions addressed in the same way they have been addressed in Sydney and Melbourne. We heard from international financiers like Macquarie Bank, which asked for the 35-year limit on concession agreements to be flexible—sometimes less than 35 years, sometimes more. But what did we hear? We heard the Green member—who does not even like cars and who has a huge bias against them—declare that to him 35 years was ample. That person is someone who makes jewellery for a living, but who knows more than Macquarie Bank about what is flexible or not in terms of a concession agreement.

As the Hon Roger Sowry said, we listened to all those submitters who came before the select committee thinking that they would make a difference. Mayors from Auckland appeared and gave very emotional submissions. They were people who cared about the people in their city, and were trying to do something about the problems. There were submissions from people out in the country, like those in the Wairarapa where there are huge problems with the funding of roads. Why did we even bother?

We now see that the Government will set up a new company called Track Co. We already know that there will be an exclusive deal for Toll Holdings to operate on the rail-track that was purchased by the Government. Under this bill, Toll Holdings will be subsidised by motorists to prop up Track Co. That will directly benefit an Australian company that has signed an exclusive deal with the Government to operate on the rail-track. Motorists will get nothing from this bill, and if we look at the consultation process, we see that everyone from Māori to the Historic Places Trust has to be consulted. That is what the Greens get in return for supporting Labour on the Supreme Court Bill.

Jeanette Fitzsimons has proudly said that as a result of this bill, “transport” in New Zealand will no longer mean just the car and the motorway. The strategy means that rail, bus, ferry, barge, bike and footpath gain equal status. As Peter Brown said, the car is here to stay, and we must get used to it. Green parties around the world have recognised that. Three years ago in 2000, the Financial Times reported that the Green Party in Germany had embraced the car. I quote: “After years battling against motorways, petrol-guzzling motorists, and anything that slows up a bicycle, Germany’s environmentalist Green Party has taken a step towards ending its rage against cars.” Here is the most important bit: the strategy paper from that Green Party went on to acknowledge that, “for women, the car means security on the streets at night and the possibility of combining family and career. For the old and handicapped, it is a synonym for independent movement.” That is why there is such a bias against the car, because it symbolises freedom and people’s ability to choose. The Greens hate anything to do with freedom of choice.

Mark Gosche said it all. He could not defend the bill at all—all he did in his speech was attack National. Well, attack is the best method of defence. Mark Gosche said that ACT did not want money going into public transport. ACT does not mind money going into public transport, as long as it is money from people who want to use public transport. But why should motorists be forced to fund coastal shipping, cycleways, walkways, and railways they do not use, when they cannot even plan their journeys across Auckland so that they arrive on time? This bill is a dog, and ACT will not be supporting it.

Much is made in this place of the issues that divide us and our points of difference. The Greens have been pleased to work in tandem with the Government on this bill. It is a good piece of legislation, it is a modest piece of legislation, and it is a modern piece of legislation. It is not legislation that is way out or somehow beyond the pale. It is an attempt to bring New Zealand’s transport into line with that of those places that have managed to keep people and products moving and to look after the health and well-being of their communities and their environments.

The Land Transport Management Bill is a key component in addressing New Zealand’s land transport strategy. It finds support from such diverse groups as the Council of Trade Unions, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the public health authorities. The bill sets out a framework for establishing safe, sustainable, integrated, responsive transport systems, and we are pleased to support it. We are pleased to see it here. In a planet that is living way beyond the capacity of the environment to sustain, this legislation is culture-shifting legislation and makes better solutions possible. It has become very clear that we have not been able to solve our transport problems simply by building more roads—no communities have. They may work briefly, but if building roads worked, London, Los Angeles, or wherever we like to look—indeed, we need look no further than Auckland or even my own home city of Nelson—where roads have been built for many, many years now, would be free of traffic problems. Clearly, they are not.

