Land Transport Management Bill

In recommending the schedules to the Committee, I point out that like most schedules, they are pretty technical in nature. They apply to some tidied-up consultation provisions, and to provisions relating to the safety administration programme—“SAP”—Transfund, and Transit. Other matters relate to the performance agreement between the Minister and various entities, and the last part concerns consequential amendments to other Acts. I recommend the schedules to the Committee.

The Minister might have tried to get away with that little stunt, but it just will not work. The schedules are huge. The Minister knows very well, as do the submitters who opposed a lot of this bill, that large parts of the bill are on consultation and the way that local government will have to consult on roading issues. All those provisions on consultation, which were opposed during the process of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s hearing of submissions, have been taken out of the main part of the bill and put in the schedules. The schedules now run to some 70 pages in length, and that tells members the amount of detail that is contained in them.

Perhaps the Minister may indulge the Committee and explain why the Government felt it necessary to have all the consultation principles, which were opposed, and to require regional councils, local councils, and the private sector involved with roading projects not just to consult and go through the Resource Management Act process and the local government legislation, but now to go through a special consultative process laid out in new schedule 1AAB. There are so many new schedules. The Minister may think it was smart to remove the consultation provisions from the bill and put them in the schedules, but they are onerous and will add a considerable amount of delay and cost to any project, and particularly to any public-private partnership, if somebody was to get such a project under way in that environment. In fact, people from the private sector said that they just would not get involved in any project. They said they would not risk capital to get involved in roading partnerships with local and regional authorities with those consultative provisions. So lo and behold, the provisions have gone from the main body of the bill, and appear back in the schedules. Perhaps the Minister should explain why those people’s concerns were so wrong.

The schedules also provide for the method of appointment of board members to a board. Appointments used to be made by the Governor-General, but the Minister has now removed that provision. He wants to appoint board members directly. He is a Minister who wants a very hands-on political appointment process. There will be no going through the Governor-General now, and no worrying about any minor problems that that might cause. This Minister wants to recommend his political mates, and he does not want anyone to question them. He wants to make direct appointments, and, interestingly enough, direct sackings as well. So someone who is appointed to the board of Transit or Transfund, and who does not make a decision on one of those boards that is to this Minister’s liking, will be gone.

Perhaps the Minister, who has been very keen to have that provision put in the bill, could explain to the Committee where that method of appointment occurs in other legislation, and explain what other legislation provides a Minister with so much power. Why does he want all the power with regard to this legislation? What was wrong with the old system? What was the problem with a process whereby Ministers had to recommend appointees to the Governor-General and had to go through a proper process in order to sack people? What was so wrong with that? Why do we now have to have such a ministerially dominated position, if it is not because it is the only way, I think, that this Minister can make sure the people who politically support him are on the board and making the decisions that back up this Government in the marginal seats around the country? That is what people see this bill as doing.

This would also have been a good time for the Minister to stand up and explain to us why he has allowed people to be appointed to both boards. That is in this part of the bill. I hope he will take a call.

The schedules, and in particular schedule 1AAB, import into the bill the consultation provisions that were developed last year for the Local Government Act. As many of the agencies making decisions under this legislation will already be subject to the Local Government Act, this bill does not actually add any further obligations to their existing ones, but it clarifies that the obligations in the Local Government Act that they are already under should also be used in their transport decision-making processes, and it clarifies how they should be used. The provisions also apply, of course, to Transfund and Transit, and that is new.

What is different about these consultation principles is that they set out that consultation should take place early. It should take place while options are being considered, and it should encourage people to have a say at that point, rather than waiting until all the engineering work has been done and everything has finished, before the consultation takes place. When that occurs, if the community does not like the project it is told that that is too bad, because it is too late to change the project. That is what tends to create all the hostility and the delays at the end of projects now. It has been the origin of a lot of discord and a lot of contention over consents. I am quite convinced that consulting earlier on the options will lead to a much smoother progressing of new transport projects.

