Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill

The Labour Government thinks it knows a lot about land transport because it is good at giving out traffic tickets. That has been its contribution to land transport in New Zealand—it is good at stopping law-abiding citizens and giving them traffic tickets, but not too good at fixing Auckland’s problems or the motorway network. Aucklanders are not asking for a miracle or some wonderful thing. Members were talking before about the objectives of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, as they are listed in Part 2, “ and the fact that fixing those roads is an impossible dream. Aucklanders have been waiting 40 long years for this network to be finished. In the 5 years this Government has been in office, it has achieved absolutely nothing, and this bill will continue to fail.

The Government has shown scant regard for this bill. The members who have so far spoken on the bill are the Hon Rick Barker from Tukituki, Damien O’Connor from the West Coast, and Harry Duynhoven from New Plymouth. They are not Auckland members. Where are the Auckland members? Those members are trying to close down the debate, and a couple of provincial members were also trying to close it down. Aucklanders care passionately about this issue. They want a resolution, but the Government does not. The Government does not care about fixing Auckland’s problems. What it cares about is snuggling up to the Greens and its coalition partner arrangements. That is what made the Land Transport Management Bill a complete and utter failure, and that is what will make the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill a similar failure.

For anyone who needs more clarification of that point, I urge that person to look at Part 2 of the bill, and in particular at clause 8(1A), which provides that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority “… must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility …”. That clause must have been drafted by the Green Party. [Interruption] I hear the Greens co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and she is nodding in approval of that statement. When she went to Heather Simpson on the ninth floor in the dark, she said: “This is the bottom line. I want these things in the bill. Let’s make this one as unworkable as the Land Transport Management Bill. That is my aim.”, and Heather Simpson quietly said to her: “Yes. Don’t worry Jeanette Fitzsimons, we’ll take care of it. We’ll make this an unworkable piece of legislation, just the way the Land Transport Management Bill was.”

Then we look at consultation as it is set out in clause 8(1A)(b)(i): “ensuring … that the views of affected communities are taken into account;”. What is an affected community? For instance, looking at the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2), the motorway north of Auckland, is the affected community someone who is paying the toll, someone living in the local area, someone trying to use that road to go to Northland, or someone in the south of Auckland, or in Wellington who is currently travelling through? Affected communities are very difficult things to define. When the select committee was discussing the Land Transport Management Bill—which, I might say in hindsight, is really a subset of this bill—we asked officials about affected communities, and the exact conclusion they drew was that affected communities were quite difficult to define.

I want also to make specific reference to Part 3, “Amendments, repeals, and revocations”, which again talks about the number of people who are required to be consulted. I want to draw members’ attention back to why attempts to solve the problems have failed, and why it is likely that this legislation will continue to fail to deliver results for Aucklanders. That is the very important point that Don Brash made in his speech on roading, which I would encourage members to read, because it was a very good speech. It pointed out that the real problems in Auckland are the problems not addressed in these issues. The real problems are the Resource Management Act, the failure to have the private sector in any way engaged in road building in Auckland, and the inability to produce one seamless decision-making body.

What the press release of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, said was that this would be one body to solve Auckland’s problems. What he forgot to tell the people of New Zealand was that this was not one body, but one more body, to add on to all those other bodies out there. That is right—he meant more bureaucracy. My prediction is that if Aucklanders are waiting for the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to fix their problems with no changes, they will be waiting a very long time indeed. The tragedy of that situation, of course, is that motorways in Auckland are at 95 percent capacity as we speak today. We cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to have thousands of Aucklanders migrating into Auckland.

I want to just pick up on—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The call should go to Jim Peters.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could the member be seated. I am well aware of that, Mr Jones. I am looking at proportionality in the Parliament, and as long as proportionality takes place—

💬 Dail Jones: But you have to alternate.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Not in Committee.

I want to pick up on some of those points that John Key was making—an Auckland member of Parliament. I do so in the knowledge that I will still be addressing the drive time audience in Auckland, because it will be at least another hour while they are trying to work their way home. They listen to Parliament for at least 4 hours at night on their way home.

I went and found the Minister’s press release—here it is in all its glorious crimson colour—on the web. I thought I would see whether my memory served me right, and I typed in the word “road” and hit “find”. Low and behold, it found the word “road” once, and I thought: “Oh he did—I got it wrong.” But no it was not—along the bottom of the website it says “Home, Ministers, Portfolios, Initiatives, Newsletters, Broadcast”—and the word “road” is in the word “broadcast”! That is the only place Chris Carter mentions “roads”. I have got it here. I am happy to table it.

