Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill

I am delighted to be able to get into what I think will be the long, long process of the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: What were we doing 10 years ago?

Harry Duynhoven thinks that is funny, but I am delighted to say that—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: We got a lot of support, Maurice.

Actually, I do not need much support, because we know exactly what we believe on this bill and why we believe that it is wrong.

Now that the Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter, is in the chair there are a couple of things I want to start off with. There is so much material that I want to ask about, but I guess the first question is this: why did there seem to be such a split within Cabinet when it came time for the announcement of this stuff in December? Dr Michael Cullen, the Minister of Finance, and Paul Swain, the then Minister of Transport, issued very positive press statements that mentioned roads, and that said we needed better roading, more roads, in Auckland. I actually thought their press statements looked quite good. Then I read stuff from the Hon Judith Tizard, from the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and from the Hon Chris Carter, the Minister of Local Government, who is in the chair, and in many cases—I am not sure about Chris Carter’s statement but I think his was one; I am happy to bring them down to the House afterwards—they never mentioned roads.

Judith Tizard certainly did not mention roads in her whole press statement. It talked about Auckland’s needs for the future, about integrated transport, walking buses, cycleways, and walkways. It talked about the lot, and I thought this is wonderful—where is the mention of roads? Roads, as I think everyone in this Chamber will agree, will be central to solving Auckland’s problems. Yes, there needs to be more done in the area of public transport—I accept that. Yes, there needs to be more done to encourage people to use alternative transport or to change lifestyles. But all those solutions are of the magnitude of about 1 percent. The number of people currently using rail in Auckland make 3 million trips a year. That is 0.3 percent of the passenger trips being made in Auckland. So even if rail patronage were to double, by some miraculous change, over the next few years, it still would be an absolutely minute part of the solution.

I think the Minister in the chair has a responsibility to tell us about this. I might have done him a disservice—I will go back and check his press statement from 13 December—but I know that several Ministers, in their announcements, never used the words “roads” or “roading”. In that great, wonderful announcement about the world-leading solution for Auckland that was coming, the words “roads” and “roading” were not mentioned.

Then we get to some more embarrassing stuff in terms of the track record on this issue, and it is to do with the funding of Auckland’s roads. This bill is supposed to be setting up the administrative processes to fix it, but one of the most embarrassing things the Government has on its plate is the fact that its track record of putting money where its mouth is is so bad. This Government has been in power for 5 years. I asked the Minister of Transport a very specific question: how much money has been spent on the building of new roads, both local and State highways, by year, for the last 6 years? The first number we got was for the full year of the last year of the National Government—$134 million—then we got numbers for the corresponding years from that point on. I have tabled them in the House today, so they are on public record. In every year that this Government has been in power, the amount of money it has spent, in real dollar terms, on new roads in Auckland, both local and State highways, was less than what the National Government spent.

It could be said that that was because the Labour Government was so committed to spending its money elsewhere. I would have listened to that and said it was a reasonable argument, until I had a look at Transfund’s books. Transfund has already told us that it will finish this financial year—tomorrow, actually—with a $250 million surplus in the coffers.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How much?

It will have $250 million. The people of Auckland who are in drive time—unfortunately, in Auckland that is any time from about 3 o’clock in the afternoon to 9 o’clock at night nowadays, because it takes hours to get anywhere—and are listening, will be asking why $250 million that was taken from them is sitting there when there is a desperate need for new roads. I am happy to go through the list of roads that need to be built. What is this legislation doing about it? It is setting up two new bureaucracies. I can just see the people stuck on the southern motorway right now saying “Yippee!” about having two new bureaucracies!

New Zealand First’s policy on roading, in Auckland or elsewhere, is very clear. We want to make sure that all money raised by taxing the motorist for the building of roads is used to build roads. We do not support the policies of this minority Labour Government, or the National Party, which say that some of that money—$700 million or $800 million—can be siphoned off into other areas.

I was in the House in 1977-78 when we introduced the hubodometer tax. It was made absolutely clear by Sir Robert Muldoon and Colin McLachlan, the Minister of Transport, that that tax was to be spent on roads. We said that every truck could do as much damage as 40,000 cars and that the taxes raised from the hubodometer tax on trucks had to be spent on the roads. New Zealand First follows that view—[Interruption] Mr Williamson can interject on me all the time, if he likes, but that is our policy and that is where we differ from the National Party and the Labour Party.

