Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill is an important step forward in resolving Auckland's transport problems. New Zealand's largest city is being held back by traffic congestion that is impacting not only on Auckland but on the whole country because of Auckland's importance to the national economy. To deal with the lack of past investment, the Government is providing an additional $1.62 billion to be spent on Auckland transport over the next 10 years.

This bill deals with the necessary changes in the governance structures for Auckland transport. The Government's 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, responsible, and sustainable decision making.

Under the bill the Auckland Regional Council will be given overarching responsibility for Auckland transport. The council will continue to be directly responsible for the Auckland regional land transport strategy but will undertake its operations through a new arm's-length, council-controlled organisation called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The authority will be responsible for planning, funding, and developing the Auckland regional land transport system, including setting land transport priorities in the region. The bill disestablishes Infrastructure Auckland and transfers its assets to the Auckland Regional Council's second new council-controlled organisation called Auckland Regional Holdings. It provides effective governance and accountability mechanisms for both the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings, and a firm basis for improvements in Auckland's transport to be achieved.

The passing of this legislation will give Auckland a real opportunity both to determine, for itself, the priorities that will address its transport problems and to implement those priorities. The bill is only the beginning. There is still much work to be done by all of us—the Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Transport Authority, Auckland Regional Holdings, Auckland territorial authorities, and Government agencies. This Government has had the courage, the will, and the resources to do something about Auckland's transport problems.

That speech was a very sad defence of a very sad bill. In it, the Minister talked about the courage and bravery of a solution. The fact that Auckland is screaming out for a solution is not in doubt. However, I challenged him during the Committee stage last night, and I issue the challenge again: “Come with me on Friday night, at 5 o'clock, down into the mangled, stopped, traffic jam—the sort of moving car parks—and let us put on our red-flare jackets to do a survey. We’ll knock on the windows of the cars and ask the people in them: "What do you think should be done to fix Auckland's traffic problems?". I double-dog dare the Minister to do that. I guarantee—indeed, I will put up 20 bucks—that not one person who winds down a window down will say: “I know what we need—another bureaucracy. That would fix it.” I guarantee no one would say that. Yet that is exactly what this legislation is about.

The real significant difference between the left and the right in politics on this issue is that National is unashamedly supporting the building, construction, and completion of new roads. The Minister did not say the word "roads". The left do not even like the word. The Greens cannot bring themselves even to say the word "roads". They think it is evil. They do not like roads or the things that drive on them. They do not even like the people who drive in the things that drive on the roads.

There was no more telling evidence about what the Government's view on roads in Auckland is than the press release that came out when this package, announcing the intent to put this legislation into the House, came out on 12 December. I have it here in its glorious blood-red Labour Party colours. I am happy to report that during the Committee stage I read this out, and given that Auckland's drive-time traffic will still be stuck in their cars, I would like people to hear this again. The Minister said: “I think everyone agrees that the present governance arrangements for Auckland's transport are confused, inefficient and ineffectual." Given that one, I think that is right. There are 18 bodies—that is right, 18 various bodies—responsible for Auckland's transport solutions at present. There is a plethora of them: Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd, TrackCo, the seven territorial authorities, Auckland Regional Council, Infrastructure Auckland, Connex, the ferries, and so on. Everyone knows that. The wiring diagram was appalling, and the Minister was right—hopeless. Then he goes on to say: “The Government proposes that responsibility for Auckland transport issues”—now this is the real thing—“such as rail, bus, ferry, pedestrian and cycle transport reside with but one organisation.” That is from the Minister’s own press release. There is not a mutter, not a mention, of roads.

The Government does not think roads are part of Auckland’s solution. “Walking will fix it.”, I heard Jill Pettis yell out to my colleague Wayne Mapp when he was speaking about the Esmonde Road congestion—“Make them walk.” We will have to put up a big sign at Esmonde Road during the next election campaign, stating: “Labour thinks you should all be walking.” That will be a great sign. We will have the Hansard to show it—“Labour’s senior whip says that to fix the Esmonde Road congestion problem you should all be walking.” We are just adding one more body called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority.

I again double-dog dare the Labour Party to survey ordinary people in Auckland on what they think all the organisations are. The other night I mentioned something called “ARTNL” to my wife, who takes a modest interest in this matter, and she asked: “What’s ‘ARTNL’?” I said: “Don’t you know what ‘ARTNL’ is? It is one of the most important elements for infrastructure and transport issues in Auckland.” She had never heard of it. She had heard of the Auckland Regional Council—the “ARC”—because she gets the rates demands that are going through the ceiling all the time. And another survey we need to run in Auckland should be: “Who trusts the Auckland Regional Council to solve Auckland’s transport issues?”.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Paul Adams.

No one, not even Paul Adams, trusts it. Yet what organisation has been given the total power and control of this, at least in the hotchpotch mismatch that is coming out of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority? It is coming under the control of the Auckland Regional Council. The one failed body that no one would trust to solve Auckland’s problems gets it.

Dr Michael Cullen said something interesting just before we began this morning. He said that the biggest issues in Auckland are things like State Highway 20—the Māngere motorway, which sort of stops at both ends. I think he is right. Dr Cullen and I agree on a number of things, and this is one of them. The biggest issue in Auckland right now is State Highway 20 and getting the southern end of it joined up to the southern motorway in Manukau City, pushing on through Mt Roskill, and adjoining the north-western motorway. I agree with him. Does Auckland Regional Transport Authority have any responsibility for State highways? Does this new entity that is created by this legislation we are passing under urgency in the dead of day, right now, have any responsibility for State Highway 20? No, it does not. It is a Transit road, a State highway road, and it will still be the “same old same old” as before.

