Road Traffic Reduction Bill

I move, That the Road Traffic Reduction Bill be now read a second time. I strongly support the recommendation of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the Road Traffic Reduction Bill not proceed, because the bill has served its purpose. I am very happy at the extent to which its provisions have been incorporated, or improved, in the Land Transport Management Act passed last November. However, I have moved that the bill be read a second time, because the House needs the opportunity to debate what has happened to it and how its provisions are already having an effect.

I remind the House that the bill was drafted in the year 2000, drawn from the ballot in May 2001, and had its first reading only in December 2002—the same week, by coincidence, that the Land Transport Management Bill was also read a first time. In the intervening period, the Greens and the Government had worked together on the latter bill and incorporated into it many of the features of my own bill. Those that were not incorporated into the bill as introduced were added by the select committee considering the two bills together, and I thank it for that.

The purpose of the bill as stated is to provide for regional councils and the Minister of Transport to put in place measures to reduce motorised traffic and thereby enhance environmental quality and the health, safety, and well-being of people and communities. That purpose has been largely addressed in the new legislation. I do not need to remind the House of the economic, social, and environmental damage done by congestion, crashes, air pollution, high and growing fuel use, severance of communities, and risks to children, pedestrians, and cyclists of our previous transport policies, which were focused solely on encasing everything that needs to move inside a tonne of metal and putting it all on the same congested roads. That policy is now changed, and it is providing for a multimodal, integrated, intelligent-mix of solutions.

The bill provides in clause 6 for the national land transport strategy, already mandated by the 1998 Act, to provide for the reduction of motorised traffic. There has been no national strategy in the statutory sense for some years, and there still is none. Frankly, I think there should be. But what we do have now is the New Zealand transport strategy, developed by the Government in partnership with the Greens. It sets a broader range of economic, social, and environmental goals for land transport. It covers all modes, and it states that sustainability is paramount. This was a huge change of direction.

I still hope that one day that strategy may evolve into the statutory strategy provided for in the 1998 Act and thereby acquire mandatory force. At present it is being used to guide transport developments, so it is having an effect anyway. That change of direction is reflected in the purpose of the new Act, which is an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system. Section 12 of the Act now requires land transport programmes at the regional and national levels to assist economic development, assist safety and personal security, improve access and mobility, protect and promote public health, and ensure environmental sustainability.

Part 2 of my bill widens the mandate of Transfund New Zealand to provide funding for all modes of land transport so that it can fund rail and public transport as well as roads. It also requires Transit New Zealand to avoid significant or irreversible destruction to the environment, existing communities, and historic heritage when building its roads. Those matters are now provided for in sections 68 and 77 and schedule 6 of the Act. I look forward to an end to the cowboy behaviour that has sometimes bulldozed through sensitive wetlands, poured spoil into coastal areas, failed to track sediment from roadworks, and generally failed to respect the environment through which roads must pass. That behaviour is no longer tolerated in Europe, and it is good that from now on it will not be tolerated here, either.

Clause 7 of my bill requires Transfund and Transit to provide for the targets, timetables, and measures for the reduction of motorised traffic that are set out in the strategy. The language to express that idea has changed in the new Act, and we now talk of “traffic demand management” rather than “road traffic reduction”. The meaning is exactly the same, but it seems that we have hit on wording that people understand rather better. Maybe we will not get so many silly jokes about skateboards now.

Schedule 6 of the Act requires regional land transport strategies to include demand management strategies, and to have targets, timetables, and measures to implement those strategies. That was added by the select committee and supported by the House as a way of incorporating the intent of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, and I thank members for their support for those provisions.

The new Act is already working, and I have been delighted at the speed with which the language of transport planning has changed. There are real gains on the ground, especially in Auckland where the most serious problems are. Although it will take a few years to undo the neglect of the past, we are already seeing a 25 percent increase in passengers on public transport and an almost doubling of funding for passenger transport operations. The rail track has been brought back under public control, which the Greens called for 3 years ago, and it will be maintained and used to keep heavy freight and commuters off the roads.

As the Minister said in the New Zealand Herald just last week: “We cannot simply motorway our way out of congestion. Congestion will only be cleared with a balanced approach involving all transport modes. Demand management is widely accepted in most OECD countries as a valid form of transport planning. Traffic demand management is about using existing roads more sensibly.” Those are wise statements by the Minister, and I endorse them.

We are seeing local government pick up and run with this part of the new Act, and there are some exciting developments in North Shore City. The council there has employed six new school transport coordinators to work with schools, families, and trust boards to find alternative travel plans for pupils whose parents currently drive them to school. To make it easier for them to walk and cycle, the council is looking at new pedestrian crossings, safe cycle paths, secure lockers and bike parking, and supervised walking school buses.

The Auckland Regional Council says that already there are noticeable results. With that programme in place, the children are fitter, the air is cleaner, parents have more free time, traffic flows more freely, and there is less congestion. We know that some 40 percent of peak-hour congestion is education-related. If we could even halve that through targeted school travel plans, a lot of the worst congestion in Auckland would simply disappear.

The Greens have a basic principle of doing more with less for longer, of making better use of what we already have, and of cutting out waste. We have contributed to that goal for energy with my Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act that was passed in 2000. We are proud to have done it for transport too, with our cooperation agreement with the Government over the Land Transport Management Bill, and with the trigger that this member’s bill has provided in the select committee.

I thank the Minister for the work that we have done together, and I thank Helen Duncan for her able and sympathetic chairing of the select committee. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill has served its purpose and I farewell it happily. RIP.

First, I congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimmons and the Green Party on promoting ideas whose time has come—ideas that many in New Zealand scoffed at 3 or 4 years ago and are now saying are sensible. I remember that when I first became the Minister of Transport, the Automobile Association visited—as it should—and, obviously, it was a very strong proponent of more roads and motorways and not particularly good on other forms of transport like public transport. So we challenged the association—the Associate Minister of Transport at the time, Judith Tizard, challenged it to find out whether its members agreed, and, in particular, the people of Auckland, about whom the association was most concerned. To the Automobile Association’s credit, it did a professionally run survey, which told it that the Auckland public wanted to see a mix of public transport and roading, and alternatives to roading, as the answer to Auckland’s transport problems.

Members will now find that some of those people who were very strong on building more roads as the only solution have changed their tune dramatically and are not afraid to say so. I know that Auckland City and its mayor have been very strong proponents of more road-building, and good on the mayor for saying so. But he has also accepted, as the rest of Auckland has, that there needs to be better public transport, more people walking, and a safe infrastructure for those things to occur. Those ideas have been incorporated by the Government—not only into law by way of the Land Transport Management Bill, but put into action. Action is something that this side of the House knows about.

Unfortunately, the theorists on the other side have all sorts of weird and wonderful answers to these problems, and I am sure that Maurice Williamson will rise to tell us what they are, because he is National’s new spokesperson on transport. I know that not so long ago he was still telling all the local body people on the North Shore that “better transport” and “better roads” were the answer. I am sure he will tell us that in his speech just after me, but, sadly, they are not.

Not so long ago a report in Auckland newspapers stated that funding for walking school buses would be cut. The story turned out to be wrong—sometimes the media does pick up the wrong end of the stick—but there was a public outcry. People in Auckland said that would be terrible, because they liked walking school buses. They demanded that the small amount of money that had been put into the project—which still has quite a few noughts on the end of it, but is small in comparison to the cost of some of the roading projects—be continued very rapidly. The powers that be in Auckland said not to worry, and that it would continue. Why? Because parents are grabbing the idea and saying that they do not want their kids going out on those congested roads, and if they can get their children to school safely, then that is a good thing.

As all MPs in this House do, I get the publications of Transit and Transfund. I am not sure how many members read them. Certainly, nobody in the National Party probably does, because they would not like this headline: “Biggest construction period in Auckland history gets under way”. I will come back to that in a minute, but on the back of the January/February 2004 issue of Transfund News is the news that 14 new walking and cycling projects have been approved—over $1.3 million worth of projects. Those projects are not just happening in Auckland, and feeding the fears people have had that this Government has a focus on Auckland only.

Manukau City will get $30,000 and construction of an airport - to - Mangere Bridge cycleway. Anybody who goes to the airport in Auckland will know that there is a significant number of workers at the airport. It now has its own supermarket and Warehouse, so the market recognises that there are a lot of people out there. There has always been a cycleway, but not a particularly safe one that I would like to venture on to. That cycleway is getting $71,000.