I want to look particularly at schedule 3, which sets out provisions for regional land transport strategies. Regional land transport strategies, of course, are already provided for under the Land Transport Act, but this legislation amends that Act and provides what those land transport strategies should do. I point out to those members who have been rabbiting on for 2 days about the lack of any economic objectives in this bill, about the lack of any requirements for economic efficiency or development or whatever, that each regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy assists economic development. This is not the only place in the bill that those words occur. There is also an obligation on the Minister to do that, when he approves concessions and tolling. If people would just read the bill, they would find those words that give them so much comfort about assisting economic development. That is, of course, the first objective in the New Zealand land transport strategy, which was published last year after its development by the Government and the Greens. We are not economic illiterates. The economy is provided for; it is just not the only thing that is provided for in this legislation.

The land transport strategy has to take into account how it will assist economic development, how it will assist safety and personal security, and how it improves access and mobility. That is the “effectiveness” that Larry Baldock was talking about in the Chamber yesterday. As he said, it is not about efficiency but about moving people around without wasting time. That is effectiveness, and that is access and mobility. So that is there in the land transport strategy, too. The strategy also takes into account how it protects and promotes public health, so that we do not have traffic arrangements that will lead to more likelihood of crashes and more likelihood of air pollution, and takes into account how it ensures environmental sustainability.

Those objectives are then reflected further when we look at the membership of the regional land transport strategies. The regional councils are responsible for those strategies, and we see that typically they have co-opted on to the regional land transport committee a whole lot of road users. There is nothing wrong with having road users on the committee, but if we have only road providers, road users, and road funders on the committee, then we will not take a balanced approach to the need for public transport, to the need for alternatives to roading, to the need for rail, and so forth. Rather than having people who are representative of particular factions of transport provision, we will now have people who represent the various objectives of the regional land transport strategy. So there will be people representing the need for economic development, representing safety, representing public health, representing access and mobility, and representing environmental sustainability. They will be able to argue on the committee for those values, and to scrutinise the strategy that comes out according to those values. They are guardians, if one likes, of those five objectives. I think that is likely, over time, to lead to better transport planning at the regional level.

We should not be surprised that the Green Party comes to the Chamber and tells us it is OK for environmental sustainability to be put into the purpose clause of the bill and throughout the schedules, as well, ahead of economic efficiency, because the Greens are financial and economic Neanderthals. Under their way we would have “fortress New Zealand”. We would be back where we were about 50 or 60 years ago. Under those conditions, the walking bus that the Greens promote so heavily would work really well. We would be able to walk around the villages in our Roman sandals, in between our morris dancers, and we would have a lovely time.

Those of us who want to live in the 21st century and take New Zealand forward need to refer to the schedules, and to look at exactly what is being done to land transport in New Zealand. I want to talk for a moment about what the schedules are doing, as they relate to the construction of the boards of Transit and Transfund. One of the great tragedies is that the schedules do not include structural changes to the way Auckland is constructed in terms of roading purposes. Anybody who knows the situation will know that Transit and Transfund, which are referred to in the schedules, play an important role in Auckland. But equally, anyone who knows the Auckland situation well will know that we have a whole group of people involved. We have seven territorial local authorities, the Auckland Regional Transport Network, Infrastructure Auckland, and the Auckland Regional Council. They all have their own boards, their own agendas, and their own plans. None of them are put under one simple, possible structure. I know that the Minister is doing his job up there privately and secretly with the joint officials group and, if he is doing it properly, he will be instructing it to look at that. He will not be worrying about the fact that the schedules set out the construction of the Transit board, because that is not the solution to his problems.

I want to talk for a moment about one of the things that the Transit board will be able to do under the new plan, and that is to borrow money. That is not new. As I said last night, the board has had the capacity for many, many years, through the Minister of Finance, to borrow money, but it has chosen not to do so. Today, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I asked Dr Michael Cullen what he thought the fiscal implications would be of the joint officials group effort in Auckland, in terms of how much money would be likely to be applied to fixing Auckland’s roads, and just what impact that would have on the Crown’s operating balance into the 2003-04 period. I was shocked and stunned by the answer.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Which was?

The answer was that there would be very little impact. Dr Cullen is not intending to do very much for Auckland roads. That is just more and more of the Labour Party’s spin. Labour has had 4 years to fix the problem in Auckland, and every year it has become worse and worse. The spin machine and the “Burns unit” have been wheeled out. That Government would wheel out anything—except the wheels of a car, because they are not spinning in Auckland. We are losing $1.4 billion a year. That is $1.4 billion of lost economic activity.