We have been pleased to be able to be part of changing some of the more complicated elements of the bill. An example of this is the simplification of the consultation procedures. Local communities must have a say in the transport solutions for their communities. The inclusion of local government consultation processes is an important part of that, and they are included in the bill. People need to be consulted, but not re-consulted, and if an issue has been covered once and the community has had a chance of having a say on it, that should be enough. We are pleased to see that the consultation procedures are robust but not excessive.

Amongst some of the more contentious issues in the bill is the provision for demand management. When Jeanette Fitzsimons’ traffic management member’s bill came before the select committee, its detractors labelled it as anti-business. They claimed that it was an infringement of their rights. In fact, most businesses operating in a businesslike way will examine their issues from both sides of the spectrum. They will ask whether there are ways they can minimise the problem rather than simply throwing money at it, and, in fact, that is what transport management is about. We are looking for the bill to provide measures to cater for problems that affect us, by not simply throwing money at them but asking whether there are ways we can minimise them.

Without exception, when the submitters who said that Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill was anti-business were asked whether they were seriously telling us that, when they are sitting on a motorway going nowhere, and going there extraordinarily slowly in Auckland, when they are surrounded by products and people moving just as slowly and getting nowhere very, very slowly, there are not occasions when they would rather that some of those people had found another way of getting there, they said they were not opposed to that, but they just did not want to be regulated. I said: “Well, if we get the regulation bit out of the way, what if we can make those other choices more attractive? What if those other choices were more cost-effective?”. Without exception they said: “Well, yes, I guess if you can do that, that sounds reasonable.” That is what land transport management is about. It is about managing demand. It is not simply about throwing roads at it.

This is not cutting-edge stuff. New South Wales and Western Australia have transport strategies that identify motorcar dependence as a major problem. Demand management is about addressing that problem, not by banning motorcars but by providing more attractive and cost-effective solutions that address not just meeting the needs of the transport disadvantaged—that is, those who cannot drive, who choose not to drive, or who cannot afford to drive—but providing choices for the movement of products and people, whoever they are.

How will the Transfund programmes contribute to New Zealand’s transport strategy and the intentions of the Land Transport Management Bill? They have to look beyond simply building roads and catering for cars, to solutions that meet the objectives of the bill and address the problems associated with our motorcar-obsessed society. The first problem is congestion. Simply building more roads inevitably encourages more cars. We have seen it in Auckland. We have seen people move to the end of the motorway, but their respite is brief. Bit by bit those roads become even more full, and the congestion in the inner city becomes even greater. The air pollution issue with cars is well established, and kills more people than accidents do. Water pollution due to the runoff from our roads is a major issue. There is the risk issue, in that the more cars we have, the more vulnerable people are on the roads. There is the health issue, which is not just about pollution but also about the sedentary lifestyles imposed on people who are brought up with the idea that the only way of getting to places is to climb into cars. We have to provide other choices. There is also the cost issue, in that motorcars are an extraordinarily expensive choice.

The bill sets out objectives that address those issues. They include to assist economic development, to assist safety and personal security, and to improve access and mobility. That is for all New Zealanders—not just those who have motorcars but those who do not, or who are unable to drive. That affects all of us for some of our lives. Friends of mine say they like driving; I say, OK, so if they are sitting at home and their kids ring up at midnight from 20 miles away and say come and pick them up, do they say “Yippee!” and climb into their car? I do not think so.

Other objectives are to protect and promote public health, and to ensure environmental sustainability. Some folk were concerned at the failure to include efficiency in the objectives. We believe that efficiency will always be a factor, but are concerned at the likelihood that, if it became an overriding concern, it would undermine those other objectives in the bill.

Deborah Coddington spoke about Roland Sapsford. We all of us have advisers in this place, we all of us have experts to advise us, and Roland Sapsford is such a person. He has had long experience dealing with transport issues, and that is why we employ him in our office. That is a reasonable thing to do. I am a maker of jewellery; that is what I do. Deborah Coddington is a journalist. I do not think that undermines her right to be on that committee and to have an opinion. I just do not happen to agree with her opinion.