💬 John Key: Surely not! Is he on the right bill?

No, no! This was the big announcement on 12 December, and it says: “Single governing organisation for Auckland transport”. That is the heading. It sounds good. It sounds really good. This is what Mr Carter, the Minister in the chair, says: “I think everyone agrees that present governance arrangements for Auckland’s transport are confused, inefficient and ineffectual. The Government believes these arrangements must be clarified so extra transport funding earmarked for Auckland can be used in the best possible way”. That is what Mr Carter said. “The Government proposes that responsibility for Auckland transport issues, such as” —and members should listen to this—

💬 Simon Power: We’re listening.

No, this is really important; members have to listen carefully: “Auckland transport issues, such as rail, bus, ferry, pedestrian and cycle transport, reside with one organisation”. Where is the word “roads”? It is not mentioned. I will read it again: it states that the Government believes that the “responsibility for Auckland transport issues, such as rail, bus, ferry, pedestrian and cycle transport”—

💬 Simon Power: No cars in that one.

Well, now we have worked out what the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) is going to be. It is going to have a little wee circular station and there will be walking buses from thereon north. People will get out of their cars and they will just trundle on with their walking bus. But let me get to the last bit of his press release. He says then: “reside with one organisation to be called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority”. That sounds good. So the responsibility for all of Auckland’s transport is going to lie with one authority.

Now, the problem in the past was—and I made this point in the second reading—that there was a plethora of organisations. There were 18 of them. I have got the list, I have got the graph, I have got the printout. There were 18 of them, from the Auckland Regional Transport Network to TrackCo, to Transit, to the seven territorial authorities, to the regional council, to Infrastructure Auckland. God knows it was most complicated. The press release stated that it was going to be one. When I saw that, I thought “Boy, I reckon these guys might have got it. They are going to move”—

💬 Simon Power: No.

No, I did, actually. Now I know that it was a foolish thing to have thought, because what we are passing tonight is legislation that does quite the opposite. It does not bring it all under one organisation at all. Now, I thought that Chris Carter has a bias, he is a local government Minister, he will not be into this. So I read the press release of Judith Tizard, who says she is the Associate Minister of Transport. Here it is. I have it here. Well, I will find the word “road”—and, guess what? “Road” is used in her press release—once. Just once.

💬 Simon Power: Just once?

But, no, no, when I finally read the sentence it states: “Transit New Zealand has just announced that it expects to begin work next month on the North Shore’s $35 million Esmonde Road Bus Interchange.” So the only place “road” appears is in the mention of the bus interchange. So, Judith Tizard does not believe in roads. Minister Carter does not believe in roads.

So I thought, well, I will go to the top. I thought that the Prime Minister Helen Clark would not be as stupid as that; she would have this fixed. She talks about there being a need. She says: “The structure involves a single body responsible for Auckland transport, under the auspices of the Auckland Regional Council.” Well, it does not, does it? And the Minister has not told us in this Chamber about all these other bodies.

Let us ask one simple question, just one. There are lots of questions but I will ask just one and see whether I can get an answer. Why is Transit staying out, doing its own thing, if these press releases are true? Because if there were just one body, Transit would be dragged into it.

First I want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 8, just to pick up some of the modes of thinking that we have already heard in the last few minutes. The first thing is that the members on my right speak with great confidence about roads in Auckland. In Northland we are affected, as one member has already said, very much by what happens in Auckland. I am speaking on behalf of New Zealand First. We have no great interest in what the National Party, the Labour Party, or any other party thinks. We are guided by the fact that recently I heard a would-be voter in the United States interviewed about whether he would vote for Mr Kerry. His answer was very interesting. He said: “I will vote for anyone who is positive, and I will vote for anyone who promises me that they can fix it.”

This bill is not one that fixes it completely, as my colleague has already said. But there are a number of elements in the bill—and I particularly want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 28—that we in New Zealand First believe need to be expanded and developed. In relation to the development of clause 28 and other like provisions, the need to have clarity in regard to the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee and a strategy, has been clarified. Therefore, New Zealand First will withdraw its Supplementary Order Paper and give strong support to the Government in that regard. The Auckland local authorities are not more numerous. In fact, the seven planning programmes are now reduced to two, with one more major funding agency. The issue here is not the record of the past, it is whether this Committee believes that in this bill the Auckland local authorities have the ability, as in clause 7, to plan, fund, and develop the Auckland regional land transport system in a way that can be integrated, safe, responsible, and sustainable. That is a very laudable objective. We know that it is but the beginning, but New Zealand First strongly supports it. It is a positive move that aims to fix a decades-long problem.

