Transport Legislation Bill

I will start with a very generalised call on Part 1, and make it clear—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: One of four speeches. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but all members should be seated or leaving, showing courtesy to the speaker on his feet.

A little delicate flower like me gets offended by that sort of behaviour. I make it clear in my first call—one of four calls, as my good colleague Wayne Mapp said—that the Government has made a complete foul-up of this legislation. Had it done most of what was in the bill, the Opposition—the National Party, for sure—would have supported it. The bill was reasonably technical. It was about realigning some of the transport structures, about bringing policy back into the ministry, and about saying to people, like those at the Land Transport Safety Authority: “You stick to operational things. Places where the Minister has a little bit more direct control over it, like the ministry, are where we’ll do policy.” However, the vast bulk of people who made submissions on this bill—I have a copy of all the submissions that were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and will refer to them as the debate unwinds—had one serious reservation, which I would be very keen for the Minister to try to explain. The reason the National Party will oppose this legislation centres simply on that one issue.

Let us look at some organisations, some of which, I think, are pretty respectable, pretty decent, and pretty sensible: the Bus and Coach Association (New Zealand) Inc.; the New Zealand Marine Transport Association; the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand, just to name some that put together a joint submission; and the Road Transport Forum, headed by Tony Friedlander, who usually makes sensible and constructive comments about legislation and what it could do. If we look at what those organisations have to say, we see that, in general, they all refer to the nebulous concept, “sustainable”, which is now being introduced into our transport legislation, as being an undefined term that no one knows the meaning of. But the one term in the past that everyone could hang their hat on and feel comfortable about was a measurable term—one where we could actually stick some numbers in. There would often be debate about how money numbers went on to the plus side and on to the minus side when working out a cost-benefit analysis, but whenever a proposal was put up, either by a Minister or by a Government, the one thing we could say on transport legislation was: “This will proceed only if it has got safety at reasonable cost.”

I cannot understand why any political regime—whether the extreme left, the extreme right, or anywhere in the middle—would not want that to be the test. If we do not make that the test, then safety at any cost would mean we could do anything that is wild and madness beyond belief. The current Minister may not do that, and the Minister who follows him may not, but who knows about the future? When this legislation is on the books, we may have a coalition Government in Parliament that has some sort of lunatic-fringe Minister saying: “I’m going to make everybody walk rather than drive cars, because it will increase road safety.”—and it would; it would meet the first test, which is safety.

💬 Hon Annette King: And obesity.

Yes. The Minister of Health has a big smile. If everyone walked, it would fix a problem in her portfolio, as well. If we put in the second part of the condition, “at reasonable cost”, it would mean that the entire economy would collapse. The entire nation would not function. However, if we remove that test, a Minister would be able to go ahead and put in such a ludicrous example. I know I am testing Parliament by taking an extreme example, but there could be something that is not quite so extreme where the costs are substantially more than the benefits. So the historical thing we have had in transport legislation has always been that test: safety, but at reasonable cost. One measures what it costs to do the particular initiative proposed, measures what the benefits from it will be, and, as long as the benefits are more than the costs, one goes ahead with it.

I simply have not had an answer, either through the select committee process or through the first and second reading debates in this House, and I will be looking to the Minister to give this Committee a realistic answer as to why the Government has removed that almost multipartisan, sensible, agreed, almost guideline, guarantee for the public. If there are things to be done in the future in the area of road safety, maritime safety, civil aviation safety, and so on, all of which are important, why on earth would we as parliamentarians, in passing legislation, want to remove that one guideline? So I finish as I started, by pointing out that we would have supported nearly everything else in this bill had it not been for that one issue.

ACT is opposed to this legislation. It is a typical example of how misleading this Government has been. When this legislation was being drawn up, we were led to believe—which is why we agreed to support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that this amendment to the Civil Aviation Act was concerned only with coordinating search and rescue, because of the debacle that occurred down south, when people drowned because of the mishandling of the search and rescue operation. But this legislation is a stalking horse for bringing the new filter of sustainability into legislation.

People out there should ask themselves whether their choice of airline is based on its safety record or its environmental sustainability record. Most people choose on price and safety. That is one of the main reasons why airlines are so vigilant about their safety record. They know that as soon as one of their planes goes down, their revenue plummets, as well.