I stood up in a meeting with Don Brash on the North Shore when I put this proposal forward, and I got no support from him. He wanted to make sure that that money was still spent on hospitals and suchlike. That is fair enough, but we want to make sure that every cent of the New Zealand Roads Board money—all road-user taxes—is spent on the roads, unlike the National Party as Dr Brash said on the North Shore.

This bill is like the old saying: half a loaf is better than no bread. We take the view that something has to be done for Auckland. This bill at least approaches the problem and gives some consideration to it, and it amalgamates many of the diverse local authorities and local institutions that govern Auckland roads and tries to put them together towards one solution—one body looking at the problem and one body trying to solve it. We could wait 18 months for the National Party to come up with some dream idea, but we know that all Maurice Williamson ever did in Government was produce reports. We in New Zealand First cannot wait for reports. We are willing to give a proposal a try. As I say, it is half a loaf, not the full loaf, but we will give it a go because we believe that something positive has to be done for Auckland. We will not be like the National Party—we will not rub our hands, say that this is a dreadful state of affairs, and then spend another 18 months saying how dreadful it is. We want some action. This offers us some action in Auckland.

As an Auckland member of Parliament and someone who helped to unchain the north-western motorway in 1979-80—I was there when Sir Robert Muldoon and I opened the Western Springs link in 1982-83, and, really, nothing happened after that under the Labour Government or the National Government—I am pleased that the north-western motorway will swing into the Auckland Harbour Bridge. I congratulate the Labour Party on, in this term at least, approaching that problem and doing something about it. If one drives on the city motorways today, there does seem to be something happening. It did not happen much between 1984 and, virtually, 2002. There was scant work being done. I congratulate the Minister and this Government, because something is happening at least, and it is not the hand-wringing, moaning, groaning, and whingeing that we constantly get from Maurice Williamson in yet another report.

I am also very pleased that there is an extension of the rail link, with one line going up as far as Morningside. I hope it will go to Henderson. I wanted to see it go to Helensville—there is no reason why that double rail link should not go there. I am looking forward to that double rail link going all the way to Helensville at the very least, because there is a growing population in that area. The Auckland Regional Council—and that is part of what we are talking about today—has plans for the growth of that area. Rail link is one of the ways in which the transport of that area can be improved. Also, I cannot see how people getting off a plane at Whenuapai at 8 o’clock in the morning, or 6 o’clock in the morning, will ever get to Auckland on the north-western motorway. They cannot do it today, and they will not be able to do it in the future as things stand. That is something that really has to be re-examined by those people who support the Infratil plan for Whenuapai.

I congratulate our member Jim Peters on all the amendments the Minister will put forward in discussion with Jim Peters and New Zealand First. We believe that cooperation with the Government is very important if something positive can be achieved. We were at the Auckland Regional Council. The council was critical of this bill, Jim Peters was critical of this bill, but now we have worked through to a solution in this bill, which can only be a better result for the people of Auckland. That is very important, especially in an MMP situation. If there is a problem, it is no use just wringing one’s hands and moaning about it; one tries to work towards a good solution to that problem. What we are getting in this bill is an improvement. It is half a loaf, but it is better than no bread.

I would like to thank Dail Jones from New Zealand First for those kind and truthful comments. The Government has attempted to work through this process in as engaging and consensual a way as possible. It has involved a great deal of the time of my officials and Government members in meeting with Auckland territorial authorities and engaging with other political parties so that we can come up with solutions that start to address this critical problem of transport within Auckland, and particularly its governance structures.

This bill is aimed at promoting increased integration of decision making. We had some presentations earlier from some National members stating that the bill increased the number of bodies making decisions. Actually, it does not; it goes a long way to integrate and streamline those processes. Part 1 is a fairly narrow part. It deals with title, commencement, purpose, and integration. I would like to comment very briefly on just two things. The first is the Supplementary Order Paper and the commencement part that I intend to introduce. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to be up and running on 1 January. If it manages to appoint its chief executive and get everything ready before then, we are very keen for it to start as soon as possible. So the Supplementary Order Paper allows the authority the flexibility, if it is up and running earlier, to get started and take full responsibility.