As I said in the second reading, this is a beginning, and New Zealand First supports a beginning. We believe that the clarity that was not there in regard to the local authorities’ ability to plan, and the broad framework that is now the land transport strategy, is there now. That will ensure that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority can get on with the massive operational job that it has to do.

The last point is that the Minister has the ability, under the 2003 Act, to issue general directions. That guidance is there and one would hope therefore it will be guidance that will come with an understanding of the funding needs, step by step. As we know, nothing prevents the ways that funding can be achieved. It is the job of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to get out there, do the job, find the money, and get it done. We strongly support this part. We will withdraw our proposed amendment and support that which is submitted by the Government.

It has been astonishing sitting in this Chamber since dinner time and seeing the crocodile tears coming from National Party members about this bill. Some of those National members were members of a Government that did nothing about Auckland transport. We heard that for 14 long years Aucklanders have been in queues. For how many of those 14 years was National the Government of this country? It was for at least 9 years. This Government has had the energy, the commitment, and the resources to commit to structures and funding that will start to address this complex and difficult question.

Mr Williamson, who is a former Minister of Transport, asked why Transit should not be part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Mr Williamson knows, although some members may not, that Transit is responsible for roading issues all over the country. It could not possibly be an integral part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. However, it is required to submit its plans to the authority, and the authority is required to submit its plans to Transit, to comment on each other’s planning. This is the first time they have been required to consult each other, and this synergy—this working together—is the only way we will solve this problem.

We were told that there are now two extra structures to fix up Auckland transport issues. I remind members that each of the eight territorial authorities had its own roading programmes. Now that has been integrated into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority whereby each of them has a representative sitting on the board. Now instead of eight authorities we have one—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is the progress that this bill seeks to arrive at. This Government has committed $1.6 billion to Auckland transport over 10 years. The Labour-led Government has delivered not just this new governance structure, designed to make a more effective and efficient delivery of transport outcomes, but also it has delivered the money. We have walked the walk; we have not talked the talk.

The Minister said “We have contributed $1.8 billion”—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: $1.6 billion.

It is $1.6 billion. I ask the Minister whose money it is. Is that not telling! They think it is their money. It is actually other people’s money. I hate to bring it to the Minister’s attention, but it is not his money.

I will address Part 2, and in particular clause 8. We see in clause 8(1A) why this legislation will never, ever work. As Maurice Williamson said, this legislation does not even mention the dirty word “roads”. It does not even talk about roads. It is a “land transport system”, and now we can see why. Clause 8(1A) states that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the new bureaucracy that will be set up, in meeting its objectives, “must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility”. That is such a nebulous term. What on earth does that mean? The clause goes on: “avoiding, to the extent reasonable in the circumstances,”. That could mean whatever an Environment Court judge could take it to mean. It could mean whatever a Resource Management Act consultant could take it to mean.

In relation to “adverse effects on the environment”, a road cannot be built without there being adverse effects on the environment. It is impossible to do so. With the dire circumstances in Auckland, the costs and benefits have to be weighed up. It would be lovely for Auckland to be in the same sort of pristine state the Marlborough Sounds are in. However, nobody in Auckland would ever be able to make a living. It would be absolutely impossible.

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has to ensure “to the extent practicable” that the views of affected communities are taken into account. We will just go back down the kind of road we had with the highway being built through the Waikato, through Long Swamp and Meremere, where we saw in New Zealand the beginning of corruption; where anyone can say that “This affects the cultural sensibilities of my community. There is a taniwha under this bend. There is a Billy Goat Gruff under this bridge. To make it go away, to get this transport network, pay over some money and it will go away.” This is what we will see more and more, when stupid clauses like clause 8 are put into legislation.

Clause 8(1A)(b)(ii) states that “land transport options and alternatives are given early and full consideration in a manner that contributes” blah, blah, blah. As Maurice Williamson said, this is just a sop to the Greens. How can the Minister seriously think—and he is an MP from west Auckland, he knows what it is like getting from west Auckland to the Auckland airport, or anywhere. One has to go into the city and out again, unless one goes around through Hillsborough. Whichever way one goes, it is a nightmare; it is frustrating. It affects the quality of life. It does not affect just the economy of the area. It affects people’s quality of life. They hate it. I talked to a woman the other day whose daughter was a professional woman in Auckland doing very well and earning a good salary. She has left and gone to live in Sydney, because she just could not stand the transport problems any more. Sydney, with 12 million people, has got it right.

💬 Dail Jones: Four million.