However, under this legislation we have downgraded safety to the same level as sustainability. An airline that puts safety first is the one that people choose, not an airline or helicopter line that puts the environment first. Under this legislation, we will not be able to have it both ways. Safety in the air will no longer be paramount. This legislation uses the vocabulary that came into the New Zealand Transport Strategy. In the Civil Aviation Act, the words “maintain aviation safety” have been replaced with “assist aviation safety”.

I draw members’ attention to clause 7, which deals with the matters to be taken into account by the Minister when he or she is making rules. One of the first matters is the need to assist aviation safety and security. However, when we look at paragraph (f)(iv) of section 33(2) of the principal Act, we see that the proposed rule must ensure environmental sustainability. “Ensure” is a much stronger word than “assist”. If one ensures something, one must make sure it happens. If one assists, one just gives it a bit of a shove along or tries to help it to happen. I still believe that it is not too late to change this wording. We tried to get it changed at the select committee. It is vitally important for air safety in this country and for the peace of mind of passengers, and not just for big airlines. In fact, the Government’s own airline, Air New Zealand, said in its submission that despite the new legislation that came in, which it opposed, it would not reduce its focus on operational safety as a result of the proposed law change.

So the airline that is owned by the Government does not agree with what is happening in this legislation but is, nevertheless, going its own way and ensuring that people who travel on the airline are safe.

We will be introducing an amendment to clause 7 to have paragraph (e) of section 33(2) changed to “the need to ensure aviation safety or maintain aviation safety and security, including (but not limited to) personal security”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from helicopter operators that that provision in clause 7 puts them in an untenable position. They pointed out to us that they have to ensure aviation safety—it is part of their job to do so. They would not be licensed or in the air if they did not do it. They have to ensure it. To downgrade it to “assist” is, I believe, a total insult to human beings whose lives are being put in a lesser grade than the importance of the environment.

The other issue that the submitters brought up is that they are concerned with the environment. They were at pains to tell the committee that they do take environmental sustainability into account in all of their operations. If we look at the history of air transport in this country over the past several decades it is plain to everyone that air transport has become more and more environmentally friendly as the years have gone by. This is as a result of trying to force this Government’s one-size-fits-all philosophy on to all areas of the transport sector.

The environmental sustainability filter came in because of the Greens. The Greens had a major role in writing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It came in because of their antipathy to road transport; especially to trucks, but also to motorways and cars. We cannot put the same standards for environmental sustainability that we have on road transport—on trucks and cars—on to air transport, as well. It just does not fit because the standards for air safety are much higher. We require them to be much higher. I believe that dumbing this down and downgrading it is a huge mistake.

What is sustainability? What does the word “sustainability” mean to helicopter pilots? Usually they are owner-operators. One thing they know for sure is that the future sustainability of their business depends entirely on their safety record. Who climbs into a helicopter after having done an eco-check on the machine and the fuel it uses? I doubt whether anyone does that. What people do before they climb into a helicopter, if they are really nervous, is make a check that that company’s crafts do not regularly plunge from the sky. That is what people are concerned about. They are far more concerned about safety and personal security than sustainability.

If the Government wanted to promote sustainable yield, it might be a totally different kettle of fish. But that is not what sustainability is defined as. In fact, nobody can define sustainability. It is, as the member said before, a nebulous term. If it is to be codified in legislation like this, we should at least have a definition of it, just as we had a definition before of “safety at a reasonable cost”. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. There was no argument over “safety at a reasonable cost”, but we have biffed that out and brought in legislation that calls for ensuring environmental sustainability and assisting aviation safety.

I think that this wording should be changed. It is some of the most important wording in this legislation and it is not too late for the Minister to agree to change it or to at least take a call and explain to people in New Zealand why he thinks that safety is not as important as environmental sustainability. It is not just semantics that we are dealing with here. I do not want a lesson on semantics regarding the difference between “assist” and “ensure”. I want the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government believes that environmental sustainability should be ensured, but that aviation safety should only be assisted.

It did not take long—we are only two calls into the Committee stage and the Opposition parties are attacking the bill from precisely the opposite sides of the argument. United they are not. The first speaker, Maurice Williamson, stood up and said that the legislation is extremely good except for a problem in one area, the only one area that caused the National Party concern—that is, we will end up with safety at unreasonable cost, because the words “safety at reasonable cost”, which members seem to know and love and cannot allow themselves to be detached from, have been removed. The first speaker was particularly distressed about that. There would be safety at unreasonable cost and all the submissions said that, said the first speaker. The second speaker, Deborah Coddington, stood up and said that her party would not support the bill. She said that the problem was safety, and the reason she did not like the bill was that safety had been downgraded. There would not be enough safety, according to her. So the first speaker said there will be too much and the second speaker said there will not be enough. As is often the case, the National Party and the ACT party did not get their, shall we say, act together.

