Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration, that the committee report by 14 June 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

As anyone who lives in Auckland will tell us, the rapid growth in the region in recent years has led to escalating problems with transport. Auckland is beset by severe congestion, resulting in rising travel times, excessive pollution, and additional costs to business, individuals, and communities. Because of Auckland’s size and its importance to the economy, these problems are having an impact on the whole country. It is an impact that is only likely to worsen unless action is taken. This bill takes action. The roots of Auckland’s transport woes lie in two key issues: firstly, a history of underinvestment in transport, which has lagged well behind the growing demand for it; and, secondly, confused decision making, which has resulted from an inefficient and cumbersome governance structure with too many bodies involved in it.

In the Investing for Growth package announced before Christmas last year, this Government laid out comprehensive plans for tackling both these issues. This bill deals primarily with the second issue: governance. The Auckland region contains four city councils and three district councils in close proximity, all of which have local priorities for land transport. In addition to Auckland’s territorial authorities, there is a regional council with its own transport priorities, and all these organisations sit alongside national agencies with national priorities. The challenge in the governance of Auckland transport is how to achieve a regional approach to transport problems while preserving the need for Auckland’s territorial authorities to have input into it. Our solution is laid out in this bill.

The Government has decided that the Auckland Regional Council should have overall responsibility for land transport in the Auckland region, with the exception of State highways and rail tracks, which will remain the responsibility of Transit New Zealand and the soon-to-be TrackCo respectively. The Auckland Regional Council will continue to be responsible for the regional land transport strategy, through its regional land transport committee. However, in future, the role of delivering land transport services in Auckland will pass to two new subsidiaries: the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings.

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be the body responsible for delivering the land transport services that give effect to the Auckland Regional Council’s regional land transport strategy. It will make the decisions on the projects that best comply with that strategy, and when and in what order they should occur. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will prepare a land transport programme, detailing its planned activities, and including statements of all regional priorities in respect of particular projects and activities. It will then seek funding for these projects from either the Auckland Regional Council, Transfund, the Land Transport Safety Authority, the Auckland territorial authorities, or other sources, as appropriate. The bill provides for the Auckland Regional Council to determine the level of funding it will provide to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority each year, while the authority will determine the prioritisation of individual activities within its regional land transport programme. The creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will address the fragmentation of land transport governance by concentrating in a single body the roles of planning, funding, and the development of regional land transport in a way that contributes to an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system.

While the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be a subsidiary of the Auckland Regional Council, a business-like board appointed by an appointments panel will run it. The appointments panel will include a representative from each of the region’s seven territorial authorities, and eight Auckland Regional Council members, including the chair of the Auckland Regional Council, who will be the chair of the panel. A candidate will require a minimum of 10 votes from the panel to be appointed to the board. The success of these changes will depend on getting the right people into the right positions. Therefore, the appointments panel will be required to select candidates with the right mix of expertise and knowledge. To avoid any potential for conflicts of interest, elected members and employees of Auckland local authorities will not be eligible to sit on the board of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority.

The roles of Transfund, the Land Transport Safety Authority, Transit, and TrackCo will not change as result of this bill. The relationships between Transfund and Auckland local authorities will, however, change in future. Transfund will deal primarily with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, rather than with eight different local authorities. The bill also provides for the disestablishment of Infrastructure Auckland and the transfer of its assets and liabilities to a new entity, Auckland Regional Holdings. Auckland Regional Holdings will be a subsidiary of the Auckland Regional Council, and will be a vehicle for owning and managing land transport and other assets in the interests of the Auckland region. In doing so, it will make available any land transport assets that it holds for use in the delivery of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s land transport programme.

The bill requires that at least 85 percent of the revenue from the Infrastructure Auckland funds provided by Auckland Regional Holdings to the Auckland Regional Council are spent on transport and stormwater purposes. In allocating those funds, the Auckland Regional Council will have regard to its long-term council community plan, as well as to the notional allocations that have been developed by Infrastructure Auckland for transport and stormwater. That percentage will be able to be reviewed from 2008.

The bill also requires changes to be made to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and Auckland’s regional and district plans. This is to provide for integrated transport and land use policies that are consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy and the Auckland regional land transport strategy. The bill directs the eight Auckland councils to prepare changes to their planning documents, and to notify the proposed changes for public submission by 26 February 2005. The bill also provides for a coordinated process by requiring that councils appoint a joint hearings panel to hear submissions and make recommendations on the proposed changes to councils. Councils will, however, retain full autonomy over the planning and decision-making process.

Stronger policy direction will mean that proposals for land use intensification or transport projects that are consistent with that direction are more likely to be approved under the Resource Management Act, or declined where they are inconsistent. The integration of transport and land use policies will shape the growth of metropolitan Auckland and support a competitive and efficient economy. The changes will pave the way for implementing the Government’s increased funding package for improved roading, public transport, walking, and cycling. In the long term, the changes will contribute to a greater quality of life for Aucklanders.

As I indicated earlier, this bill delivers part of the Government’s Investing for Growth package. It does not cover the other critical issue in the transport package—that of funding. Officials are undertaking ongoing work to develop the details in respect of increases in fuel tax and road-user charges, and a Crown contribution to that will deliver an additional $1.62 billion to fund Auckland transport over the next 10 years. It is the Government’s intention that the additional revenue raised by higher fuel taxes and road-user charges should be allocated across all the regions of New Zealand on the basis of population.

It is desirable that the bill be enacted in time for the establishment of the new entities on 1 July this year. I acknowledge that that is a tight timetable. It is a result of the time required to address the complex issues that have had to be addressed in developing the bill, and of the urgent need to implement the changes.

If this is the answer, it must have been one heck of a dumb question. Every member in this House knows that there is an enormous transport challenge in the city of Auckland. There is no disagreement on that. Where there is huge disagreement is over the answer, and after 4½ years of a Labour Government we have this bill, which will take us nowhere.

💬 Jill Pettis: Where are all the Auckland members?

From the member for Whanganui, I want to know why more bureaucracy will help Auckland’s problems. Why will establishing yet another public body make any difference to addressing the city’s transport issues?

What is even more extraordinary is that if one asked the people of Auckland which local authority they had the least level of confidence in, they would overwhelmingly say the Auckland Regional Council. Yet this Government, in this bill, will substantially increase the powers of the Auckland Regional Council. I say to members opposite that if they really believe that the Auckland Regional Council is the answer to all of Auckland’s woes, the sooner they are kicked off the Government benches the better for the people of Auckland.