I go to the Waipa district. Who would have dreamt that the Waipa district would have wanted a walking strategy, but it will have one, and it is being funded. In Taupo, a control-gates bridge cycleway will be constructed costing $300,000. National Party members joke about that, but the National Party is so out of touch. Taupo used to be its heartland—did National not hold the Taupo seat once upon a time? It probably has not been there for such a long time, because the people have rejected it. The people of Taupo say they want a cycleway. The Government did not say it would make Taupo have a cycleway. The people of Taupo, through their local authority, said that was what they wanted.

If National Party politicians got out of their little enclaves every now and then and realised what the rest of New Zealand already realises, they would see that Ohope, which I think is in Tony Ryall’s seat, will get $30,000 for a road cycleway. A safe cycle route is to be constructed along State Highway 2, and so on. There is a list, so maybe National Party members could get this pamphlet out of the piles of papers in their offices they never read. They would see that New Zealanders welcome a mix of solutions to transport.

Yes, they do want roads, but the National Party will not like this: “Construction is about to begin on two of Auckland’s most significant motorway projects. Celebrations were combined”—so much is going on that there have to be combined celebrations on some projects—“for the start of stage 2 of the central motorway junction.” Everyone in Auckland knows what a shambles “Spaghetti Junction” is—left completely by the National Party. It thought that the concrete with the steel sticking out of it was artwork that Transit did when it started to build the motorway. We know different. In fact, it was uncompleted work.

I could not find a single piece of motorway infrastructure in Auckland that has Maurice Williamson’s or Jenny Shipley’s name on a plaque opening it. There is nothing. As the Minister of Transport, I even opened the Albany to Puhoi realignment, which is—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who started it?

And who finished it? So those proud road builders over there cannot find a single piece of motorway in Auckland that they completed in 9 long years of Government. They then criticise this Government for activity on things like tolling. In 9 long years National did not pass a single bit of legislation that enabled local bodies throughout the country to make that decision for themselves, and for the local people to say they wanted that road.

They all mock the stuff that the Green Party has talked about. They do not like the idea that public transport use in New Zealand since we have been Government has increased by 24.9 percent, and that we have doubled in 4 years the spending on public transport that Maurice Williamson froze for 5 years. Why? Because more people are using buses, trains, and ferries, and there will be even more.

We have a funding system that does not reward people for doing nothing, but rewards them by giving them extra money for more bums on seats. It is called patronage-based funding, and companies like Stagecoach cannot invest quickly enough in new buses in New Zealand. They cannot believe the growth their company is getting, because there is a Government with vision that says it must build more roads, and they must be safe roads, and they have to have some alternatives built into them, so that there can be busways, cycleways, and walkways. That makes them multimodal, and gives safe options to people who want to get on their bikes, or their feet and walk places, and not just use their cars.

This Government has the vision, it has the legislation, and it has the action that the poor old National Party just cannot stand looking at. Those members must put on their blinkers, dark glasses, and everything else as they drive back to their homes in Auckland and say: “I cannot stand the look of this. The Government has actually done something when we sat on our backsides for 9 years and did nothing except freeze public transport spending and watch the road toll go through the roof.” There were not enough police on the roads.

When I became the Minister in 1999, it was a terrible portfolio to take over, such was the neglect of the National Government. There was not even a national transport strategy; there was nothing. There were regional ones, but the Government of Maurice Williamson was too lazy to even have a strategy, let alone to build anything.

What a golden opportunity Mr Gosche presents to us in the National Party, with a speech like that! First of all, the celebration of the most minute trivia on the back of the latest Transfund New Zealand newsletter was the centrepiece of his speech. The fact that there are now three people in Cornwall Park on bikes who were not there before is something that Mr Gosche has to grab at and come to this House to celebrate. I want him to know that the people of Auckland will be delighted to hear that speech, as they sit in their cars locked, blocked, and stopped tomorrow morning and going nowhere.

To hear that speech from Mr Gosche, one would think Auckland’s transport problem was all fixed. One would think it was all OK. He is even holding up a picture of something. Mr Gosche has clearly not been back to Auckland for a while. One would think that the Labour Government had fixed it all, and that one could cruise into the city whenever one liked and back again. Well, I have news for members. Congestion is actually much worse than it has ever been, and it is getting worse by the day. I will tell this House right now that with the lame, limp-wristed, wimpish package that has been announced so far, congestion in Auckland will be worse 5 years from now—I am happy to put a bet on it. I am happy to put a bet with any member from the Government side who wants to, from my own money and of whatever sum the member likes, that congestion will be worse in Auckland then.

A bill like the one we are debating tonight does nothing but make me laugh, when it states its purpose is to reduce road usage by getting people out of their cars and on to walking tracks and bicycles. Now, that is a very nice thought. In theory, I would love to be able to bike to work. Unfortunately, I work in Wellington. I have to go to the airport, and I do not think cycling or walking from Pakuranga each day is even a slight option. The same applies to the vast majority of people in Auckland, who have to cover big distances to go to work, and who have to go to two or three different locations during the course of the day to pick up kids, go to supermarkets, and so on. What an insult it is for Mr Gosche to tell Aucklanders he is putting a bill in to the House to fix their problem, and that he wants them all to get out of their cars and start using cycles.

I think the greatest irony of all the stuff about that from the Greens was what happened during nearly every election campaign that occurred while I was transport Minister. I used to love it—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: How long was that for?

Six glorious years, when the south-eastern arterial—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: And you did nothing.

The member does not even know about the south-eastern arterial route that was built during my time as the Minister. It is in the member’s own electorate, and—[Interruption] No, but we funded it. He says the Auckland City Council built it. He does not even know that Transfund funded it—and it is in his own electorate. That is tragic; it is sad. I will leave the member alone, because it is not fair to badger a man who does not even know who funded roading in his own electorate. That is just not fair. [Interruption] This may not be a point of order.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is misleading the House by indicating that the Government built that road while he was the Minister. It was a local road built by Manukau City Council ratepayers.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, please be seated.

I quite properly pointed out that it would not be a point of order. However, I will return to the election campaign meetings, because I used to love them. I used to love them, as transport Minister.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: What year?

I can tell the member—1996, 1993, and 1999. I will tell members what happened. I would go to a number of public meetings, and there would be the Greens. One could spot them; there was something about them. I do not know whether it was because they had been sprayed or whatever it was, but one could spot them in their kaftans, sandals, and so on. They would be into me, saying that we must have people using public transport, bikes, and walkways. I think that concept has some merit, provided it is a viable alternative, and I do hope people think about it. But no, the Greens wanted that to be mandated. They wanted it to be mandated, and they wanted legislation that would drive people to do that—just as this bill does.

Before the meetings I would get somebody who was with me to have a watch around the car-park, to check who had arrived and how they had come to the meetings. Then, at the end of a meeting, after I had already had some verification of it, I would ask how many of all the people there had come to that night’s meeting using public transport, Shanks’s pony, or a pushbike. And we never had one! Do members know what the Greens used to say at those meetings? They would say they could not do so, because they had another meeting to go to. So it was always other people who should be doing that—not the Greens—because they had a good reason for bringing gas-guzzling, smoke-belching, old cars into the car-park. Some of the cars they drove were an absolute disgrace, but, no, no—they had to do that.

I say to the Greens that if this Government is serious about congestion problems in Auckland, then I want them to listen to what I am about to read to them. This is a story about a man who would be the most left-wing politician to be found in Britain.

💬 Darren Hughes: John Banks?

Mr Hughes should just listen to this. It is not often that he will learn something—tonight he may. The man’s name is Mayor Ken Livingstone—“Red Ken”, the Labour Party - endorsed candidate for the mayoralty of London again—and he is the arch left-winger. The story states: “A year after congestion charging zones were established in London, Mayor Ken Livingstone is to kick-start a process aimed at doubling the areas now covered. Despite indications that he was harbouring doubts over expanding the scheme into Kensington and Chelsea, he will this week begin a consultation exercise on the issue right throughout London.” Now, I ask members to listen to this stuff: “Transport for London is surveying 3.3 million households and 250 businesses, canvassing opinion expansion of the project, which will cost about ₤100 million. It is thought that Livingstone’s enthusiasm for the initiative has been rekindled by the predictions that he will win decisively a victory, and a lot of his coming victory in the mayoralty is based on what he has achieved.” Here it goes: “His political stock has rarely been higher than now, at a time when the volume of traffic entering the capital has reached its lowest level for around four decades. Cities all over the world which have been watching the experiment with scepticism are now taking an active interest, and even beginning to copy it. The success of the ₤5 congestion charge at relieving traffic jams in central London is generally, and in some cases grudgingly, accepted as being very successful. Cars entering the zone have dropped by around 50,000 a day—about a 38 percent drop in cars into the centre. Average speeds on five key routes inside the area have risen by more than threefold.”