I think it is six. We should settle on six million. Sydney has got it right, because it went for the boot system. It went for public-private partnerships and has solved its transport system. We will never ever solve Auckland’s problem, especially with legislation like this, when clauses are put in that are a sop to people who live in the Coromandel and Nelson, who have a generic hatred of cars and motor vehicles, and who would love to see them all banned and the roads dug up. Those people do not realise that people in Auckland are suffering. This legislation will do nothing. I ask the Minister to take another call to explain exactly what the meaning of the words is in that clause.

The road addicts are really suffering withdrawal symptoms tonight, and their screams are truly touching. They cannot imagine moving 100 metres without carting a whole tonne of personal metal with each of them. They cannot bear the thought that anybody without a car should be able to move anywhere.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: The member uses the lift. What a hypocrite!

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member be seated. The member on my left is a longstanding member. He has been in this House for a long time. He knows that what he yelled out—the word he used—is out of order and is unparliamentary. I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I apologise.

They cannot bear the thought that anybody who does not have a car should be able to travel anywhere by any other means. We have just heard John Key say that transport agencies should be socially and environmentally irresponsible. That is what he has told us. Social and environmental irresponsibility is what he wants in this legislation. Who is transport for? Who do we plan transport for? If it is to be socially irresponsible and make the lives of people miserable, if it is to be environmentally irresponsible, then what exactly is its purpose? Decades of research shows that trying to build our way out of congestion with more and more motorways has not worked anywhere in the world and that good public transport provision improves accessibility and improves free-flowing traffic in a city.

We are in the middle of a paradigm shift in transport. It began with the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It continued with the Land Transport Management Act, and this bill takes us further. This bill recognises that transport planning and land-use planning cannot be done separately. That was well recognised in the literature 15 years ago when I was working at university, but there are still people who have not caught on. Decades of research shows that congestion and demand for transport are affected by things like housing density, location of workplaces, mixed land-use planning areas, and the routes that public transport takes. The bill does a very sensible thing that has never been done in legislation before, and has not been done by most local bodies before, either. It aligns transport-planning instruments, like the regional land transport strategy, with land-use planning instruments, and requires a review of the regional plan and the regional policy statement.

Aligning transport planning and the regional land transport strategy with the Auckland growth strategy has some chance of achieving a sane and integrated transport system in Auckland, where we have the combination of roads, rail, public transport, and travel demand management, and the opportunities for cycling and walking, which this legislation is all about. Moving to another topic—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member again. Can I just say to members who are interrupting each other across the floor that rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call—and none of the members interjecting, on my right or my left, has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call. I ask members to show some respect.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Those of us who have now been made subject to that ruling would appreciate an indication as to which Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling you were referring to.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my ruling—it is a Chairman’s ruling.

I guess the level of general barracking and abuse is indicative of how sensitive some car users are and how vulnerable they find themselves in a situation where people are promoting the idea that there should be alternatives to cars in cities like Auckland. I guess that they will, over time, get used to it.

I am concerned that of the money that is to be inherited by Auckland Regional Holdings from Infrastructure Auckland, only 85 percent is to be used for the purposes that Infrastructure Auckland originally had as its main purpose—that is, stormwater and transport. Stormwater and transport infrastructure are such serious needs in Auckland that both of them could spend the Infrastructure Auckland money many times over. I am quite concerned that 15 percent of that money will now be available to the Auckland Regional Council to subsidise rates if that is what it chooses to do with it. I think we should have stuck with the original purposes of Infrastructure Auckland and used the money for those purposes.

I rise to take a short call on behalf of United Future. I must pick up on the statement made by Jeanette Fitzsimons that none of the Auckland members are happy to go around Auckland without carting a tonne of metal with them. Let me assure her that I recognise many tonnes of metal, as I sit in traffic in Auckland, that belong to Green Party members. They are very easy to pick out because the owners have no respect for the motorcar whatsoever, and place GE-free stickers on the back bumpers. Those cars are usually puffing out great heaps of smoke, polluting the atmosphere like no other vehicle on the road. I can guarantee that all the smoky old diesels, all the old petrol ones that puff and puff as we sit behind them choking, have got “Vote Green” or “GE-free” on the back of them. The Auckland roads have far too many of them. I suggest that the Green Party could do a lot to help the environment by putting out a circular to its members, suggesting that they choose not to use the motorcar, but also suggesting that if, like many Aucklanders, at present they find that the public transport is such that they cannot trust it to take them where they want to go, if they do need to use a motorcar to move from one particular place in Auckland to another, they should carpool and use vehicles that are more suitable to our Auckland roads than their current ones, which pollute the atmosphere.