I also want to say to members opposite that the kind of approach in this bill is all about plans, strategies, and talkfests, when what the people of Auckland want is some action on the outstanding issues, on which there has been so little progress over the last 4½ years. The timetable provided for in this bill is appalling. The bill states that a land transport programme will be prepared for Auckland on 1 July 2006. That is 2¼ years away! Can the people of Auckland put up with another plan on 1 July 2006? It is truly pathetic. It is acknowledged that Auckland’s transport problems are costing the economy of New Zealand a billion dollars a year, yet members opposite are happy to sit around and wait to prepare a plan for 1 July 2006. I say that that is simply not good enough.

Then we ask who will be responsible for the mess. Well, we are to have a new body—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. We will have Transfund, TrackCo, Transit, the nine territorial authorities, and the regional council as well. The idea that we will have progress on Auckland’s transport issues, with 13 different bodies trying to make that progress, is truly extraordinary.

Then we have the Minister, who believes in the power of general competence. That is the Minister who said we needed to give local authorities flexibility and trust them to make their own decisions. Yet this bill states that they must spend 85 percent of the money in a particular way. Does that sound like trusting local authorities? Why is it 85 percent? Why not 86 percent? Why not 81 percent? Given those provisions, what sort of stupid, arbitrary legislation is he proposing for Parliament? This legislation provides for nothing more than a dog’s breakfast in making decisions on one of the most important issues facing this country’s largest city.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Give us a policy!

Mr Clayton Cosgrove pipes up. I will tell him what was a damn good policy: 4½ years ago his Government dumped Better Transport, Better Roads. That report had good intellectual thought and policy in it, and it dumped that. It has taken 4½ years for it to deliver this policy, which will do nothing for the people of Auckland.

The other issue is that the Resource Management Act is a huge barrier to making progress on Auckland’s serious roading issues.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Which Government passed it?

Judith Tizard pipes up and asks who passed it. I put it to her that when she came to Government in 1999, there was a very substantive reform bill before the House, and her Government rejected it. It must take responsibility for that, and for the fact that those reforms have not been provided for. The Resource Management Act continues to be a major barrier to dealing with those Auckland issues. And what does this bill do? This bill extends the culture of planning, and strategies, and bureaucracy that is at the core of the problem of Auckland’s transport issues.

This bill provides for piecemeal reform of the Resource Management Act. It provides for another round of regional and district plan reforms. Does the Government know how long it takes, on average, for reform of a district or regional plan? It takes 4 years, and I ask members who represent Auckland, particularly those on the Government benches, whether we can wait around 4 years for progress on Auckland’s transport issues. Clearly, we cannot wait that long.

I also say it is ironic that in this bill we will see a raid on Infrastructure Auckland. I remember when Infrastructure Auckland was set up. Members opposite, who are now in Government, said it would be a financial disaster. In fact, it was a stunning success. Such a large pot of money now exists in Infrastructure Auckland that this Government wants to raid it, and we again raise questions about that.

I also want to say that the timetable set down for this bill is ironic. It has taken 4½ years for the Government to get this bill to the House, and it is going to rush it through in 3 months. Yes, we do need a timely solution, but that is treating this Parliament with contempt.

I also want to address the important issues of funding. Despite increasing petrol taxes on all New Zealanders—not once but twice—this Government is spending less on road construction, in real terms, than in 1999.

💬 Jill Pettis: Rubbish!

The member says that is rubbish. I challenge her to produce the figures, because that is absolutely the truth. This Government is sitting on $230 million in Transit’s bank account, while the people of Auckland wake up every morning to huge congestion. That is a disgrace.

National will oppose this bill because it is miles away from a solution. This bill is about talkfests, about planning, and about bureaucracy, when we need leadership and decisive action. This Government has failed again, and the patience of the people of Auckland has run out. The people of Auckland will not support the Auckland Regional Council, the least competent body in Auckland, to progress transport and the important issues in Auckland.

The Minister has to do a damned sight better than this if he has any hope of dealing with the serious issues. We have to deal with funding issues and with Resource Management Act issues. We need less bureaucracy, not more, if we are going to solve Auckland’s transport problems.

That speech came from a man who was part of a Government that strangled Auckland for 9 years. It came from a lawbreaker and a wrecker, a person who was part of a Government that passed the Resource Management Act then set out to destroy it, and who destroyed regional government in his own region. The forestry companies are coming to us and saying they now have to do three times the work they would have done under regional government. The National Party has completely failed at the first hurdle. Could it put up an Aucklander? It could not even find an Aucklander. It could not find an Auckland MP to get up and talk about this issue, and it had to put up the lawbreaker, the wrecker from Nelson, who cares about nothing in Auckland.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not want that word to be used again, and I want the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I bring to your attention that the Minister here also used the word “lawbreaker”, and I would ask that he also withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member made that comment he will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will be no further comments about that.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During that interchange the member Nick Smith challenged another member’s courage. That is right outside the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly correct. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Now we will proceed properly with the debate.

That pathetic little speech came from the wrecker from Nelson, the person who sobbed and wept about his previous leader, Bill English, losing the leadership. Bill English went looking for congestion in Auckland and could not find any—the bus ripped up the motorway. National does not even realise that the congestion is there only sometimes—it knows so little about Auckland.

This legislation is the third time in 14 years that Parliament has tried to bring some sense to Auckland transport in terms of national legislation. First of all, the wrecker from Nelson joined together with Warren Cooper, the wrecker from Queenstown, who was so worried that he came over and told me that I had to understand that if Auckland ever got its act together, it would be a serious threat to the rest of the country. That was how concerned that local government Minister in that National Government was about getting Auckland working for the benefit of New Zealand. So what did that Government do? It expropriated Auckland’s regional assets and put them into the Auckland Regional Services Trust, in the hope that it would be flogged off, sold, privatised, following the Government’s agenda. What happened? Bruce Jesson came in and ran it perfectly well, and it ran at a profit. What did the National Government do? Could those profits be used for Auckland? No, they could not. So then we had Chris Fletcher’s and Tony Ryall’s attempts, with Maurice Williamson dancing the “Maurice” dance behind them, saying: “Sell, sell! Privatise, privatise!”. What did Maurice Williamson want to do?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe we are debating the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill, and I think it might be time for the Minister to come back to what it is about.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If I thought that, I would be bringing the Minister back. But this bill is about Auckland matters. It is an Auckland bill, and I think the Minister is entitled to delve a little into history.

So then we had another attempt by the National Government to privatise Auckland’s assets and destroy Auckland’s ability to put in an integrated, efficient transport system. We saw Auckland sack-tied; we saw the National Government twice put so many restrictions on Auckland’s ability to do anything that we had 9 years of complete inaction under a National Government.

We now have the New Zealand Transport Strategy, we now have Transit and Transfund working to a 10-year project strategy, and we have a 10-year financial plan. For the first time ever, we have an integrated transport analysis and funding package. And what does the National Party do? It opposes it. It wants to stop Auckland progressing, again, because it can see a vote in it in Nelson, and in Tasman, and in the south of the South Island. I want to tell the National Party that this package is $2.97 billion for the whole of New Zealand, $1.62 billion of which will be spent in Auckland, and $1.35 billion of which will be spent—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Over how many years?