Aucklanders are now saying—and the Automobile Association survey shows this in great depth—that the private sector will have to be involved in building a huge amount of roading, and that that roading will have to be tolled. We need to go to no further a jurisdiction than Sydney, Brisbane, or Melbourne for examples. All those cities have left-wing Labor Governments. I am not sure whether people understand that roading over there is funded at State Government level. I have spent a lot of time with Carl Scully, the Minister for Roads in New South Wales, and he said that the only solution to their problem was to haul the private sector in and get it building—let the private sector build the tunnels, the south-eastern extensions, the western links, and so on. It works brilliantly. Some people think Australians and New Zealanders are very different—that Australians are funny, and so on—but it has worked brilliantly for Australians under a Labor Government.

Where is the incentive in this legislation for getting the private sector involved in roading? We have seen no interest so far, and again I tell the Labour Government that this legislation will do nothing. That is simply because Labour has rolled over and played dead to keep its coalition partner, the Greens, happy. The Greens hate roads. They will not bring themselves even to say the word “roads”. They will say ”cycleways”, “walkways”, and ”walking buses”. Forget building a motorway—the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 to Ōrewa North—and from where the B1 finishes to Whangarei we will just have walking buses. Jill Pettis will probably sign up to that. It is madness. Yes, public transport initiatives will be important, and the vast bulk of those will come through buses, but Labour has not worked this one out: what do buses travel on?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Roads.

Wayne Mapp got it just like that, and Labour still cannot answer.

💬 Darren Hughes: He’s got a PhD.

That is right. Maybe Labour should get some people with PhDs to advise it. Buses travel on roads, and that is why Auckland needs more roads, because even the public transport solution comes from roads. What percentage of Auckland’s public transport-users right now use rail? Firstly, rail hardly goes to anywhere that the people live. Howick and Pakuranga, where I am from, does not have a railway line. We do not want one—just in case anyone is getting excited and thinking we might start to build one out there—because the costs of building one are astronomical and the subsidy per person is crippling.

Again, the Greens will never stump up to this next issue: name one city the size of Auckland where rail works. They will come up with London, Hong Kong, and New York, where rail works well. I am sure that if we had 7 million people between Ponsonby and Parnell, we would have a wonderful underground railway system. It would be brilliant, it would work, and it would actually be profitable. But with Auckland’s population of only 1 million spread across a huge block of land, and the trips going in all directions rather than focusing on the central business district as they are in Wellington, rail is not a solution. It is less than about half of 1 percent at present. Even with the most optimistic outlook it would be about 1 percent. But, no, the Greens say they want to get everybody on to public transport. Of course, they do not use it. The Greens drive their cars to every public meeting they attend. They like to do that. They think it is the great unwashed out there who should use public transport.

I repeat: the major difference between the National Party and the Labour Government regarding this point on transport is that we believe Auckland’s roads need to be built, and built now. The network needs to be finished and we need to see what was planned many, many years ago come to fruition. Dr Cullen’s comments on State Highway 20 were right.

The last thing I find so galling—and members of this House should be appalled by it—is that while Auckland has been screaming out for new infrastructure to be laid, and while the private sector has been shut out by dreadful legislation like the Land Transport Management Act, Transfund has a surplus of $250 million in its kitty, unspent. I want the next Labour speaker to justify why $250 million is sitting in the bank unspent today while we are passing stupid legislation to increase the bureaucracy in Auckland.

I listened with interest to the previous speaker. He is very much like a bird that has been finally let out of its cage. He was silenced by the National Party for a couple of years, and he is obviously revelling in the ability to speak in this Chamber—and an interesting address it was, too.

I am speaking as a Waikato and Hamilton member. I want to reflect that if one looks at the history books—History 101—one sees that from 1990-99 there was a National Government. What did it do for transport in Auckland? If I turn the pages of one of those books, I see they are all blank. I am not allowed to use that “H” word. Under this Government, on behalf of Paul Swain, it was my pleasure to open part of the expressway near Rangiriri—the Ōhinewai expressway. We are actually doing it. We are not talking about it; we are doing it. Hamilton and the Waikato have an absolutely crucial interest in Auckland sorting out its transport woes, because our economy is absolutely integrated into the Auckland economy. I applaud this bill if it will be a means by which Auckland moves to sort out its transport woes.

I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This is a good bill. Let us get on with it, and let us pass it.

In following that member, I too, as a Northland member, express the same sentiment. The future and issues of Auckland’s transport vitally affect us. That is why some years ago, when we found that Auckland was thinking of a drastic light rail solution, we were very, very concerned. We realise that our future, particularly our commercial future, is linked to our ability to get goods into and through Auckland, and out into, particularly, South Auckland—and it is the same for the Waikato. Therefore, we in New Zealand First take a personal interest in this bill. In our party policy that we are developing, under the heading of “New Directions”, we have Auckland’s solutions as one of the issues we have to contend with in our policy development.

In the select committee hearings the issue of whether there should be one entity was expressly covered. I want to pick up what was said by some people in response to that concept, because we have heard it enunciated and developed in the House as being the answer. An answer was sought from Mr Maher of Infrastructure Auckland, who has been mentioned here, and he said that to put Transit and TrackCo into one organisation was quite risky. That was his considered opinion, from the point of view of his knowledge of Auckland. An alignment of plans must have a mechanism to make sure that those plans are strong enough.

That, to me, is an indication that there needs to be a two-phase development for the issues of Auckland. Federated Farmers is a very conservative, sound-thinking group. Its advocate said to us that it generally supports the provisions of the bill. Alisdair Thompson is known for his views on Auckland and on business infrastructure, and when he was asked—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Tell the whole story. Mr Thompson said it didn’t go far enough.