So if this Labour Government wants any indication about how to fix Auckland’s problems, I ask Labour members to please stop getting up in the House and telling members about the three cyclists who are now going through Cornwall Park, or about the two people who are using the Bucklands Beach walkway—all of which I really welcome. But if one talks about celebrating the minutiae, that has to be the best example of doing so. What Auckland has to have—and have sooner, not later—is the completion of its arterial roading network. Nothing else will do for the public of Auckland. The Government tells motorists that in 10 or 15 years’ time they will get something, yet Auckland will still be congested.

I want to finish the last couple of minutes of my speech with a question for the Labour Party. Labour needs to be a bit careful. It will need to have its research unit really working overtime now, because what it will have to do is to go back and check some of the speeches—and I have kept some of them—and some of the statements that some Labour members used to make about the evils of tolling. They said the roads were free and have always been free. They said the Queen’s highways were free, and that dreadful Tory Government of Williamson and so on wanted—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: And you are going to sell it.

No, this has nothing to do with selling roads, and there was never a proposal to sell any roads—never. What we were proposing—[Interruption] There was never a proposal to sell roads. We proposed tolling, and that was described as very evil. [Interruption] It is all right, Mr Speaker. I do not mind those members having a crack, because it shows that they are vulnerable. The Labour members just thought tolling was evil, and said they would not have a bar of it. They went to the battlements at the 1999 election and told people that if they voted for Labour, it would never allow the travesty—the evil—of tolling that Williamson wanted. I want to hear from the next Labour speaker tonight whether he or she still thinks that. Do Labour members still think tolling is evil? Do they still think it is a disgrace, and that the roads should be free?

What about the private sector? Harry Duynhoven has just interjected that we were going to sell the roads. Actually, we were not. We were talking about getting the private sector involved in participation. What about the private sector now? Will we allow it to participate now? Let us hear from the next Labour speaker about private sector participation in roading, because if we do not have such participation Auckland will have a $3 billion shortfall in fixing its problems over the next 10 years. There is about $3 billion missing, when one adds up Infrastructure Auckland’s money, Transit New Zealand’s debt funding, the current Transfund regime, and the new December package. When one adds all that up, it is about $3.5 billion short of the total cost of Auckland’s roading projects, on the best estimates. So what will have to happen? The private sector will have to be involved.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: And he nodded.

I am never sure whether, in the member’s case, that means he is just nodding off. That member often just nods off. I want one of the Labour members to tell us whether that is what will happen. Will we see the private sector involved? Will we see tolling? I will be fascinated to hear the answer to that.

That speech was really a doozy, was it not? To hear Maurice Williamson talk, one would think that he had actually done something about the roads, when all of us here in this Chamber know that he did nothing. He did not introduce private sector funding of roads. He did not introduce any ability for private sector firms to be involved in roads, at all. I think we had better buy him a couple of gross of Twink pens, because he is rewriting history at such a rate that he will need them. That speech was absolutely unbelievable. But the reality is that everybody knows that, for the 6 years he was Minister of Transport and for the 9 years that party was in Government, they did absolutely nothing. The mess that this Government inherited in Auckland’s roads is attributable—not entirely, but in no small measure—to the stewardship of that party and of Maurice Williamson.

Seriously, now, I thank my Green Party colleagues Jeanette Fitzsimons and Mike Ward for their work on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when we were considering the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, which we considered in concert with the Land Transport Management Bill. It was really interesting being on that select committee and listening to the submissions that came in. The submissions fell into three lots. There were those people who took a balanced view and said that yes, we do need to do a variety of things on our roads to make sure that we deal with the problems. They were concerned to look at traffic reduction, or the management of traffic, on our roads. Then there were the people—mainly Green supporters—who do not have a lot of time for cars on roads, and who really wanted us to move quite strongly on alternative means of transport. Then there were the—mainly—business submitters, who started their submissions by saying they did not want to talk about the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, because it was a load of rubbish and they did not agree with anything in it. They would then go on to talk about the Land Transport Management Bill.

When the questions started, committee members suggested to those submitters that there should be a two-pronged approach to the problem, and that maybe there would be some benefit in demand management. When they were asked that question, they all agreed that yes, there would be some benefit in demand management, and that there were things that could be done to improve the volume of traffic on our roads and to improve the way in which people and city councils deal with the traffic. But though they could see that, we had to drag it out of them by questioning. When those people were asked direct questions they had to admit that as well as the building of roads, there are other strategies that need to be implemented, and, in fact, we need to do what the land transport strategy states. We need to take an integrated approach to transport and we need to look at a variety of ways of dealing with the issues that are raised.

On the North Shore, there is a real problem with traffic—in Onewa Road, for example, where the road comes down to meet the motorway. But the passenger funding that was put in place by this Government increased passenger transport use down Onewa Road—the people using the buses—by 27 percent. That is really good, because it means that if there are fewer people going by car—one to a car—but 30 or 40 people going by bus down that road, then the traffic congestion is reduced. That has got to be good, in terms of the cost of transport and of having to develop roads, and it means that we can look at alternative strategies.

The intent of the bill was to get transport decision makers to consider traffic demand management, as well as the support of transport infrastructure. The bill required the Minister of Transport and regional councils to develop targets, timetables, and measures for the reduction of motorised traffic. That was intended to result in an increase in support for public transport, walking, and cycling, at the expense of major roading projects. The second part of the bill was designed to broaden the mandates of Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. The Land Transport Management Act provided for that, which has made Part 2 of this bill redundant. But the Government has worked with the Green Party to look at ways in which its objectives could be met through the land transport strategy. We managed to reach an accommodation—a meeting of minds, if one likes—on the ways in which the Greens’ objectives could be met by the land transport strategy and by incorporating some of those ideas into the Land Transport Management Act so that it was a win-win situation. I do not mean just a win-win situation for the Government and the Greens, but a win-win situation for the people of New Zealand—particularly of Auckland, where I come from, and where transport problems are causing a great deal of difficulty on the roads around there.

This Government has taken a broad-ranging look at the transport needs of the country, and a broad view of what needs to be done to improve them. For a start, one of our key objectives has been the development of the New Zealand land transport strategy. It represents a fundamental change in the way that we deal with transport in New Zealand, as it is the first time that all modes of transport—road, rail, sea, and air—have been looked at in an integrated and a long-term way. The strategy has five main objectives. It is designed to assist economic development, to assist safety and personal security, to improve access and mobility, to protect and promote public health, and to ensure environmental sustainability. I am sure everybody in this House would agree that those are admirable objectives.

The Land Transport Management Act signalled a new era for the planning and operation of this country’s transport infrastructure. The legislation ensured greater consistency in the long-term planning of the networks, a more integrated transport infrastructure, and a multimodal approach to the sector, and it will also provide new mechanisms for the funding of roads. As I said to Mr Williamson at the start of this speech, this Government has made it possible for the private sector to be involved in the provision of roads if it wishes, if there are protections in place to ensure that there are alternative free routes for those people who do not wish or cannot afford to pay tolls, and if the projects are in the public’s interest.

I will finish by giving members a personal anecdote. In 1985 I was living in England, and the M25 was opened—the outer ring road around London. It was marvellous. We would get on to the ring road from north London, where I was living, and drive right around London, even though it was further to drive than the other roads, because it was so easy to get to our destination. In 1989 I went back to London and stayed at my daughter’s place. We were going to north London, and I said to her that we would just take the M25. She said: “For heaven’s sake Mum, do you want to be stuck in a traffic jam for 10 hours?”. That was the difference. In 4 years that road had gone from being a quick and an efficient method of moving around London to being just a huge traffic jam. It had become absolutely congested. The reality is that if we just concentrate on building roads, we do not solve traffic problems. We need roads—of course we do—and Labour does its best as the Government to provide new and vital traffic links. But the reality is that a multifaceted approach is needed in order to solve the transport problems of this country.

