Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee examined the bill thoroughly and has referred it back with majority amendments, which have been shown.

The bill aims to promote increased integration of decision-making processes for integrated Auckland regional transport. It establishes two new council-controlled organisations: the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings. The authority will be responsible for the integrated planning, funding, and development of Auckland’s land transport. The holdings company will own and manage the transport assets and other assets for the Auckland region. Overall, the responsibility for the Auckland regional land transport strategy remains with the Auckland Regional Council.

This is a bill that seeks to make some dramatic improvements to Auckland’s infrastructure, and it deals with a past lack of investment. Indeed, the Government is now providing an additional $1.62 billion to be spent on Auckland transport over the next 10 years. The bill deals with the necessary changes in the governance structures for Auckland transport and in the way in which transport decision-making is incorporated into wider issues, such as land use. The Investing for Growth package and the transport sector review address these funding and governance issues at the national level. Together, these proposals consolidate transport governance in the Auckland region and provide a firm foundation for integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable decision-making.

Under the bill, the Auckland Regional Council will have overarching responsibility for the Auckland regional land transport system. The council will continue to be directly responsible for the regional land transport strategy but will undertake its operations through a new, arm’s-length, council-controlled organisation: the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Because of the importance of the authority, governance arrangements must be clearly transparent. The board of directors will govern the authority as a council-controlled organisation. The authority will be required to agree to a statement of intent with the council.

The select committee has added provisions to the bill so that both the council and the authority will be required to provide the reasoning that underlies any proposed change to the authority’s statement of intent. The authority will be responsible for planning, funding, and developing the Auckland regional land transport system, including setting land transport priorities in the region. Consequently, the bill precludes the council from including a list of activities, or their prioritisation, in the regional land transport strategy. The authority will assume responsibility for public transport from the council.

Auckland’s bids for Transfund funding will be made by the authority through its land transport programme. The authority will also set out a common view on the relative priority of projects across the Auckland network. This will mean that the nine separate land transport programmes for Auckland will be consolidated into just two for the authority and Transit New Zealand.

The bill will also reduce the number of transport funding decision-makers by disestablishing Infrastructure Auckland and transferring its responsibilities to the Auckland Regional Council. The new council-controlled organisation, Auckland Regional Holdings, is to take over Infrastructure Auckland’s $1.3 billion asset-management role. Infrastructure Auckland’s liabilities for stormwater grants go to the Auckland Regional Council and for transport grants to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which is to take over the job of deciding how the funds from those assets are spent. Good governance will again be critical.

The select committee has made some amendments to further improve the transparency and effectiveness of the governance of Auckland Regional Holdings. Although the council will appoint directors to Auckland Regional Holdings and set the ground rules by which the board may operate, it will be able to appoint a maximum of only two council representatives to the board of Auckland Regional Holdings. This provides an appropriate balance between the council’s ability to govern Auckland Regional Holdings and the need to minimise the potential for any future conflict of interest between the directors. As well as having a statement of intent, Auckland Regional Holdings will be also required to agree to a long-term funding plan with the Auckland Regional Council.

The committee has recommended that the bill specify the detail that must be included in Auckland Regional Holdings’ long-term funding plan. This would not include how those funds are used, which is a matter for the Auckland Regional Council. Both the council and Auckland Regional Holdings will be required to provide their reasons for any significant proposed changes either to Auckland Regional Holdings’ statement of intent or to the long-term funding plan. The committee has also included new transitional provisions to ensure that Auckland Regional Holdings must prepare its first long-term funding plan as soon as possible, but that, in the meantime, the council can access Auckland Regional Holdings’ funds. This will ensure that the funding for any existing Infrastructure Auckland grants will not be disrupted in the transition.

The committee has strengthened the safeguards around public ownership of the 80 percent of Ports of Auckland shares currently held by Infrastructure Auckland by maintaining the current restrictions under the Local Government Act 1974. The bill also provides for better alignment between land transport and land-use decision-making by requiring changes to the Auckland Regional Council’s regional policy statement and regional plans, and to territorial authorities’ district plans. The bill provides that local authorities will have to prepare and publicly notify changes to their planning documents in order to achieve this alignment. The committee has recommended that the local authorities have an additional month—until 31 March 2005—to do this, in light of the local body elections in October and the holiday period over December and January.

These changes must give effect to the growth concept in the Auckland regional growth strategy. They must also contribute to a range of objectives that the committee has detailed under the new schedule 4A. These objectives include, firstly, increased certainty in the assessment of resource consents, designations, and plan changes related to the transport and urban form, and, secondly, facilitating a multimodal transport network and integrated management. The bill provides a streamlined process by which submissions on these planned changes are to be heard by a single, joint panel—I am sure that the member Maurice Williamson would support this—and also removes the need for a multiple, parallel process. It is also proposed by way of Supplementary Order Paper that the bill facilitate the integration of the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd within the new governance arrangements and that the matters that can be included in the regional land transport strategy be further clarified.

The enactment of this legislation provides a firm basis for improvements in Auckland transport, and, as someone who lives outside of Auckland, I can say that I wholeheartedly endorse this bill and recommend it to the House.

For the benefit of the people who were listening to that debate, they need to know that the previous speaker was the member for Tukituki, the Hon Rick Barker, who showed about as much interest in solving Auckland’s problems as—I will not even begin to go there. The reading of his speech was appalling, the context was hopeless, and there was no passion. I do not think there is a member—[Interruption] Now Labour members are showing some passion, now we are getting them rarked up. How come the Minister did not show that when he was reading the bill?

I think that anybody who has either lived in or visited Auckland is in no doubt that the one issue that now consumes Aucklanders’ minds is solving the transport dilemma. Auckland has perpetual gridlock. It used to occur only at peak times at very specific points in the corridor, but as traffic volumes have grown year on year, it now happens anywhere, anytime. We need only for a tin of paint to fall off the back of a utility or for someone to have a little bit of a nose-to-tail ding and the gridlock works its way right through the network.

So I was really pleased when the Government announced in December a package to solve the problems in Auckland. One thing the Government announced that I thought really read well was that Auckland needed one agency to deal with its transport matters. I think most members from Auckland would agree that that is the general public’s view. There is a plethora of agencies at present that deal with Auckland transport. Let us go through them. There are seven territorial authorities, such as Pukekohe—or Franklin, as it is called at the bottom—through to Manukau City, which is New Zealand’s most progressive city according to Sir Barry Curtis. We have Waitakere, we have Auckland City, we have North Shore, and we have Rodney—there is just a plethora of these city councils that are all currently responsible for roading. One would expect that to change, and that they would now be gone under this new bill, because we do not want seven of them. No, they are not. No, there will still be seven councils responsible for local roading in Auckland.