I say to Mr Williamson that when Mr Thompson pointedly was asked the question whether the suggestions within the bill could advance Auckland’s transport issues, his answer was a qualified yes, which is not the answer I have been hearing in press statements from people from the business forum and elsewhere. An honest, qualified yes was Mr Thompson’s comment. The Automobile Association, as has already been mentioned in the House, had a very strong view of the joint venture between the Crown, the Auckland Regional Council, and the territorial bodies where appropriate. But having some knowledge of the way in which those things work, I find that it is part of a phased development.

So where are we in 2004? We have before us a bill that largely meets Auckland’s present needs, but not in the time-warp sense of the last speaker from the National Party, who seemed to have a very static, backward view of Auckland. Instead, there is an opportunity here for the Auckland Regional Council to work with other groups—territorial groups, in particular—in a far more robust strategic development than it has been able to do in the past. As I said previously, unlike others, I see this 2004 model continuing over the next 10 years. The core question that was always asked of Auckland was if more money was made available—and this question would have been asked by the present Government—what would Auckland do with it. How would Auckland use it? How would it be spent? The 2003 Act was an Act of mixed parts, but it certainly reinforced the need for more robust development with regard to road strategy.

In that regard, both Transit and Transfund have shown a remarkable change over the last 4 to 5 years in the way they work and in their understanding. I have to say that, in my experience, that has been very gratifying, particularly in areas such as Northland.

We come to the addition in 2004 of this bill in its revised form—I want to emphasise that—as we see it before the House now. It restores the Auckland regional land transport strategy as the primary mechanism for Auckland’s input—that is, territorial input; that is, the input made by other groups and bodies that make up the regional land transport committee. In turn, over 10 years those views will provide the Auckland Regional Transport Authority with the comprehensive regional transport directions that it must undertake on behalf of Auckland. Clause 28 now allows references to activities and allows them to be prioritised, but it gives the operational arm—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—the ability to get on with the job. New Zealand First applauds that attempt to do just that. It is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s task to go through the fine detail. It will be the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s task to seek the funding, and that funding can come from other sources. I have heard talk in the House about private funding. Among the things that are needed are toll roads, which were allowed in last year’s bill. That, in turn, needs rethinking with regard to some of the strategies for Auckland’s future.

So this bill, in encompassing the regional land transport strategy, the earlier regional policy statement, and, in particular, the impact of the regional growth strategy and the changes that that strategy will make over the next 5 to 10 years, puts together a strong ability for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to work for the sustainable development of Auckland’s transport. No one in this House who has lived in Auckland or has gone through Auckland would underestimate that task. By the way, over 30 years ago, as a youngish teacher teaching at Tāmaki Intermediate, some of the members of our staff had to leave from the North Shore at a quarter to 7 to get to Tāmaki Intermediate in time for an 8.30 start. That gives some indication that some of the supposed recent problems in Auckland have in actual fact always been there. There has been decade after decade of inadequate development and thinking about the real issues of Auckland.

In conclusion, New Zealand First believes that this bill is a brave attempt to provide an integrated approach to the management of Auckland’s land transport system. In my dictionary, “transport” does mean roads, does mean buses, might mean cycling, and might mean walking—in other words, making way for those people who want to walk, as well. The 1998 Act, the 2003 Act, and this bill together will give Auckland an opportunity. I recall the words of John Law, the Mayor of Rodney District, who gave the councils’ combined submission. He said to us in Auckland that the councils were in broad agreement. They had some differences with the Auckland Regional Council, and they suggested that Transit and Transfund should have a more integrated role. But I believe that this is a reasonable attempt to look at the establishment of what will become, and should become, a strong working relationship, whereby we have the Auckland Regional Council, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and Auckland Regional Holdings working together, with the authority of the regional territorial bodies, towards improving passenger transport and roading. It is but a step. In time, the other issues—TrackCo, Transit’s future role, and all the other components of a regional transport strategy and package—will be further developed.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I accept the intention of the legislation. We were uncertain at the beginning as to whether the bill would have focus and clarity. We believe that that has been restored in the bill, and we believe that the Auckland Regional Council has the energy and ability to see this thing through. We await with interest the next 5 to 10 years, because this is a long-term development. Nothing will happen tomorrow, and perhaps nothing will be seen even next year, apart from the concentrated energy of the people who start working in those new bodies from 1 July as they put together a long-term, comprehensive plan for Auckland’s needs, in a systematic way and in a manner that we have not seen in the past. New Zealand First supports this further reading of the bill.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of this bill, which we are very pleased to support. It has indeed been an interesting debate, as we have been through the Committee stage and other stages. It has been fascinating to see the two parties that are not supporting this bill, the first being the National Party. I think all Aucklanders need to understand that neither the National Party nor ACT has chosen to support this bill, which is primarily about addressing the transport problems in Auckland.

It has been interesting to listen to the concerns of those who do not support this bill. The Hon Maurice Williamson has been very vocal against this bill, and has tended to fascinate me. Let us pick up just one point he made. He pointed out that $250 million is unspent. I believe that the years when we just spent the budget because the money was there have gone. I believe we need to be wise when spending our money. In the Dominion Post this morning, we saw a wonderful full-page advertisement from the National Party. Was that advertisement placed because we are at the end of the financial year and the money was in the budget, therefore National spends it? We could have been given the information in black and white, but unfortunately that would have been too cheap. That was not expensive enough to use up all the budget—they had to add colour to the advertisement. That was not to give any more information to the public—no, no; no more information was required—but they had to go for colour for the mere fact it used up the budget. I have been waiting to hear from National, when its members have been speaking, what its brilliant alternative to this would be. I have heard many criticisms about this being another bureaucracy, whereas in actual fact the number of organisations involved has been reduced. So I see less bureaucracy.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: It’s not.