If the member who has just resumed her seat thinks that the Government is on track to solve New Zealand’s transport problems, I say to her that she is woefully out of touch with the problem. We have major problems when it comes to moving vehicles—trucks, cars, and what have you—on our roads, because roads have not kept pace with traffic demands, traffic numbers, traffic volumes, and vehicle types. We had better start thinking seriously about how we will address that problem, or it will get worse.

The former Minister of Transport gave a lot of credit to the Greens for the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Claluse 4 states that the purpose of Part 1 is “to provide for regional councils and the Minister of Transport to put in place measures to reduce motorised traffic and thereby enhance environmental quality and the health, safety, and well-being of people and communities.”

This bill will not reduce traffic; nor will the Land Transport Management Act, which the Green Party claims takes on board what this bill sets out to do. I would wager with anybody in this House that every area in this country will see increased traffic volumes, car numbers, and vehicle numbers every year. New Zealanders like the independence that a car provides them with. Trucking is the most effective method of transporting cargo from place to place in this country. Unless we start building roads we will suffer economically, and many people will die in the process.

Our roads are inadequate—in some areas they are woefully inadequate. We have 92,000 kilometres of roading in this country and only 60-something percent is tar-sealed. The former Minister of Transport made reference to congestion charges in London. London is half the size in area of Auckland, with about 12 times the population.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: So?

Well, think about it. We do not have the problems that London has. We are way short of them. If we built decent roads in Auckland—if both former transport Ministers had really wanted to address the problems—we would have a roading project going on here like nobody’s business. To stand up and read a few pamphlets and say that this is what they will do, and that there is record building this year, is absolutely disgraceful. The former Minister of Transport, the Hon Maurice Williamson, knows that the roads built while he was Minister were not of sufficient number—length, volume, whatever—and Mark Gosche should have known the same whilst he was Minister. This Government uses petrol motorists in particular as a cash cow, as did previous Governments. Whilst that attitude prevails, we will never get anywhere. We will get more congestion, more problems, and more people dying as a result of inadequate roading.

If anybody on the other side of the House thinks that public transport will solve the problem, I say that it will reach saturation point pretty quickly, too. Unless public transport is reliable, comfortable, affordable, effective—in other words, can get there in a reasonable time frame—and provides a regular service, it will fail. I congratulate the previous Minister Mark Gosche on at least injecting more funding into public transport, and opening the door for its expansion. But please do not say that it will be the saviour of Auckland, or indeed anywhere else. We are too small a country, and New Zealanders love their cars. I love my car. I have two of them, and I get a distinct pleasure in driving—not in Auckland, but generally elsewhere it is a pleasurable activity. I say very seriously that if we do not start building roads that are safe and well designed for the well-being of this country, we will suffer as a result.

This bill is gobbledygook; it is twaddle; it is rubbish. The only credit one could possibly give it is that it did get some consideration in the Land Transport Management Act. However I think the Land Transport Management Act would have been all the better without this. This is negative thinking, but it should be no surprise. The Green Party, which has Mike Ward as transport spokesperson—I have nothing personal against him—would be the only party that puts up a transport spokesperson who cannot drive a car, has never driven a car, and is not interested in driving a car. He is the transport spokesman for the Greens. No wonder they came up with this twaddle.

💬 Ron Mark: He couldn’t pass a licence.

I do not think he is interested in passing a licence. One thing that the Hon Mark Gosche implied, which I would like to challenge him on, was that the Automobile Association was against public transport. I do not know who he spoke to in the Automobile Association, but as far as I am concerned, ever since I have been in Parliament I have had reasonable ongoing dealings with that organisation, and I have never known anyone from the Automobile Association to come out firmly against public transport. I believe that that should be corrected. There was, I think, a little bit of straying from the truth, because the Automobile Association, although it represents motorists, is not on record anywhere, to my knowledge, as being against public transport. In fact, my personal belief is that it would have encouraged better use and better provision of public transport for many years.

In summary, we are bogged down with red tape, the Resource Management Act, and lack of money. I think the Transit 10-year plan wants $8 billion, and even that will not be enough if one listens to some experts. It will not cover the road building that has to go on in the Bay of Plenty and in Tauranga, in particular—they need $500 million there. People are playing ducks and drakes over whether they will get the finances. But motorists have paid plenty for roading. It is about time that we injected sufficient capital into roading, recognised that it is woefully inadequate, in general terms, across the country, and addressed the problem comprehensively. If, as Labour is saying, walking, cycling, and public transport will be our saviour and the Government is going to rely on that to save the situation, let me tell members the Government will be coming out with egg on its face, and plenty of it.

If this was not so serious it would be funny. We would be one of the few countries in the world that depend on exports and imports and the movement of cargo and people, and we treat our roading in such a frivolous manner. I believe it has reached a crisis point in terms of finances being injected into roading, and I do not think that, with the best will in the world, we will do it without being able to borrow more money. The Government should take note that we need to inject capital in large doses into roading, not only in Auckland but in other areas. From listening to the two former transport Ministers one would think we were talking only about Auckland, but we are talking about the whole country. We need to inject money in sufficient doses, and we will have to borrow money to achieve that. I believe that if the Government really had a will to address the issue, it would be thinking along those lines.

It is no good playing politics with this issue. It affects everybody in this country—everybody. We all get in our cars, buses, trains, or whatever, and we need to be moved here, there, and everywhere. Everything we consume is transported, and most of it comes or goes by truck. I listened to the two former transport Ministers, and I thought they took this issue very light-heartedly. It was almost like a comic opera, and that saddened me.

New Zealand First is on record as wanting something done about the roads in this country, and we want it done urgently. I hope the Government takes note.

Helen Duncan says the Greens do not like cars. It is not that we do not like them, we just do not like the things they do. I do not know how to drive, but my wife has a car. My father gave her his car. I asked my father whether he meant that he wanted me to use my money to keep his car going after he died.

Our cities were designed around the car. It takes a special effort, in fact, to live without a motorcar. Most Greens own a motorcar. Most people own a motorcar. It is difficult to live without one. One has to make other choices. This bill is an attempt to make those other choices possible, to make them easier to access. Peter Brown made the point that our roads are woefully inadequate. If we build more of them we will wind up with more woefully inadequate roads. Peter Brown also mentioned that bus services needed to be affordable, regular, and comfortable. That is the purpose of this legislation. Peter Brown also said that driving is a pleasurable activity. It could be, it can be, but much of the time it is not. If this bill is successful, and we trust it will be, it will make driving a more pleasurable activity for those people who have to drive, who have no other choice.

Peter Brown says we would be one of the few countries in the world that treat our transport in such a frivolous manner. The kinds of measures in this legislation are not cutting edge. They happen in Europe, they happen in many other parts of the world, and I will talk about some of those. But the Road Traffic Reduction Bill is an interesting document. It is a hate it or love it document. There were not too many lukewarm submissions. Some referred to the bill as being anti-business. Rural communities appeared to believe that the passage of the bill would oblige them to get their stock to the works by bicycle or public transport. Others saw it as the death knell of the motorcar. They would be prised out of their prized autos and forced to walk, or sit next to someone else—heaven forbid—on a bus or in a carpool. They seemed always to say they would be sweating, as well. That was one other thing.

The bill, of course, proposes none of these things. It is a very practical element in any modern transport strategy. It recognises that making cars easier to own, faster, and more comfortable, and building more roads to accommodate them, has not made it easier to move people or products, or reduced travel times. The perception of those who opposed the bill was that more cars are inevitable—Peter Brown is typical of this—and that people were not about to change their travelling habits. Such a perception fails to account for those who cannot drive yet; those who are too young, too old, or too disabled to drive; those who choose not to drive; or the vast majority of us who already use a variety of means of getting around, of which the motorcar is but one.

The “more cars are inevitable” mindset also fails to acknowledge cities like Wellington, where over 20 percent of the people entering the city each day have already made the choice to come by public transport, and many others have decided to walk. In Western Australia the TravelSmart scheme identified 40 percent of the population who were already making an effort to travel wisely, and the 40 percent who were likely to be persuaded to leave their cars at home. In one year, traffic volumes reduced by 17 percent. If the Western Australians can do it, New Zealanders can do it.