Am I opposed to motorcars? No, of course I am not, nor are the Greens. We recognise that our cities were designed around motorcars. Our cities are as big as they are because of motorcars. But getting them to be used in ways that are sustainable is an essential part of the management of them. The freedom to choose was an issue raised by Deborah Coddington. The Greens are in favour of choice, and this bill is in favour of choice. What it says is that before we build another road, we should examine the other choices. We should examine whether we can make public transport more attractive.

I sat on a train from Waitakere into the city. I can tell members that I had to wait for half an hour at a derelict railway station without any seats because the shelter, about 100 metres away, had had the backside kicked out of it. The trains were grotty, and when I was looking to find out where to get off my train, I saw that all the signs had been graffitied over. I could not tell where I was. It seems to me that there are some fundamental, ordinary things that we can do to give people choices. That train was half an hour late, at 5 o’clock at night, I might add. We need to make those choices more attractive and more reliable.

We need to make sure, as well, that people can actually use their legs. Our young people are likely to die younger and to linger, whereas the present lot that are dying are dying older and are dying quickly. The next generation is likely to be larger, fatter, and to have type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and part of that is because they are brought up to travel everywhere in the motorcar. They do not walk. They do not cycle. For some of our trips, walking and cycling are reasonable options, they are healthier options, and they are less expensive options. We share the concerns of the entire House about the inability to move people and products around. This bill is an honest attempt to do that.

It has been a long process since the draft legislation was presented to us last year, and it is satisfying to see the changes that have been made to the bill being debated in the House. United Future made the provision of alternative funding options for land transport a priority in our confidence and supply agreement, which stated that we would ensure that new transport legislation is introduced and passed that includes provision for alternative funding options to facilitate the accelerated development of new roading infrastructure. We did this because we are painfully aware, as all motorists in New Zealand are, that the roading network in this country has suffered from a lack of investment over the past two decades, at least, and that the traditional methods of funding are not going to be sufficient to allow New Zealand to catch up with what the Minister of Transport himself has called a major infrastructural deficit.

At this point I want to express my appreciation to the officials who have worked long and hard to support the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its consideration of the bill and the submissions made to it. Throughout the process I have appreciated the Minister’s commitment to the legislation and his genuine concern to see the bill enacted as an enabling tool for the development of New Zealand’s transport system. I thank the chair of the committee, Helen Duncan, and pray for her health at this stage, and wish her well. I thank also the submitters who took the time to put forward many excellent proposals for change within the rather limited original bill.

In fact, so many new ideas and concepts for funding have been raised that it has become apparent to the Government that a second bill will be needed to address further funding strategies to assist the Government to reach its goals by 2010, and United Future is looking forward to working with the Minister of Transport on that legislation. United Future is committed to the goal of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, sustainable, and efficient land transport system for New Zealand. Our families, our businesses, our tourist visitors, and all our road users in general deserve Parliament giving its full attention to this priority of making our entire transport system, and particularly our road network, worthy of a developed nation in the 21st century. The bill that has returned to the House from the select committee is very different from that which was sent to the select committee after its first reading. It has been the subject of much discussion and negotiation, and although United Future has endeavoured to recommend improvements to the entire bill in response to submitter concerns, we have particularly concentrated on the parts that involve alternative funding.

Submitters raised concerns about the complicated, and possible duplication of, consultation, and I am satisfied that this issue has been improved considerably. Some are still critical and complain that there is still too much consultation, but I think it is time they discovered the reality of business and community life in this new, rapidly developing age in which we live. Although consultation can be costly and time consuming, when it is done properly it can also contribute to major savings in both time and money, as appeals and stalling tactics can be avoided if people feel that their opinions are respected and they are listened to at the beginning of a process. Aligning the consultation to local government processes has made very good sense.