There is a heap more agencies. Let us go through them. There is Transfund and Transit, the two major Government agencies that are, respectively, the funding arm and the provider of State highways in New Zealand. Surely they would go under this bill. There would not be a need for Transit in Auckland anymore if one body was running Auckland transport. Oh no, when we look at this bill and check it again, sorry, but there is still a Transit. The same old boundary problems have applied year after year, whereby one local council wants this, and another one wants that, and Transit, which runs in the middle, wants a third option. The bill will not solve any of those things.

But there are lots more. I said something to my wife the other night about ARTNL. She asked: “Who’s ARTNL?”. I said that ARTNL was the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd, and did she not know that. No, she had never heard of it. I bet that if we went out there and did a survey of people about the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd, they would not have a clue what it is. It is the organisation that provides things like railways stations, some of the rolling stock, and the—

💬 John Key: Shopping malls.

The shopping malls at Britomart Place—that was a good one from Mr Key. But will Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd go under this bill? No, it will not go. We will still have Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd. I am getting really confused. The Government said that only one body would be responsible for Auckland’s roads. Here is a great one. TrackCo will be the owner of all the railway lines in Auckland. Surely it would be integrated into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority so that the authority could make decisions about transport networks. No. Again, TrackCo will still exist. I am getting really perplexed. Connex runs the trains. Will Connex go? How about—

💬 John Key: They’re French.

They are French, they might go. Let us take the ferries. We have Fullers Auckland, Subritzky on the Hauraki Gulf, and I think there is Pacific Ferries. I think there are three ferry operators. Will they all be amalgamated, with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority running the ferries? No. What about all the different bus companies—Stagecoach, and, out my way, Howick and Eastern Buses? No, they will still be running buses, and so on. What about public transport funding mechanisms—will they change? No.

This bill is the biggest con the world has ever seen. The Government came out with an announcement—and I have its words, if members want me to read them out. The Prime Minister was one of the announcers: “What Auckland needs is one agency to fix its transport.” National agrees. We wholeheartedly agree with that statement made by the Prime Minister.

This bill does nothing of the sort. There is more. There is the Auckland Regional Council. To be fair, one body that will go is Infrastructure Auckland. That is one. But it will be replaced by Auckland Regional Holdings, which is the same sort of organisation—it owns assets on behalf of the public to fund transport and stormwater drains. How can we make any great change by replacing one body called Infrastructure Auckland, which owns the Ports of Auckland shares and the America’s Cup village? How can that fix Auckland’s problems? The bill states that it will go, but instead of being gone, the bill just replaces that organisation with another one.

I can refer members of this House and the public to no better diagrams than the spaghetti diagrams that the Automobile Association has drawn. Those diagrams make the Cook Islands’ wiring diagrams for tax evasion look simple. There are just lines, responsibilities, squares, and boxes all over the page. The Government—the Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, Paul Swain, Chris Carter, and Judith Tizard—came out in December with its announcement, saying that it was hopeless; that it could not fix Auckland’s problems with a governance system in which there were a multitude of organisations.

Which ones have gone? Let us go through them again. Have any of the seven territorial local authorities gone? No, they will all still be responsible for local roading, and so on. Will the regional council be gone? No, it will still be there. Has Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd gone? No, it will still be there. Is Transit gone? No, it will still be there. Is Transfund gone? No, it is there. Is TrackCo gone? No, it will still be there, and it will not be part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. TrackCo is not part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and Transit is not part of it. So the biggest funders of some of the major suppliers of infrastructure and transport solutions in Auckland are not included. How mad is that?

The Government said that it would bring in one body to solve Auckland’s transport problems. National would have been fully supportive of a Government move to do that, because I do not think anyone in this House would deny that it is a serious problem. The serious problem lies around this multiplicity of various bodies, all with their own little hobby horse. For goodness' sake! Thank God these organisations do not run railway lines, or we would have had seven different gauges of roads in Auckland, with every one of the local authorities wanting to have their own little bit. And now we have fights about whether North Shore will get its busway, because Auckland City does not want that, and so on.

What the goal should have been, and what this grubby little bill should have done, was to bring all the bodies into one, and to drop Transit and TrackCo in there. But I do not seem to be able to get through to the Government that we have this artificial delineation of some roads. In my electorate of Pakuranga, we have a thing called the Pakuranga Highway. It is six lanes wide—three lanes either way. It carries more traffic than any other road, barring motorways, in a day. I think the number of 64,000 cars was the last car count I saw for that highway. It is massive. Is that a State highway—that massive, big, wide, huge arterial road? No, it is not. Pakuranga Highway is a local road, funded and run by Manukau City. Yet I can take members of this House out into the boondocks of the back of Taihape, and they will find a State highway run by Transit. So “State highway” does not mean main road or artery, and when we get to those main arteries in Auckland—and the Pakuranga Highway has to be an absolutely central part of that road network; but it is not a Transit road—Transit will be included in some roads, but it is not included in that body.

Now, one would have to be some sort of mad scientist to sit down with a clean white sheet of paper and say, as I am sure the Government was told by its advisers, that Auckland’s one problem is that it has far, far too many bodies making decisions—far too many. That is Auckland’s one problem, and what we need to tell Madam Prime Minister and Ministers is that the best thing they could do is bring a bill to this House that brought all those bodies into one. We could then have centralised decisions that prioritised what was needed first, and which of the roads would happen. That is what would really have been quite a sensible move.

I was talking to the New South Wales Minister for Transport, in Sydney, and when I told him how many bodies were responsible for the funding of roads here—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Name him.

Carl Scully is his name, if the member wants to know. He is a good guy. I have been to a number of ministerial conferences with him. When I told him of the number of bodies that will be responsible for funding transport here in Auckland, he just laughed. He said that I could not be serious, and that we would make no progress whatsoever.

In conclusion, I want to say that the National Opposition will most vehemently be opposing this bill. Sometimes we just oppose some legislation. [Interruption] Well, there is Judith Tizard saying that we are opposed to solving Auckland’s problems. This bill does nothing to solve Auckland’s problems. It just adds one more body called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to the huge list of other bodies there, and gives a few more jobs for the boys. The National Party is totally opposed to the bill.

It is a great honour to speak on this bill. I come from a region that is not known for its passionate support for Auckland, but our people do appreciate the need to sort out Auckland’s problems.

We have just heard a speech from a member who, I think, was the Minister of Transport at some stage. In fact, I think he was Minister of Transport almost throughout the 9 years of the National Government. He is also, I believe, an Auckland MP. I would think that that member, for all his preaching now, would have been able to do something about a major infrastructural problem this country has faced for many years. Now he has the cheek to stand up in this House and criticise a Government that has put money into transport and commitment into solving this problem in Auckland. He has the cheek and audacity to challenge this Government. Well, I am proud of my Auckland colleagues, because, time and time again, they have got up in caucus and said that they needed to sort that problem out and that they needed some more resources.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: This bill doesn’t do it.

Mr Williamson, who was Minister of Transport for—how many years?

💬 Government Member: Nine.