Supportive submissions came from groups as diverse as cycling advocates, public health authorities, local authorities, and trade unions. Sometimes that support was qualified, but generally it recognised that even if it were possible to solve transport problems by building more roads, such a strategy failed to address the numerous negative consequences. The Waitakere City Council stated in its submission: “If we are able to deliver high-quality living environments to our people, we need to be able to manage and reduce the demand for motorised travel.” While many groups appeared to believe that the bill would undermine business, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions supported the bill and stated that it was interested in traffic solutions that ensured affordable public transport options. The council acknowledged that a reduction in road traffic would confer real social advantages, particularly in safety and health, and that in fact it would be good for regional development.

Stacey Gasson from Johnsonville identified the health risks imposed by motorcars and the new sedentary lifestyles. People who climb into motorcars do not exercise. They do get fatter, they do get ill, they do get cardiovascular disease, they do get Type 2 diabetes, and they also threaten those who would choose to cycle or walk.

The Public Health Association of New Zealand and the Auckland District Health Board supported the purpose of the bill and the measures to enhance environmental quality in the health, safety, and well-being of people in communities. The Auckland District Health Board particularly commented on the estimated 253 people who die prematurely each year from exposure to vehicle fumes. They also point out the use of rewards and penalties that encourage good behaviour, like the Onewa Road fast lane in Northcote whereby drivers can travel in that lane if they have more than three people in their car. So communities are already making smart moves to get people to get out of their cars or share their cars.

The Cycling Advocates Network points out that many of its members are also motorists. While they acknowledge that there is a considerable benefit to cyclists in the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, the bill can have benefits for all road users, including time benefits for those who continue to make trips in motor vehicles, and that during rush hours cyclists regularly arrive at a destination before motorists who are making similar journeys. I might add that yesterday I travelled in from the airport. I came on my tricycle. I left 5 minutes after Ian Ewen-Street left in his taxi. He was actually bringing my bags in. I had 10 minutes to wait after I got here, before he arrived. It took me quarter of an hour less to get in from the airport on a tricycle. I had to go via the waterfront, I might add. He came through the tunnel.

The Cycling Advocates Network points out to “the Road Traffic Reduction Bill is anti-business” lobby that shifting people and goods on to other modes of transport— for example, public transport and rail—enables goods and services that must travel by road to do so more conveniently. It also points out that regular commuter challenges, such as the ones held in Christchurch, consistently show that cycling is the fastest option, door to door, during rush hour for typical work journeys. There has also been the view that such a bill, while laudable in its aims, is not at all practical in terms of being able to succeed, because of our ever-increasing growth in traffic demand. This misses the point that these traffic projections are always based on extrapolating historical trends, as a result of traditional pro - motor vehicle policies, which the bill aims to change. Such trends have been successfully overturned overseas, and with general public acceptance. There is no reason why a similar approach cannot succeed in New Zealand. For example, the TravelSmart programme in Western Australia, which I mentioned before, achieved a 17 percent reduction in car use over the space of 1 year. That is an amazing drop in vehicle volumes. If we do that in Auckland, the traffic will move smoothly all the time. A close-to-home example that members of the select committee may well be familiar with, he says, is the drop in traffic congestion during school holidays. The incorporation in the Land Transport Management Act is a good outcome.

For those who believe that the bulk of submissions oppose the bill, I would point out that the submissions process is not a popularity poll. If making decisions were simply about counting heads, our job would be unnecessary. Our task is to listen to our communities, to weigh up the arguments, and to come to decisions that accommodate those valid arguments. Many of those opposing the bill, when pushed, simply rejected the idea of compulsion. The bill does not talk about compulsion. The Land Transport Management Act is a much better piece of legislation because of the inclusion of the principles of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill has resulted in transport legislation that just might begin to address the absurdity of vast numbers of people sitting in motor vehicles on their own, travelling very slowly—night and morning—to and from places they should have chosen to live much closer to in the first place. I am delighted that this bill has, in fact, been incorporated into the larger Land Transport Management Act, and I look forward to a future in which we start to live in a way that is a little more within the capacity of the planet to provide, and gives ourselves more time to enjoy the process.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. The Road Traffic Reduction Bill, and what it subsequently became absorbed by—the Land Transport Management Bill—have a very interesting history for those of us who care to remember back to when all of this came up, and how we ended up with what we have now. This goes back to certain prime-mover status, public-private partnerships, and Dr Ross Armstrong. Is that ringing a few bells right now? A few dinners? I remember going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and asking for a select committee inquiry into what had gone on with Dr Ross Armstrong and the public-private partnerships, and I drew up the terms of reference. Why was that inquiry not allowed?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Why?

Because the Greens opposed it. Why did the Greens oppose it? Well, coincidence, coincidence—a week later we had Jeanette Fitzsimons announcing with the Prime Minister the introduction of the Land Transport Management Bill.

💬 Jill Pettis: Shock, horror!

It will be shock, horror when the taxpayers find out just how much they have had taken from them by certain people to do with that nasty little episode, which we have not heard the last of yet.

💬 Jill Pettis: Will you write about it?

No, I will not need to write about it, because there are other people in other parties who have a lot more information than I have. This bill is not really about reducing traffic on the roads, it is really about telling other people what is good for them. Jeanette Fitzsimons has said that she is pleased to farewell the bill because, even though road traffic reduction is no longer mentioned in the Land Transport Management Bill, her own words said that that now has become “transport demand management”.

People in the Labour Government accuse us in the Opposition of not being in favour of traffic demand management. Well, that is absolutely incorrect. We are in favour of traffic demand management, but we talk about things like congestion tolling and network tolling. What is more environmentally sensitive than congestion tolling? It is one of the best things that can be done to reduce car emission, because people can choose not to drive when it is more expensive, and it is more expensive when the roads are congested.

Could we get that through the select committee? No, that could not be brought into the bill. We could not have that. Could we have network tolling to solve Auckland’s traffic problems? Sure, building more motorways straight through a city that is a long, narrow isthmus is not going to solve the problems. We need ring roads; we need a whole new system, which has been on the books for the last 30 years but nothing gets done about it. And nothing will get done about it with the Land Transport Management Bill.

If this Government and the Greens really wanted to solve the problems with transport in Auckland and in the rest of the country, they would do something about the Resource Management Act. As I said, what is more polluting than idling traffic stuck in traffic jams? Look at the northern motorway extension. That has been held up for how long—10 years now, 12 years?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Who was in Government?

Well this Government should fix it. It is no use just saying: “Who was in Government?”. This Government had the chance to fix it with the Land Transport Management Bill, but we have already called it the bill of wasted opportunities. It is no good sitting there asking who could have fixed it; this Government should fix it. Under the Resource Management Act the northern motorway has been held up because one person is objecting. Dr Wendy Pond has held it up. She does not even live in Auckland, she lives in the Coromandel, and she has held it up because of native fish. Under the Resource Management Act those fish are considered more important than people’s lives. There are now Transit signs all along that road saying “danger area” and “high accident area”. I went up and down that road just last weekend on my way to and from Puhoi. People have died waiting for that road to be built.

Also, the extension over the Auckland Harbour Bridge has been held up because of five nesting birds that have to be relocated at the expense of the economy. Then we have the fiasco that occurred during the Auckland to Hamilton road-building project. It was held up under the Resource Management Act—which needs to be thrown out if the Land Transport Management Act is ever going to work—because of Māori spiritual values, because of taniwha in a certain bend of the road. This happened under a godless Government with a Prime Minister who talks about us being a secular society. But somehow Māori spiritual values are OK, and Christian spiritual values have no worth at all. The motorway ploughed through the Bolton Street Cemetery with no regard for Christian spiritual values there.

Jeanette Fitzsimons happily says goodbye to this bill. I respect her, because at least she is principled—she believes in what she has put up here. But if this Government really cared about pollution, it would be pro-automobile, not anti-automobile, and that is what this bill is. It is anti-automobile. The car represents individual freedom. It is all very well to talk about increasing the use of public transport, and we can all use it when we choose, but it is interesting to me that the people who have talked so loudly about biking, all use cars. How many times do we drive along and see bikes attached to the back of cars, or on top of cars. Bicycles are fine, walking is fine—one of the members over there talked about walking to work every day, and some of us run to work—but that is never suitable for a mother. How can a mother with four children at four different schools, who has to pick them up from school, go to work, drop them off, take them to soccer, take them to ballet, and take them to rugby, do all of that on public transport? It is just not possible.