I am surprised at National Party members speaking fervently against this legislation. I am surprised that they even dare to stand here to speak on a bill that will progress roading in Auckland, because they took funds that were due to be spent on our Auckland roads and shipped them to the South Island. How can they stand up here with a straight face and speak against this legislation, which endeavours to fast track—[Interruption] As we have heard, we have had a situation where eight councils try to get their heads together. This legislation brings that number down to one body. We can deal with one body. One body can make decisions, one body is accountable for its actions, and if there are not the right people on it, we can simply go to it and deal with that.

One thing for sure is that, although Aucklanders may not have noticed because they only fly in their helicopters here, there, and everywhere, progress has happened in the last 5 years in terms of Auckland roads. The bulldozers are actually working, the bridges are being built, action is happening, and most Aucklanders I speak to are very happy to see action. But it is the old story: is the glass half full or is it half empty? Some members of this place look at any glass as being half empty. I believe that, with this legislation, the glass is half full and growing, and we will see great progress on roading in Auckland.

In speaking to Part 2, can I say it makes me feel sick to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons pontificate in this Chamber about energy use and people using motorcars. I want to put on the record that I always use the stairs in Parliament. People will never find me in a lift unless I am going more than four or five floors. I have never passed a Green member of this Parliament in the stairwells. I have seen Labour members, New Zealand First members, ACT members, and every other kind of member of this Parliament except Green members. Do members think Green members would ever save energy by using the stairs to go one floor? Not on your life! They use the lifts.

Part 2 establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I want the Minister in the chair, Jim Sutton, to answer this question. Clause 7 establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and clause 8 sets out the objective and principles. Clause 8(1) states: “The objective of ARTA is to plan, fund, and develop the Auckland regional land transport system in a way that contributes to an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system for the Auckland Region.” I want the Minister in the chair to tell this Committee whether the objective and principles of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority cover the construction of motorways. Do they, or do they not? Will State Highway 1 or any State highway in the Auckland region be covered by the objective and principles of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority? That is a clean and simple question. Is construction of the motorways, which are essentially State highways, covered by this bill?

💬 Hon Jim Sutton: Yes and no.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I believe that the people of Auckland deserve better than that. It is my understanding that this bill does not cover the construction of motorways that are State highways; that Transit continues to have responsibility for all of that, and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will have nothing to do with it. But this legislation does not make that clear.

The Minister in the chair should tell the Committee how decisions will be made as to which principal motorways will be Transit responsibilities and which will be the responsibility of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. For example, is the extension of the motorway along State Highway 1, either north or south of Auckland—in the Auckland region, though—a responsibility of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority? If members read clause 8 they will see that it appears that it is, because it is part of the land transport system, but I suspect that the answer is that it is not. So this bureaucratic legislation, which, under clause 8(2)(d), requires the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to consider the cultural well-being of the people in the Auckland region, may not actually require the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to be at all responsible for the construction of the principal motorways.

The people of Auckland deserve some answers on this. How much of the motorway network will the Auckland Regional Transport Authority be responsible for? I contend that it is not at all clear from the legislation. The interrelationship between Transit and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is not clear. Transit will tell us that it responds to the Auckland Regional Council’s regional transport priorities, but there is nothing in this legislation that requires Transit to do that. In fact, the Auckland Regional Council’s regional transport priorities are changed by this legislation. There is a total misfit here between Transit and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. There is no clarity as to what the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is actually responsible for in respect of the motorway network.

I suspect that this legislation will do nothing to extend construction of motorways in Auckland. And that is what is desperately needed. We should forget about setting up more bureaucratic bodies. We should get some bulldozers out there shifting some dirt to build some roads. At the moment there is a crisis, and it is getting worse by the month, and this legislation is doing nothing to solve it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Two speakers ago you ruled, by way of a Chairperson’s ruling, that members interjecting across the Chamber whilst another member was making a contribution—where that member was not part of that interchange by way of interjection—was not fit and proper. I ask for your advice, and refer to Speaker’s ruling 69/4. Whilst I do not dispute that you are the judge of all matters arising in the Committee of the whole House, I wonder whether you could give me some advice and guidance as to whether your ruling is now part of Speakers’ rulings, or whether, as it was made by a Chairperson, it exists in some other fashion, and applies to conduct in the Committee of the whole House. Being only a relatively new member of the House, I would appreciate some guidance on how a Chairperson’s ruling stands, compared with a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the honourable member that there are no Speakers’ rulings in relation to that. There previously has been a Chairman’s ruling made on the particular issue. The whole issue of interjecting is predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. In this particular instance, neither the member interjecting on this side nor the member interjecting on that side had the call. You were interjecting against each other when the member Jeanette Fitzsimons had the call. That is why the Chairman’s ruling was made.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You made reference to the fact that there had been a previous Chairperson’s ruling that that type of conduct was not to occur during the Committee of the whole House. I ask you quite genuinely whether there is a reference in Speakers’ Rulings or in the Standing Orders where we can find a grounding for that ruling, or is it just part of the general flow of the Committee and your exercising your discretion pursuant to, presumably, Speaker’s ruling 69/4? [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There will be no interjections at all during points of order; they will be heard in silence. I say to the member that the actual Chairman’s ruling was read into the Committee of the whole House on a previous occasion. Whether it goes into Speakers’ Rulings will be decided when the Standing Orders or Speakers’ Rulings are reviewed. That is up to the Speaker of the House.