—9 years—could not do anything to solve that problem. He walked away from Auckland. He was the person who proposed a solution that would commercialise the roads. Does the member know what? Has he been reading the papers lately? He commercialised the rail—he and his mate John Key. They flicked it off to their mates, and what sort of job did they do of managing key infrastructure in this country? What happened to New Zealand Rail? Do members know the only good thing about the National Government? It was so incompetent that it could not even get through its commercialisation of the roads. Thank God it did not, because we would have seen the same disaster with Auckland roads, and roads around the rest of the country, as we have seen with rail.

I am proud of Judith Tizard and all the other Auckland MPs who have fought hard to get resources for Auckland roads. Those of us who come from other areas of the country know that if we travel to Auckland, get caught up in a traffic jam and have to go round those dinky little back streets on our way from the airport to the central business district, what sort of chaos and bizarre situation created the mess that we now have to sort out. This Government is prepared to sort it out. We are putting in an extra $2.97 billion into roading, and we are prepared to spend another $1.6 billion in Auckland. We will be spending, on average, about a third of the country’s roading money in Auckland, where about a third of the population resides. My constituents in West Coast – Tasman are prepared to accept that, because after 9 years of National Government—under Maurice Williamson, who has the cheek to stand up in this House and criticise—we have ended up with total chaos. Mr Williamson should get up and support this Government for this bill and for putting in place a very good infrastructure that will sort out, finally and for once and for all, the infrastructural issues around Auckland transport. I am proud to support this bill, as is this Government.

I listened with interest to the Hon Maurice Williamson, and thought about the 1990s and what sort of overall framework and vision the National Government had for transport. My first thought was Tranz Rail. My next thought was Fay Richwhite—advisers to Tranz Rail in March, would-be owners in May, and eventual owners by sleight of hand. I thought of the numerous papers, and checked them at the weekend to make quite sure I did not have it wrong. But in 1999 that former Minister of Transport had not solved one issue in Auckland. The white papers, the green papers, and all the thinking that came through in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, showed that the issue was left unsolved. So I find it rather rich for someone to stand here and claim that that National Party had an answer for Auckland. The real issue is that it had no answer. In 1999 in the last desperate days before the election, that was even more evident than it is today.

Therefore, with that in mind, New Zealand First came to the issue—first of all, because the deputy leader of New Zealand First, Mr Peter Brown, is the transport adviser to our party; and, secondly, because we have worked, and are working still, on a major transport initiative for our policy for the next election, whenever that may be. We are looking at a policy, new directions, which will set a different pathway from what New Zealand has had in the past. In that policy is ample provision for Auckland.

When this bill first came to the House we in New Zealand First felt that it was not the answer. On our party’s part, we agreed that it should go on to the select committee, but in the course of the committee’s deliberations I felt on behalf of New Zealand First that this legislation was but a partial answer to what is a very major problem. I want to look at those issues that developed around the bill with regard to the select committee submissions.

The first was the one touched upon by the Hon Maurice Williamson. Was there to be the integration of a local authority land transport system for Auckland, or was there to be a policy of national networks, with one major entity, rather than the one proposed? There was some support for the grand idea of one entity, incorporating rail, water transport, and all the various modes. But I believe that, quite sensibly, the Government of the day has rejected that and instead is taking the approach that first one must walk before one can run.

Also in that regard, we felt that if that was to be so, in some ways—and I said so, and was pleased to see that it was partially acknowledged, and the changes are in the proposed Supplementary Order Paper—there ought to be a real clarity and consistency in order to make this thing work, and it is our belief in New Zealand First that this can work. It can work if there is goodwill, and if there is a real attitude and a will to make it work. It will not be so successful if we begin with the assumption, which has been made by the National Party, that this will not work, and that the answer is not a diminishing of the number of authorities involved in transport, which it is, but instead looking for a more radical answer, which I really suspect disregards the whole nature of local government in the Auckland region.

To come back to the bill therefore, we believe that the bill does set out sound objectives with regard to the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system. The management of funding is a major issue for transport. The care of assets, and the issues with regard to water quality are all covered in the bill. We believe that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will do the task in the way that it has now redesigned and reset.

One of the issues that came up and was advanced to members of Parliament who met with the Auckland Regional Council was the fact that for some reason, there was not sufficient recognition given to the nature of the work of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee; and particularly, there did not seem to be quite the appropriate acknowledgment of the importance of a regional land transport strategy. I am pleased to say that the Government has acknowledged there needed to be some changes in the bill as it comes to the Committee stage, which should ensure there will be greater clarity and objectivity with regard to the way Auckland transport matters are viewed.

I want to say our party supports the role of the Auckland Regional Council. We support the whole nature of the Auckland local bodies. In saying that, we acknowledge there are issues. Those issues will be resolved, district by district, and region by region, in October. We support a democratic response by Auckland ratepayers; that is, the election of their duly elected councils. We therefore support the whole structure—as advanced here—of a regional land transport committee being set up to cover the territorial and other groups as modified by the bill of 2003, and that that body ought to have a role in setting the broad framework, not the fine detail. This bill, envisaging a detailed, objective implementation role for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, is a sound approach.

So at this point, we give our support to the bill. We will make some submissions on the floor in Committee, but the bill seems to us at this stage, with all that is known, to be a reasonably honest attempt to try to make a breakthrough in what has been a historically obscure and obstinate problem for people who live in Auckland. To come back to the Hon Maurice Williamson, that problem is not one just for 2004. There has been a problem in Auckland from 1987, and it was there through all those years. The problem has been there ever since, and it ill behoves any responsible member who represents an Auckland electorate to come to this House and not give this a reasonable understanding, and recognise a reasonable attempt by the Government to try to meet the demands.

This is not an answer for 2005 or 2008; it is a gradual development in trying to overcome the inertia, lack of funding, lack of will, and lack of Government direction, especially over the last two or three decades. No bill, no matter how great it is in substance, will be able to do that without care and great deliberation. New Zealand First supports this bill to the House in Committee, and we will make further comment there. We believe it is a reasonable attempt at this stage to try to do what has not been done in Auckland before. With that will come problems, as one can envisage, but the bill is at this point one that New Zealand First can support.

The Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill recognises that Auckland is a special case with special transport needs and circumstances that are different from other parts of New Zealand. While overall responsibility for land transport will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council through its regional land transport committee, a new council-controlled organisation, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, will be established to undertake the integrated planning, funding, and development of Auckland’s land transport. The bill will also require Auckland local authorities to change their planning policy documents, and make the land-use provisions consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy and the Auckland regional land transport strategy.

The bill has the support of all Auckland local authorities and the overwhelming support of the majority of submitters. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority must plan, fund, and develop Auckland’s transport system in a way that contributes to an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system for the Auckland region, and a system that is consistent with the New Zealand land transport strategy and the Land Transport Management Act.