When we come to the submissions, we find, unsurprisingly, that they also are of the view that there is too much or too little safety. But a very significant number of submitters thought that the bill was just fine. The select committee, having listened to the submissions, decided to make some changes. The changes were as follows: there would be no going away from the fact that the future of transport will be a whole lot more integrated than its past and there would be no going away from the five objectives of the Land Transport Management Act, but, in case someone was in doubt as to whether the Government had gone soft on safety, we decided, in the case of the Civil Aviation Authority, to put in the words “maintain and improve”. I ask members of this hallowed Chamber whether “maintain and improve” sounds like a reduction in safety. I do not quite get why “maintain and improve” would be a reduction.

So it would seem that the ACT party probably has had its prayers answered. Probably the Government moved, probably the select committee got the words right, probably the ACT party got up in mistake—but wait, the aforementioned National Party speaker, an earlier Minister of Transport, is not assuaged. He is anxious that a current or future Minister might get up one morning, and say: “Verily, everyone will walk to work”, and we would end up with safety at unreasonable cost. That is the argument the member is running, and I think he has made a mistake.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: No, the submitters made that point, too.

Yes, some of them did. Some of them ran with the opposite point, and some of them ran with a third point, which is that the bill is just fine. So let us not have it said in this Chamber that all submitters were of one view. They were not. They were all over the place, pretty much like the Opposition, because they knew what safety at reasonable cost meant—they had had years to get used to it. This is what safety at reasonable cost delivers—if I can go to the same extreme as the National Party contributor did when he opened the debate on the Committee stage: a future whereby traffic jams are just fine because no one will get hurt. If motorways clog up, there will be no deaths. There will be no transport or progress, but there will be no deaths. That is a logical position to take. That argument is absolutely as extreme as the member’s. I would not have bothered running the argument had the member not run his extreme argument. Or, indeed, let us get people off their bikes—not withstanding an outbreak of type 2 diabetes, or obesity, as mentioned by the Minister of Health—in case they get run over by a car. So if we do not have integrated thinking we will end up with some crazy arguments, and in our past we have.

There has been a decision to straighten the curve there, occasioned only by the fact that we have decided to put a higher dollar value on human life. A human life 10 years ago was worth about a quarter of a million dollars. I cannot bring to mind what a human life is worth these days, but I think the latest figure ever used was more like $2 million. So a person who was a member of the board of Transit and was going down his or her safety programme to see what engineering should be undertaken, would—until the money ran out—simply go down a list of projects that started with the highest cost-benefit ratio and went to the lowest. One needed to leave one’s brain at the door; it was not necessary at the meeting. Of course, under National Party funding regimes, people did not get very far down the list before running out of money, either.

Now we have a more integrated approach that requires people to think differently. It requires people to take into account a range of factors and to amalgamate them. It moves us away from a safety and efficiency history. It takes us away from fragmentation. It takes us away from: “Let’s do safety here and let’s do economic undertakings there.”, and from “Let’s look after human health here and let’s look after the environment somewhere else.” It requires us to integrate our thinking. Now, it is pretty clear that some members of the House are not very happy with that. Perhaps they are not able to do that integrated thinking.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We’re supportive of it.

Oh, they are supportive of it?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Of an integrated transport system, yes.

Well, that is great. So let us integrate safety, which means we cannot have safety at reasonable cost alone; we have to have safety as a matter of balance against the other four objectives. Let us have safety integrated into people’s thinking, because when we have that we come up with solutions that are somewhat more innovative than simply going down a listed schedule of “B/C ratios” until we run out of money.