One of the extraordinary things about this debate is the way that the Green Party goes on about its responsibilities to the environment. I have been informed by a colleague that the car of one of the members of the Green Party—a co-leader, Jeanette Fitzsimons—failed an emissions test. That is an absolute fact. It is extraordinary that a member of a party that professes real concern for the environment would drive a car that was so polluting that it should not have been on this country’s roads, because it was dangerous to the health of citizens. Fewer platitudes from the Greens and more practical action would be appreciated.

💬 Keith Locke: Any evidence for that statement?

In fact, it was supplied by a Minister. One of the very disturbing things about this bill is the—[Interruption] I was advised by colleagues; I tell the member to ask his own colleague. One of the disturbing things I heard earlier today was an assertion by the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, that this bill would establish a single organisation that would take all the roading responsibilities off the local authorities. The Minister is a member from the Auckland area, so one would think he knew the content of the bill. Unfortunately, that is not true. Mr Carter, who has now returned to the Chamber, was wrong when he said that. In fact, we have more authorities here; we have another bureaucracy created—not the elimination of bureaucracies, but yet more bureaucracies. Now, the local authorities will still be dealing with all their local roads, and Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be dealing with regional roads only. Most of their funding will come from Transfund, yet neither Transfund nor Transit is included in this bill. So rather than solving the problem, the bill is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy. That, fundamentally, is why National is voting against this bill.

There is a proper way of dealing with these issues, and that is to have an integrated organisation. The Government keeps claiming that this bill provides an integrated organisation. Even the bill itself makes that claim, but it is false. It is a false claim. We still have central government with its two major entities, plus the ministry; we still have the Auckland Regional Council, and the entities created by this bill that come under the Auckland Regional Council; and we still have the local authorities—eight of them, as the Minister noted. All of them will be making different decisions about roading in Auckland, and all of them will have different funding streams. We have not solved the problem—or, more accurately, the Government has not solved the problem. That is the reason why National is opposed to this bill.

We believe that there is a proper approach, and Dr Brash spoke about it last month. It is to have a single entity collecting together the local authorities, the regional entity, and the national entities; to bundle them together in one entity, and to give it both the funding and the authority to make decisions. Under the system that the Government proposes, we will be waiting and waiting and still not getting solutions. That is why we had to wait for such a long period of time for the northern regional busway. It was the simplest possible project. It goes alongside the motorway. It did not require land acquisition or anything of that nature, because the Crown already owned the land. Yet it still took 8 years. The Green Party demanded a review—even though the project was actually to provide public transport—which simply added another year.

So this system will not fix the problem. There is a better way. National announced that better way last month, and that is why this country needs a new Government.

This bill is a positive step towards doing something for the Auckland area. New Zealand First is prepared to put this minority Labour Government on its mettle, to establish that that will happen. So far, of course, from what we have seen, things do seem to be getting on in Auckland. When I go home on a Thursday night, quite often I am not allowed to get on to the Gillies Avenue entryway on to the motorway because it is being worked on. That is a good thing, as far as I am concerned. It means I get on to the motorway at Green Lane, rather than at Gillies Avenue.

Anyone who goes on to the Auckland motorway from the eastern suburbs, or the central city “Spaghetti Junction” area, knows that there are problems in the Gillies Avenue, Mountain Road, and Khyber Pass areas, and that is because work is being done. As an Aucklander, I think that the main thing we are looking for is that some work is being done. We may not understand what those workers are doing, but we know they are inconveniencing us and that something must be happening, because the engineers must know what they are doing. All I can say is that I cannot recall any work being done between 1990 and 1999, and I cannot recall any work being done between 1999 and 2002 either, to be frank. But it is happening now, and it is reassuring. We have seen, of course, what has happened at Stanley Street. It upset the tennis this year. Stanley Street has been totally distorted, one might say, but it has been well developed because work has been done in that area.