It will be spent over 10 years. It will be extra, and it will be spent in the rest of New Zealand. So the wrecker from Nelson can take that and tell the people whom he is trying to stir up that this Government, for the first time, is addressing the real issues in Auckland. It is addressing the need for coordination to deliver an integrated public transport, roading, and traffic management system for Auckland.

Let me talk about some of the actions of this Government. We have seen massive building of roads. We have seen the Grafton project completed on time and under budget, with great celebration. We have seen the Puhinui interchange finished. A constituent told me that it is saving him over an hour of travelling time a day. That project went through because Mark Gosche, as Minister of Transport, said to Transit and Transfund: “Get in and do what you can, now. Get things going; get projects up.” We are building State Highway 18, we have massive work on State Highway 20, and we have the central motorway junction project—the “Spaghetti Junction”, which was stopped by the Muldoon Government in 1976—up and running with over $250 million being spent. We went up and broke the ground for the North Shore busway on Monday. We are spending three times the amount that the National Government spent on public transport. This project is a fabulous project that needs support and coordination, and this legislation will provide that.

On 12 December last year the Government outlined its Investing for Growth package. We will not privatise Auckland’s transport. We will not flog off Auckland’s regional assets. We will allow Auckland to make the decisions it needs to make with its regional transport strategies, which are now in the sixth round of consultation, I think. Dr Smith does not even understand regional transport strategies, which were brought in under the Transport Act and the Local Government Act in 1989. He should read the legislation. The plan is there and Auckland wants to get on. This Government has funded massive development in an integrated transportation strategy in Auckland. We have buses providing services that we have never seen before. We have a magnificent package.

There is ongoing work to develop details of increases in fuel tax and road-user charges, and in the Crown contribution, which together will deliver an additional $1.62 billion to fund Auckland’s land transport over the next 10 years. It is this Government’s intention that the additional revenue raised by higher fuel taxes and road-user charges will be allocated across all the regions of New Zealand on the basis of population. The National Party should talk to any mayor, council, roading contractor, and freight operator throughout New Zealand, because those people know that this Government is working for them. These measures will result in an estimated $1.3 billion in additional roading funding to be used outside Auckland as well as to fix Auckland’s problems. This Government is delivering for Auckland, and I say to the National Party that it should be very afraid, because in the next election Auckland will tell that party what it thinks of its stupidity and obstruction.

I rise to speak after that brilliant performance—because it was a performance—by a Minister who was somehow trying to explain, after 4½ years, what can be done for Auckland. The unfortunate thing is that if we were to go down Queen Street this very minute, or tomorrow morning, and ask people what has been done about Auckland’s transport, they would reply very, very clearly that nothing has been done. That is the sorry part. In the mind of the average Aucklander, nothing has been done.

And in case my friends in National start to smile, nothing was done between 1990 and 1999 either. There were attempts made, and it might be that if the National Government had been given another term it might have made it. But I recall the numerous papers of the 1990s. There was a white one and there was a green one—in fact, three papers came out. The Hon Maurice Williamson came up to Auckland to tell people what was to be done and how it could be done, but the reality for Aucklanders was that they saw no change. I am sorry to say to the Minister of Local Government that nothing will be accomplished if this bill goes out like this in its final form.

This is a confused bill. Whether or not it is deliberately confused and contradictory, it is confused. It states in the opening preamble that: “The changes in transport governance are designed to promote increased integration of decision-making in respect of Auckland land transport. Overall responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council (through its Regional Land Transport Committee), while a new council-controlled organisation (the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA)) will be established to undertake the integrated planning, funding, and development of Auckland land transport.” I say to the Minister that in the very words of the preamble there is complete and utter confusion. Although it has not confused some of the Auckland mayors, it has certainly confused people who looked at the bill in the last week and wondered exactly what its intention is. I will read it again: “responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council”, while the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority will undertake “integrated planning, funding, and development”. When I look at clauses 27 and 28 I find the bill even more contradictory.

When the bill was announced last week there were broad comments in agreement from the Auckland Regional Council and the Mayor of Auckland because they, like us, welcome any step to try to improve the situation that has prevailed over the last decade or more with regard to Auckland’s transport. So I read from Gwen Bull’s statement that they were very pleased that at long last in their minds—and they obviously have not read the bill carefully enough—this is a major step with regard to funding, aligning regional and transport strategy, and setting up a new entity that is almost adequately funded to implement the strategy.

John Banks, the Mayor of Auckland, said very clearly that it was a positive step. He said that given the huge amount of money being moved around, he now needed to get his head clearly around the detail of the bill, and that is exactly what needs to be done carefully in the select committee. He said: “We are committed to putting a submission to the select committee which would argue very strongly our reservations, in the strongest possible way.”

He was concerned about the actual proportionality of the whole bill and that if 85 percent went to one group, where the rest would go. He made the comment that hopefully it would not go into everyday operating expenses. These are two comments from two major Auckland organisations in broad agreement because, like many of us who have lived and worked in Auckland over the years, they were looking for improvements in what we have seen over the last decade.

I will come back to the point I raised at the beginning—the confusion. I am genuinely confused because section 175 of the Land Transport Act 1998 sets out the requirements for the preparation of a regional land transport strategy. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 changed the required representation of the regional land transport committee and said that it must now consist of “suitable persons” who were to be chosen by the relevant regional council to represent the following interests—and I will go through those interests—and with this purpose: the objectives of economic development, safety and personal security, public health, access and mobility, and environmental sustainability. These were the prime interests to be considered by the membership of the committee—by those who were going to make up that committee.

There was talk of cultural interests. The regional council was to be represented on that committee. Numerous territorial authorities were to be on it. The authority itself was to be represented on that committee, and so would Transfund. The purpose, normally, of a regional land transport committee is to set up a regional land transport strategy and thereby serve for at least 5, but mostly for 3, the ongoing strategic needs of the region.

So in the 2003 changes nothing had changed. First of all, a regional land transport committee’s work would be to undergo consultation with the various groups and interests that were named. From that would come the projects and the priorities, then the financial forecasting that needs to be done with regard to those projects, and, last of all, Transfund would approve the projects. In a normal funding year—by June of this year—the local authority would find the projects approved or not approved for the next year, beginning 1 July until the end of the following year.

That is the normal process, but when I look at this bill I find some real inconsistencies in the clauses that I have named. The first one is in clause 27, “Application of funds by ARC”, with regard to the new body. It states that the Auckland Regional Council, which is responsible for the funding of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, may not specify individual activities for which funds may be used.