Auckland, with a million people and 700,000 cars, and growing, has to transform itself from an overwhelmingly motorcar-dependent city, with all the congestion, safety, health, environmental, and economic downsides that such an approach imposes, to an integrated system that leaves Auckland with a much wider range of choices about how to move products and people, including by car and truck where that is appropriate, but on roads that have the space to accommodate them and without the delays, air pollution, inconvenience, or enormous cost on personal, regional, or national budgets.

We are concerned that while New Zealand has a great deal of expertise and experience in the business of designing and building roads, our expertise in other areas is much more limited. We need look no further than Wellington to see how well public transport can work, and how it can be made attractive and effective. However, when it comes to car pooling, or pedestrian and cycling strategies, our efforts have been piecemeal. None the less, one can travel to Nelson to visit the Broadgreen Intermediate School and check out its cycle stands—they are full. Along the back of Broadgreen Intermediate, there is a cycleway. Put in place good cycling facilities, and people will make those choices. Auckland could do it just as well. Of course, cycling and walking are not just good ways of moving; they are also healthier ways of moving, and they take the heat off the motorways.

While we may have little expertise at persuading people to use their feet and their cycles, or to use buses and trains, we have even less when it comes to any of the elements that demand management or land-use mechanisms for changing transport behaviour. While the capital costs of demand management are much less expensive than the motorway model, they none the less require expertise and a substantial shift in mindset. The Auckland growth strategy is an attempt to plan a more coherent future for Auckland—one where people are better able to live, work, play, shop, and go to school, first and foremost without the need to spend too many hours every week sitting in their motorcars moving very slowly, and many more hours working to earn the money to pay for the experience, but, more important, simply to be able to live in their own communities without moving at all.

The Land Transport Management Bill charges the Auckland Regional Land Transport committee and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority with providing sustainable, healthy, integrated options. Providing Auckland’s local body leaders can see beyond the motorcar and motorway model long enough to make their resource management documents consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy, that most beautiful city could go from being a seriously dysfunctional urban sprawl to an intelligently connected series of attractive and unique communities, but it will require vision, imagination, and flair that has not been seen there since the days of Mayor Robbie.

The bill provides a framework. I mentioned earlier the lack of expertise. I know that the Ministry of Transport is aware that it does not currently have the expertise. It is a gap that will need to be filled urgently if Auckland and the rest of New Zealand are to measure up to the new responsibilities.

During the hearings, and since, I have suggested a need for the equivalence of Transit but with expertise in the alternatives to roading. We now know that Transfund is obliged to fund a wider range of transport alternatives. It is going to do that only if the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority have a similar level of expertise as that provided by Transit New Zealand. How else are they going to come up with the other strategies? The alternatives to roads may be cheaper, and they are certainly healthier, but they are not free and they will require the Auckland local authorities to talk to their communities and work out ways to make the alternatives more attractive.

Recently, Auckland City contemplated turning itself into a motorcar racetrack. Had I been an Aucklander, I might have been a tad upset. My reaction, however, was tempered by the thought that if Auckland City was capable of reducing its demand on roads, or tempering its motorcar fetish for even long enough for something as frivolous as a motorcar race, how could it possibly claim that it might be too difficult to effect a similar shift in behaviour, if it meant a healthier, cleaner, less congested city?

This bill and the Land Transport Management Act that underpins it are bold moves to create a more sustainable New Zealand. Most of the things we do are highly unsustainable—they use up more energy than we can continue to provide, and they use up future generations’ share of the planet’s resources. They also pollute and undermine the capacity of the planet to sustain, and undermine our capacity to enjoy life.

Sustainability has never mattered as much as it matters now. With oil running out and prices becoming higher, it is inevitable that it will become even more expensive as a way of getting around. Barely a day goes by without attention being drawn to the reality of global warming and climate change. While New Zealand with a population of 4 million, and Auckland with a population of just 1 million, may have little to contribute on a planet with 6 billion people, that does not excuse us from our responsibilities to play our part on this overcrowded and overheated planet, which is crying out for examples of an intelligent approach to transport. Auckland could just provide such an example.

But even if global warming turns out to be a myth—and I do not believe for one minute that it will—Aucklanders actually deserve real choice. This bill at least provides an enhanced likelihood of that choice. It is not just a choice of another road, or 10,000 models of motorcar, but an opportunity to live in self-reliant communities that minimise the need to travel—a choice between fast, regular, and frequent bus services, and comprehensive rail services. The motorcar option has served nobody particularly well, but it has served the transport-disadvantaged particularly badly. Those who travel outside the daylight hours, those who are too old, or too young, or too poor, or those who simply prefer not to drive, or those who would like to cycle or walk, have particularly limited choices. So the Greens are pleased to support this legislation and look forward to an Auckland that is a more pleasant place to visit and a more pleasant place to travel around.

That last speech was like listening to a Hans Andersen fairytale. We can imagine how Auckland would be if we all moved around it by lying on our backs on bicycles, pedalling with our feet in the air. Would it not be a glorious city then! In that situation it really would deserve the name “Dorkland”. That is the patronising sort of drivel we have come to expect from the Greens, who expect everybody to be herded into public transport. They forget that most people in Auckland who are trying to move around are just mothers picking up their children from different schools, going to the supermarket, or dropping children off at soccer. They cannot use a bus or a train. The Greens would say that we should walk everywhere. I have actually heard one of the co-leaders of the Greens say that we should not be allowed to drive to the corner dairy—we should be forced to walk. Well, that is the whole point of the Greens’ philosophy: not to care about individuals, but just to save the planet.

Courier drivers have to make a living by getting around Auckland. The physical nature of Auckland means it is impossible for public transport ever to be a serious alternative to the car. Aucklanders do not have a motorcar fetish. Aucklanders hate being stuck in gridlock. They loathe the fact that they cannot get to where they need to be on time, or else have a clear run and are half an hour early. One cannot plan anything in Auckland any more. That is a disgrace and a disaster, but this bill will do nothing to fix it. This Government had the ability to fix that problem, with the Land Transport Management Bill. I agree with the Greens that just building more roads will not solve the transport problem. If we build more roads then, yes, people will pour on to them. We will never solve the transport problems in Auckland unless we have pricing mechanisms. As soon as people have to pay to go on a congested road they think twice, or three times, about using it.

This bill has gone through without enough thought as to what it will mean. It will set up two new organisations to plan, fund, and control transport in Auckland—to make decisions. Decision after decision will be made, but nothing will be done until this Government does something serious to address the Resource Management Act, because while resource consents are needed for every little kilometre of road, for every culvert, and for every little stretch of roading that is improved or built we will never get anywhere. If this Government was really serious about addressing the Resource Management Act, instead of setting up a cosmetic, damage-control type of review led by David Benson-Pope, it would stop the iniquitous funding that goes on, shown by this Government employing in the offices of one of its senior Ministers Gary Taylor, who is known to be anti the Resource Management Act. Gary Taylor is the head of the Environmental Defence Society, and he actually hires himself out as a consultant to people who are objecting to resource consents. That person was hired to work in the office of the Minister who is Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Control, and was paid by the taxpayer to be an adviser. At the same time he was lobbying for funding from the Government for grants from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment to set up a website—$50,000 for a website to advise people on how to use the Resource Management Act to object to resource consents.