As far as New Zealand First is concerned, something seems to be happening. This bill appears to be more progress in that direction. I would like to take a point off the Minister, Chris Carter. He said that this Labour Government is putting $1.6 billion into roads. As usual, that is over 10 years. An amount of $1.6 billion spent on motorways over 10 years is just chicken feed; it is neither here nor there. [Interruption] Better than me? When I was in Parliament between 1975 and 1984, we were right on track with everything. Unfortunately, a Labour Government came in in 1984, and things have gone downhill ever since. But that was in those days. What we are looking at now in New Zealand First is the future, and I would not want Mr O’Connor to interrupt my flow of thought. We are looking at this from the point of the future, and progress is being made.

The other thing that I think probably happened between 1990 and 1999 was that all the funds, I suspect, went to the South Island for some reason or another. There are some lovely roads in the South Island. I have driven down the West Coast. There is no traffic, of course, but there are lots of lovely roads. When I drove down the West Coast my biggest problem was Italian cyclists. When I drove around a bend I saw them straining away on bicycles—just like the Greens would like them to do—with backpacks on their backs, and I had to worry about them more than I ever did about anything on four wheels! I think that is where all the National Party’s money went—down to the West Coast to try to win that West Coast - Tasman seat, with the usual result. But we are seeing things happen in Auckland now, and that is very encouraging.

My real question to the Minister is: with all the work that is under way, and with the money that should be available, are we going to have the ability to undertake this work? I am looking to see the Mount Roskill deviation coming on stream. That is what I am really looking for, from a west Auckland viewpoint, and I see that that has been announced in the paper. I think all the resource consents have now been finalised on that, and I am looking forward to people from the western area going around through Mount Roskill. The problem in Auckland is not getting into the city. We, in Auckland, do not want to go into the city; we want to go around it.

💬 Dianne Yates: Oh!

Well, we do not want to go into Auckland city. We are forced to at the moment. If one lives on the North Shore, or in west Auckland, one is forced to go into the city and then go out of it again. In Auckland what one really wants to do is to miss the city. When I was in business I went into Auckland only after 11 a.m. and I made sure I left by 3 p.m. because I hated going into Auckland. Aucklanders, on the whole, try to avoid the city, but we cannot avoid it at the moment, and that is why I am keen on this Mount Roskill development, and to make sure that the Mount Roskill roading system, which links up to the north-western motorway, gets under way quickly. There are people who want to use that to get across to Wiri and such like, and the south of Auckland, where they tend to work. That will relieve the pressure on the people who actually do want to go into Auckland.

As far as the eastern corridor is concerned, as I understand it, the National Party is going to cancel out the Resource Management Act. If that happens, what will that do to the eastern corridor? They will build that eastern corridor whether or not the people like it. If one gets rid of the Resource Management Act, which now prevents the development of an eastern corridor just overnight, the people out in Howick, Pakuranga, Remuera, and such like will have the eastern corridor forced on them by Maurice Williamson.

This is just a short contribution: I felt that Dail Jones asked in such a polite way that I should respond. There is good news for Mr Jones: State Highway 20, the Mount Roskill extension, was approved last week at $150 million, which is a good practical example of the Government delivering the goods.

As for the North Shore busway we have heard so much about, that project has already begun, and the money for it was funded by this Government, not the previous one. Hearing Dr Wayne Mapp’s crocodile tears about that project, I have to ask who delivered the goods? The Labour-led Government did.

Following on from what the Minister said in talking about the busway, the problem with the old system was that everything was related to making it easier for cars to get down the motorway. The problem with the North Shore busway was that funding was available only for little chunks of it at a time, according to the benefit-cost ratio, and one had to prove that one could get cars down a bit quicker if one had that chunk of busway. They were handicapped for years, but now we have a whole new land transport strategy, a Land Transport Act, and new bodies linking into that. Whole projects can be dealt with, rather than bits of projects, and things like the busway, or the rail developments that are going on through Auckland, speeded up.

This is not, as other speakers in the National Party have claimed, breaking up the system even more or adding just one more organisation. It simply ties the various bodies together. There is already a system in Auckland of developing a regional land transport strategy involving representatives of local bodies and other interests. That strategy then governs what the new body being set up—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—has to take into account. That new body is not now constrained by all those other local bodies in the region fighting with each other. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will develop a land transport programme for the whole of Auckland, with priorities in it. It puts those proposals directly to, and works with, Transfund and the local authorities to fund those projects.