I believe that the concerns expressed regarding the need for the Minister’s prior approval of concession and tolling agreements have been satisfactorily addressed. The removal of the prohibition on the transfer of risk, and the opportunity for an extension for an additional 10 years, are welcome improvements. It is important to note that one of the greatest impediments to the development of private involvement in roading in New Zealand is our small population and relatively low traffic volumes, which do not make some projects as economically viable as they would be in Melbourne, Japan, or Singapore. However, despite this limitation, we believe there are projects that can attract meaningful partnerships between the public and private sectors, and this bill provides a workable framework for those agreements.

Much has been said by the Government and the Green Party about a multimodal approach to our transport system. We accept this and support it. It makes good sense to be promoting all forms of transportation, even walking and cycling, which can help reduce car dependency and improve public health. We support the need to develop public transport via rail and bus services, and we welcome the investigation into how coastal shipping can make a contribution to the movement of some freight in some locations. We acknowledge the work done by Green members on the bill, and we thank them for their hard work.

The problem we have is that suggestions that can make some improvements are sometimes hailed as being the only solution—that somehow we do not need more roads. It is at this point that we beg to differ in our approach. United Future does not accept that the New Zealand transport infrastructure deficit can be fixed by buses, trains, bikes, and barges alone. It needs massive investment over the next 10 years in building new roads and improving old roads, all over this country. We know that Auckland has needs, and that so do Tauranga, Southland, and Wellington. In fact, there is not a region in this country that would not benefit from more investment in roads and the roading infrastructure. We have State highways with inadequate passing lanes. We have one-lane bridges that are embarrassingly unsafe and antiquated in the 21st century. We have level crossings that still claim lives all too regularly, as well as corners, humps, and hollows that should have been fixed a long time ago.

For this reason, we are concerned that, in the attempt to address the problems facing us, Transfund should not use finance raised from road users to assist disproportionately the other modes of transport. I do not think that road users, both private and commercial, are too concerned if a few million dollars are spent on cycleways, or even on subsidising public transport, where they can see real, tangible results in the reduction of congestion. But we believe they have every right to be angry about further plundering of the National Land Transport Fund for projects that are driven more by ideology than practicality. Subsidy of alternative modes of transport for environmental or social reasons must be balanced by a requirement to consider efficiency, before the cost of those subsidies are taken from the pockets of New Zealand motorists. This year Transfund announced that, already, 12 percent of its revenue was being spent on non – roading-related expenditure, and we have some concerns about that trend developing even further.

We welcome the amendment already adopted in clause 20(3)(c) that establishes that Transfund may approve funding if the activity contributes to Transfund’s objective in an “efficient and effective manner”. However, we do not believe that this is strong enough, and that is why I have tabled amendments to clause 3, “Purpose”, and clauses 70 and 79, which we will be debating in the Committee stage. Efficiency does not have to mean waiting for people to die on a particular road before that road gets fixed, as has been the practice in the past 20 years. It does not have to mean a return to the old cost-benefit ratio” of the National Government. We can use common sense and find a balance between efficiency, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility.

United Future’s role in this legislation has two major objectives: firstly, that motorists—both private and commercial—cyclists, pedestrians, and passengers, including our 2 million visitors each year, would be able to move about this great country of ours as safely as possible and with the minimum of delays caused by congestion; secondly, that all freight, the produce of our economy, would be able to travel from supply to market in the most efficient manner possible. This would make a huge contribution to the goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD and providing our families with a better income upon which to live. United Future does not have a problem with subsidising one mode over another, if it can be clearly shown to result in greater efficiency for everyone concerned. That is why we ask members of this House to support the Supplementary Order Papers I have lodged for consideration in the Committee stage.

Some members have made reference to the clauses relating to Tauranga and its proposal to build a second bridge. I am very proud to have been able to contribute to giving Tauranga people the choice to solve their traffic problems. Have we listened to submitters? Yes, we have. We had a steady stream of submitters from Tauranga—the Tauranga District Council, the Western Bay of Plenty Council, Priority One Western Bay of Plenty, the chamber of commerce—who all came and asked us to give them the tools so that they could fix the problem themselves. That is what this bill does, and I am happy to support it. United Future will support the second reading of this bill, and we look forward to the debate in the Committee stage.