How on earth can New Zealand take seriously this Government’s proposal to look at the Resource Management Act and what it is doing to block development, when on the one hand it sets up a review committee and on the other hand it is happy to fund lobby groups and lobbyists to actively campaign to oppose developments? The Government also gives money to the Forest and Bird Protection Society. It funds the society’s legal costs when it opposes resource consents under the Resource Management Act. It funds a whole host of lobby groups that set themselves up to object to developments. Many of those developments are new roads or are connected with transport infrastructure. That is the crux of the problem, and that is why we are opposed to this bill.

Many of the things in this legislation are anti-Auckland. It is patronising towards Aucklanders. I do not usually agree with Brian Rudman, who writes for the New Zealand Herald. He is usually on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me, but I totally agree with his column on 5 April this year, when he said that Aucklanders should decide how to spend their assets, not this Government here in Wellington, and not people who do not even go near Auckland. The assets that will be taken out of Infrastructure Auckland belong to Aucklanders. Those assets were paid for by and belong to Aucklanders, but Aucklanders have not been allowed to decide what happens to them since the previous National Government was in power and Jenny Shipley decided that Aucklanders would not be able to decide that. This Government had the chance to turn that around. Instead of Government members criticising National, why did they not take the opportunity to do something and let Aucklanders decide what happens to those assets? Not only will Aucklanders be unable to decide what happens to those assets, but 15 percent of the assets will be given to the Auckland Regional Council to do what it likes with. We know what that means; it means propping up the bottom line. It means propping up the Auckland Regional Council’s shortfall, if it comes to that. That money, and more, should be spent totally on solving Auckland’s transport problems.

There is no reason why more money from the consolidated account cannot go to pay for fixing Auckland’s transport problems. It is all very well for the rest of the country to sneer at Auckland and say that it should solve its own transport problems. It has actually got to the stage where Aucklanders are prepared to pay for their own transport solutions, because they are so desperate. However, Auckland’s transport problems cost the New Zealand economy an estimated $2 billion a year.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Oh, made up!

That is how much the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues cares about Auckland. That Minister asked the New Zealand Herald why the eastern motorway should proceed, just so the people in Pakuranga can have an extra half-hour in bed. That is what she said to the New Zealand Herald. She now denies that, and says she has been misquoted. [Interruption]

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: She just said: “I don’t deny it.”

She accepts that she said it?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Yes.

That is good. She has changed her tune, then.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: What happens to the three queues of cars when they hit the queues—

The Minister should get some pricing mechanisms introduced for the road problems. She should look at some of the private-public partnerships that were originally in the Land Transport Management Bill. All the submitters who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in support of that proposal put forward very clear and good reasons to go for public-private partnerships and congestion tolling. But no, this Government had to do a deal with the Greens. So Auckland does not have those mechanisms, and money paid by the poor old motorist is being siphoned off and put into cycle lanes and walkways, so that, as the spokesperson on transport from the Greens says, we can save the planet and do not run out of oil. People have been saying for the last 50 years that we will run out of oil, but motoring just gets cheaper and cheaper.

The ACT party is opposed to this bill, which will not do anything to solve Auckland’s transport problems. When the National-ACT Government is in office, then members will see what really can be done to solve those problems.

I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we are very pleased to support this legislation. Auckland is a unique place. It is a large, expansive area, and of course has the challenges of being an urban area comprised of many cities. One of the challenges in terms of roading issues in Auckland is that various local bodies have been doing the very best for their areas, but very few have been standing back and looking at the overall picture of what needs to be built, and what is needed in order to control the area as a whole, to keep transport and people moving through it. I agree with the Greens that we need to look at rail, bicycles, buses, and all those things. However, I challenge members who rubbish the motorcar and ask what good it has done for anybody to speak to trades people like mechanics, panel beaters, car dealers, and everyone else who is employed in the motor industry. As it turns out, the motor industry is one of the largest employers on the globe, and I think that those members would be seriously challenged on the good that the motorcar has done for it.

Any structure that is set up—and we are supportive of these structures—is only as good as the people within it. My hope is that the people who set up these structures will be forward thinkers, and that they will stand back and look at the overall picture, and begin to strategise on what will be good for Auckland and our nation over the next 20, 30, 40, or 50 years. For example, I have always failed to understand why it is that when land is bought to build a motorway, the left and right lanes are built from the centre point of that land, instead of those lanes going out as far to the left and as far to the right as is possible on that land, and why the surplus space is not left in the middle for future development. Whether that land is used for future lanes, or for rail, cycleways, or whatever other purpose, why are the two lanes each way plonked in the centre, and why is the surplus land on the right and left sides sold off back into private ownership, perhaps enabling people to build houses on it? We then find 20 years later that that land has to be purchased back again, and that makes no sense to me, at all. I hope that forward-thinking people will begin to think about traffic flows and about the importance of clearly numbering the exits on every off-ramp around Auckland City. Traffic does slow because motorists do not know whether they are at the right exit. If Auckland had a simple numbering system, like that of many of the large cities in the world, showing No. 7, No. 8, or No. 9 off-ramp for a motorist to exit from, it would make a large difference.

I believe that Auckland City has had forward thinkers prior to now. Sir Dove-Meyer Robinson, a former Mayor of Auckland, planned a rapid rail system that was years before its time and had everything laid out, yet the Government of the day abolished that plan. I am sure that Aucklanders regret that. I hope that when the Government begins to review the overall strategy for Auckland, it will look at things that make a lot of sense, such as retaining Whenuapai airport and other structures that will be needed for our great city in the days that lie ahead.

Previously, each council has promoted its own pet project. Thankfully, through the passing of this legislation, we will see that fade away as the councils now work together, collectively look at the overall good of Auckland City, and begin to lay out the roading, rail, and bus structures that Auckland needs. As I heard one previous speaker say, I would like to see any Auckland MP who does not support this legislation stand before the citizens of Auckland, hold up his or her head, and say that he or she does not support this legislation, which will make the way forward to progress solutions to the challenges that Auckland has had for many reasons and for many years. Personally, as an Aucklander I am thankful to see that roads are under way now. I am glad that this type of legislation is going through the House, and will make a pathway for those who are appointed to various authorities and give them the power to make the correct decisions. Once again, we always have to deal with people. I really hope that the ones who come here are forward thinkers, who do not just look at the issue today but also consider and think through the issues of tomorrow. Auckland is an expanding city, and there is no doubt about that.