So I hope that the board of Transit is appointed, via these schedules, in a good and constructive manner. I hope that its members do not just become the Labour Party lapdogs that we know they have been in the past, and that the Hon Roger Sowry indicated to the Committee they would be. We hope that this Government will not turn that whole exercise in Auckland into a vote-buying process that is merely an extension of the election, but we know that that hope is wrong.

We saw, when Transit released its 10-year plan last year, how cruelly Auckland had been treated. Auckland consumers and businesses came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and begged it to make alterations to the plan, but that did not happen. In fact, what happened was that Auckland was dropped from the vast majority of projects, and projects in marginal Labour electorates were brought further up the list. That was the reality of Transit New Zealand’s 10-year plan and that will be the reality going forward under this Government, because the Government cares more about staying in office, about its own LTDs, and about preserving power for the sake of power than about using it for the benefit of New Zealand. What a tragedy that is!

I cannot wait until election day in 2005, when we will be able to vote that Government out and replace the boards of Transit and Transfund. Those boards will be full of Labour Party lackeys who do not deserve to be there.

Actually, Mr Key is not correct. A new report has come out in the last few days that shows that the cost to the economy of the congestion in Auckland is actually closer to $4 billion, according to the Employers and Manufacturers Association. I will put that in a different form. It is a week’s holiday every 2 months. That is what this congestion is costing the workforce. This Government would rather buy-off the workforce with the promise of an extra week’s holiday than do something about the Auckland roads.

These schedules are an absolute disgrace, for a huge number of reasons. Most significantly, they give the Minister of Transport enormous powers to appoint, to hire and fire, and to take this country back to pork-barrel politics. I remember being driven, when I was a child—

💬 Jill Pettis: That would have been a long time ago.

It was a long time ago. That member is right about one thing. It is the first thing I have ever heard her say in this Chamber that I agree with. It was a long time ago, but I do remember—because I get the right drugs—going around to the western side of Lake Taupo and seeing what a certain Prime Minister had been able to do—

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s right; I agree with the member.

Exactly. That was pork-barrel politics, and we will see a return to that under this legislation and especially under the provisions in these schedules. We are already seeing that in the actions of the board members of Transfund. As the Hon Roger Sowry has pointed out, the Labour Party president and campaign manager, the Eftpos machine man, Mike Williams, is already on that board. The reason why we have a motorway in north Auckland that ends in the middle of a paddock is that we are already seeing political manipulation by board members, and we will see more of that. We will see more vote buying and more appointments to that board.

Under the provisions of these schedules, the land transport strategies of regional councils have to take into account all the items that Jeanette Fitzsimons reeled off. We will see boards appointed to represent all those different factions of the community, and we will see paralysis by analysis because they will never agree. How can all those different sections of a community ever agree on how a road should be built?

Paragraph 14 of Part 1 in schedule 2 states: “Any steps that Transfund intends to take, having considered ways in which it might foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to Transfund’s land transport decision-making processes, …”. I ask the Minister what on earth that means. What on earth is “Māori capacity to contribute to Transfund’s land transport decision-making”? Is that what Kara Puketapu was talking about this morning on Mana News, when he said that Te Puni Kōkiri is totally useless in terms of looking after the needs of Māori? This was not some “cheeky whitey” making those declarations. It was Kara Puketapu who said that Te Puni Kōkiri is not serving the interests of Māori when it looks at all the legislation that goes through this House to see how it affects Māori.

This is totally meaningless nonsense, but I can see people lining up already to be appointed to the boards of both Transit and Transfund. Gone is the separation of those two areas, which the Hon Maurice Williamson brought in, as he pointed out—and a good thing it was, too. I guarantee that we will see on those boards people like Gary Taylor from the Environmental Defence Society. The society has already been favoured by this Government with numerous contracts. He was working in the Minister’s office and has now gone, but we have seen numerous payments from this Government to someone who used the Resource Management Act to its greatest advantage to delay and stall consents for people. We will see more wastage of money.