I am pleased to rise in support of the Land Transport Management Bill, and to support the effort made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by my ministerial colleagues. I think New Zealanders welcome the provisions in the bill, which produces, for the first time, a long-term, integrated, and coordinated approach to land transport funding and management. The key thing, which some speakers have already dwelt on, is that this bill is not solely about roads; it is about rail, it is about alternatives—such as public transport—and it is about the promotion of cycling and walking. The bill is long overdue and it will go a long way to addressing the inactivity and inaction that so many parts of our country—in particular, the north—have suffered from.

When we consider that this bill is not just about road transport, it is easier to understand the opposition that has already been articulated by the ACT party. Members may not know that the ACT party has considerable expertise in the road transport trucking area, as evidenced by its leader’s membership of the board of Mainfreight. So I am rather disappointed that Mr Prebble has chosen not to come down to the Chamber to use that expertise to talk about that issue. Because of that focus on road transport, we can understand what sits behind the ACT policy to oppose wider alternatives in this area, but I would welcome a contribution from Mr Prebble in that regard. I am also pleased that he takes advantage of that directorship of Mainfreight to top up his meagre parliamentary salary, and I am sure he makes good use of that $35,000 per annum.

💬 Darren Hughes: What! How much?

He receives $35,000 per annum for being a director of Mainfreight. The real reason that Mr Prebble is unable to share his wisdom and experience with us is that he is, at this time, rather than being in the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

I would like to join with the Minister of Transport, the Hon Paul Swain, and the other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in wishing the previous committee chairperson, Helen Duncan, the best for a rapid and successful recovery.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the officials who worked with the select committee as we went through the bill. It was a long and arduous process, and they served the committee well, if I may say so, in providing us with a great deal of information.

This is a very sad day for the New Zealand Parliament—very sad indeed. We have a Minister who is trying to shepherd through the House the Land Transport Management Bill, a bill that he paraded up and down the country, telling people it would be a saviour for New Zealand roads, and especially Auckland roads. This bill will do anything but put road building in the fast lane. Aucklanders are frustrated because for 4 years we have heard the rhetoric from the Minister of Transport that this Government will fix the problem. Then he tried to strong arm the Auckland mayors; he did not want them to speak out against his bill—at least, not publicly. Then he took months and months for submissions—between photo shoots on any scrunty little corner he could find in the New Zealand countryside. Then, lo and behold, he did something we have not seen from a Minister for a very long time in this country: he went up and down the country and begged people to oppose his own bill! He said: “Write the strongest submissions you can against this load of”—I cannot say the word in this House, but I think Michael Cullen once said it in the form of phonetics. The Minister told people to write the strongest submissions they can against it. Why did he do that? Because he knew that the bill was hopeless legislation.

It was so hopeless that he even gave up on it before it had come back to the House for its second reading, and he dispatched another group, the joint officials group, saying: “Away you go, officials; see if you can tidy up another bill before this bill even comes back from the select committee.” We all know that, up in Auckland, the joint officials group is working on the “de-Greened bill”. This Land Transport Management Bill is quietly known as the “Green dream”. It is Jeanette Fitzsimon’s one success in this Parliament—the “Green dream”. I might add that this bill was introduced at the very time she introduced her own little adaptation on New Zealand’s transport crisis—the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, which would have introduced the modern-day equivalent of carless days. That probably comes as no surprise, when people look at the make-up of the Green representation on the select committee—namely, Mike Ward, a man who does not even drive a car.

