Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill

This debate includes schedules 5 and 6.

Part 3 is a reasonably specific part. It occupies only about half of one page and half of another, and in many places it is just to do with revocations of, and amendments to, some quite detailed legislation, such as the Transport Services Licensing Act.

I think the most important clause in this part is clause 37, “Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003”, which states: “The Land Transport Management Act 2003 is amended in the manner indicated in Schedule 5.” I think the debate on this legislation, the whole way through, has been about whether it will achieve the focus and the expectations of Auckland—that is, whether it will solve our transport gridlock. Everybody in Auckland is looking towards Parliament.

Actually, Aucklanders were looking towards Parliament in respect of the Land Transport Management Bill; they were desperate to see a bill that would see the bulldozer engines start, and start now, and desperate to see a whole lot of infrastructure rolling out. The amount of infrastructure that has been rolling out in the last 5 years, under this Labour Government, is less than what rolled out under the National Government, and those figures were tabled in the House today. I will clarify that for the United Future member, so that he is clear. When we were in power National was funding the Albany to Pūhoi realignment, a massive extension of the northern motorway, the Māngere motorway, the eastern access to the airport, a whole lot of work around “Spaghetti Junction”, and so on. Massive projects were going on. But every year that this Government has been in power it has spent fewer dollars in real terms than we did in our last year.

Then it brought in the Land Transport Management Act, which this clause makes some amendments to. We thought that legislation would be about getting some more roads; we were convinced of it. Sadly, the Land Transport Management Act, when it was passed, became known around Auckland and Auckland local authorities as the legislation a Government passes when it is trying to stop any new roads from being built. What a tragedy it is that we are here tonight with another bill! One would have hoped that it would be a capitulation; that it would say that the Government really got it wrong first time round, and this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill will amend the Land Transport Management Act to give it the clout it needs to see the bulldozers start.

One would have hoped that it would rev up the elements in that legislation about the private sector’s involvement, because, despite all the rhetoric from the Government, how many private sector roading projects have there been in Auckland so far? Zero—a big, fat zero. My next question is how many private sector roading projects look likely to occur in the next couple of years. The answer—and I have talked to most of the major players in the private sector roading area—is a big, fat zero. Why would we get involved, they say, with the Land Transport Management Act being as restrictive and regressive as it is? [Interruption] Rod Donald has just confirmed exactly what everyone knows. Helen Clark and many other Ministers in this Government have said to a number of people in Auckland local government that they were really wrong to have rolled over and let the Greens have so much say in the Land Transport Management Act. Helen Clark regrets it. She says it was a sop to the Greens, and so is this bill. I pointed out earlier that, in all the press releases that came out from the Ministers—and they all looked brilliant with their red colour—roads did not get a mention.

So the Government is amending the Land Transport Management Act, and I thought we would now see some amendments that would actually ensure that some roads were built. But the amendments in schedule 5, which are driven by clause 37, in Part 3, make no improvement to the Land Transport Management Act. If anything, they are a retrograde step.

What was clearly needed was some work on the Resource Management Act. Why did we not see some clauses in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill that freed up the resource consent process? The Committee needs to know that Transit told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the end of last year that it now takes considerably longer to get consent for a major project than it does to build it. I have done some checking with comparable jurisdictions, like New South Wales, Victoria, and so on, and in none of those cases did they even have a clue what I was talking about. This bill does not do it.

I take this opportunity to contribute to this short part, and also to the schedules. I follow on from a particular point made by the Hon Maurice Williamson, and it is this: in the life of a Government there is not much opportunity, in a legislative sense, to deal with any particular issue. Essentially, a Government has one shot at it—well, perhaps in this case the Government has had two. It had the Land Transport Management Act and amendments thereto, and it has had this bill—the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. There will not be any other legislation in this Parliament that deals with the administration of the roading and transport issues in Auckland and indeed in New Zealand. So what the public look for in a Government is that it gives it its best shot and comes with a complete package that will actually make a difference.

If the Government had done that and had really attempted to come up with an inclusive, complete solution embodied in the two pieces of legislation—the Land Transport Management Act last year and the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill this year—we might have been able to support it. Unfortunately, we cannot. The reason we cannot is that the legislation represents such a missed opportunity. I find it appalling that the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, is so woefully lacking in knowledge about the transport situation in Auckland that he thinks that this bill will take away the authority of local authorities and compact it all into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is simply not true, and that is why the Government is in such a mess on this stuff. It is that kind of ignorance that has led to such a miserable attempt.