The Hon Maurice Williamson, who has been very vocal here—he is trying to interject as I speak—has had one major concern. He has continually pointed out the fact that in Auckland he can see no bulldozers. Well, poor Maurice Williamson! Obviously it is something from his past, when he thought that there has to be a bulldozer to get progress. He has been extremely concerned that he has been travelling on the roads of Auckland and, up till now, he has seen no bulldozers. I tell the member that, unfortunately, the roadworks being done at present do not require bulldozers, but if he looks carefully he will see diggers working. A digger is not a bulldozer, and I appreciate that the member might have a fascination for a bulldozer, but there are diggers working up there. There are Kangos working there, there are lots of noises, and there is lots of action going on as the roads are being built around “Spaghetti Junction”. So perhaps Mr Williamson needs to go back to the toy box. Maybe his parents only ever bought him a bulldozer, and maybe he thought a bulldozer was required for all roadworks. Well, we have moved on. Technology has gone forward, thank goodness, and we have other instruments we can use. Anyway, I will do my very best. I will speak to the Government and ask whether we can possibly get a bulldozer on some parts of the road in the days ahead. I am sure we will get cooperation on that from the Government, and Mr Williamson will be happy.

There are two sides to every story. Normally, we can hear one side of the story when we listen, and sometimes it can make the utmost sense. Then the Opposition will bring the other side of the story, and then we sometimes have to weigh up, and we say: “Well, that is a very good point. We had not considered that.” But in all the hours of debate we have had on this bill, I have been listening and waiting to hear the Opposition come up with the alternative—with the other side of the story. But what have we heard? We have heard zip—nothing. Yet Mr Maurice Williamson did mention something to us. To be honest, one could see the amazement on his face when he suddenly discovered this—after being Minister of Transport for a large number of years. I do not know how many. Was it 5 years or was it 6 years? All of a sudden, as though he could not believe it, he made a discovery, as he was trying to do some research on the Auckland roading issue. He discovered, with amazement, that National, despite all his efforts, managed to spend, in one year out of nine, the last year—he was there for 9 years—some money on Auckland roads. I think that that is a very sad state of affairs. That was after 9 years, yet he has continually come down here, as we have been going through this bill, and criticised the Government on its performance over 5 years. Well, I ask Mr Williamson this: what happened on the Auckland roads in year 6, after the National Party was last in power?

I have lived in Auckland for many years, and I was one of those who saw nothing happening—absolutely zip, zero. Yet now I can see that progress is happening, and I know that as United Future supports this legislation we are putting things in place so that Auckland, that great city, will have its transport system improved. Yes, there are needs for alternatives. We would be supportive of those—bus lanes, trams, trains, whatever.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Trams?

Trams are very good. Has the member never thought of trams? There are many, many alternatives, but at least this legislation, which we will see passed today, will put in place bodies that can forward plan. As I have said, it is never just a body of people. The most important aspect is that those people in those organisations are really forward-thinking. I hope they are, and I hope they get good plans, but at least we will know who to deal with. So United Future is very pleased with this legislation and is very happy to support it. We can leave on my final words, promising Maurice Williamson that there will be a bulldozer. We will organise one, and maybe we could get the former Minister a ride on that bulldozer if he is a very good boy, as it puts the blade down for the first turn. I know that that will just delight his heart. I can see that he is a man who loves a bulldozer. In fact, he has spent more time talking about bulldozers than talking about the legislation itself. United Future is happy to support this legislation.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we do not support this legislation. We oppose it because it will not do anything to fix Auckland’s transport problems. On the face of it, we could give this Government a small tick for trying to solve the problems in Auckland, but when we read the bill we realise that all that this legislation will do is to make a bad situation worse. By the bill’s own admission, it promotes only the integration of decision-making processes. There is nothing in the purpose clause about building more roads, ending the gridlock, or solving Auckland’s transport problems. That is not a hard thing to do, given there are only a million people in Auckland. Other cities in the world have solved their problems. We can look at what London has done. London had a culture shock, and brought in legislation with new ideas to solve its problems. Sydney did it by using private enterprise to build and develop roads for the State. But no, because this Government is ideologically opposed to any form of private enterprise, it will not even go there. At the very most it will allow tolling on some roading, but that will not solve the problems.

The Minister himself in his third reading speech admitted that traffic problems in Auckland impact on the rest of the country. That is the reason why the rest of the country should realise that Auckland is being penalised in this bill by having to use its own assets, built up by Aucklanders over the years, to fund in large part the solving of its transport problems. If we went and asked Aucklanders whether they wanted to sit in traffic for hours and hours every day, of course they would say no. If we went and told them that there was a piece of legislation in which the Government was going to do something about that, they would probably be pleased. But if we then said to them that that legislation would just set up more bureaucracies, and put the new bureaucracies under the control of the Auckland Regional Council, they would be horrified. They would know that all that would happen would be more talkfests and more arguing, and not one new piece of roading would be built. This bill is an asset grab. That is what it is; it will take $1 billion in assets that belong to Aucklanders. Previous Governments and this Government have dictated to Aucklanders what they can do with those assets, and now the Government is giving them to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings. The last thing that Auckland needs is more bureaucracy. We already have enough bureaucracy in Auckland, and the last thing we need is more of it.

If we look at the clauses in this bill and analyse it clause by clause, we can see that the bill will not do anything. Any fool can see that, when the roading network is not even a priority. The priority is land transport alternatives. They are stuck between the same rock and a hard place that the Land Transport Management Bill was when we passed it last year. That legislation actually did set out to solve the whole country’s transport problems, but it was hijacked along the way by the Green Party, and deals were done. What happens is that two issues now stymie the whole development of a roading network. The first is that we have to look at land transport alternatives, and not just look at them. They have to play a major part in the decision-making process about whether to build a road or instead put that money—money paid in by motorists, by the way, using cars—into funding cycle lanes, walking lanes, or other alternative forms of land transport. The other issue that stymies development is consultation with affected communities. On top of the Resource Management Act, this endless consultation will mean that we will never get anywhere.