I would like to carry on from where the last speaker left off. My lasting impression, when I look through the bill, including the schedules, is that, yet again, we have a Government talking about obtuse concepts such as “ensuring environmental sustainability”. For the life of me, I am not sure what that is, and I am quite experienced in local government affairs. I never knew what it was under some of the legislation that we have had to look at previously. I never found—and I cannot find now—a clear legal definition to give to regional land transport committees, so that they have some idea of what that actually means. This bill and the schedules lack that. If there is no adequate definition here, it is because there is no such definition. Why should local councils and all the various people who are now to make up the new regional land transport committees have to work out what that obtuse concept is? Because it is a nebulous concept.

It reappears over and over again—it is in schedule 3—but I am in doubt as to what it really means.

We have, yet again, the same problem with the Local Government Act 2002 —which this bill will be a factor of—and with the Resource Management Act. There are sections in those Acts that are directly contradictory, and they contradict this bill, as well. The proof of that will be court cases, at great cost to ratepayers and to citizens, in order to find out that I am right and that the legislation has failed to pick up the fine legal intentions in the wording in this bill and in those two Acts. I said that last year and in March this year. I am absolutely certain—and I am backed by senior counsel in this city—that those Acts are contradictory on some important matters, and only time will prove that. The lack of application of this bill to those principles, in a legal sense, will be a factor here, too. Whatever the term “environmental sustainability” means, it will do that.

The other issue that concerns me, as a member of a regional committee, is what the new representation means. Does it mean that, for the first time, the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee, which is part of the regional council, will have to consider the “cultural interest” issue? Who are the people concerned with “cultural interest”? Is it the local arts council? Is it some creative body that does performing arts? What is it? I cannot find a definition here, at all. This will be a very strange addition to the regional land transport committee.

The other thing I want to speak about is the fact that there is nothing in the bill—and, therefore, in the Act when it becomes law—that tells a land transport committee: “Thou shalt give weight to the majority opinion”—as we do at most times, and do in this House. The bill states that all those bodies, no matter how obtuse, small, or representative of the local community they are, have to be listened to and heard. This is not a majority opinion. This is a collective of minorities, down to the smallest minority, somehow, in this unique bill, having equal place and equal weight. I find that incorrect. In the practical sense, as a member of a committee, I am not sure how we will resolve it.

I go back to the other schedule that deals with long-term community consultation. It might just be that if we take the Local Government Act 2002 at its word—and that part in this bill as its final word—we can, by tiredness and long-term consultation, reduce issues.

But that would also be undemocratic, because the local consultation process will do that, excepting for the small groups, well financed and well represented, who, again, will have a pervasive say in a democratic process, because the majority will be overcome by lethargy and by time. So, overall, having been involved with land transport for the last 13 years, I do not see this bill or the schedules as a huge improvement, because, as I said last night, at the end of some of the good intentions in this bill and in the schedules, one fundamental issue still remains, and that is funding. This bill will not help the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). It is finished, all done, and not able to be processed because of funding issues at this point of time. The Minister should not shake his head. If he had the will, ALPURT B2 would be under way now. Instead, under this bill, ALPURT B2 will go right back to the start, and instead of the 7-year term, which the Minister sought—of which he gained only 10 months—it will take 14 years to complete.

I move, That the question be now put.

The schedules are substantial, and I want to talk about our amendments, which we are hoping the Minister will support, as well, but before I do, I want to raise an issue that has come to my attention. A special Automobile Association newsletter has just been put out, and it rates the bill on 10 points.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Who put it out?

The Automobile Association. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it. No? It appears that he has not. It rates the bill on 10 points, and gives it two out of 10.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: That’s not bad.

The Minister says that is not bad—such are his aspirations. I do not want the Minister to go out of here and do what his associate, Judith Tizard, does—ring up the Automobile Association, yell at them down the phone, and tell them that if they ever criticise the Government again they will not get in to see her office and will never get to talk to her again. I want the Minister to listen to this constructive criticism by the Automobile Association, and I am happy to table it at the end of this exercise so the Minister can read it.