At the select committee a proposition was put to the submitters, which were all the territorial local authorities in the Auckland region—all eight of them. The select committee asked whether the submitters would like to compact together central government, local government, and regional government into a single organisation that had funding powers and management powers to really get to grips with the crisis. They said yes, that it would be the best solution. If the Government had come up with that solution, we would have voted for it. That is what Auckland City Council wants. That is what North Shore City Council, Manukau City Council, and Waitakere City Council want.

All the territorial authorities in Auckland want a complete solution. Instead, they are served up a half-baked solution, and one wonders why. We hear it from the Greens—they are actually anti-development. They do not want roads. They are against roads. They oppose every innovative and reasonable project. They even oppose the North Shore busway, and I find that extraordinary. They delayed it for a whole year. That is the reality. The Minister got up and said it has started. The Minister is wrong yet again. What has actually started is the development of the Esmonde Road Interchange. That is not part of the busway. The busway is the roading and the stations associated with that. The interchanges have to be done first, and only then will the busway be done. I predict that it will take 10 years from inception, through all the myriad of planning processes, through the blockage put in place by the Greens, before a single bus or car travels on that busway—and that is a simple project.

If we really want to get to grips with transport in Auckland, we have to make big changes; not these fiddling little changes that the Government has delivered up. The public in Auckland will give its verdict in 12 months’ time. It will say that the miserable efforts of the Labour Government are not good enough. It will vote for a party that has a concrete and complete solution, because that is what is needed.

Unfortunately, I have missed much of the debate on this bill, but I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution. I am quite concerned about what the National Party is saying, because it was in power for 9 years and it did little or nothing for roading in this country. Indeed, when I was a consultant involved with an operation in the Ports of Auckland and the Port of Tauranga, setting up a commercial entity, I went to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who was then a National Party MP. I explained to him that by increasing the hours of waterfront work by using more modern equipment and by moving into the container age, we would be having so many trucks and so much traffic on the roads—coupled with the Japanese vehicles that were coming in at a fairly significant rate at that time—that our roads would not keep pace. The honourable member might recall that Winston Peters produced his own member’s bill to get better funding for roading in this country by using the excise tax in full. So to hear the National Party bleating on that this bill will not do what it is meant to do, I find a bit unusual.

I realise that we are dealing with Part 3, but the purpose clause basically tells me that the bill is worth supporting. The objectives and the principles in the purpose clause tell me that the bill is worth supporting. Basically, the roads in Auckland need to be fully addressed. I was at a NGC Winter Lecture Series lecture the other night, where Dr Cullen was the guest speaker.

💬 Darren Hughes: Great speaker!

It was a good speech. Actually, it was quite different from what he has been delivering in this Chamber. He said that walkways and pathways have a role to play. He said that public transport has a role to play, but to have no doubt—I think those were his exact words—that we need roads in this country, and more of them. I have never heard that Government say that so forcefully.

I say to the Greens that they have been hoodwinked to some degree, because the Labour Government has suddenly realised that we need more roads, and that there are people who want to drive their cars on roads free of traffic congestion. Some years ago, I drove through Auckland on my way to Whangarei. Members might recall that a cow jumped off a truck, and the police were trying to shoot it. That stopped the whole of the traffic in Auckland at that time. I realise I am ranging wide but I want to address some of these issues.

💬 Darren Hughes: How’s the cow?

The cow was not very good. The policeman had five attempts at it before he killed it. It stopped the whole of the traffic in Auckland for hours. The situation in Auckland is deplorable. No modern city in the world would tolerate it. It pleases me—I am back on to schedule 5 now, Mr Chairman—that, finally, there is an amendment that will allow the local strategy to be taken into account.