The United Future member said that no Opposition party had put up an alternative solution. Well, he obviously has not been listening, because there is an alternative. The ACT party has consistently put up that alternative, and has likened it to the America’s Cup legislation. A Labour Government—I think it was Labour—saw the need for the development of the America’s Cup village, given the advantages it would bring not just to Auckland but also to the whole country. So it set up in the legislation one entity to hear all applications, and gave the right of appeal—I am not saying that matters should go through in a dictatorship. People did have the right of appeal under the America’s Cup legislation, but it was fast, efficient, and smooth. If the Greens had had the influence on that legislation that they have had on this legislation, we would never have ended up with the America’s Cup village and all the boatbuilding industries, wonderful restaurants, and activity that still goes on there long after the America’s Cup has gone.

Building more roads on its own is not a solution. If one builds more roads—yes, of course the Greens are right—people will just flock on to them in their cars. That is why I do not understand why the Greens do not support issues like congestion tolling. Congestion tolling is the ideal way to get rid of the pollution caused by cars idling on motorways. People would have a choice between paying a bit more to go on a faster road or, if they do not want to pay, going on a slower road. What is wrong with that, if it gets people moving? Those are the only sorts of things that will solve the transport problems in Auckland. We have to have pricing mechanisms, but at the moment, we do not. People just go out and get in their cars. These days, most families in Auckland have at least two cars, and they get in them and drive, because the roads are perceived as being free. Roads are not free; the Minister talked about spending $1.6 billion on them. Where does that money come from? People need to be reminded that they pay for those roads, and the only way they will be allowed to make decisions about when and where they use roads is by means of pricing mechanisms.

We need practical legislation. More of the Labour Government members who understand the pragmatism of the situation need to take more control over what is being done. When the Land Transport Management Bill was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the Minister went around the country urging submitters to be strong on the legislation, and to support the public-private partnerships and the Build, Own, Operate, and Transfer proposals, whereby developers could come in from overseas, build roads, operate them, and transfer them to the State after a certain number of years. However, those matters were lost from the legislation, because the Minister of Transport was not strong enough and deals were done with the Greens. But Auckland’s transport problems could have been solved through such schemes.

In conclusion, I would like to answer the United Future member who criticised the National Party for saying that $250 million was still in the kitty and had not been spent. That is money that motorists have paid up in user charges, petrol taxes, and Accident Compensation Corporation levies, and the United Future Party says it should not be spent on the roads. Those members said that just because that money is there, that does not mean to say it should be spent. Obviously, they would rather spend it on something like the Families Commission. Well, I would love to know what the Families Commission will do for Auckland families when, in 10 years’ time, mum and dad have to leave home before dawn and do not get back until after dark, because no new roads will have been built as a result of this legislation.

I am pleased to speak after that rather sad speech from that ACT member. It was obviously caught up in Mr Rodney Hide’s ideology, when he asked for there to be rates caps on local government. That party wants the Government to get out, but that member says the Government needs to climb in more, with regard to local authorities and their decision making. That is absolutely amazing. The ACT members have complained about the impact of regulation in the last decade, but now they are demanding more regulation and want to go in there to tell local authorities and local government what they have to do for their roads.

This is a wonderful bill. It is about enabling local authorities to avoid duplicating their efforts. They are to come together, make decisions, reach consensus, avoid duplication and confusion, and then come up with the decisions that work best for them. And, of course, they will be working to our national land transport strategy. That was another wonderful piece of work that this Government undertook, and it will be completed by 2010. I support this bill. The 33 submitters supported this bill. The only thing they wanted to do was to make sure that we amended one clause, in order to avoid duplication. This is a wonderful bill, and we can get on with it now for the benefit of Auckland.

What a pathetic speech that last one was. Obviously the member has not read the bill, because if she had she would know how inadequate it is. The Government talks about its integrated transport strategy and about bringing people together, and one would think the bill would reflect that. Unfortunately, when we distil the bill we find that all it does is rename existing institutions.

Why do I say that? Currently in Auckland—or at least until tomorrow—there is the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee, which was put together by the Auckland Regional Council and has on it representatives from each of the local authorities. In addition, there is Infrastructure Auckland and the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd. Those are the three regional entities. What this bill does, and all it does, is rename Infrastructure Auckland as Auckland Regional Holdings—a dramatic move, I guess, in the eyes of the Government. Secondly, it effectively renames the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee as the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is all the bill does. So for years the Government has laboured to produce this dramatic measure, and believes it will fix the problem. That is the Government’s serious intent. It has seduced and cajoled New Zealand First—

💬 Jim Peters: Rubbish—absolute rubbish!

What does that member mean—“rubbish”? New Zealand First and United Future members have been seduced and cajoled into supporting what has to be one of the most pathetic attempts at regional reorganisation this Parliament has ever had to witness. Some people have been asking—particularly United Future members—what National’s plan is.

We have been saying very clearly what our plan is, and members who heard the submissions know that it has the endorsement of the local authorities. That is where they want to get to. At best, they see this Government’s mishmash of an effort as a small step towards it. What they want is the plan announced last month by Dr Brash, and it is very clear: a single organisation that brings together central government, regional government, and local government and that has both planning and funding responsibilities. That is what our city needs—a simple plan, clear directions, and completion of the network.

We must get the structure right—and this Parliament has only one opportunity in each 3-year period, unless the Government intends to visit this again next year, which seems unlikely—because it has been talked about for years in Auckland, and unless it is done, we simply will not see completion. I would not be surprised to hear the Government proudly proclaim that the completion of State Highway 20 will occur in 2020. That is the sort of time frame it has in mind for completing the network. It simply will not do.