One of the things in the schedules is the fact that cultural interest groups take the place of road users on regional land transport committees. An analysis of the bill shows that cultural groups, Māori groups—and a colleague from New Zealand First was talking about this just before—take the place of the road users on the regional land transport committee. I say to the Minister that that is outrageous, and that is why we are moving some amendments to the schedules. Our amendments would delete clause 52A of schedule 1, and clauses 14 and 25 of schedule 2. The Minister might not have read these clauses. I will start with clause 52A, which tells us that, as part of its performance agreement, Transfund has to state how it will enhance its relationship with Māori, and, as part of its statement of objectives, it has to state how it will foster development of Māori. It actually has to spend road-user money to increase the capacity of Māori to contribute to Transit’s land transport decisions. So Transit New Zealand, which is making the decisions about where the roads and designations are going to be, has to spend money to bring Māori up to speed so they can contribute to the decision-making process at that point. We think that is a nonsense, and we are seeking to have that provision deleted.

With the new provision the Minister has put in, the annual report of Transfund now also has to spell out how many opportunities it gave for Māori to contribute to the decision-making process. I say to the Minister that this is just political correctness gone absolutely mad. On the Kapiti Coast, we have been waiting for the western link highway for 20 years. It has been objected to by the local iwi, and it has been changed because of their objections. The road has been diverted, it has been to the Environment Court, and it has been upheld. It has been back through a process with iwi, the designation has been changed again, and it has been back before the Court. The Court has now approved it, and now local iwi are appealing. I defend their right to put the district through that process. That is the iwi’s right. They are using the law as they are entitled to. No one is arguing against that. But to say that they need to have more money from the road account to fund their objection is nonsense. No one else gets that. The farmer whose land the road goes through does not get any special treatment from Transit or Transfund. No one worries about the farmer’s capacity to object. No one worries about the environmentalist’s capacity to object. They do not get any special treatment or any special funding. But Māori do now, in the new clauses that the Minister, in his politically correct nonsense, is engaging in.

I invite the Minister to take a call and say more than he said at the start of this debate, which was that these amendments are largely technical. They are not technical. For the first time ever, the Automobile Association of New Zealand has put out a special newsletter, which I have in the House today. The Minister has just admitted that he has not seen it. It marks the bill two out of 10, and one of the crosses is because cultural interest groups are going to take the place of road users on regional land transport committees. That is the effect of these schedules. This means in the Wellington region that the Automobile Association or the truck drivers—people who use the roads—will miss out on having a say on that committee because they cannot be included, but iwi get on. I do not mind iwi being on the committee, but why is the Minister taking the others off? Why is he limiting the numbers so that those people cannot get on the committee, but then giving special places to iwi? I wonder whether the Minister will try to defend that in the Chamber today, or whether he will just sit silent, again, all through this nonsense. I want to know this from the Minister: how much do Transfund and Transit have to spend—it will be in their annual reports—to satisfy the Minister that they have spent money to increase the capacity of Māori to object to roading projects around the country? That is what they are doing—they are funding Māori groups in order to increase their ability to object to projects. That is now a statement in law that they have to adhere to as part of their statement of principles and as part of the annual report.

💬 Mahara Okeroa: Good one!

The Māori member says “Good one.” How much money do they need? How much will be approved? Will the member answer that? Is there a percentage of money that has to go, or is it a dollar amount? Ah! The member says no, they will not say that in the House.

💬 Hon John Tamihere: Ha! Ha!

The Māori member giggles away.

💬 Mahara Okeroa: Like I said, we’re not going to put a benchmark on it.

Ah! He says it finally. There is no benchmark on it, says the Māori member. Well, if there is no benchmark, why is it in the annual report? How can it be there and be reported on if there is no benchmark? That is absolute nonsense, and the member knows it. At the end of the day, the Minister has to hold them to account, and he cannot do so with it being so loose. That is why the Automobile Association has put out this damning special report, which is critical of the legislation. I want the Minister to read the document and undertake in the Chamber that he will stop, Judith Tizard, his associate, from ringing the Automobile Association people and abusing them. The last time the Automobile Association put out a statement criticising the Government, Judith Tizard rang them up and said that if they ever did it again they would not get in her office. She threatened them. I said to the Automobile Association that I would take that as a promise. I would not bother going into her office. I was surprised that they still wanted to see her. I say to Minister Swain that I know he does not throw his weight around like that Associate Minister does. I know that he does not do that, but I want him to bring the rest of the dogs into line. I want him to make sure that we do not get this threatening, bullying behaviour. I hope that he will take a call and explain that to the Committee, because this situation is unprecedented. Never before has the Automobile Association put out a special document solely to criticise the Government. Never before has it done that. I know that this Government likes to control everything, but finally people are starting to see through it.