This bill is about building roads for Auckland, for the benefit of Aucklanders, and for the benefit of this country. If we do not get the local people pulling together and working out what they want, with the appropriate amount of funding to deliver it, then we will get nowhere fast. This bill is but a start. I would have thought that the National Party would be a little bit more understanding of the fact that to be able to start on the roading system in this country—on Auckland in particular—we need first of all to pull the local bodies together. The paragraphs added to new section 12(6)(b) in schedule 5, as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 231, make some solid attempt to do that. Paragraph (b) states: “from a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council, give effect to the matters in the Auckland regional land transport strategy required by section 175(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998,”, and so it goes on. That is exceedingly important. It is a small paragraph, and it is a change in the bill as it came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

I have to say that if the Government had not chosen to change that, New Zealand First would not be supporting the bill. Mr Jim Peters represented us on the select committee because he is a specialist in local Government. [Interruption] I say to Mr Power that this is an important clause. He would be well advised to read it. I know he is a lawyer.

I am a bit unsure whose assessment to take, in terms of the last speaker or two. First we had Maurice Williamson, who gave quite a tribute to the Greens. He said that Helen Clark was upset that this bill would be passed, and I thought that gee, I did not know we were quite as powerful as that. Then I listened to Peter Brown, and he said that we have been hoodwinked. So I am not quite sure what the case is. Certainly the Greens fully support this bill.

Part 3, as has been pointed out, refers to schedule 5, in terms of the way legislation is to be amended, and schedule 5 refers particularly to the criteria in the land transport strategy. I will just go through those criteria with members, to show how they may operate in the concrete instance of what should be done with the eastern corridor in Auckland. Under this legislation, the first of the five objectives in the land transport strategy for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to consider is whether a project will assist economic development. The eastern highway project has many economic downsides. It will induce more car travel, putting additional strain on the economy—particularly when oil prices are moving to a higher level—and there are significant congestion-related costs associated with more cars entering the Auckland central business district. A recently publicised study by Astrid Jacobs of Auckland University estimated that there are external costs of $736 million per year as a result of car use, including significant health costs. A highway would significantly add to such costs. To build it would, of course, cost $3 billion or $4 billion, which would be enough to revamp the whole rail system in Auckland—the stations, the rolling stock, the tracks, and the whole works.

Secondly, projects that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to support have to add to safety and personal security. Clearly, simply upgrading rail transport would be a much better way to go there. As long as we avoid rail-crossing accidents, rail transport is much safer than road transport.

Thirdly, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to contribute to improving access and mobility. At present that is sorely lacking for the young, the old, and the sick, and for people who are too poor to afford to make very many long car journeys. Those people need public transport. They need to have rail along the eastern corridor, not a big highway. If we can get train services down that corridor and improve the whole system to a frequency of 10 minutes or less, then we can have all the bus and rail connections, and public transport use will skyrocket. Already it is going up very rapidly in Auckland, as I mentioned before.

Fourthly, schedule 5 states that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to contribute to protecting and promoting public health. Clearly a new eastern highway would produce extra pollution and noise, and there would be more stress on drivers as cars become backed up on reaching the central business district. That highway would only pour more cars into the centre of Auckland.

The fifth thing that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority has to contribute to under this legislation is ensuring environmental sustainability. Quite clearly, one has just to read the official project director’s report on the eastern highway project, in which he admits that just the crossing of Hobson Bay—the bay that the highway comes out on before it goes into Auckland City—will cause: “Significant environmental, visual (including light spill at night), noise and community acceptance issues.” As someone who recreationally uses the waterfront, I totally agree with that—and there will be further devastating environmental effects up the Purewa stream and further up that highway.

On all those counts, what we need down the eastern corridor is rail rather than a new highway.

To give Keith Locke credit—

💬 Simon Power: Steady!

It is late, and I am feeling kind. He is the only Green person I see when I am running in the morning. He is the only Green person I see out there on his feet, getting some air in his fur. But the Greens just do not get it, do they? They think that if we put all the money into public transport and into rail in the eastern corridor, then everyone’s problems will be solved. At one stage I had four children at four different schools in Auckland. It is impossible for working parents to get around Auckland efficiently just by using public transport. They have to have cars. It will not be all-polluting to use cars if there are good roads and congestion tolling, which the Greens also do not seem to get. Congestion tolling to me is one of the best ways of getting rid of pollution, because one of the worst things for the air is to have cars idle in the huge car-park we call the motorway.