What does this Government know about transport? The only thing it knows about and does very well is giving out speeding tickets. Up and down the country there has been a 200 percent increase in the issuing of speeding tickets. But this Government does not know anything about fixing roads. It does not know anything about providing legislation to deliver more roads. The promise that this Minister once made that the Land Transport Management Bill would be the legislation that would allow highways to heaven is just la-la land stuff. What does this bill do? Does it attempt to tackle the three very important parts of road construction in this country? Does it tackle the consent process? No, it does not, and we will talk about that in a moment. Does it look at the structure of roading in Auckland or in New Zealand? No, it does not. Does it look at providing serious alternatives to funding? No, it does not.

One might ask why structure would be important. Well, consider this for just one moment. In Auckland alone bodies such as Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd, the Auckland Regional Council, seven territorial local authorities, Transit, Transfund New Zealand, and Infrastructure Auckland are working on transport, all with different agendas and all working in different locations. [Interruption] That is right; another piece, the “de-Greened Bill”, is working on that—I accept that. But that is what is happening.

What has the Minister delivered with the Land Transport Management Bill? He has delivered living proof that coalition agreements matter more to this Government than fixing Auckland’s transport crisis. The Government wants to forget about the billion dollars of lost economic activity that takes place because Auckland’s roads are in crisis. It says: “Let us not worry about that. Let us worry about making sure that, if it all turns to custard in 2005 and we need to bring the Greens back in, they will be very happy with us. That is what we are worried about with this legislation.” It forgets about the employers who came to our select committee on their hands and knees and begged us to deliver legislation that would fix the crisis in Auckland. It forgets about the people who move to Auckland in their droves, from external and internal immigration; every day there are 49 new residents in our fair City of Auckland, bringing with them at least 25 cars. There is not a skerrick of hope of a solution in this bill—not a hope in Hades.

There is a crisis in Auckland, and the people of Auckland are worried. We have a motorway network that has been on the books since 1963, and needs fixing. It will cost a great deal of money. It could be $4 billion or $5 billion. Frankly, in my opinion, it could be north of $10 billion. It will be a huge amount of money. If the Land Transport Management Bill had been written in the right way, it could have provided a great opportunity to leverage that funding. It does not do that at all.

I make this prediction: just like the emperor with no clothes, Paul Swain will go down in New Zealand’s living history as the Minister with no roads. It will be a sad conversation around the dinner table when Paul Swain goes home and his wife says: “Honey, how were those 3 years that you were Minister of Transport?”. He will look across with a long face and say: “Well, it is no surprise we got thrashed in the 2005 election by the great new National Government. No wonder that was the case, because I will always be remembered as the Minister with no roads.” What an indictment on 3 years of performance! He is a Minister who showed such great promise earlier on, when he was out there petitioning against his own bill. The things he was saying against his own bill were absolutely right. He knew they were right, but he was in caught in the haze of Green that descended upon his office. That is right; in between Morris dancers, Jeanette Fitzsimons came up with this bill and stuck it on his desk, and he followed it.

Mr Assistant Speaker may think I am just a National MP making a few comments—

💬 Darren Hughes: He would be right.

That is true. I would encourage him to do a little research and listen to what business has said about this wonderful legislation. The Employers and Manufacturers Association said the bill is hopeless, Business New Zealand called it a red light for road users, the Auckland City Council said it is only half the toolbox, the Automobile Association said the overall effect will be bad news for the majority of New Zealanders, and the Road Transport Forum said a disgraceful Government is “putting through Parliament legislation deliberately designed to increase the extent to which they can fleece road users and waste more money, simply to buy the support of the Greens”. What a sad situation!

As time is on the decline, I want to make some specific references to the public-private partnership provision contained in the bill. In particular, I say to the Minister what a wasted opportunity this has been. Worldwide, the evidence is hugely compelling of countries that have adopted correctly drafted legislation of this kind and have crafted a solution for their nations: Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, France, Switzerland have all used public-private partnership legislation. We know from a report I happen to have in my hand from Standard and Poor’s that everything contained in the Land Transport Management Bill is the opposite of what those people are telling us. I have gone through this document late into the night to see exactly what the report is saying. It is saying we should not provide prescriptive legislation, we should not have a time frame of 35 years, we should not provide a free alternative, and we should allow existing routes to be tolled, because then we would have some surety and would get high-quality investors putting up real, private sector capital and providing a solution.