I would like to make a few comments on schedule 1AAB, about the principles of consultation, particularly in light of some of the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made a little earlier. There was a lot of criticism of the bill, in its original form, in relation to the overly complex nature of consultation. I believe that we have done a very sensible thing in adopting principles from the local government legislation for consultation, and placing things in line with, in particular, the regional land transport strategies. Although, initially, there will be some projects that are caught in the transition as this bill comes into force, in time, as consultation occurs through the regional land transport strategies, there will be no need for duplication, as from there projects will be put on Transfund’s schedule, or private-public partnerships will be sought, unless there are changes into a tolling scheme, in which case there will need to be further consultation.

We have to realise that, in today’s age, consultation is a part of life. If we want people to be on board with the things that we are planning, then we have to get out there early and involve them in the decision making, so that people feel they have ownership of the projects. Nowhere is this more evident than in Tauranga, where a major roading project proceeded to the Environment Court and got its designation within the space of a year, despite all the stories that we hear constantly about how long the Resource Management Act process takes. The project was granted its designation without any objections, because the council took great pains—along with Transit and the Access partnership in Tauranga—to consult the community. As a member of the community there, I also was very concerned about the project. It is one that will make a major impact upon the landscape, because it is a huge concrete viaduct that will link the second bridge.

I think it is a real credit to the council, and to those involved in the process, that the project went through without designation. It is a very good example of how good consultation can work. In my opinion, it is also a very good example of why we should have had this bill many years earlier. I wish we had had this bill 3 or 4 years ago, when we were at the conception stage of the project, because the council was always forced to look for the cheapest option to provide a new link across the harbour. Had we had the option of tolling and alternative funding then, I think we would have probably come up with a tunnel. It was one of the options that was pursued, but was discounted because of its expense. However, in terms of benefit for the community, a tunnel would have been much, much better, and could have been provided if we had been able to toll it, back in those days. The traffic volumes on the project will certainly be sufficient to guarantee that it is able to pay for itself.

I have some other comments to make about the principles of the regional land transport strategies, and about the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made earlier. She said that there is so much emphasis in the bill on economic development, and that we do not need amendments regarding efficiency, which shows that she simply misses the point again. New subsection (2)(b), which can be found in schedule 3, states that the regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy—“(i) assists economic development;”—the word, of course, is “assist”—“(ii) assists safety and personal security; and (iii) improves access and mobility; and (iv) protects and promotes public health;”. But when the bill gets to “environmental sustainability” it uses the word “ensures”, which is a much stronger word. It is not about “assisting” environmental sustainability; it uses a very strong word, and “ensures” environmental sustainability. It is because of the strength of that word—

💬 Jim Peters: What does it mean?

There are questions about what it means, but let us deal with the “ensuring” part of it. Because of the strength of that word, United Future continues to promote the need for amendments that would bring efficiency into account, so that the bill is balanced. True sustainability has three legs to it: the environment, the social aspects, and the economic aspects of any project. It is this that we want to see balanced by the amendments I have proposed. I am grateful there have been some amendments, to further strengthen the emphasis on efficiency. Also, in relation to the regional land transport strategy in subsection (2) there is paragraph (n), which states: “include a demand management strategy that has targets and timetables appropriate for the region;”. I confess that when this was first added to the bill, I was horrified, because it looked a heck of a lot like the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, which was promoted by Jeanette Fitzsimons earlier. When I saw “targets and timetables” I was very concerned that we would be required—

I apologise because I should have done this after my speech, but because the Minister has not seen the document I referred to, I seek the leave of the Committee to table the special AA Advocate document analysing the Land Transport Management Bill.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I move, That the question be now put.