The other area I would like to comment on very briefly is the integration of all the Franklin district into the area that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be dealing with in its planning processes. The transport systems in the Waikato are very integrated with Auckland’s transport structures. We have widened out the reach here beyond the Auckland Regional Council to the Waikato Regional Council in an attempt to try to integrate this incredibly complex Auckland transport network into an effective and efficient system. It will be a Herculean task, but this Government has both the commitment and the resources to try to address this question.

I rise to speak on Part 1. The Green Party, of course, is supporting this bill. I want to talk particularly about the purpose of the bill. Part 1 states that one of the purposes of the bill is to improve the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system. A lot of people talk about integration. John Banks, the Mayor of Auckland, who has a somewhat different position from the Green Party on these matters, sometimes talks about integration too. So I think it is worthwhile looking at what integration is about. To people like John Banks it is, essentially, the code word for a motorway system as the backbone of transport, with perhaps a bit of rail, buses, cycling, and walking thrown in.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Before the dinner break I was talking about how the purpose of the bill refers to the need for integrated transport, and about the fact that some people—and I mentioned John Banks—who use the word “integration” are really focusing on a whole motorway structure, with a bit of rail, bus, ferry, walking, and cycling hanging off it. That is what some people call “integrated”, whereas when we go around the world and look at other cities, we see that their transport backbone is public transport—particularly rail transport. I think that is where Auckland has been missing the boat over the last few decades.

What we need to build, particularly south of the harbour bridge, is a true backbone of rail transport as the hub for public transport in Auckland generally. There has been a huge decline in patronage from the old days when there were 100 million passenger movements per year. There is around half that number now, although that figure is coming up quite rapidly. When people argue against really putting the emphasis and money into rail, I think they should just look at Auckland today, where the problem is not that people refuse to go on trains but that the trains, particularly around commuter time, are full.

I went to see the marketing manager of Connex Auckland, which is taking over the operation of the Auckland rail system very shortly. That manager has the rather unusual task of not wishing to encourage increasing commuter patronage at this point in time, because every time Connex Auckland puts on a new train it automatically fills up, and it has too many passengers for the trains it has now. The big task before Auckland—and hopefully this new structure in the bill will advance it—is that of getting a better track, getting many more carriages, double-tracking lines, and improving the stations, etc. So the job of that marketing manager is really to get these trains running right on time and to have good quality public transport for Auckland.

I think that one of the tasks of the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which is being set up under this bill, will be to get the trains and the stations up to scratch. I think it is envisaged and possible in this bill for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to actually own those carriages, etc., and to bring them on stream. Auckland Regional Holdings, as I understand it, is more the permanent asset infrastructure base, and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be in charge of making sure—together with the operator, Connex Auckland—that the carriages are there.

The backbone of a true rail infrastructure is developing, with the Britomart complex having opened, but unfortunately there are too few trains going into that complex to date. There is work proceeding on double-tracking the western line—that is good—and talk about treble-tracking the line coming in from the east. But if we are to develop a true rail backbone, particularly where there is a weakness along the eastern corridor, we need to reject the idea of building another motorway down the eastern corridor. We need to reject the old vision of motorways being the backbone of transport, and really develop services along that eastern rail corridor, which, at the moment, at peak times are really quite infrequent.

I rise to address Part 1, which contains the purpose and interpretation clauses. If the Minister, Chris Carter, were serious about solving some of the transport problems in Auckland, he would urge his Government to make a decision on Whenuapai Air Base. Instead, Government members are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. The Government will not make a decision on Whenuapai Air Base because it is too political, and because it does not want to upset Auckland International Airport. While the people in west Auckland sit waiting for this airport so they do not have to sit in traffic for 3 hours to take a 1-hour flight to Wellington, Government members sit around passing legislation such as this in urgency.