This bill fails. It is a tragedy for the people of Auckland; it is a tragedy for the people of New Zealand. There is only one winner—Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party.

It is a great pleasure to follow “Johnny Cash”, the real Opposition spokesperson on transport.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

Mr Key—sorry. We heard more during that speech about what the National Party stands for than we heard from the current temporary deputy leader of the National Party, who happens to hold the shadow transport portfolio. We heard more from Mr Key than we heard from Mr Sowry at the beginning of the debate. I welcome his contribution. I say to Mr Key that before the House is legislation, introduced by the Government of New Zealand, that will try to do something about land transport in New Zealand and not just talk and whinge and whine about it. That is what National members are doing in this debate. They had 9 years in Government to try to bring together a policy for New Zealand, to change the way land transport was designed and funded in New Zealand. They did absolutely nothing about it, despite the crocodile tears we hear in here today about the Auckland roading situation and about other areas of New Zealand. They wax lyrical about it, but they did not bring a single bill to Parliament to try to make a positive difference about it. National’s only solution was the same solution for every problem, which is sell, sell, sell. That is the only thing they wanted to do.

I congratulate the Minister of Transport, Paul Swain, on bringing this bill to the House. I think it will make a real difference. [Interruption] The member interjects: “Will it make a difference in my electorate?”. I believe this bill will.

💬 John Key: How is the economy you inherited?

The economy is doing very, very well. It has looked after the member, in particular, quite well. In my electorate I am looking forward to being able to use this bill as a tool for some of the infrastructure developments that we want to see in the Greater Wellington region. Mention has been made of Transmission Gully. I believe absolutely that this bill brings us closer to Transmission Gully, not further away. It gives us the chance now to get together with the Wellington region and to work out a proposal to try to get funding for the road. But it will be difficult. Greater Wellington will have to lead on that. But we have a problem: not all of the Wellington region agrees with the road, but we have to try to make sure we build the support for it.

So I invite other members of Parliament to be positive in the debate and try to make a difference on it so we can get the road built, rather than just have the whingeing and the negativity, which will not make a difference. We might even invite list members to be part of that. We might invite list members who live in the Wellington region to flick a switch and come up with an idea, rather than the constant kind of criticism that we are getting. Wellington’s future will succeed only if we are all working together. I welcome the public-private partnerships that are part of the bill. It is a very good thing to have that in the law as a kind of innovative solution.

When I talk about being positive, it does mean that Winnie Laban in Mana, Peter Dunne in Ohariu-Belmont, the Kapiti Coast District Council and the Porirua City Council, and Greater Wellington as a regional council, have to build that support more broadly within our region to make sure we can build those roads. This is a good bill, because it gives us a chance to get that done. I welcome it, and I know that the Minister of Finance will be putting in the appropriate funding in that regard.

That was a wonderful example of the member not speaking with his Minister of Finance before opening his mouth. First, I would like to acknowledge Helen Duncan, the chairman of the select committee handling this bill. I would like to join my fellow MPs from New Zealand First in wishing her all the best. I found her to be a very fair chairman during the select committee, and we appreciate all the help she gave us. I would also like to thank the officials for all the work that they put into this bill. They have done a wonderful job.

As far as the bill is concerned, it really will not do anything for the congestion in Auckland or the economy, which really is based largely in Auckland. A billion dollars is lost to the economy because of the congestion around Auckland. Goods cannot be transported throughout the country, because when they arrive in Auckland they cannot be offloaded and transported easily. Sure, that benefits other parts of the country—Tauranga, for instance, and that is fine—but Auckland, and the economy around Auckland, is suffering badly. I would like to look at one particular area—that is, the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT). This bill has set ALPURT back.