Secondly, clause 28 states: “From 1 July 2005, ARC’s regional land transport strategy, … must not include—(a) references to specific activities and their prioritisation; or (b) any regional passenger transport plan …”. Thereby comes my other confusion: which plan and which funding base are to prevail, or are they both to prevail? The whole purpose for any development of Auckland’s transport is the promotion of clarity and certainty. That is the issue that has bedevilled Aucklanders over the years, along with a lack of funding. This bill purports to be an attempt to meet the issues of Auckland with regard to transport and governance, but that other confusion resides in two bodies—both supposedly involved in planning and both involved in funding. As one will be independent, and one will expect a little bit of settling down time in the creation of the new body, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, there is not clarity and certainty about the role of each of those bodies.

I say to the Minister that I thought the bill would have a very clear governance structure—that of the Auckland Regional Council—and I would support that. It would form the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee, along with other bodies, and that new body would prepare the strategy. But the strategy has not been prepared. In the normal sense, the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority group would be the operational arm. It would be the group empowered to do the job, and with the funds to get on with it. This bill does not provide for that. Therefore, on behalf of New Zealand First, I find it very difficult to support this bill, especially in the time frame the Minister has proposed. These issues need thought, they need care, and they need the utmost attention by Auckland local bodies with associated interests in respect of their submissions to the select committee. Again, we have a Government that is pushing a bill on. The result of that will be seen later in the afternoon with regard to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) where, belatedly, we see that serious issues that should have been clarified are not. The result is that they are back before the House. This bill needs time, it needs care, and it needs to be legislated in the proper way. I will wait to see how it proceeds at the select committee.

The Green Party, of course, will be supporting this bill and was very involved in its formulation, working closely and successfully with the Government on bringing it to its present state and to this House. It shows how well the Greens can work with the Government on issues of common concern, particularly progressive issues relating to transport and its social, environmental, and economic dimensions. The United Future party is also supporting the bill, and that is very good, as well.

This legislation, as previous speakers have said, is turning the clock back to a better situation in the past, and trying to regain some of the ground lost under the National Government when the Auckland Regional Authority was broken up and assets sold off. When the Auckland Regional Services trust then Infrastructure Auckland was set up, there was the intention that all the assets would disappear and that Ports of Auckland Ltd would be privatised, etc., but as a result of a public campaign, Ports of Auckland remains largely in public ownership, which is very good. In this bill, it is protected from sale to the extent that Auckland Regional Holdings, to which the assets of Infrastructure Auckland will be transferred, is forbidden on its own initiative to sell it off.

Now there will be greater coordination of transport planning, its operational side, and, to an extent, the ownership of transport assets within one framework—with the Auckland Regional Council at the top of the structure, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority under that, and Auckland Regional Holdings under that. Under this legislation, the Auckland Regional Council will have to rework the regional land transport strategy, in the light of the new situation, which is very good. It will have to take into account the Auckland regional growth strategy and also what has been developed nationally in terms of the national land transport strategy. Again, that is the result of collaboration between the Greens and the Government, in respect of rebalancing transport expenditure away from just road building to a more balanced approach, with particular emphasis on other things such as public transport, cycling, walking, and ferries. That makes it, in the words of the Minister in his speech, more sustainable.

Now, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, under the Auckland Regional Council, has to develop a land transport programme with priorities in that programme. This is where the legislation is very good, as it has to take into account the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Again, it would tend to favour public transport—more efficient transport; less energy-consuming transport—rather than road building and things that just accommodate private cars, which often run around Auckland roads with just one person in them and add to the congestion.

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority in developing its programme will also have to take into account the 10-year programme of expenditure and the priorities in that of Transfund New Zealand. Transit, of course, will have to relate more to Transfund in its priorities for developing its projects, so it cannot just go along the road-building track exclusively or predominantly.

Under the national land transport strategy the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Transfund will be taking more things into account, not just the economic dimension—that is one of the five criteria in the land transport strategy—but also about such things as the safety of travellers, mobility of people who do not own cars and have to use public transport, and health and environmental sustainability factors, which include such things as pollution, noise, and other downsides that accompany motorways. That is another reason to put the balance of programmes and expenditure on alternatives to motorways or roads wherever possible, and into such things as railways, buses, walkways, cycleways, and ferries.

A previous speaker said that nothing has really happened in Auckland. In fact, public transport has gone ahead marvellously in Auckland over the past 4 years. For the first 3 years it was going up about 7 percent a year in patronage, and then in the last year it went up even more than that. There has been a tremendous advance in the use of public transport, and with money being put in by the Government in collaboration with the Greens, and the $1.62 billion being spent over the next 10 years on Auckland transport, there will be tremendous advances there, particularly in the area of rail infrastructure and rail transport.

Of course, there has been a problem in that too many people are wanting to hop on the trains, and there are not enough trains. The infrastructure is not there at the present time, but with the buying of new rolling stock and the double tracking of the western line, etc., that will really move ahead so that the rail backbone of Auckland will be developed. We already have Britomart, and we can increase bus services and ferry services off the rail backbone. The development of new cycleways is particularly important. Auckland is quite backward in that respect at the moment, too. So we are looking forward to quite an important development there.

The other dimension of the bill is demand management—that is, the reduction of the demand in particular for people to use motorways and the encouragement of people to use alternative forms of transport from the private car. That is particularly important because we can anticipate that in not too long a time, oil prices will go up when there is depletion of the world’s oil reserves. Under this whole new structure guided by the land transport strategy nationally, as a sort of umbrella, we will definitely find that the eastern highway, so promoted by a couple of mayors in Auckland, Barry Curtis and John Banks, but opposed by the other mayors and most of the people in Auckland, will not go ahead.

That $4 billion project will not meet the criteria in the national land transport strategy, and it is now being applied down into the Auckland region through this legislation, so that will not be a starter. It is very bad that Barry Curtis and John Banks have been scaring homeowners and people in Auckland saying that they will lose their homes along this new motorway, and so on, when that motorway will certainly not go ahead. Even State Highway 20, the southwestern motorway, is finding it difficult to justify itself under this legislation and has not been finally approved.

I would like to make one other point in relation to one of the assets that will go under Auckland Regional Holdings—that is, the Auckland Regional Holdings will have 80 percent of the Ports of Auckland. It will have that asset by 1 July. I have asked the Minister of Local Government to intervene and use his influence, even if he does not have the full legal powers, to say to the Ports of Auckland to halt the sale of Westhaven. The people of Auckland do not want it sold. It should wait until Auckland Regional Holdings takes over on 1 July and it might want to purchase it itself because it would just mean transferring an asset from an 80 percent - owned subsidiary of Auckland Regional Holdings—the Westhaven part of that Ports of Auckland asset—from the 80 percent - owned subsidiary over to full ownership by the Auckland Regional Holdings. That would very much please all the people in Auckland.