They do not need to be, as in the past, just roading projects. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority board has to take social and environmental responsibility very much into its deliberations, and it has to meet all the concerns of the land transport strategy that I will outline later. It also has to tie in directly—and this is where it is not competitive—to the Auckland growth strategy, which is the development of Auckland around nodes along transport corridors. The logical thing to do is to have a good public transport system along those corridors. All those corridors, except on the North Shore, are essentially rail corridors—sometimes having a road alongside as well—but set up so that one can develop a much more efficient rail system and services along those corridors, linked in with the growth strategy.

There was concern from Deborah Coddington that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority had to take into account the effects on communities and worry about them. I think she may be worried that if affected communities are taken into account the eastern highway will not be built. One just needs to remember that last Tuesday there was a public meeting of 750 people from those affected communities, and other citizens in Auckland, who unanimously opposed that eastern highway. At a meeting hosted by the Auckland City Council yesterday—and I was one of the people giving a presentation—there were a myriad of arguments against that eastern highway and how it would detrimentally affect communities, the environment, the creek, the waterfront, and everything along that route. That highway will not go ahead if the provisions of this bill are properly applied. What is worrying National members is that at last we are going to move the emphasis away from just a motorway system to one based on public transport with a rail backbone.

Another aspect of this bill that came up under discussion is that of Auckland Regional Holdings. One of the good provisions is that it will not be able to sell off Ports of Auckland. We know from all the debate over the Westhaven marina and everything else just how important it is not to have Ports of Auckland completely out of public control. Under this bill, Auckland Regional Holdings will not be able to sell more than 24.9 percent of Ports of Auckland.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to talk about clause 9, “Functions of ARTA”. Unfortunately, those functions give the territorial authorities very little reassurance that they will be treated fairly or reasonably at all. I hope the Minister will take a call, particularly with regard to the rural district councils affected. I can think of Rodney, but I also think of the area I am so proud to represent, that of Port Waikato, and the Franklin District Council. The commentary on the bill makes reference to the Franklin District Council specifically, and so it should, because many members of the Franklin District Council are deeply distrustful of this Labour Government, and deeply distrustful of this bill that it has managed to conjure up. There is very good reason indeed for that, and that is why I want some assurances from the Minister in the chair.

I note that the commentary on the bill states, under the heading “Franklin District Council”, that: “The majority recommend an amendment to clause 4 to provide for the inclusion of the entire Franklin District within the area to be managed by ARC and Auckland Regional Transport Authority for land transport purposes.” Now, that may be fair enough. Maybe that has some rationale to it, but when we look at the second paragraph, we see that it states: “The majority agree with and respect the concern expressed in Franklin District Council’s submission that systems set up to support the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s role should not affect the financial assistance rate for funding received by Franklin—or that received by any other territorial authority—from Transfund.”

This is where the deep suspicion of the Labour Government and this bill lie—because there is, quite frankly, absolutely no trust that the Government will live up to what the majority on the select committee agree. I would like the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, who does not appear to be listening right now, to take a call and assure Parliament that indeed local territorial authorities like the Franklin District Council will not be adversely affected by this bill before us. After all, this is one of the rural district councils that has vast tracks of roading—both State highways as well as rural roads—bringing the enormous amounts of primary produce that this country is so dependent on to the major cities. Their responsibility is to ensure that they will not be adversely affected.

If the majority of the select committee believes that their interests should be looked after, the very least the Minister could do is give an assurance to this Parliament that that will indeed happen. Consequently, I have put forward an amendment to clause 9(1)(a) in Part 2. My amendment would add paragraph (v), and would mean that one of the functions of Auckland Regional Transport Authority would be to “ensure systems set up to support the Auckland Regional Transport Authority role will not affect the financial assistance rate for funding received by the Franklin District Council or that received by any other territorial from Transfund.”

Right throughout my speech, the Minister in the chair has been wittering away to his colleagues. He has not acknowledged the fact that this was an assurance given by the majority of select committee members—his members—and he ignores the very important point that the rural district councils need to be assured by him that they will not be adversely affected. So I am hoping the Minister will stand up and support my amendment. If he does not, then he is demonstrating an absolute, abject inconsistency that would be consistent with the fact that people from Auckland, particularly the Franklin District Council, are deeply cynical of him, his Government, and indeed this bill. I certainly hope that Mr Carter will get up and give us those assurances.

I move, That the question be now put.