Clause 3 states that the purpose of this Act is to improve the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system and decisions on stormwater funding. It does not say anything about building roads, about pricing mechanisms, or about ending the gridlock in the Auckland transport system, which is a total disgrace. If this Government were serious in doing something about the Auckland transport system, it would bring in legislation such as that brought in for the America’s Cup, which enabled the America’s Cup village to be built in time for the event and enabled the money to be poured into the Auckland region. That benefited not just downtown Auckland, in terms of aesthetics and creating businesses, but the whole of New Zealand. All that is needed is a bill like that to set up some sort of central body that could hear all the submissions and objections in one piece. There would be one right of appeal, and then the whole roading network could go through.

As I said before, there is no point just in building more roads, because cars will pour on to them—especially in Auckland, which is built on a very narrow piece of land. As the Greens say, it is hopeless trying to get people to use rail. If people want to use rail, let them pay for rail. The motorists in Auckland pay through their road-user charges, through their accident compensation levies, through their drivers’ licences, through registering their cars, and again and again through petrol taxes. Even though they pay all that money, less than 50 percent—I think about 17 percent—actually goes back into the roads. The rest goes into the consolidated account. Aucklanders are so desperate that they will agree, as a last measure, even to a regional petrol tax. That will not solve anything anyway, because people will just pour out of the area to fill up their vehicles and go back in again.

This bill will do absolutely nothing, because this Government is ideologically opposed to any form of private enterprise. Until this Government—or any Government—allows private enterprise to come into the picture in terms of building, operating, and transferring roads we will never get anywhere. This bill is really an asset grab. It is an asset-grab bill. It would put Brierley’s to shame in terms of grabbing all the assets that belong to Auckland people—in the form of Infrastructure Auckland—which they have paid for, and which, interestingly enough, it took an Alliance person to safeguard for them. Now it will just hand over those assets to the Auckland Regional Council, and it will not even require that all of those assets be used on the roads and the stormwater system. As I said during a prior debate on this bill, the Auckland Regional Council will be allowed to use 15 percent of the assets for whatever it wishes.

This is the council that, with a straight face, unashamedly put up rates on the North Shore to $6,000 per year. Those people would have to pay for a rail system that they would never use, that some of them would never see, and that, because this Government is so soft and pathetic on crime, they would not want to use. A pensioner lady I spoke to, whose rates were going up to $6,000 per year, said: “I would not use rail anyway, because the railway stations aren’t safe. Why would I want to use it?” This bill is just cosmetic public relations.

I note that clause 5 states: “This Act binds the Crown.” What a noble gesture that is. It implies, does it not, that the Crown, the Government of New Zealand, has some grand design for the Auckland region in relation to transport. Unfortunately, that is not true and this bill fails in its basic objective. Members should look at clause 3, “Purpose”, which states: “The purpose of this Act is—(a) to improve the integration of—(i) the Auckland regional land transport system;”. It actually does not do that, because we will still have the multiplicity of authorities and accountabilities. Certainly, it aggregates some stuff within the Auckland region. It gives some additional powers to the Auckland Regional Council and it deals with Auckland Regional Network Transport Ltd, but it does not deal with the big issue, which, as the Minister well knows, is the completion of the motorway network. Where in this bill do I find the inclusion and integration of Transit or Transfund—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Or TrackCo.

—or TrackCo. The big spending items are not here, so when I see the words: “This Act binds the Crown.”, I realise that they are there purely as window-dressing. The Crown, to all intents and purposes, is doing absolutely nothing.

I am appalled that after 7½ years I have to stand here and say that the busway for the North Shore is yet to start. It is a project that has been thought about in our city, progressively planned during the 3 years I was a Government back-bencher, and now, 5 years later, is yet to start. Certainly, there are all sorts of honeyed words from the Government, with fine intentions and so forth, but our city is waiting for the bulldozers. I do not mean just on the Esmonde Road interchange; I mean on the entire network.

In fact, the speaker for the Greens takes direct and personal accountability, aided and abetted by the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, for stopping the work entirely for the last 12 months, by a review. It was an unnecessary review of something that would have significant advantages for public transport, which, I presume, the Greens actually support and the city desires. It was an integration of public transport through buses and high-density vehicles—that is, motor vehicles carrying three or more people. It was something that surely everyone would have supported; yet a review, lasting 12 months, effectively put the project back. So a project that should have been in operation no later than 2003, if the Government had taken a meaningful and serious approach to this issue, will, I suggest, not now operate until 2008 at the earliest. That is a whole decade for a very simple, straightforward project.