It is good that Auckland Regional Holdings has a much broader mandate than Infrastructure Auckland had, in that it is to own and manage assets “in the long-term interests of the Auckland region”. It is certainly in the long-term interests of the Auckland region for Westhaven to be in public ownership and for all the boaties there to be able to use that in perpetuity, and for the surrounding area of Westhaven to be developed in the public interest with the green space to be developed properly and not just being overbuilt with dense apartment complexes, but to be used for the people of Auckland.

The ACT party opposes this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill, but before I get into the reasons why, I would like to correct that member’s total ignorance about the Ports of Auckland and Westhaven Marina. He said that nobody in Auckland supports the sale of it. The myth and ignorance surrounding the sale of Westhaven Marina is absolutely breathtaking. The fact that it would even request a Minister of the Crown to interfere in the sale of an asset owned by a company listed on the Stock Exchange is outrageous. To this Minister’s credit, he has acknowledged in this House that he will not interfere in the sale. But, not only that, public access to the area that surrounds the marina is guaranteed. If Westhaven Marina were sold, there would be absolutely no difference at all in terms of public access to that. It is protected through a number of planning controls. All the land that is up for sale is zoned public open space under the Auckland district plan, and it rests with the Auckland City Council. There is also a conservation covenant around the perimeter of the marina that fully protects pedestrian access to the waterfront. Changes to the covenant require the permission of the Minister of Conservation.

The marina itself, as anyone who has been down there knows, is not a public facility. It is already privately owned by the 700 berth holders who own berths there and who pay rent on them. The public do not have access to those berths already. For this Green MP to stand up and say that that area is under threat of being built out and of excluding the public is absolutely ignorant nonsense. He talked about scaremongering; that is scaremongering.

But to get back to this bill, this is another example of this Government’s patronising attitude to Aucklanders. This Government is destroying what is a great city, with its immigration policies, which have allowed people to flood to Auckland, without doing anything to address the transport situation and the stormwater situation, and the sewerage situation. That is a disgrace. This lazy Government had the chance to address the situation with the Land Transport Management Bill—the bill of lost opportunities that went to a select committee; but because this Government had to keep sweet with the Greens it lost the opportunity of that. What is the Government doing now? It has brought in this legislation to try to correct the situation, and it will just not happen.

We could have improved the situation and fixed Auckland’s roads with the Land Transport Management Bill. Submitters came before the select committee with very good suggestions on how that could happen with public-private partnerships, with tolling, with ring roads, and with all the solutions very carefully thought out—plans that have been on the board for 30 years. However, this Government decided not to listen to the overwhelming number of submitters who had good suggestions for improving Auckland traffic.

So what are we to do? We have a Government that will now say to Aucklanders what they can do with their own money. This money belongs to Aucklanders. It is not the place of the Government in Wellington to dictate to them what they can and cannot do with that money. We will see this $1.18 billion, which has already been set aside for transport and stormwater, now directed through the Auckland Regional Council. The Auckland Regional Council will be able to suck out 15 percent of that to use for—I have got the exact words that the Government used in its facts sheet, where it explains the change—“The need for greater expenditure on transport and stormwater infrastructure is a clear priority for the region. In recognition of this the Government requires the Auckland Regional Council to expend a minimum of 85 percent of funds received from Auckland Regional Holdings for these purposes. However, the Government does recognise that there are other regional priorities that may need extra funding. The Auckland Regional Council, in consultation with its electors, will have the flexibility to determine how any remaining funds can be spent. This will be reviewed in 2008.”

In other words, if Aucklanders are good, then this Government—if it is still here in 2008—will come back and look at what it can do with their own money. Look what the Auckland Regional Council has done in consultation with its electors. Look at the recent rates debacle when we had the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues—“Her Madness”, as she is often known. She today proved that she is actually alive, which is a good thing.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise. When we debated the raising of rates by the Auckland Regional Council the Minister said that if people in the area could not afford them they would simply have to sell their houses and move away. The best thing this Minister could do for Auckland would be to move permanently to Wellington. When the eastern corridor was discussed a couple of years ago this Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues said: “Why should we hurry that through just so that people out in Pakuranga can have an extra half-hour in bed each morning?”. I have got news for this Government, and for the Greens. The people of Auckland want to get to work on time. They do not want to be herded on to trains. They do not want to be herded on to buses. Yes, the usage has gone up, but it is not commensurate with the population growth in Auckland. In fact, it is lagging behind the rise in population growth. One would have expected more use of public transport if what this Government and what the Greens are saying is true.

They talk about one person in each car. They forget that most people in Auckland do not just go to work and come back each day. There are people who pick up their children from school, take their children to soccer, go to the supermarket, pick up some other children, and then go back to work. They cannot do that on a train or a bus. This Government cannot tell Aucklanders how they should run their lives.

This Government is using this legislation to swipe money from Auckland people—the money that they have built up through their assets and by paying their rates—and use it to fund transport. This Government should have been funding transport in Auckland with its estimated $6 billion surplus, yet it is going to raise petrol taxes by 5.6c a litre next April. When the Government has paid for this transport strategy, will it lower the petrol tax? I do not think so, because this Government uses any excuse to raise taxes.

We already have, throughout this country, a feeling of resentment towards Aucklanders by other New Zealanders. I can see why they have that feeling of resentment. Because they perceive that Aucklanders are always moaning about wanting their roads fixed. Yes, I can see that as I travel around. This legislation will increase that resentment, because all New Zealanders will be paying an extra 5.6c a litre for petrol. There is a token amount that this Government is setting aside for the rest of the country, but most of the money raised will be spent on Aucklanders. I agree with the radio station in Christchurch that ran a tongue in cheek, but none the less very apt metaphor competition or joke, when it said that all coffee sold throughout Auckland should be taxed to pay for cafes throughout the rest of the country. That is what this Government is doing by making the rest of the country pay more for petrol to pay for the roads in Auckland when, with the Land Transport Management Bill, they did not need to do that. That is why we are opposing this legislation.

Well, they say “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” United Future is happy to support this legislation, because it is another bite at the elephant of our roading system that is Auckland. Auckland is a great city. It is a progressive city. It is a fantastic city to live in. The Aucklanders I speak to are happy Aucklanders, because as they look out of their windows, they can now see progress; they can now see that the roads are starting to get built. I must commend those who have begun to design our roading system. “Spaghetti Junction”, for example, is not an easy place to increase the size of the roads, yet it is being done. I see it happening on a day-to-day basis.

I hear my dear friend the Hon Nick Smith criticising this Government on the progress of Auckland’s roads. I wonder how members of the National Government even dare to open their mouths and criticise progress on Auckland’s roads, because I remember that absolutely zero happened with regard to Auckland’s roading problems. If they had had the foresight and been visionary enough to look down the corridors of time to see what that money, which was transferred to building roads in the South Island instead of building roads in Auckland, would have done in the progressive city of Auckland—the hub of the country—we would not have had the same problems as we now have.