Today the car is much more accessible to New Zealanders. Most families have two cars and it is ironic for Mark Gosche, who was the Minister of Transport when this bill was introduced, to proudly say that more people are using buses. Well, of course they would be, in places like Timaru, because this Government is busy closing down schools and shoving kids on to buses to travel an hour each way. So many children have been thrown on to buses down in Timaru that the police have been stopping the buses and taking children off because of overcrowding.

Why is a bus, by nature, safer than a car? It is on the same road, and it has got the same factor of human error. Mike Ward says that he does not mind cars, he just does not like what cars do, but then he did not go on to say what the car does.

This bill, as Jeanette Fitzsimons said, has been absorbed into the Land Transport Management Bill, and that is why she is happy to kiss it goodbye. The Land Transport Management Bill is just another example of how this Government is giving special treatment to Māori—special treatment based on race. They think it is funny, but it is a patronising, arrogant attitude. The Land Transport Management Bill means that people will have to consult iwi and other affected communities. Are iwi not part of the community? Are iwi going to be treated like aliens by this Government? This legislation will not facilitate one extra kilometre of New Zealand roads. If we are going to get New Zealand back up into the top half of the OECD—another broken promise by this Government, just like looking after rural schools—we have to get Auckland, the engine room of New Zealand, working. The way this Government could start doing that would be to stop spending a lot of the money it takes off motorists in user-charges, stop spending it on all its fancy schemes—like have having photographs taken with movie stars and pouring money into movie moguls from California—and spend it on fixing some of the roads.

I did not actually agree with Mr Peter Brown when he said we need to tar-seal every single road in New Zealand. Just because a road is not tar-sealed, it does not mean it is not safe. There are some places that do not need their roads tar-sealed, and that is how Transfund used to operate. It used to operate on a cost-benefit basis. But now it is required to take all these other areas into account.

I want to start my speech by commending Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens for all the work, the principles, and the philosophies behind the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Road traffic congestion is a major problem, and I say that as an Aucklander and in fact as a very proud west Aucklander. All Aucklanders know that we need a solution, and Auckland’s congestion problems are New Zealand’s congestion problems. This Government knows that one size does not fit all. We are not all the same. The solution has to be an integrated transport system. The Labour-led Government, since 1999, has done more for New Zealand’s transport infrastructure than any other previous Government in over 20 years.

Some people believed that by legislating to remove private cars from busy roads, the problem could be fixed. We knew that would not work, and we saw things differently. Encouraging users of transport towards using a more effective and better public transport system, by having better networks and better infrastructure, such as bus and rail, would have a much better outcome. Sure, we need roads, but we also need to use other transport modes. Both Auckland and the regions have been calling out for more transport funding.

The key issues that were in the Road Transport Reduction Bill have been addressed with the recently passed Land Transport Management Act. Under the New Zealand Transport Strategy, which has been developed with the Greens, we have seen a fundamental change in the way we deal with transport in New Zealand. The vision for transport—and I think it is a very good vision—is that by 2010 New Zealand will have an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system. This is really exciting stuff. The strategy aims to ensure that transport can contribute to the Government’s objective to return New Zealand’s per capita income to the top half of the OECD while also improving our communities and our environment.

The New Zealand Transport Strategy represents a really new way of looking at things. For the first time, we are looking at all modes of transport: road, rail, sea, and air. To this end, it has five main objectives: to assist economic development, to assist safety and personal security, to improve access and mobility, to protect and promote public health, and to ensure environmental sustainability.

I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and heard many submissions. I congratulate everybody who was committed enough to submit on this bill, and they include businesses, groups, unions, councils, and individuals. They did not all agree on what the best solution was. Some of them were like Peter Brown; they love cars and find it hard in their leisure time to not be doing something with them—driving them, cleaning them, repairing them, or even taking their photograph. But every submitter accepted that there was not only one solution, and that there were real benefits in persuading people that public transport and other initiatives were absolutely crucial to the overall solution.

Again, the National Party is running the same old “one size fits all” line. Its answer has to be roads, roads, and more roads. We know that a key part of the solution—and we are doing it; we are not just griping about it—is investing for growth. Our growing economy and population requires increased investment. This package will contribute to that. It strikes a balance between a catch-up for Auckland and the need for the rest of the country to develop further infrastructure.

There is new investment of nearly $297 million per year for land transport initiatives—almost $3 billion over 10 years. All revenue from the increased fuel excise levy will be used to fund land transport initiatives. The revenue will be distributed regionally on a population basis, so that every region will get an increase in funding, and local bodies will be allowed to borrow and toll.

Let us look at rail. Last year we opened Britomart, and what an event that was. The Labour-led Government has invested in rail by buying back the Auckland rail corridor. In my own electorate, we are celebrating the event of double-tracking. It is going to deliver, and it is going to deliver west Aucklanders to where they want to go. We have waited a long time for it. Since 2000 the number of journeys taken on passenger transport has increased by nearly 25 percent, and we have seen some major initiatives during that time. Central government funding for passenger transport has almost doubled from $36.3 million in 1998-99 to over $71 million in 2002-03. This financial year, the national land transport programme has allocated $96 million to public transport. That is good for Auckland and good for New Zealand. For the first time, we see that we have a big picture around transport, showing work on all our transport initiatives under way. We have all seen it; Mark Gosche spoke very eloquently on that.

There is road maintenance, construction, and passenger alternatives—I will talk about those later—and walking and cycling strategies. Transfund allocated almost $1.2 billion last year, which is an increase of a whopping 8 percent. There has never been more funding available in New Zealand for transport, and there will be more. I want to commend Mike Ward, who spoke very well on the advantages to health in this country of initiatives around cycling and walking. I think—and I hate to say it; I do not want to be unkind, but the other side of the House ridiculed this and it shows—those members on the other side of the House should get out of their cars and do a bit of exercise. They should get their bodies working and get their brains working.

💬 Jill Pettis: Too late for that!

Yes, it is too late for that. We know about the health benefits, and that is why we are committed to $3 million of funding to walking and cycling. We also have a national walking and cycling strategy, which will help inform future funding needs.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Another strategy!

That member comes from a party that could not strategise its way out of a paper bag. Whenever they say anything in this House they keep getting it wrong. They are reduced now to just chirping away, and not daring to put any facts on the table, because every time they do that those facts are wrong.

We also, and I feel very proud of this, are reducing the impact of transport on the environment. In March 2001 we incorporated a 10-second visual test to allow police to more easily identify and prosecute owners of excessively smoky vehicles. New measures are being explored to reduce the impact of vehicle exhaust emissions. This is all good for our health. This Government has agreed to changes in the fuel specifications to lower sulphur levels in diesel used in Auckland. Further changes—and more are coming—will take effect in 2004. We have much to be proud of in terms of transport. We are not resting on our laurels. We are making sure things get done. That is what this Government is about. That is what that party never did when it was in Government. It is good to see things happen, and it is great to speak in support of this bill.

We can have all the weasel words we like, but the fact is that the problem is getting worse. The congestion year-by-year gets worse and worse, and no amount of waffle from that member can fix it. But I want to come to the issue of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. One could have taken this bill straight out of Karl Marx’s book—because it is a bit like this: if only we had a bill to reduce traffic reduction, it would reduce. The Minister for the Environment would have us believe that if we had a “Flatulence Reduction Bill”, that would reduce flatulence; that if we had an “Obesity Reduction Bill”, that would reduce obesity, and that if we had a “Crime Reduction Bill”, that would reduce crime. The notion we have from the movers and from the Labour Party is that if only Parliament would pass a bill stating that everybody will be good, then it will happen! It is a bizarre approach—that, somehow, if we pass a bill that says there will be traffic reduction, everybody will get out of their cars and life will be nirvana. Well, I have news for members: it does not work that way. One actually has to have a bit more intellectual grunt and a bit more substance to one’s policy than shoving through the Parliament of New Zealand bills of that sort.