💬 Dail Jones: Where is it?

The ALPURT project is up in Orewa, north of Auckland. ALPURT has all of the resources in place to go ahead, and should have been completed by December of this year. I repeat that: it should have been completed by December this year. The agreement with Orewa was that the termination of the existing motorway would come to an end, and the motorway would be taken out of the middle of Orewa and moved on to the ALPURT extension. That will not happen, and we now believe that Transit has applied for an extension of not just 1 or 2 years, but 7 years for ALPURT. That is because it has now discovered that it can toll it. By tolling it, it throws out all of the consents, and the consultation that has been in place right up until now, and the project has to go back to be relitigated and consulted on for the wider community because there has to be an alternate route. That route was never consulted on during the original process. Tolls are the bane of that project, and because tolling is seen as a means of funding that road, it will be set back a lot further.

Funding should have been available for this stretch of motorway. It would have taken the traffic out of Orewa, as was promised, by December of this year had this Government released the petrol tax and the road-user charges. The Government has put so much of those charges away into the consolidated account. In fact, the Government even put a 4.7c a litre tax right throughout the country to pay for Auckland’s roads. I ask the Government where that 4.7c a litre went, because it certainly has not gone to Auckland’s roads. The Government needs to answer that question. The rest of the country is suffering because it is paying extra money, supposedly to go into Auckland roads, but it is not going there. I ask the Government to answer this question: where are the taxes going, and why is it putting so much tax away into the consolidated account?

Roads and the motorway networks throughout the country, and in particular around Auckland, have been underfunded for decades, simply because the taxes have not been used on the roads properly. There has been an unwillingness of successive Governments to use the taxes for other things outside of roading and public transport. What is more, there has been a failing of successive Governments to plan long term. Auckland roads were originally planned nearly 40 years ago, but the funding and the resources were never planned with that. This bill will not provide that funding or those resources.

It is suggested that the funding should be applied for on an annual basis. How can a whole motorway section be planned annually? The Governments says: “But we can’t provide the funding any earlier than that.” I suggest that planning not 5 or 10 years out, but 25 to 35 years, would be a much better way of organising the progress of transport in this country. If we plan for the funding, and allocate the funds accordingly, then those plans would be put in place, and would have been put in place if successive Governments had planned as far ahead as that, and Auckland would not be suffering these problems. It is the same with Wellington. Wellington would not be suffering the same problems if long-term planning had been put in place, as well as long-term financial planning.

A lot of funding in this bill is to go to coastal shipping—money transferred from the roads. Petrol tax and road-user charges will be put into coastal shipping. This is not just for New Zealand flagships; it is for international flagships. How can we justify putting money that should have gone on roads and public transport into foreign-owned shipping to transfer goods around New Zealand? It does not make sense. This Government does not make sense.

We have seen a huge, brand-new railway station built in Auckland. It is a magnificent place. I was there for the opening, and it is awe-inspiring. We had to wait half-an-hour for the first train to arrive as it was running late, and every train since has run late, simply because the funding is not there to provide the network of rail and the upgrading of the rail that should have gone with the planning of this. They have bought 40-year-old rolling stock to provide for the transport, and 40-year-old rolling stock keeps breaking down. They have repainted on the outside and put new seats in, but they have not upgraded the workings of the system; therefore it is continually breaking down, and never on time.

Every region around the country desperately needs better funding and planning from this Government, yet it continues to sit on its hands and not provide that funding. I wish Darren Hughes would be listened to by his Minister of Finance and have that funding available as he promised. He quickly promised that. I saw Dr Cullen cringe, knowing that Darren Hughes was promising money that would never be made available, because he knew it would be spent elsewhere. To rely on tolling to fund these roads is really not good enough when one has the finances in the consolidated account from petrol tax. It should be used on roads and on public transport. It should not be wasted on foreign shipping or elsewhere.