When my friend from the Green Party said that we were running out of room on the planet, I wondered whether he lived on the same planet as I do. If he thinks that New Zealand is overpopulated with 4 million people, he had better travel to other cities of the world. I will stand corrected on the space allocated here, but I have read that we currently have enough space on our planet that, if every person was allocated his or her portion of land, he or she would be living on a 10-acre block. Yes, we do have many challenges on the planet. Often people say millions of people are starving. We have enough food; it is just that it is not distributed correctly.

To come back to the Auckland roading issue, we have a fantastic city. Auckland is a buzzing, humming city that will hum even better once we hear the sound of the thundering V8s running around the streets of Auckland, as they used to run around the streets of Wellington. I would welcome that. We need wisdom in our choice of a circuit. Maybe the planners will see the wisdom of putting a central Auckland motor racing circuit right in the city, and I would support that. Or perhaps we could put it out at Whenuapai.

United Future supports this legislation. We believe that it makes a way forward. It will enable planners and strategists to think together. I hope that they think not just 2 or 3 years out, but 10, 20, and 30 years out into the future, and that Auckland will continue to expand and become the great city it expects to be.

I want to thank United Future, New Zealand First, the Greens, and the Progressive Party, which support this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. What on earth do National Party members think they are doing? They have said that they will not support this legislation. According to Don Brash petrol taxes are unnecessary but also essential, rates funding for roads is awful but necessary, road tolls will help to pay for new roads but will not raise any money, and public transport is good but there is no reason to fund it. The complete two-facedness of National Party members on all that will land them in incredible trouble. It reminds me of a former Minister of Local Government, Warren Cooper. When he started the mauling of Auckland’s regional local government arrangements in 1992, he said to me: “What you’ve got to understand, girlie, is that if Auckland ever gets its act together it will be a serious threat to central government.” So what are National Party members doing? They are continuing to say that no one should raise any extra money, and no one should actually have the power to do anything in Auckland. But they will go on moaning about the fact that Auckland is not working, and that a dollar wasted in Auckland is 66c that is not available to the rest of the country.

According to Deborah Coddington we are wasting $2 billion; she has doubled Maurice Williamson’s apocryphal number. We now have $2 billion being wasted in Auckland, but at the same time ACT will not support this bill. ACT members tell us there is no reason why more money from the consolidated account cannot go into Auckland. Presumably, they want to take money from the consolidated account that they are also giving away in taxation cuts, spending on defence, and all the other Mickey Mouse Budget arrangements they are trying to pull out of a top hat—rabbits or anything else they can find to try to confuse New Zealanders with.

I am delighted to support this bill. I want to thank the officials from the Ministry of Transport, the local government section of the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, Treasury, and from Auckland local government—the territorial local authorities as well as the regional council—who have worked so hard to bring the best partnership and the best solutions for Auckland’s transport needs together. It is the first time ever in history we have seen central government and local government work in partnership to solve a problem—not by grandstanding, not by saying that it can be solved overnight, and not by putting out outrageous proposals with outrageous costs associated to them, but by a clear strategy and vision, with funding and practical rearrangements of organisations so that we can implement it. In fact, the goodwill that we have seen in terms of Auckland’s transport needs over the last 5 years should be commended as a first in history.

In 1992 Warren Cooper in the then National Government introduced the Auckland Regional Services Trust, which expropriated Auckland’s regional assets. Auckland was the only region in New Zealand that had its assets stolen from public use and put into the Auckland Regional Services Trust. Why was that? It was because that National Government said that all our regional assets should be flogged off. Warren Cooper said they would be sold for so little that whatever was left could go to the arts, because they did not matter either. What did we have? We had about $1 billion worth of assets and revenue. In 1998 the National Government suddenly decided that that should not go to the arts. We had Maurice Williamson leaping about like a whirling dervish—but without the spiritual interest of a dervish—and he said he would give all that money away to Auckland. He was still going to flog off the port company, but he was going to give about $1,000 to $1,500 to every Aucklander. His own colleagues said: “For God’s sake, Maurice, don’t be so bloody stupid. Pull your head in, and get on.”

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Only Christine Fletcher and John Banks!

I notice that all the rest of his colleagues voted for that. So the National Government set up Auckland Infrastructure, which was another attempt to put in a barrier to Auckland solving its own problems. At the same time Maurice Williamson, as the then Minister of Transport, was to put in better transport and better roads. What did we get? We got neither. Maurice Williamson spent the whole of the time of the Ministry of Transport and a big chunk of the time of the Ministry of Commerce and of Treasury, but he did not build one centimetre of road in Auckland. Nor did he put one seat on one bus in Auckland. He did nothing for Auckland in respect of better transport and roads.

What has this Government done? We have worked constructively with Auckland with regard to the present chaotic system that it has. In the last 5 years we have built the Puhinui interchange on State Highway 20. We have seen the Grafton project finished. We have started the huge project in the central business district to put in the links that are necessary so that we can actually get from the harbour bridge to the western motorway, which the National Government did not bother to do. We have put the work in on State Highway 18.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What about the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT)?

Yes, certainly the National Government built the ALPURT one, but what did it have left in 1999 to do after that? It had absolutely nothing left! Did it put the North Shore busway in? Did it heck! Who kept public transport funding capped?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Me!

Maurice Williams proudly says: “Me!”. We have seen a trebling of the public money going into buses, and a huge increase—over 30 percent—in public transport use across Auckland. We have seen walking school buses and the start of the refurbishment of the rail network in Auckland, with the start of the double-tracking of the western corridor and the upgrading of the stations. That has all led to the investment in growth that this legislation will put into place.

It is absolutely wonderful to see everybody working together in Auckland. This bill links up the organisations that have planned the solutions. Transit and Transit have put their 10-year capital indicative plans out there. We have the growth strategy, the regional land transport strategy, and the partnerships. Now we will have the organisations with the power to make the links, and we have put the funding in place. I am delighted to support this excellent legislation, which for the first time will establish one agency with the clear responsibility, the power, and the funding to carry out the projects that Auckland needs. It is about time that Auckland received its fair share of the funding, and got the Government’s foot off its neck—which was put there for the whole of the 9 years of the last National Government—so that we can get on and solve our problems, get Auckland moving, and make sure that Auckland—

💬 Opposition Members: Five long years!

Are the Opposition members not tragic? One project in 9 years, and they are chorusing: “Five long years!”.

I am delighted to say that this bill has overwhelming support, not only from all the agencies that work with Auckland but also from Auckland itself. It is about time! We will do the job. We have started it already, and this legislation will continue it through. I congratulate the Minister of Local Government, who introduced this legislation. I can see why the National and ACT members are so upset, because not only would they not fund this work but they would not do it, and Auckland has got that message. I endorse this bill and commend it to the House.

That was a party political broadcast brought to us by the Labour Party, similar to the propaganda campaign it had for the Budget. Hopefully, that speech did not cost $21 million like the Budget propaganda did.