But in going to Part 3 and the schedules, I see that this is the part that gets rid of the Auckland Regional Services Trust—or what was the Auckland Regional Services Trust but then became Infrastructure Auckland, and will now become the Auckland Regional Holdings part of the Auckland Regional Council. It is not, as Peter Brown said, an amalgamation of local bodies; it is the creation of whole new bureaucracies. Let us just remember how we got to this stage. We now have schedule 5, in which we are already amending the Land Transport Management Act passed last year. It has been such an abject failure that we have to have this legislation to amend it. Let us backtrack, rewind the video a bit, and remember why we ended up with such a shambles as the Land Transport Management Act.

What started out as a strategy to improve the roading system in Auckland was hijacked a bit on the way, because of certain dinners at certain restaurants, like Vinnies in Auckland, because of certain discussions about prime-mover status and public-private partnerships, and because of the Prime Minister and Ross Armstrong.

The ACT party wanted an inquiry into that whole dodgy, sleazy-looking affair, where Ross Armstrong had the ear of the Prime Minister and was inviting people from Australia to come over and talk about prime-mover status. We wanted a select committee inquiry into it. We almost had one, until the Greens were wooed by the Labour Government and promised that they would be given all the special concessions for alternative forms of land transport if they did not support an inquiry into the Ross Armstrong shenanigans. We saw evidence of that when Jeanette Fitzsimons stood up here in the Chamber and announced the land transport management strategy, with the Labour Government. So we ended up with that disastrous legislation, which we are now already amending with this bill.

💬 Rod Donald: Excellent legislation.

Yes, well the Greens would say it is excellent legislation, because it will not allow a single road to be built, will it? There will not be one road completed under that—[Interruption] I say to Mr Donald that of course it will be reduced, because everybody will go broke. But the Greens do not care about that. They care about humanity, but they do not care about individuals. That is the role of the socialist.

As I said before, I do not usually agree with Brian Rudman. He is probably further to the left than most people in this Parliament; in fact, if he took another step to the left he would bump into Joe Stalin. But members should listen to what Brian Rudman wrote in April this year, when he talked about the dismantling of Infrastructure Auckland and the transfer of assets under the management of the Auckland Regional Council. He said: “Now Big Sister Helen Clark has decided that her fellow Aucklanders might just be adult enough to be trusted with the stewardship of 15 percent of our money, but we have to submit our bank accounts to her in 2008 so she can check we haven’t indulged in anything she considers frivolous.”

In speaking to the final provisions of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill I want to focus particularly on schedule 5, in which the Land Transport Management Act is amended. It seems to me that schedule 5 will put a whole other layer of bureaucracy in place with regard to the funding of local roads. I draw the attention of the Minister in the chair to subsections (4) and (5) of the new section 39, “Special provisions relating to Auckland Region”.

At the moment, if territorial local authorities want to do something about roading in their area, they can apply to the national land transport account for subsidies. As long as they stump up with their money, they can usually get those subsidies from Transfund, and can get on and do roading projects. Subsection (4) tells us: “Despite an Auckland territorial authority being an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, it may not after 1 July 2005— … (b) receive any funds directly from the national land transport account;”. As I read it, local authorities will now have to go through this new bureaucracy to get any funding to do anything in their area. They will have to get the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to do it for them. That authority will have to get the funds from the national land transport account, it would seem. The authority gets the money, then passes it on to the local authority. As I read it, we have extra bureaucracy. We have a new step in the process. People will have to go through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority if they want to get a road done. I would like the Minister to confirm whether that is correct—whether a new step in this whole bureaucratic process is brought in by Part 3.

I would also like the Minister to tell Auckland people which roads this part will see built. I want to know specifically whether the Penlink toll road will be covered by this legislation. Will Rodney District Council have to go through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to get funding for the Penlink toll road, or will that road be a Transit road? State Highway 20 is the extension of the Māngere motorway. Is it covered by this legislation, or not? What is the next big project in Auckland? It is the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). Is it covered by this legislation? I want to know from the Minister whether that big project is covered. Is “Spaghetti Junction”, the big work on State Highway 1 in the middle of Auckland, covered by this legislation? Is the planning of State Highway 1 up to the Warkworth bypass and the Wellsford bypass covered by this legislation? I have named about five of the major roading projects in Auckland. Are any of them covered by this legislation?