It is very easy for Mr Smith to criticise. When I watch sports, I am often amused to hear spectators—those who would never ever dare to play the game—criticise. That is very easy to do. But to get in, begin to make a difference and move ahead, is an entirely different matter. United Future, as a progressive, centralist party, is pleased to get behind legislation that gets things done, and it supports this bill.

We all recognise that there are major transport infrastructure problems all over New Zealand as a result of years of neglect. I say that Auckland, because of its size and its importance to the economy as a whole, is a good place for the rebuilding process to begin. Auckland is a great city, but our strength can often be our weakness. Too much is happening up there and the roading system cannot keep up.

The only thing that concerns me, and nobody has yet brought it up, is that when we get these fantastic roads, one might say that it is costing the economy a billion dollars. But once our roads are freed up, I hope we do not have too many speed cameras on them. We could perhaps consider raising the speed limit to a sensible 120 kilometres an hour on those great roads, so that we do not have to have such a huge amount of money coming in from unfair fines.

But I digress. One of the major roadblocks to getting Auckland moving has been the lack of an integrated approach to transport planning in that region. It is not a committee or a council that gets things going—it is the people who are put on those organisations. When one has visionary, progressive people in an organisation, that is when things begin to get going. Previously, each council has promoted its own pet project, resulting in endless squabbling, delays, and, eventually, inefficient outcomes.

That is what Aucklanders are very tired of. They are sick of the talk and are glad to see that finally things are beginning to happen around roading. The changes in transport governance that this bill promotes are designed to solve that problem by integrating the decision-making progress underpinning the development of Auckland’s land transport infrastructure. As we heard from Mr Nick Smith, National may have been spending money, but it was obviously spending it in the wrong places. I think that the next National speaker should perhaps stand up and apologise to Auckland for that.

As we have heard, the overall responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council, but a new council-controlled organisation, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, known as ARTA, will be established to undertake and coordinate the actual planning, funding, and development of Auckland land transport. There are always some pluses. Aucklanders are very innovative and creative people. We sit on our motorway structure and are at times entertained by the windsurfers sailing down the harbour. But we are tired of watching them now, and we are glad to see that the traffic will get moving again.

Under this legislation, the Auckland Regional Transport Association will be required to prepare a land transport programme for the Auckland region, which will detail all its planned activities and set regional priorities for each specific activity.

💬 Simon Power: Speak from the heart.

I am speaking from the heart.

💬 Simon Power: Well, get on with it.

This is my heart, and I am speaking from my heart.

Funding will still come from Transfund, the Auckland territorial authorities, and the Auckland Regional Council, as it does now. But the spending of that funding will be properly coordinated. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will determine those priorities, so hopefully local policies will be kept to a minimum in this decision-making process from now on. I only wish the same could be said for other woefully underfunded and poorly coordinated regions such as Wellington.

We also need to think of things that can very simply be done with our roading system to speed up the movement of traffic. For example, somebody mentioned carpooling. One of the major problems with our carpooling system in Auckland was that we failed to recognise that two people constituted carpooling. Therefore, it did not kick in like it should have done. If we bring carpooling back into Auckland, I believe we should say that it means two people sharing a car. Imagine if everybody took one extra person—and I am speaking from my heart—we could halve the number of cars on the road. It was often not practical to pick up that third person we had in our previous carpooling system, and I think that was one of the major reasons why the system failed.

Another thing that would be vital for Auckland, and would really help the traffic flow, would be to number our motorway exits, as is done in many parts of the world. One would say to somebody: “If you want to take the Northcote turnoff, you look for the No. 3 exit.”, or: “If you want to take the Barry’s Point Road turnoff, it is the No. 4 exit.” All the motorist would have to look for would be a simple number on the side of the road. Much congestion is caused on many roads because people are having to slow down to see where they are going. I have been so inspired to speak from my heart that I am getting away from my notes, and I will not be able to cover it all.

The settings of the new administration structures for managing the development of Auckland’s land transport infrastructure will enable the Government to implement the $1.62 billion Auckland transport funding announcement made in December. That, of course, is the 5c per litre increase in petrol excise duty. United Future continually says that we need to be more integral in what we take off motorists to fund roads, and the money should not go into the consolidated account. It should flow into the roading systems, and we will continue to press for that to happen. United Future supported that announcement and we support this legislation. New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure is in a very poor, rundown state, and even the injection of $1.62 billion is only a small part of what will eventually be required to remove this intolerable drag on our economy and really get things moving again.

Ever since the election, we in United Future have made it a priority to work with the Government to find alternative sources of funding for rebuilding New Zealand roads, and to develop the regulatory structures needed to allocate the funding in a strategic, coordinated manner. We worked with the Government on, and supported the passage of, the Land Transport Management Bill. We see the passage of this bill today as another step in that vital ongoing process.

Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city. It is a great city and a vital part of our economy, and getting it moving again must be a key priority. Economic prosperity is vital for the future and wellbeing of New Zealand families, and ensuring future prosperity for New Zealand families is, and will continue to be, United Future’s main goal.

I am pleased to follow Mr Adams. It is good to hear an enthusiastic and positive speech from a member. It is in stark contrast to the whelping from the Opposition, but I suppose that is what we have come to expect.

Simply, this bill introduces changes to transport governance structure in Auckland that are long overdue. I congratulate the Minister who has brought this bill forward. The creation of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, as we have heard, will address the chronic fragmentation of land transport governance by concentrating in a single body the roles of planning, funding, and the development of regional land transport. Not only is that good and necessary for Auckland, it is necessary for all New Zealand that Auckland’s transport system works efficiently and effectively. It is my view that this measure will produce a safer, more integrated, responsive, and sustainable land transport system for Auckland, and I am pleased to support the bill.

I simply conclude by acknowledging that this is a far-reaching and progressive measure. It is a long-term investment in the future, and I congratulate the Minister and my colleagues who have worked collectively to bring this legislation forward.

There is a reason that Auckland is known as the city of sails, and it is simply this: under a Labour administration, the only way to get around Auckland is on a boat. People will not get around it in a car. Frankly, I was absolutely shocked that Paul Adams, a former rally driver and a man who knows cars probably better than any member of Parliament, stood up in the House and told us that there is progress in Auckland. He has obviously spent way too much time on gravel roads around New Zealand and not enough time in Auckland, and, frankly, it is a disgrace that he is not talking to any of my constituents.

The Minister who introduced this bill is none other than the Hon Chris Carter, the member for Te Atatu. I challenge Chris Carter to go to his home electorate and ask any one of his constituents whether he or she believes that the Labour Government is fixing Auckland’s roads. Every night traffic goes up and down the north western, every night people are in traffic jams for an hour, and regularly there is a traffic jam the length of the entire north western. The Hon David Cunliffe, who happens to have the New Lynn electorate—the electorate neighbouring Chris Carter’s—has exactly the same problem. It does not matter what time one goes on to the north western, it is in complete and utter gridlock and chaos. That is an unbelievable position.