I spoke earlier about the structure of the Transit and Transfund boards, and about the structure of roading in New Zealand. I believe that has been one of the great, significant, contributing factors as to why roading in New Zealand has failed to deliver the kinds of results we need. One of the great challenges for the Transit board, when it looks at the plan coming forward, is just how much money it will require. The honourable member from New Zealand First Mr Peter Brown has advocated in the Chamber over the last few days the desire for regional petrol taxes.

💬 Peter Brown: No, not the desire; the second option.

The second option of a regional petrol tax. I want to outline for the member what I believe is the potential cost facing Auckland. The member may be aware that at the moment about $150 million per year is spent on new roading in Auckland, up from about $85 million last year, as a result of the 4.7c petrol tax that was put in place across the country by the Government. Now $150 million sounds like quite a lot of money, and one would think that it would go quite a long way, but I will refer to the kinds of things that the Transit board will be forced to look at. The eastern corridor is now estimated to cost $2.9 billion.

I came back to Auckland 2 years ago, when John Banks campaigned on roads—John Banks, that wonderful mayor in Auckland, who was a fantastic National Party Minister and a great member of caucus for 18 years, and who I have absolutely no doubt will bolt in during the election campaign of 2004, because he will campaign on “give me some roads”. He has been around to the Prime Minister’s house for lunch, and has schmoozed up to her. I saw him give her a kiss on the Television One news the other night—at Vogel House, or wherever it was—and if he does not get a few billion dollars for a kiss, then I do not know what he will get. Anyway, he is going to be out there campaigning, and saying: “Give me some roads. Give me an eastern corridor.” Well, $450 million was the first figure he gave me. He came back a few months later, and said: “Look John, the figure is going to be somewhere in the order of a billion dollars.” Quite funny as it may be, I was filling up my car with petrol just the other day, just before the announcement, and John Banks came over to me—it was a Sunday afternoon; a glorious day in Auckland—and said to me—

💬 Jill Pettis: A glorious day to be out in the BMW.

No, it was a Commodore. He said: “It’s going to cost a bit more for the eastern corridor.” I asked him why he did not just tell me the figure. He said: “I can’t tell you; it’s a national secret. We’re going to announce it on Tuesday, but don’t worry, it’s just a bit more.” Just a bit more! It went from $1 billion to $3 billion. If that does not worry John Banks, then I do not know what does. No wonder he is kissing Helen Clark. He will be hugging her. He must be sending her letters: “Give me the money. Show me the money.” It will be like Jerry Maguire—“Show me the money.”

It will take $2.9 billion for the eastern corridor, and it does not stop there. A billion dollars will be spent on State highway 20. Members may ask what electorate that goes through. Well, it is Mount Albert, the Prime Minister’s electorate. It could be fixed with about $175 million worth of roading, but the Prime Minister would like some tunnels so that the roads do not actually go through the backyards of her constituents; she wants them to go underneath. I guess we have to excuse that as a sort of prime ministerial whim, but it will cost another $850 million. Then there is the alternative harbour crossing, which, lo and behold, is going to take 16 years to build and will cost $3 billion. I reckon it will be about $5 billion by the time that thing gets built—if it ever gets built.

Then there is the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) and the promise that it would be fixed. There was a promise that it would be looked at. What happened to ALPURT B2? Let us remember that it involves the Orewa to Puhoi motorway, which currently stops in the middle of absolutely nowhere. So what happened to ALPURT B2? [Interruption] That is right. A person who is represented by Jeanette Fitzsimons went and got legal aid, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal aid, tying up the Rodney District Council and the Environment Court, literally for years, and by the time we won the case—as the Crown always would have, or the Rodney District Council always would have—lo and behold, it was nowhere to be seen on Transit’s plan. So that was hundreds of millions of dollars.

State Highway 18 is one I would specifically refer the Minister to. I hope he is listening, because his brother lives right off that street, and it actually happens to be in my electorate.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Oh, yes.

So if he could help, that would probably be about another $500 million to $600 million. I could go on and on, but I do not like to because this is a very important topic. The cost of trains will be $1.5 billion. Then there are the busways. The numbers are extraordinarily high.

I move, That the question be now put.