National has a clear plan. We want to simplify the structure. We want to bring together central, regional, and local government, the territorial local authorities, and the funding and planning schemes so that we get progress. That is the bill the Government should have put up. If it had done that, it would have had support. If the Government had put up that coherent plan—the one that is actually desired by Auckland—then it could have had support. But we will not support the pathetic, half-baked attempt that the Government so proudly proclaims as its solution.

What will the strategic plan look like for Auckland? Everyone is clear about that. Even the Government occasionally acknowledges it. Everyone would concede—and I know that my colleague, Mr Dail Jones, who will be speaking shortly, knows—that Auckland wants completion of the motorway network. Aucklanders do not want to wait 10 or 20 years. The amount of $1.6 billion over 10 years simply will not do it. They want public-private partnerships, and they want action. They want the completion of the strategic motorway network, and that does include the eastern highway, because when the network is completed the traffic will flow.

This is not just about private cars, or trucks and vans doing deliveries around the city; it is also about public transport. The major component of public transport in Auckland is buses, and they have to use the roads. They need to take part in the overall network. Rail has a limited place. Ironically, I would concede that Britomart would work better if there were some form of limited loop so trains do not come in and then have to back out. That is half the problem of rail not working efficiently. When will people develop some form of loop—maybe one that would go under the university and back to Parnell—to get the flow that would make the railway system work efficiently? That is what we need to do. Trains need to go in one direction, rather than come into the station and have to back up, thereby jamming the system.

The Associate Minister of Transport, Harry Duynhoven, well knows what I am talking about. I am talking about traffic flows and getting a one-way flow in the system. That is the kind of integrated approach required and that the bill absolutely fails to provide. It simply does not put in place the structural approach that brings central government together. So that is National’s plan. It is clear, it is straightforward, and it is exactly what Auckland wants.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: No plans, no policy.

If the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues actually listened to people instead of giving them lectures, she would get a very clear message from them. Their message is that they want to have a single structure, to get on with the job—at least, that is the real message they would give her—and to complete the system. There was an opportunity here. The Government had an opportunity and has simply failed to take it. Those are the sorts of issues that this Parliament should be able to deal with by consensus. Not everything in Parliament should divide us. But to have that situation, the Government has to listen to the people and to the clear voice of Auckland.

When Mr Peters says that the local authorities and entities give the bill qualified support, he knows full well that the real objective they have is a single entity. That question was asked of them, and in each and every case they said that that is what they wanted. Unfortunately, all we have is this half-baked solution, which they felt was better than zero. I suspect it will be proved to be no better than zero, and Parliament will be back in about 18 months’ time—after the election, when National is in office—and we will provide the real solution. We will provide the money and a real opportunity for public-private partnerships, and we will spend the $250 million that has sat in the kitty because of the Government’s mishmash of planning—and that includes fixing the Resource Management Act. This bill is a lost opportunity. Only National can fix it.

That was a rather sad little speech from the member. He talked a lot about what National will do when it becomes the Government. Of course, that will not happen. One has to say that the National Party had 9 long years to do something, and what did it do? It did absolutely nothing. The citizens of Auckland know what that Government did, and they are really pleased to see this Government making the changes to land transport governance in Auckland that will make it more efficient and effective.

Almost all the submitters who came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee supported the intent of the bill. They had some suggestions for small changes, which, by and large, the committee was pleased to implement. The bill is a better bill now that it has been through the select committee process. It addresses the issue of the fragmentation of the land transport plans and the work of the territorial authorities in Auckland. It will give us an integrated and sustainable programme that will address the transport ills of Auckland, which were not addressed when that member’s party was in Government.

The people of Auckland have waited a long time for a Government that will listen to their concerns and take action, and that is what we plan to do. Aucklanders are really pleased about this, as that member well knows. We are just going to get on and do the job.

We have a choice here between two different kinds of future. We can build more roads, we can build more and larger vehicles, we can smash down more houses to build the eastern highway, we can take up more and more land with roads, we can clog up those roads with more and more vehicles, and then we can face chaos as, eventually, oil production reaches its peak, prices rise astronomically, and people have no alternatives. That is the future being proposed here by the National Party.

Or there is another future. We can spread our options, we can build those alternatives, and we can give people choices. We can make sure that, as well as roads, we have a functioning national rail system capable of carrying a lot more of our freight than it does at present, and passengers as well. We can make sure there is faster, more frequent, and much more used commuter public transport in our main cities. We can make sure we have at least occasional rural bus services between centres for those who do not have cars. We can make sure we have a balance of modes—ferries, buses, trains, and cycleways. We can put in place travel demand management plans—for example, carpooling to common workplaces, and safe walking options for children going to school. Then we will have a resilient society. We will have cities that are capable of surviving much higher oil prices, cities where the air is much cleaner, cities that are convivial for walking in and where people are able to meet other people, and cities that are not constantly divided by roads and pollution.

This bill is part of the Government’s strategy of moving to that second option. It tries to apply to Auckland the principles of the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the new Land Transport Management Act: principles of integration, of sustainability, of community consultation, and of responsiveness to social needs. Auckland, of course, is the supreme test of this new approach to transport. It is sprawled over an area similar to London with a twentieth of the population, heavily dependent on cars containing one person, its motorway system congested for much of the day, with freight from New Zealand’s largest port needing to cross the sprawling city before it can go anywhere else, and with weak public transport systems and a weak city centre so that radial transport services cater for only a minority of the needs. That is the challenge of Auckland, and this bill gives us an opportunity to try to meet that challenge.