I think the Minister owes the people of Auckland an explanation. Does this legislation cover any significant roading, or does the fact, as my colleague Maurice Williamson pointed out, that roading is not mentioned in any of the publicity, or in any of the Minister’s statements relating to this legislation, mean that this legislation does nothing for roading or any of those major roading projects? I invite the Minister to tell the Committee which roading projects this legislation covers. I do not think it covers State Highway 1. Is “Spaghetti Junction” part of State Highway 1? Does it cover anything to do with State Highway 20? Does it cover anything to do with State Highway 1’s extension, ALPURT B2? Does it cover the Penlink toll road? I think the people of Auckland deserve to know whether this legislation covers any major roading projects at all. It seems to me that Part 3 and especially schedule 5 simply add more bureaucracy, and make no progress on roads.

I move, That the question be now put.

As I reflect on Part 3 and the schedules, I want to talk for a moment about Auckland Regional Holdings. But before I do so I want to reflect on the comments made by the Green member Keith Locke about public transport. Many of the comments made about public transport are grossly exaggerated. Mr Locke told the Committee that this bill would somehow be the salvation of Auckland, and that somehow rail transportation would be the solution to Auckland’s transport problems. This year there will about 2.5 million trips on trains around Auckland. [Interruption] Does Mr Locke disagree with me? There will be about 2.5 million trips, up from about 2 million. This year there will be a billion trips in cars around Auckland, and that number is going up—there will be 1.2 billion before this legislation has had time to dry at the printers. Yet Mr Locke thinks the salvation of Auckland will be public transport and trains. It is false thinking.

The Greens do not—contrary to public perception—come to Parliament on public transport. When I get my taxi on a Tuesday morning from Wellington Airport, I do not see Green members standing outside the bus station, waiting for a bus. They travel in a car, like everyone else—like everyone in Auckland—and that is the problem. They want everyone else to use public transport, but they themselves do not use public transport. Those members do not want to look at the economics. Currently, for every train trip around Auckland there is a $10-$20 subsidy—a total of $20 million for 2 million trips a year—and it will go up after this Government has spent about $1.5 billion on the railway network in Auckland. The subsidy for 20 million trips—if the Government can ever achieve that number—will be about $4 per trip, so the cost will be about $80 million to $100 million.

The solution is not public transport; it is to get on and fix the motorway network—to complete what was designed in 1963 or 1965. Auckland has been waiting 40 years, and there is no solution in sight. It is an absolute disgrace. No wonder Aucklanders are up at night now, wondering what has gone so horribly wrong with this Government, which promised them a solution but has failed on every account.

It has failed in its press releases. My prediction is that, very close to the election, there will not be any press releases from the Labour Government—from Judith Tizard, or from the Rt Hon Prime Minister, Helen Clark, or from the Minister of Local Government, Chris Carter—that fail to talk about roads and cars. That is the sort of stuff that happens when one is making coalition arrangements with the Greens on the Land Transport Management Bill, or on this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. It is important at the moment, but when the Government is trying to get votes a couple of months before the election, there will be plenty of press releases coming out about roads and cars, because that is what Aucklanders really want and need. They know where it is at. [Interruption] Well, that member will be looking for a new job, or he will be back at intermediate school—that is what will happen. He will be back at intermediate school, or maybe at high school, because he has missed a few years. He will go and learn about cars—that is what will happen. That member will be back at intermediate school being taught about combustion engines. That is the sort of thing that has been going on.

I want to talk about Auckland Regional Holdings, because never in my life have I seen such a sop to a political outfit as there is in this bill. Eighty-five percent of the funds that Infrastructure Auckland worked so hard to preserve and to grow—John Robertson and Richard Maher have done a wonderful job of growing those reserves and of turning hundreds of millions of dollars into the better part of a billion dollars—are to go to transport and stormwater purposes. Lo and behold, is all the money to be used to fix roads or stormwater problems? Not on your nelly! Again, what is more important is to put aside 15 percent in what could loosely be termed a slush fund, to be used for, essentially, anything that Auckland Regional Holdings and its political appointees find relevant, as priorities might change over time. What does that mean? Does it mean that if Labour makes yet another dip in the polls, if the Greens look even more like they could be a hopeless coalition arrangement, priorities will change, and Auckland Regional Holdings will be hijacked once more?

I move, That the question be now put.