Before I move on to the bill in any great depth, I refer to the speech made by the Hon Judith Tizard, the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. It was a simply extraordinary and unbelievable speech. It was nothing short of hysterical raving about something that this side of the House could not quite make any coherence or sense of. However, one has to ask why that Minister made such a speech. There is only one reason. She is full of guilt and shame. She knows that for 4½ years this Government has managed to deal with everything except Auckland’s roads—whether it has been its relationship with the Greens, its relationship with any other party, or with various mayors, whatever it has taken, the issues have not been Aucklanders’ issues. The Government has not been fixing the problems. That is why Auckland has the highways from hell, and any person who goes to Auckland knows that that is the situation.

Anybody can see that Auckland has a motorway network that has not been completed—since 1965. Keith Locke told the House that it was wonderful that the eastern corridor would never be completed. That is the same party whose solution to Auckland’s transport problem was the Road Traffic Reduction Bill—the modern-day equivalent to carless days. We should not forget that that bill was introduced in this House 12 months ago by Jeanette Fitzsimons. It was to mandate the number of cars that could go through any part of Auckland at any given time. That was the Greens’ solution to Auckland’s transport problems. They do not care whether another road ever gets built in Auckland. Mike Ward from the Green Party, who sits on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, hates road. He cannot understand why anyone would want to drive on those roads. That is the position of the Green Party. They are not interested in progress. They do not care that the transport problem costs a billion dollars a year—minimum. Members should ask the Auckland Employers Association and the Auckland Manufacturers Association how much they think it is costing Auckland. They think that a billion dollars a year is light, and their members are leaving New Zealand to go and live in Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney. They are going to places in Australia where the Government is committed to fixing the infrastructure, and that is a sad thing for the people of New Zealand.

There is absolutely no contention about this issue. Traffic on Auckland’s roads and motorway networks is at 95 percent capacity. If there is a single crash in Auckland, or a wet day, the place simply grinds to a halt. Roading is the No. 1 issue that Aucklanders care about. John Banks was elected on a mandate of “roads, roads, and roads”. That is why this Government has the spin and the rhetoric—it wants people to believe it is doing something, when in reality it is not. We should not forget how this all came about. This legislation was foreshadowed by the Land Transport Management Bill, which was nothing short of a complete sop to the Greens. The bill was so bad that the then Minister of Transport, Paul Swain, went up and down the country, with mayors and various constituencies, and campaigned against his own bill. That is how bad it was. He begged various parts of the community to petition Parliament against his own legislation. That is how little he believed in it. Then he set up the joint officials’ group, which recommended that a lot of money—not just a bit of money—needed to be spent.

Today the Minister is parading in front of the House and trying to tell us that he has a solution, because the Government will spend $1.62 billion over 10 years. How will we get that money? We are paying for it. That is hardly a novel solution from the Government. Even when we do pay, with the increase in petrol tax—and I am not opposed to paying a bit more petrol tax to fix the roads—the point is that no roads will be built, because we are not fixing the very thing that is stopping that progress—the Resource Management Act. That is why Transit states in its annual report that it has six projects to go, that it has the money, but that it cannot get the final sign-off. It is pulling its hair out in Auckland because it cannot get going. That is how disgraceful the situation is.

Not only does Auckland have that problem but what makes it worse—the bigger joke—is the $5 billion gap in fixing Auckland roads. Without the eastern corridor and without the alternative harbour crossing, there is a $5 billion gap. When we look at the Government benches, at John Tamihere and the broken group that calls itself Labour, what do we see? They are like possums in the headlights. They have no solution. The lights are out; nobody is home. There is nothing going on in the intellectual grunt material over there. They have given up, because they do not have a solution. They have a Minister who will not spend the money on infrastructure. He wants to spend it on future direction and buy a few more votes from beneficiaries. That is what he wants to do with the money. He does not want to spend it on fixing Auckland’s roads. He is not committed. That is the honest truth. That is why Judith Tizard got to her feet in this House and raved like a lunatic, yelling and screaming. The reason she did that is that she is ashamed of her own Government, she is ashamed, as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, that she has not got a solution to fix the problem.

I want to make some specific reference to the new group that has been set up—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. It would have been a good idea if a few simple solutions could have been introduced. David Cunliffe is looking at me, and I know he is thinking: “I know! I want to put that in my speech, but I’m not allowed; the boss will tell me off. I wish I was part of the National Party team so I could call it the way I see it. I’m ex Boston Consulting Group; I’m absolutely ashamed of what I am seeing.” What are we seeing? We are seeing absolute hypocrisy. Thirty-two people—the entire Auckland Regional Council—have elected themselves on to the committee. It has put everybody in there. The very body that failed Auckland so miserably is now being rewarded with the keys—lock, stock, and barrel—to fix the place. Lock, stock, and barrel, they have been given the opportunity to run the show. It is like giving the keys of the jail to the inmates. That is what we are doing in Auckland. We could have had an independent body that was structured in a logical, coherent way. We could have had a body that had the ability to change the rules. But what we have is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, an Auckland Regional Council body that is just going to allow the council to stack it with its political mates. The biggest joke of all is that the very people one would want enclosed in that body—Transit and TrackCo—are left out in the cold.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s daft.

It is daft, it is dumb, and it is hopeless. But what is so sad about the town I love to call home, Auckland, the city of sails—which is a big place, I remind members; I know it might come as a shock to them—is that we can get around it on a 737, or, like John Banks, in a helicopter, or on a boat, but if people want to travel by car or by bus, they cannot get around it, and they never will, until the Labour Government stops its love affair with the Green Party and is committed to fixing our commercial capital.

That has to be the worst speech I have heard that member give in many a long week in this House. What part of $2 billion does the National Party not understand? For years the National members have been complaining about Auckland’s transport. They have been saying we were not spending enough money on it, and now we are doing so. They have been saying the governance arrangements were broken, and now they are fixed. They have been saying we should get Auckland moving, and now we are doing so. The public is sick to death of an Opposition that does not know the difference between constructive criticism and opposing and moaning for the sake of moaning itself. It has to be said the previous speaker, John Key, travels around Auckland more than most people. It is a long way from Parnell to Helensville and back again.

💬 John Key: You’re on dangerous ground.

At least he is moving against the traffic flow—

💬 Jill Pettis: In his Lexus.

—in his Lexus.

💬 John Key: You’re on dangerous ground, my friend.

That is right.