The difficulties have been compounded for many years by political difficulties in Auckland local authorities working constructively together. With seven city and district councils and a regional authority, all having statutory roles in provision of transport services and planning, new governance and accountability structures are needed, as well as new transport arrangements. After the passing of the Land Transport Management Act, central and local government officials worked together on what is now known as the “JOG report”—the report of the Joint Officials Group—looking at how Auckland’s needs could best be met. Unlike many who believe that more motorways are the only answer, the Joint Official Group, the experts in transport planning in that area, established clearly that if we want to address congestion—and does not everyone want to address congestion—then the priority is travel demand management and better public transport, followed by a system of road pricing. Only then should there be a reassessment of what new roads are still needed to complete the system and have not been made unnecessary by the alternatives that have already been built.

For decades Auckland has had expert transport reports prepared, which have stated: “Here is what you should do to develop your roading system on one hand; here is what you should do to develop your public transport system on the other hand.” For decades the roading options have largely been built and the public transport options have not, and we now have an extremely unbalanced situation in Auckland that needs to be addressed, that needs to be rebalanced, before we look at building more roads. The new structure for local government in Auckland depends on a complex system of accountabilities to deliver the outcomes that are anticipated by the new strategy.

Three arms are needed to deliver those outcomes: planning, operations, and funding. At the planning level, the aim is to integrate land-use planning through the regional growth strategy and the regional plan with regional transport planning, via the regional land transport strategy. I spoke a little yesterday on how necessary it is to bring land-use planning and transport planning to be parallel with each other so that the one can support the other. All successful cities overseas are now trying to do that. Here the Auckland Regional Council is the key organisation responsible for both land-use planning and transport planning through its subcommittee, the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee. This is why the regional planning documents must be revised to provide in an integrated way for land-use planning and transport planning consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy, and the bill provides for that revision to be done.

The bill requires that the regional land transport strategy is not a list of projects to build in order of priority, as they tended to be in the past, but a genuine strategy taking an overview of the transport needs of the region, looking at access, corridors, and integration. There has been a lot of confusion about what this actually means, and some people criticised the bill as introduced for not allowing the regional land transport strategy to get its teeth into any real issues at all. That was never the intention, but I am glad that the wording has been clarified through the select committee so that it is now clear that the regional land transport strategy can and should look at modes and prioritise those. It should look at corridors and the needs on those corridors, but it should be more of a structure plan than a wish list of activities.

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority, on the other hand, is the operational agency. It should prepare a list of projects and prioritise them in order to meet the high-level needs identified in the strategy. It needs to integrate the planning for local roads, public transport—both rail and bus—cycle routes, and travel demand management, such as school travel plans. Funding comes from two sources. The capital currently held by Infrastructure Auckland passes to the new Auckland Regional Holdings, owned by the Auckland Regional Council, and that will continue to fund transport projects, particularly public transport. Other projects, such as local roads, will be funded by Transfund as they are now, but the applications will be prepared together by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority in an integrated way rather than by eight different territorial authorities.

This system is dependent for its smooth operation and policy consistency on strong governance by the Auckland Regional Council, which must ensure that the statement of intent for both the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings reflects the principles and objectives of the Land Transport Management Act carried over into this bill. It must also ensure that the Regional Land Transport Committee reflects the objectives of the Act and has on it people with experience in those areas—economic development, public health, sustainability, accessibility.

There is one problem that has not been solved. Perverse incentives have been written into the system of transport funding for as long as State highways have been fully funded by central government and local roads and public transport have not. Any local community hesitating between proposing a new State highway in its area and a new rail or bus service will opt for the former, because it does not have to contribute any of the money. That is not integration and it is not sustainability, and it is often not cost effective. Likewise, any council that can persuade Transit and Transfund that a particular road should be a State highway rather than a local road absolves itself from paying for it. That is not an easy problem to solve, but it should remain a priority for policy work in the ministry to find ways of ensuring that all options for meeting a particular transport need are considered and compared on a level playing field.

New Zealand First is of the view that something has to be done for Auckland. We are here in Parliament and we have to deal with what is on the Table. All that is on the Table is this particular bill. New Zealand First has to look at the bill and see whether it can make the best of it and whether it will do at least something to improve the situation in Auckland. We are of the view that it does. Our spokesman, Jim Peters, has been on the select committee and has made a very valuable contribution to it. That became clear at the meeting held by the Auckland Regional Council about 2 or 3 weeks ago attended by 27 members of Parliament from Auckland. That must be a record, and it shows there is a feeling amongst Auckland members of Parliament that something has to be done.

New Zealand First is willing to take up any plan that might improve situations. We have this plan from Labour. We heard a plan announced by Mr Mapp in this House—I think for the first time by the National Party—in the third reading today. That was an interesting plan. If National were in Government, New Zealand First would have to consider that plan and whether it would improve the situation in Auckland. That is the dilemma, and it is the role that New Zealand First as the third party in Parliament must face.

At the moment this plan does seem to improve the situation, and New Zealand First will therefore support it. We will support anything that will improve the situation in Auckland. We want the roads built. They should have been built yesterday and the day before yesterday. Mr Williamson talks about roads being built now. He had the chance for 9 years as a Minister of Transport to do something about it between 1990 and 1999, and, as every Aucklander knows, he did nothing.

The evidence was before our very eyes as we drove through Auckland, time and time again, in those years. New Zealand First will look at Mr Mapp’s plan. However, I ask Mr Mapp to have another think about it. His National Party plan seems to mean that everyone would be involved, including the Government. Aucklanders want Auckland to resolve Auckland’s problems. They do not want a Wellington solution to Auckland’s problems. Auckland has had that for many years now. I suggest Mr Mapp and the National Party think about that. They would have difficulty selling that plan to Auckland, because it is a Wellington plan, not an Auckland plan.

The advantage of this legislation is that it is an Auckland solution worked out by Aucklanders through the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. As an Auckland member of Parliament, that appeals to me. I put it to the National Party that I do not want some fancy consultants in Wellington or around the world coming up with yet another plan or fancy idea to resolve Auckland’s problems.