So when Auckland people look at the actions of this Government and measure them, they will say: “Gosh, it took 10 years just to do a simple project like the North Shore busway. How on earth will the Government be able to complete its alleged programme in a meaningful sort of way?”. There are much tougher decisions ahead. Has this Government made a single statement of serious funding intent in relation to the Eastern highway, for instance? It has not made even one.

The reality is that the city will wait until the Government is thrown out, because that is the only possible solution to this problem. We need to change the Government and get a clear and coherent policy in place.

I move, That the question be now put.

In speaking to Part 1 of this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill, I want to say to Auckland people that they can relax, because help is on its way. In the next year or so there will be a National Government, and finally something will be done about the outrageous roading shambles in the Auckland region. It is a disgrace, and I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, that this bill is a sick joke. He thinks that fixing up Auckland’s shambolic motorway and roading system will be achieved by creating two more committees. They are to be called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings, and that will fix up the roads? What a sick joke! The Minister in the chair should get his brain around what has to happen in Auckland. This legislation will not do a damned thing to fix that absolute shambles.

I must tell my colleagues something funny. Do they know that we have a Minister responsible for assisting the Prime Minister on Auckland issues? Yes, I think it is the Hon Judith Tizard. Well, we had a meeting with the Auckland Regional Council, where we were being briefed on this legislation, because the council want changes in it. I got up and said: “Look, the progress that is being made on roading in Auckland is such that it is actually getting worse and worse by the month. Things are falling further and further behind. For example, the traffic north of Ōrewa is now getting so bad that there is a crisis right through to Wellsford.”

Do members know what the Hon Judith Tizard said? She said that this bill was only about the Auckland region. The Minister helping the Prime Minister on Auckland issues did not know where the Auckland region extended to. She thought Wellsford was outside the Auckland region. That is the Minister advising the Prime Minister on Auckland issues! We had news for her, of course. The Auckland region extends right up to just north of Te Hana, north of Wellsford—and the Labour Government does not even know that? It brings this legislation into the House and it does not even know where the Auckland region extends to.

I am going to tell this Minister in the chair that Part 1 is a joke, because it sets out the purpose, and there is nothing in that purpose that will do anything to fix the roading problem. I invite the Minister to name one thing in that purpose that will do anything to get the bulldozers moving and the dirt shifted to build a road in Auckland. When National was last in office, the motorway was going right through to Pūhoi as a single construction, and the money was there to do it. What has Labour done? It has done nothing but establish, with this legislation, two more committees—as if committees will build any roads. I say to that Minister in the chair that the public of Auckland will boot him and his mates out, because they are sick of being stuck in traffic. They are sick of it.

But I want to be deadly serious about this. The problem is getting worse rapidly, and there is nothing in this legislation that will improve the situation. By 2008 apparently, the Albany to Pūhoi realignment will be constructed through to Pūhoi. I want to tell the Minister that by 2008 he will have such a shambles north of Pūhoi to Warkworth and Wellsford that it will be impossible to get through. Already, the queues of traffic around Warkworth and Wellsford are such that it is impossible to get through. When there is an accident on that piece of State Highway 1, there is an absolute shambles.

There is a desperate need to actually shift some dirt and build some roads—and this legislation just sets up two more committees. They are two more committees that will do nothing, because there is an absolute disconnect between Transit’s priorities and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s priorities. There is nothing in this legislation that requires Transit to do anything that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority thinks should be done, and there is nothing in Part 1, which sets out the purpose and the interpretation, that will fix that problem.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like it to be made known that on this side of the Chamber there are Auckland members who are concerned about this bill. In particular, members who were on the select committee would like to be given a call on such an important bill for Auckland, which is why Auckland members and not other members are speaking. I ask that when we move to Parts 2 and 3 and then back to the title, fair consideration be given to them when they seek the call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I understand that, and I will take into account what the member has said.

Part 2 Auckland Region land transport and stormwater