The whole concept behind this bill is centralised planning. It is as though each morning everybody gets up and says: “What’s the Government said I have to drive today? Has the Government told me I have to get on my bike today? Has the Government said I have to drive a car today?” It is as though there is no free choice. The reality is that whether people take a bike, walk, or drive, that decision is an individual decision made by every independent New Zealander. One can drive all the wiffly-waffly bills through Parliament one likes—

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Nobody told me I couldn’t drive my car today.

I say to that Minister for the Environment—a Minister who has wanted to pass all sorts of waffly legislation of this sort—that by passing some sort of strategy, and some target, such as a target for waste reduction—

💬 Hon Member: What happened?

The Minister has passed a target bill for waste reduction. Waste keeps going up, but we have a wonderful target, and somehow we are all meant to feel a lot better! Well, we do not, and we actually need some policies that have some substance. What would make a positive difference? The sort of thing that would make a positive difference, rather than the squealing and whingeing from the Minister for the Environment, is to do something about the Resource Management Act, and fix it so that we can get on and do some things.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: What about the environment?

Let me give an example to the screeching Minister from the other side. The excellent member from the Coromandel is in the House. She would know that every day, every week, and every year, vast numbers of people wait at the Kopu Bridge. She has been diligently working to try to have that bridge replaced. Now, let me tell members what happened with the legislation that the Minister for the Environment is responsible for. They had to do some drilling to determine the design of the bridge.

💬 Jill Pettis: Don’t shout!

I have to shout, I tell Ms Pettis, because the whingeing women on her side of the House keep interjecting. Let me come back to the issue, and that is that they had to drill into the bed of the river at the bridge to determine—

💬 Jill Pettis: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take objection to that misogynistic statement.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that for the whole time I have been speaking, I have had to put up with constant screaming from Mrs Hobbs and Jill Pettis. If they do not like being called whingeing women they should shut up.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): No, we will not have members being referred to by those terms. The member will withdraw that please.

I withdraw. Let me come to the substance, because that Minister opposite is responsible. As I was saying, all they wanted to do was drill two 3-inch diameter holes at the Kopu Bridge to do the foundation. Because of that Minister’s policy, they had to get consent from the local iwi, and they said, under this Government’s policies, that it was offensive to drill those holes to build the bridge, and they did not even do the investigation. It took 2 years and cost $200,000 to get consent to drill two holes. I say to members opposite that we will continue to have traffic congestion like my colleague Sandra Goudie has to put up with at the Kopu Bridge while the foolish Minister for the Environment continues to block sensible reform of the Resource Management Act. Reform of the Act is needed so we can build some of the roads we need.

I come now to the great plans and the great strategies that the Government has for road building. In particular, I want to challenge the Government about its 10-year roading plan. Last year Government members went up and down New Zealand consulting New Zealanders on Transfund’s 10-year plan. They spent 8 months consulting on it, and in August last year, the Minister, with great fanfare said: “Here’s the 10-year plan for building roads around New Zealand.” Do members know how long the 10-year plan lasted? Not 6 months. Within 6 months the Government had binned its 10-year plan and had walked away from the decisions within it. That is how far we are away from getting any sensible decision-making in this crucial area.

Then there is the key issue of Auckland roads—and everybody accepts we have a problem. The problem for the Government is that it is $4 billion short on solving the problem. We have heard absolutely no answer from the Government as to how it will fix it. All the key groups accept that the congestion in Auckland under Labour has got worse, and under its policy it will continue to get worse.

I also turn to the provisions in the bill for more planning. The provisions that the Minister has picked up out of this bill and put into law involve even more bureaucracy. In fact, we had roading plans for roads that were already to be built, but, as a consequence of this legislation, we had to have more bureaucracy and more navel-gazing rather than getting on with the job and building those necessary projects. We are miles away from having any sensible approach to roading.

I want to set out very clearly what National says should be done. The first thing is that we must reform the Resource Management Act. The select committee has been advised that it now takes 7 years to get a consent for a new road—that is absolute nonsense. It is unacceptable and it must be fixed. It rests at the desk of Marian Hobbs that that legislation has not been reformed. She has rejected the sensible proposals that National had introduced into the House to address those very issues. The second thing we must do, as my colleague Maurice Williamson pointed out, is look at congestion pricing. That is a sensible model. It is a model that provides for getting the pricing signals right. Where we differ from the Green Party and the Labour Party is that if we are going to get sensible transport decisions we have to get the pricing right. We have to get the market signals correct so that when people are making choices as to whether they use public transport, rail, bicycle, walking, or cars those true costs are reflected.

As has been so amply illustrated in other parts of the world, congestion pricing is the way forward. The problem for Labour is that in the late 1990s as National developed the intellectual policy work to bring in congestion pricing, Labour members opposite decried it. They shouted it down. They would not understand it, they do not understand what is required for it, and until they grapple with that issue the transport problems in our major centres will continue to get worse. The third thing that must be accepted by this Parliament is the extra capital investment that is required for roads. I was amused, I almost fell out of my seat laughing, when I heard Lynne Pillay say that the Government has budgeted to spend more on roads. The problem is that the Government has not spent. Do members know that Transfund is sitting on a $240 million surplus? People are sitting in congested traffic all over New Zealand while Transfund is sitting on $240 million.

💬 Jill Pettis: We’ve got a plan.

How, I ask the rowdy Jill Pettis, does it help the road users of New Zealand to have their petrol taxes put up not once but twice, and to have vast sums of money sitting in the capital funds when it should be getting spent on the roading works this nation requires?

I rise to make a contribution in the debate, and in doing so I will comment on the previous member’s contribution. His speech said nothing whatsoever about vision and where we are going, and that is simply because the Opposition has no real policy to stand on. We heard from Maurice Williamson earlier. I learnt that he had a 6-year term as Minister, over a 9-year tenure of the National Government in the 1990s. The National Government did absolutely zilch to contribute to fixing the problems that we have with transport today. This Labour-led Government will fix it. We are in the process of doing that, and we have been opening roads in the Auckland area. The plaques have Labour across them. There are no plaques stating that National is opening roads. Not one road in the Auckland area has a plaque stating that National is opening that road. That just goes to show that in the absence of real policy this Labour-led Government will have to fix the problem.

I want to revisit the purpose of the bill. The bill aims to get transport decision makers to consider traffic demand management, as well as the supply of transport infrastructure. The bill requires the Minister of Transport and regional councils to develop targets, timetables, and measures for the reduction of motorised road traffic. This is intended to result in an increase in support for public transport, walking and cycling at the expense of major road projects. I would like to acknowledge members of the Green Party, particularly Jeanette Fitzsimons, the sponsor of the bill—

💬 Hon Member: Why?

She has vision—simply because they were putting up alternative methods of transport. It is only right that we give her that acknowledgment. I felt a bit offended when Peter Brown suggested that the Greens spokesperson on transport required a driver’s licence before he could hold that portfolio. I thought to myself: “Well, if that is the case, Mr Brown, do you also have to have a driver’s licence to get married?”. Where did that criterion come from? We all know, as my colleague Lynne Pillay suggested, that the member loves motorcars. I understand he has two. But to undermine my Green colleague Mike Ward in relation to his holding that portfolio, and to suggest that he should have a driver’s licence, is, I think, unacceptable. However, in saying that, I would like to mihi Jeanette Fitzsimons for her contribution and for putting up a bill that has led to the opportunities we have.

Road traffic congestion was seen as a serious problem. Some people believe that by legislating to remove private motorcars from busy roads, the problem could be fixed. We see things slightly differently. Encouraging users of transport to use more effective and better modes of transport by assisting in the development of better networks and infrastructure, such as bus and rail, would have a better outcome. The Government has had some key achievements. Released in December 2002, its strategy aims to ensure that transport can contribute to the Government’s objective to return New Zealand’s per capita income to the top half of the OECD. I was reading through a magazine, and I would like to share this point with colleagues in the House: “A Transfund New Zealand review of transport projects over $20 billion has confirmed all six projects remain in the 2003-04 national land transport programme. However, some will require conditions to be met before they can be considered for funding. The six projects being promoted by Transit New Zealand are: the Mangatawhiri deviation in the Waikato, Hewletts Road flyover in Tauranga, the inner-city bypass in Wellington, the SH20 Mount Roskill extension in Auckland, North Shore busway in Auckland, and the Esmond Road interchange in Auckland.” Those are just some examples of this Government’s initiatives in moving to deal with the traffic congestion problem.