I say to the House, and especially to the National Party and the ACT party, that we have to do something for Auckland. Auckland members of Parliament should be working together to try to improve the situation in Auckland, and not do what was done while Mr Mapp was putting up his proposal. He had an idea, but his speech was chipped in on and interjected on, time and time again, by Labour members. Of course, when the Labour Party put up its proposal Mr Williamson constantly nagged and interjected on Labour Party members about that proposal. There should be wide-ranging consensus and agreement amongst members that some proposal must be accepted, rather than constant bagging by the National Party against the Labour Party, and the Labour Party against the National Party.

New Zealand First does not want to be part of that. We want to make sure something positive is done for Auckland. We will support any plan that has a possibility of working for Auckland and, generally speaking, in other areas, for New Zealand’s future. New Zealand First wants to see an integrated proposal by rail, road, and water. We have a wonderful ferry opportunity in Auckland, as well.

As a member of Parliament who has represented West Auckland in the past, and who still takes a very strong interest in the Helensville electorate, I am delighted that the double rail network is being established in Auckland. The Auckland Regional Council, along with the Government, I understand, is involved with that, and they are both to be congratulated on it. Congratulations should be given where they are due. I am disappointed that the National Party fails to do that, at every opportunity. The double lines are going in. I want to see that double line going up to Helensville. I have not heard anything from the National Party member for Helensville, who has had ample opportunity to speak in this debate to implore the Government and the Auckland Regional Council to make sure that the double link goes up to Helensville.

I am a New Zealand First member who has represented Helensville, I was the first member of Parliament to represent the electorate, I have lived in the electorate, and I want to see the double line going up to Helensville. I am disappointed that I am getting no support from the National Party in that respect. I take a good interest in Helensville and I am there regularly.

Auckland bodies need to get together and they need to speak as one. Auckland members of Parliament need to speak as one. We do not want what Mr Williamson has suggested today, perhaps in a humorous vein, which is yet another survey of Aucklanders as to what Auckland wants. I know that what Auckland wants, and what New Zealand wants, is a New Zealand First policy on the roading situation. We want all the money gathered from road taxes to be spent on the roads. That is our policy. When New Zealand First was part of the coalition Government, that is what it was starting to achieve. We started to increase the allocation especially for all roading taxes to be spent on roads. After the split-up, the National Party got back into the third year of the term and reversed that policy. If National had maintained our policy, it would have been possible to do more roading in Auckland, and generally.

\What appears to have happened also between 1990 and 1999 is that more roading money was spent out of Auckland than in Auckland. Clearly, the demand was in Auckland, but unfortunately, for political pot-boiling purposes, that money was spent outside that area. New Zealand First, and I think all New Zealand now, recognises that something has to be done for Auckland, and that is why this bill is before this House. But even though this legislation is meant to support Auckland, the National Party and the ACT party are opposing it.

We are seeing the developments currently, and New Zealand First commends and supports them. For example, in the North Shore area, I was invited to a North Shore City Council meeting. I do not seem to have been invited again, but I look forward to attending another meeting again. I support the Esmonde Road interchange. I support the development of the Constellation Drive bus depot and the bus depot at Albany at Oteha Valley Road, and I am doing all I can to make sure that happens. After the North Shore City Council meeting where the North Shore City Council complained that the Auckland Regional Council was not doing anything about it, I went to an Auckland Regional Council meeting, and would members believe, the Auckland Regional Council suggested that perhaps the North Shore City Council could be doing a bit more. That is typical local body politics.

Fortunately, all that is behind us now, because funds have been made available for the Esmonde Road interchange, and we will be seeing those developments. I have got back to Parliament in only this last session, 2002. However, I am seeing roading developments taking place. I have to recognise that that is the case, and I commend the North Shore City Council for that happening. I commend the North Shore City Council for developments in that area. I see that the second upper-harbour bridge is being built. That is great news. I have not heard one National Party member, even the member whose electorate it is, Mr Key, mention the second upper-harbour bridge. That is about the only new work that is being done, because all the resource consents have been finalised, and they are always the problem. I commend that development. I understand that the Mount Roskill development has now been approved. We have read all this.

💬 Phil Heatley: This is a socialist speech.

The member for King Country and the member for Whangarei may not like to see Auckland being dealt with. Those National Party members want to attack the new development at Mount Roskill. They can, and of course, Mr Connell can, too. National Party rural members do not want the money being spent in Auckland. That is what it boils down to, does it not? Otherwise, they would be commending this speech and the developers.

💬 Brian Connell: We just don’t want to pay for it.

Those members have told the House that if National gets back into office it will not support development in Auckland. I stand in this House and I hear those rural members say that they will go back to their old ways. Aucklanders, and people coming to Auckland from Whangarei, do not want to have to go through Auckland to go south. They want to go around Auckland. People who come from Whangarei—Mr Carter’s electorate—do not want to come into Auckland. They are forced to come into Auckland now, because in the old days Auckland City people wanted money from the business. I want to see the Mount Roskill interchange and development proceed. People from Whangarei and Hamilton, or vice versa, can avoid Auckland. When I travel to Auckland I want to avoid Auckland. When I say “travel to Auckland” I mean that if I want to go to Howick, I do not want to have to go through Auckland. [Interruption] I hate going into Auckland. That is right. I do not like to go to Auckland. I avoid it. I shop at the North Shore, Lynnmall, and any other place in Auckland. I do not like going into Auckland. That is why I want to see this legislation get under way. I want to avoid travelling into Auckland. I want to go south without all those problems on the interchange and get to the airport without the interchange.

💬 Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House for that Government member to have an extension to his speech.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That member is not a member of the Government. The member should read his Hansard sometime.