I have no doubt that in years to come that people who follow politics and are moderately interested in Auckland transport issues will look up that speech made by the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. They will spend a long time looking for it, and I will give the House the reasons why that is the case. They will need to find it in the fiction section of the library, because this Government loves the spin. It loves to tell everybody that it has Auckland under control, that it is fixing the problem, and that it cares. This is a Government that cares so much that it was prepared to pass the Land Transport Management Bill, which was a complete sop to the Greens.

When the Minister brought the legislation into the House, privately he was going up and down the country in buses, cars, trains, taxis, planes, in any form of transport he could find, begging people—he was not asking them, he was down on one knee begging them—to put in strong submissions and oppose his own legislation. That is how much the Labour Party cares about fixing transport. That is how much it cares about finding a solution. It had the audacity to bring into this House legislation that it knew was doomed to fail, knew would never work, and knew would never find the solutions. The reason the Government did that—and did it for one reason alone—was to keep the Greens happy. Heather Simpson had an agreement with the Greens, and the Labour Government needed them, or thought that one day it might need them. That is why it happened. It was not because the Government cared about the people of Auckland, or cared about getting a solution.

I look across at the other parties in the House that are supporting this legislation. I say to them to go back and look at the Land Transport Management Bill. It was such a disgrace that afterwards the Government had to set up the joint official group. This bill is the result of the joint official group. Even that move completely failed to find a solution. Even that was a complete cop-out. It will not work.

National will get some billboards, and during the election campaign it will put them up on the side of motorways all around Auckland. I make this promise: my constituents will be able to get out of the north-western motorway. These are the same constituents that Chris Carter has in his neighbouring electorate of Te Atatu. They will be able to get out and look at the billboards. They will be able to read the fine print. They will be able to see any kind of message that might be there. They will be able to get back in their cars, because their cars will not be moving on the north-western motorway—just like the cars do not move on any night. They will not be moving, because this bill is all about a cop-out. It is all about failing to find solutions. It is all about party-political politics.

No one in Auckland is rejoicing. The reason why Newstalk ZB is so popular in Auckland is that people get to listen to the entire Larry Williams show. Even if they leave work to go home at 4 o’clock, they get to listen to it all way through to 7 p.m. I am regularly on Newstalk ZB with Larry Williams. What a wonderful talkshow host he is. Whenever I am on that show I get thousands of emails, because everybody in Auckland hears it. Nobody is at home playing with the kids, or getting to do other things, because the Government cannot fix the problem.

No one said that the problem in Auckland was easy to fix. It is a difficult issue. Auckland has a difficult topography. It is a very widely spread out city. It has low density rates. It has an incredible number of issues to cope with. It has seven territorial local authorities and the Auckland Regional Council. This bill is not the solution. It does not go even halfway near the solution. This bill goes nowhere towards finding a solution to Auckland’s problems.

I challenge those parties in the House who have come to the Chamber, like lapdogs for the Labour Government, to try to say they support this bill. They are terrified to read the legislation and work out that it will not work. They do not have the guts and the temerity in their own Parliament—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated, please. To imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection, and it is out of order.

I did not refer to a member; I referred to a political party. Those political parties lack the temerity to come to the House and argue why this legislation is wrong. They have not even read it to work out that it will not work. This bill is a complete failure.

Let us look at the things that are not in the legislation that might go some way towards solving the problem. Is the Resource Management Act tackled in this legislation? It must be, because that would be the reason that Transfund last year could not spend $250 million, despite the fact that fixing Auckland’s motorway network will cost $10 billion. Transfund could not even spend the money it had last year, because the Resource Management Act prevented it from doing so.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: You’re kidding.

I am not kidding. There is no Resource Management Act amendment clause in this Auckland bill. There is nothing in there, because it is not going to happen. There is a $5 billion shortfall in funding for Auckland’s projects, and that excludes the Auckland motorway network.

💬 Hon Chris Carter: Ha, ha!

The Minister laughs. I thought the Minister had a calculator in his office. He could add it up, or do elementary arithmetic. But if he wants me to come around to his office, any day he likes, I will add up, in front of him, the amounts that will add up to the $10 billion to fix Auckland’s motorway network. That excludes the eastern corridor and the alternative harbour crossing. It is $10 billion.

There is no solution to the problem in this legislation. What we have done is rewarded failure. We have gone to the Auckland Regional Council and said: “You haven’t done a tremendously good job in your planning. You haven’t done a tremendously good job of finding a solution to Auckland’s problems. We do not want a commercial entity that could have independent directors; that could find the problem, put all the people inside the tent and actually get a solution that Aucklanders can be proud of. No, we want to play party politics. We want the Auckland Regional Council, with all the members on its regional committee. We do not want the real people in the tent.”

This is no different from the Land Transport Management Bill. This is all about propaganda and spin. We are back to the same old problem we had with the Land Transport Management Bill when the Minister was here. It is all about trying to tell people we are fixing the problems, but the real solutions are not coming today. They are not coming tomorrow. They are not coming in 6 months or in 2 years. They are not ever coming as a result of this bill, because this bill fails to address the real issues in Auckland, which relate to whether we can get in more private sector capital by having public-private partnerships. Can we do that? There is no response to that question.

These are not radical, right-wing ideas. These are things introduced in the United Kingdom by a left-wing Government. These are things introduced in every state of Australia by Labour Governments.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Every one of them is Labour.

Every one of them is Labour. Public-private partnerships have been introduced all around the world. We cannot do that. There is no provision for that in this legislation. We do not see independence in this bill, and a real framework and a real willingness to make the problem go forward. We see party-political politics in here. This bill is a tremendous failure.

I want to finish on one other point. I ask anyone who might even question my last statement—and I strongly urge the United Future party and New Zealand First that it is never too late to change their view—to read the bill, have a look at Auckland Regional Holdings and ask themselves one question: “If this is not about a slush fund and not about politics, why do 85 percent of the funds of Infrastructure Auckland have a definite direction—a definite earmarking to them—that they will go to either transport or stormwater? What happened to that other 15 percent?

The answer is that even Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Council will not tell us. No one will tell us, because it is the political slush fund. [Interruption] It is 15 percent of billions of dollars, and that is the very reason why Infrastructure Auckland did a good job when it was previously set up. It was prepared to stand up to the likes of Judith Tizard, who wanted to go there and use political influence. That is why it is doomed to failure. Auckland has been badly served indeed by this propaganda. Every party in this Parliament should be campaigning strongly against the bill. National will not support it.

It is a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. Having been asked only a few minutes ago to give a short speech on it, I am very happy to do so. It is also a pleasure to follow Mr Key, an Auckland member. He mentioned the UK experience—

💬 John Key: A positive experience.

—he calls it a positive experience—in terms of the construction of new roads, new motorways, etc. I want to give Mr Key a little of my experience of the UK. I well recall the ring roads around London, the congestion that occurred there in the 1980s, and the huge construction efforts undertaken by the roading authorities in the UK at the time, which resulted in a motorway called the M25.

💬 John Key: I know it well.