This is a very constructive package. It collects, in one place and under one governance arrangement, the key players under the Auckland Regional Council through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. It is a constructive move. Why does the National Party not like it? It is because its favourite alumnus, now the Mayor of Auckland, had his little pet project all sorted out, whereby Auckland City could dominate Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd, at the expense of every other territorial authority, and it worked just fine for John Banks. Well, we have news for him: his eastern highway is bonkers. It will never reach a workable benefit-cost ratio, so he should put it to bed now, and bury it 6 feet under. He should twin-track the western line, so poor John Key does not get stuck in the traffic jam, and he should twin-track it all the way to Henderson and Swanson—right now!

I feel very sorry for the Auckland people. I really, really do. I look at this bill and I find it staggering that the Government thinks it is going to get anywhere near the time frames that it thinks it will have. We listened to Judith Tizard, and she gave an incredible performance. I have never seen a performance from Judith Tizard like it—and I have seen one or two. Normally she has been knitting, but this time not only did she give a performance but I am sure she must have been feeling guilty and ashamed about it, because she disappeared from the House straight afterwards. What does that say about how Judith Tizard really feels about Auckland’s roads? She has not stayed here to listen to any of the comments being made about the significant contribution—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: You should not refer to a member’s absence from the House.

My apologies. I will move on to talk about the Greens, their planning processes, and their promotion of walkways, cycleways, carless days, and of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. The Greens are a significant part of the reason why we do not have any progress on our transport and roading systems.

I think Auckland faces the danger of being fobbed off with a new body that is responsible for delivering an integrated network, but where is Transit in all of that? One of the major things missing from the new integrated body is representation from Transit, in terms of the major corridors. The Government is actually excluding the major corridors from the whole process. Establishing one transport agency with responsibility for roading should not be difficult, but I think in this bill it has certainly become convoluted with a great deal of bureaucratic process. And for what? For $1.6 billion dollars, which is to be drip-fed over a 10-year period. Just what on earth does the Government think it will achieve with $1.6 billion drip-fed over 10 years, when Auckland actually needs an extra $5 billion? How much progress will actually be achieved with that amount of money, when clearly a lot more money is needed?

The Auckland Regional Council will have more influence over public transport than it does now, and it will control the assets of Infrastructure Auckland. It will influence, but not control, the regional funding priorities for public transport and local roads, through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The only difference will be that Infrastructure Auckland will become an Auckland Regional Council - controlled agency called Auckland Regional Holdings. So we are starting to grow all those bureaucracies. We have the Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Holdings, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, Transit, Transfund, and also about seven local authorities. The process will become incredibly bogged down, and I refer members to a part of the bill that sets out what the local authorities will be required to do.

Under clause 31 there is an obligation by all the local authorities to publicly notify the proposed changes to all their planning documents. They have to do that by 26 February 2005. That is great! So they are to go through a whole public process, as required by the Resource Management Act—and we all know how long those processes take. Of course, there is bound to be objection by the Greens. Why will that be? The public have been under quite incredible pressure from a completely inadequate transport system, and I know that because I have been there. I go there every week and get bogged down in traffic, just as my colleague John Key has referred to. So we will have people desperately trying to put planning documents in place so as to improve that situation, and people like the Greens will come along and say they are sorry, but the documents do not adequately provide for cycleways or walkways, or maybe do not actually take into account carbon dioxide—all the sorts of things that the Greens cling to in their attempts to slow everything down. That is exemplified by the Road Traffic Reduction Bill and the Greens’ proposals for a carless day. I would like to reiterate the comments made by my learned colleague John Key about one of the Greens’ representatives on the Local Government and Environment Committee not even liking roads.

All the local authorities are to be involved in that area. That is about seven of them who will, by 26 February 2005, actually have go through a complete public notification process under the Resource Management Act—right through the whole gamut, including appeals to the Environment Court. So if all the local authorities’ planning documents are appealed against to the Environment Court, how on earth do we expect that the review of the Auckland regional land transport strategy by 31 December 2005 can possibly take place with any degree of competence if the local authorities have not got their act together? Here we have another example of the Resource Management Act having the ability to slow down the whole process, and that does not even begin to take into account the ability of that Act to slow down all the projects that are to be undertaken.

I reiterate my concern about Transit not being involved in the construction of the new authorities: Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I really feel sorry for the Auckland people, having to struggle with all of that. It will be a planning nightmare for them as they try to come to terms with the situation, make submissions, and try to get the best they can for their areas. With the exclusion of the roading corridors, how can we get the sorts of roading efficiencies that we seek?

I completely concur with my colleagues, and I cannot understate in any way the serious concerns and reservations we have about the efficiency of this particular bill—about it being able to actually deliver the outcomes sought for the people of Auckland. As members have heard my colleague say, there is $1 billion of economic loss a year, because of the poor traffic and roading systems we have in Auckland alone. That figure does not take into account some of the traffic congestion in other parts of the country, which is also real. But Auckland’s congestion is, by far and away, the worst—although, having travelled in Tauranga a lot, I would say that it is not far behind Auckland.

We have all contributed a huge amount of funding, and we are looking at about a 5c increase coming on stream in petrol costs. How much of that will actually go into roading projects and achieving an asset outcome that will make a difference? I put to members that it will not be a great deal. How much is being siphoned off for cycleways, walkways, planning, and the like while we are not getting actual roading projects being done? I would like to refer to some comments made by my learned colleague Dr Nick Smith. By the time a person actually ever does—

💬 Hon John Tamihere: He’s not learned.

Absolutely, he is! He is one of the best members in the House. As we even get anywhere near to trying to put in some of the roading projects, we will struggle to find the contractors, engineers, and suchlike to undertake the work. It is getting harder and harder to find people able to take on works of such scale.

I would like to reiterate our concerns. We do oppose this bill. We are concerned about the bureaucratic bog-down that this legislation will create. We are concerned about the lack of real action with regard to the Resource Management Act, and about the effect that some of the requirements of this bill will have by adhering to that Act’s processes. I really do have a great deal of sympathy for the Auckland people, but I do not see this bill as being the way forward for them.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the constituents in the Coromandel seat, after hearing that speech. I am lucky enough to represent constituencies in Waitakere, Auckland, and Manukau cities. This piece of legislation brings—as does a previous piece of legislation talked about predominantly in the general debate; the foreshore and seabed legislation—closure and certainty, and allows clear economic decision-making processes to roll out in one of our greatest power houses in the country.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Waitakere!

Yes, Waitakere is obviously going to be a lead player in that regard. There are two or three other points I want to make in terms of our economic management and our record on infrastructural issues. This Government has been absolutely superb. I find it hard to be modest. I find it very difficult to be modest about what has been achieved, whether it be in telecommunications, whether it be in energy development, or whether it be in the roading infrastructure. I commend this bill to the House. It is one of the best laxatives ever given to Auckland to get it really rocking and rolling.

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration, that the committee report by 14 June 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting,except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).