The New Zealand Transport Strategy represents a fundamental change in the way we deal with transport in New Zealand. This is the first time that all modes of transport—road, rail, sea, and air—will be looked at in an integrated and long-term way. To this end, we have five main objectives: to assist economic development, to assist safety and personal security, to improve access and mobility, to protect and promote public health, and to ensure environmental sustainability. To that end, the investment for growth is building a world-class infrastructure as a key element of the Government’s growth and innovation framework. A growing economy and population require increased investment, and this transport package is an important investment in New Zealand’s economic infrastructure. It strikes a balance between the need for a catch-up for Auckland and the need for the rest of the country to develop further its own infrastructure.

The package, at a glance, is a new investment of an average of $297 million per year for land transport initiatives. That is putting one’s money where one’s mouth is—almost $3 billion over 10 years, and I think that that investment will surely look towards the congestion problem. All revenue from the increased fuel excise levy will be used to fund land transport initiatives, and the revenue will be distributed regionally on a population basis so that every region—I repeat, every region—will get an increase in funding for land transport initiatives. Local bodies will be allowed to borrow and toll, and a new non-political body will manage Auckland’s land transport needs.

Also, the Patronage Funding Scheme is an initiative that was taken on board, and the community is buying into it. Since 2000 the number of journeys taken on passenger transport has increased by 24.9 percent. It has actually increased. I think that is positive. I think it is good. It helps with the congestion problem. In that time we have seen some major regional passenger transport initiatives, thanks to the financial contributions of councils and Transfund. We heard earlier that Transfund had a pocket of money just sitting there. Well, I can say to that member that Transfund is contributing as well as the councils. As a result of the success of the scheme, central government funding for passenger transport has also doubled. [Interruption] I do not think members opposite want to hear that, but it has. I can see that they do not want to hear it, but I will tell them anyway. It has doubled from $36.3 million in 1998-99 to $71.2 million in the year 2002-03. I know that those members did not want to hear that. When the Patronage Funding Scheme was introduced in November 2000, Transfund said that it would review it in 2003. The current scheme would continue until June 2004 to allow time for that review to be completed.

In winding up, I shall talk about one of the initiatives that the Green Party members had looked at, and that was to encourage walking and cycling as alternative modes of transport. I did hear earlier that National members acknowledged that that was a positive alternative. Albeit positive, they felt that it was not enough to deal with the problem. In relation to the walking bus, in the Wellington area before Christmas I walked with schoolchildren to school. It reminded me of my old school days when we had to walk to school, as well. We walked from the Hairini bypass through the Waimapu estuary to get to school and back. The memories that walk brought back were quite cheerful, because I recall to this day that every time we walked home and the tide was out, it was guaranteed that we would be eating eels for tea that night. It was a good alternative practice. I acknowledge the Green members for their initiative to introduce such a scheme. I recall at the time that people were not heeding it. However, it is working not only to help our traffic congestion but also in a healthy way for the public.

I was not going to take a call in this debate because—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Sit down.

I would sit down, but the point is that after the last address I feel myself compelled to take a call. One fact that came out of the speech made by Dave “Horeora” in the debate tonight has to be repeated. [Interruption] The member should listen to this; it is important. New Zealand was waiting for something to come out of the Labour Government from this debate tonight, and it is this: Dave “Horeora” was responding to a comment made by Peter Brown when he talked about the Green spokesperson on transport, and I want it recorded because it is important. Apparently Peter Brown said that the spokesperson on transport from the Greens should have a driver’s licence, and Dave “Horeora” said that of course it was not fair that one should have a driver’s licence only for driving. Apparently one had to have a driver’s licence for marriage, as well.

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the third time the senior whip, Mr Carter, has—presumably accidentally—inaccurately referred to my colleague and mispronounced his name. I would ask him to abide by the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I think it was inadvertent. I take it that the member knows the correct pronunciation of the name of the member who spoke before him.

No. Can you tell me what it is?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Hereora.

Hereora. OK. I do apologise to the member. I was not trying to take the mickey out of him about his name. However, I will try to highlight this issue. In fact, I will not even say his name now in case I get it wrong. I want to highlight this issue because I think it is important.

When members think about some of the things this Government has done, they will realise that it has been very cunning in the way it has made those announcements. Obviously, it was that member’s turn to make that announcement with regard to marriage and family tonight. Now one does not have to get a marriage licence; rather, one has to get a driver’s licence when one wants to get married. The mind starts to boggle. Can members imagine a person in a car with a testing officer who is testing that person on driving and, half way through, the officer says to change into second gear. The person starts to move the gear lever forward and the testing officer says to put the blinker on. The person starts to put the blinker on, making sure he or she is getting it right, and when turning the corner says: “By the way, can I get married?”. The poor old testing officer will not know whether that person means to the officer or to someone else—or who the heck that person is getting married to. It will certainly not be anyone from Labour, because there will not be anyone here after the next election—but what a revelation! That is the problem with this debate. That contribution is at about the level of contribution that Labour is making now to the governance of this country.

That brings me to the thing I really want to say. Here are the Labour members, banging on about the fact that National did not do this and National did not do that—we did not open any roads and there are no plaques around the place. The fact is that that may or may not be so—and it is not actually accurate—but, more important, the point is that it is 5 years since Labour took over governance of this country—5 long years; 1999-2004. Well, let us be pedantic. It is 4½ years—or however long one likes—and what has it done about Auckland’s congestion? Labour members have added to it. The only thing they do is to get in their LTDs and drive around Auckland—

💬 Brian Connell: And then they are getting married.

And then they use drivers’ licences to get married to people.

The real problem is that this is the Government that added 4c on to a litre of petrol—I cannot remember exactly when—and increased the petrol tax. Why did it do that? Those members came into this House saying they had to do it so they could get the roading infrastructure right, and get everything right. What has happened? [Interruption] It is the cost of a driver’s licence. The question is: what has happened to the money? It has gone into the consolidated account. There is a $240-million surplus. What will happen to that? It will go back into Michael Cullen’s surplus.

💬 Brian Connell: They said that was for Auckland roading.

Well, it has not gone on Auckland roading, has it? It has gone into the consolidated account. [Interruption] The “paint stripper” from the other side can cry as much as she likes, but that is the actual fact about the matter—it keeps going back into the consolidated account. Why? What have they done to make it work? Nothing.

What have they done about planning? Before we left office we had a plan to get the planning right. The Hon Nick Smith had a bill prepared that would have overcome some of the planning problems and allowed us to proceed. What did Government members do? They scrapped it. They consigned it to the wastepaper bin and changed it so it was hopeless, mainly because the Greens were—well, I cannot say what they were kissing. Anyway, the fact is that they did away with the planning legislation that would have helped them out.

The next thing that is a worry is that the Government is saying not only did it put petrol up by 4c a couple of years ago but it is going to whack it up another 5c. Why? Because it wants to fix the roads in Auckland—fix the congestion here and fix the congestion there. It cannot do the planning because that will take 3 or 4, or 10 years to get through. But even if it does do the planning, what about this question: who will they get to do the work? There are not the firms in this country to carry out all the work that needs to be done, if the money were available. Has the Government thought about that?

💬 Brian Connell: What about the RMA?

Well, we have dealt with the Resource Management Act. But the Government will have to bring people in from overseas to carry out the work if it is to be done, and will this Government allow private enterprise firms from overseas in here? Not on your nelly! One has to be joking. It would be like the driver asking the testing officer to marry him or her, for goodness’ sake. It would be the same sort of thing. It is just a nonsense, and some of the things the Government is doing, I have to say in this House, absolutely stagger me. Having listened to some of the speeches and excuses from the member who just resumed his seat, one has to say, no wonder Labour is in trouble politically, because its thinking is all over the place.

💬 Sandra Goudie: The wheels have fallen off.

Well, in this case the wheels have fallen off. At last Labour members are starting to feel the breeze of change going up their skirts, and they do not like it. They are starting to get all worried about what is happening in the House. Their speeches are showing it and their demeanour is showing it. The whole way they are looking shows they know they are in trouble, and they know that some of the things they are doing will cause them more problems. My colleague from Coromandel remarked to me that she had never heard so many back-benchers speak on a Wednesday night as we have tonight. We have never heard them take full speeches, and we cannot understand why. It is a change of tactics—they are worried. This bill is another example of why they will go down the gurgler.

Motion not agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.