Mr Key would know, therefore, that the M25 was dubbed, almost as soon as it was completed, the largest car-park in the world. I had the experience, when this brand new motorway was less than a few months old, of sitting in a coach for several hours as the traffic inched gradually along.

The point I am making is that Auckland’s problems will not be solved by a very simple recipe of building more and more motorways. I am not, for a moment, saying there is no need for more roads. Clearly, the Government has recognised that, but it has a balanced mixture of policy that sees roads, public transport by way of buses, a rail system, integrated ticketing, cycling, walking, and walking school buses—all those things—as part of a greater whole. But, at the same time, we are making the investments that are needed in an area of the country that, for many years, has been neglected in terms of the amount of infrastructure being built.

I think it is absolutely instructive to look at some of the comments of the National Party members. Just to give members one very short example before I sit down, I refer to Mr Brash’s comments. He said we should remove petrol tax, and reduce rates, levies, etc., but acknowledged that we need to build a roading network within 10 years. If one actually looks at the detail of the comments made, one sees it is quite clear that one cannot remove taxes and spend more money at the same time. It is simply not possible, yet that is what National members are asking us to believe.

If this bill is the answer, it must have been one dumb question. The idea that we will fix the ginormous transport problems in Auckland by creating two new bureaucracies could only have come out of a left-wing Labour caucus. I was amazed to hear the contribution from the Associate Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven. He says that the answer, as much as I could make it out, to Auckland transport issues is walking buses—walking buses for kiddies. Well, my daughter, Hazel, is proud to be part of a walking bus, but I have to tell the Associate Minister of Transport that if his answer to Auckland’s serious traffic woes is walking buses, it is no wonder we have a flaky bill like the one before the House.

It further amazes me as National’s local government spokesperson. I have talked to a great number of the citizens and councils of Auckland, and if there is any local authority—I would go so far as to say anywhere in New Zealand—in which there is a lack of public confidence, it is the Auckland Regional Council. Everybody I speak to says it is a bureaucratic monster out of control that delivers little. Yet the Government—Judith Tizard and Chris Carter—believe that our worst public authority is the answer to New Zealand’s biggest problem. That is absolutely extraordinary. I am not surprised that those Auckland members of the Labour caucus are not down here defending this bill; they know it is a failure, and they know it will not address the very serious transport issues that are costing Auckland and New Zealand a billion dollars a year.

But I want to go further down this track of extra bureaucracies not being the answer. If there is any aspect of Auckland’s transport issues on which the editorials, the councils, and the important commercial transport organisations agree, it is that there already are too many organisations trying to deal with Auckland’s transport woes; that there already is a lack of accountability, and no one organisation is prepared to put up its hand and say it is responsible for the mess that is Auckland’s transport woes. So I ask Mr Carter again: how can creating two new bureaucracies possibly make a positive difference to those transport concerns?

It is interesting to note that despite all the increased taxes that this Government has imposed—not just on the road users in Auckland but on the road users in New Plymouth, in Nelson, and throughout the country—and despite this Government telling New Zealanders that that extra money would be spent on Auckland roads, it has been quite comprehensively proved by my colleague Maurice Williamson that this Government is spending less on Auckland roads than was spent in the last year of the National Government. That is a fact, it is an embarrassing fact, and it is time that both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Local Government fronted up to the people of New Zealand as to why they are taking more money off the road user and spending less on roads.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: There was a 32 percent increase in revenue.

My colleague points out that 32 percent more money was taken off road users and less money is being spent. That is why we say Auckland’s transport problems have got worse every year under this Labour Government.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Because you did nothing for years.

Well, I will tell that Minister what we did do.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: What?

We introduced a Resource Management Amendment Bill, and that member is part of the Government that rejected that bill. It is interesting that Judith Tizard, the failed Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues, is getting a bit tetchy. It is not surprising she is getting a bit tetchy; if I had her track record I would probably resign. She is getting tetchy because this Government has done a U-turn on the Resource Management Act. If we go back to 1999, we find that National introduced quite a comprehensive bill to make some key changes to that Act, and this Minister and this Government pooh-poohed it. They said that, no, the Resource Management Act was beautifully written and beautifully crafted, and did not need to change, despite the fact that key Auckland transport projects had been tied up by the Resource Management Act for 7 years. It seems it is acceptable to Government Ministers, including Judith Tizard, that it takes 7 years to get a consent to build a new road. Well, members on this side say that is not acceptable, and that is why Don Brash, in his leading speech on Auckland transport issues, pointed out—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: It’s all laughable!

Judith Tizard obviously has not read the New Zealand Herald. I read a stunning editorial in the New Zealand Herald that stated there was more sense in Don Brash’s speech on roads than it had heard on that issue for years from Judith Tizard or the four Ministers of Transport. We on this side of the House are proud of that speech, and proud of the fact that that speech recognises that we will not make substantive progress on Auckland’s transport issues without substantial amendment of the Resource Management Act. That is something this Government does not recognise, it is something this Government has continually kicked for touch, and it is something that National and Labour view very differently.

The further issue is public-private partnerships. We on this side of the House have held the view that they offer real potential to solve Auckland’s transport woes. Where in this bill do we find any mention of the potential for public-private partnerships to do the job?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: They were in the last bill.

I ask the Minister how many public-private partnerships there have been. It is 5 years since that member picked up her ministerial warrant. How many public-private partnerships do we have? Could the National transport spokesperson fill me in?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Um, um, it’s zero!

It is zero. [Interruption] The Minister admits that, despite her carrying a ministerial warrant for 5 years, we do not have a single public-private partnership in respect of dealing with Auckland’s transport concerns. I tell the Minister that, by any sense, that is failure, and she will be held accountable at the polls next year for that.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: No wonder you lost the Wearable Arts!

Is it not interesting: the Minister now wants to talk about the Wearable Arts Awards. I would be happy to talk about those, and about how that Minister has produced a result that is a tragedy for Nelson, but this debate is actually about a transport bill. I think the people of Auckland are actually more concerned about the billion dollars a year that transport issues cost them than they are about the tragedy of Nelson losing the Wearable Arts Awards.

I want to come back to this bill and to point out that it is an appalling indictment on the Government’s management of transport. Here we have a huge issue of great economic and strategic importance for not just Auckland but our country, and on all the key issues—organisation, the agencies involved in managing this problem; legislation, notably the Resource Management Act; the billion-dollar price tag on completing the Auckland motorway network; and the issue of public-private partnerships—this bill takes us nowhere. It is a failure. It is an indictment on the Minster of Local Government, the Minster of Transport, and the sometime Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. It is a bill that will actually make things worse not better. It is a bill that will sentence thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to ongoing traffic jams.

I say to members opposite, particularly the Auckland members, that the voters of the city of Auckland will not tolerate the ongoing obfuscation and failure in respect of transport issues. Those members have failed. They ought to resign and let somebody else come up with a far better approach to solving Auckland’s transport woes.