I want to spend my debating time on two issues, the first being safety at reasonable cost. It is quite clear that the Minister has not read or been made aware of the principal industry submissions. If he were aware of those, he would know that road transport operators, and the aviation industry in particular, are very concerned indeed about the removal of the test: safety at reasonable cost. He said there were submitters in support of that. Actually, there were. Some cyclists, I think, came along, and said: “Yes, yes. We want environmental sustainability.” That is where the Minister draws that “balanced” range of submissions from. Industries that are worth billions of dollars, that have billions of dollars of assets, thousands of employees, and huge research departments, understand the difficult financial issues they have to deal with. They know they will get customers only if they are safe. But the Minister weighs all that against a few cyclists. That is essentially the balance the Minister has put on the Table here. I read today that this Labour Party boasts of balance. Well, if that is the sort of balance it is going to give New Zealanders, then frankly it will fail in due course, and we will see that.

So what Labour substitutes is a clear test: safety at reasonable cost, which is well understood and supported by the industry. The Minister and other Government members will know the truth of that, but they are substituting un-testable, ill-defined propositions that will not guide this Minister or, indeed, future Ministers. So the proposed rules will have to look at things like: will it assist economic development? I ask how that will be measured—by gross domestic product ratios, by interest-rate costs? Will John Key, who knows all about economic development in relation to money markets, be consulted on the money markets regarding transport roles? Will “improving access and mobility” mean checking airway bridge gates at airports? That is access. Maybe “protecting and promoting public health” means that the ozone layer generated by aircraft will be assessed. Finally, the term “ensuring environmental sustainability” has no definition provided for it in the legislation, and that has been noted by National, New Zealand First, and ACT. All three parties were consistent on that matter.

The failure to define these very open terms, these very open concepts that Ministers will now have to look at, will lead to uncertain rule making. Surely the powers delegated to Ministers should be clear. There should be a level of predictability so that in future the industry can forecast the kinds of rules it will be subjected to. It will not be able to do that. The Minister and the balance of the Government make great play of the notion that, after all, this is tested on a balance of the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed. That is supposed to be the substitute for “safety at reasonable cost”, which is an open concept compared with a specific definable concept that has worked well and that the industry wants. That is why the industry made those submissions.

So National is fundamentally opposed to this particular change in the legislation. Frankly, it will lead to uncertainty, and that uncertainty will lead to increased costs. The talk of $1 air fares from New Zealand to Australia—if anyone would actually believe that—clearly will now disappear, because the costs of rule making will become onerous and unpredictable, and New Zealand will be a less attractive place economically for our transport industries to be effective and profitable. I will be referring to one other matter in my second call, which maybe can be extended through this one, concerning clause 30.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 1 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I think it is a bit of a long bow to draw to say that this bill is only about environmental sustainability. It is about—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I didn’t say that.

No, it was not the speaker before me who said that; it was an earlier speaker. This bill is about safety, but it is not only about safety; it is also about the restructuring of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, which we will discuss a bit later on. It is certainly about the coordination of our search and rescue operations, which I think all of us in this Parliament who spend so much of our time in the air travelling around New Zealand welcome. If something were ever to go wrong in the safety aspects of our civil aviation network, we would, of course, want to know that well-established, coordinated search and rescue services would then come to our aid. It is regrettable that in the past those services have not been as coordinated as they could have been, so we welcome this amendment to bring about better coordination.

We certainly want to have as much safety as we can, and we welcome the comments the Minister made earlier. Some are saying there is too much safety and others are saying there is not enough, but we will take as much as we can get. All of us, when we travel around this country, want to be as safe as possible. There will always be some debate about the cost of that safety, and whether it is money well spent. I guess that the whole purpose of the submission process on this bill was to hear the various opinions. I personally think that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has arrived at a reasonable conclusion and result in respect of those submissions.

I refer to clause 7 and to the amendment that was mentioned earlier to paragraph (e) of section 33(2) of the principal Act. The words “maintain and improve” in relation to aviation safety and security are an improvement on the previous word, “assist”, and strengthen the bill. I will be glad to see that change supported in the vote soon to take place on Part 1, and I trust that the words “maintain and improve” will occur throughout the bill. Also, the wording in paragraph (f) has been changed to read: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development:”. I think it is fairly clear that that test—that it assists economic development—has to be placed in the proposed rule. The converse of that would, of course, have to be understood as well. If it did not assist—if it inhibited economic development—then the rule would have to be thrown out. I think that gives some security and assurance to those who have been concerned about the removal of “safety at reasonable cost.”

Further on, we come to paragraph (fa): “the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed:”. That is another test that has to be passed—that the costs of implementing the measures are not as onerous as the benefits coming from the rule. So, although we can understand the concern of some to leave the wording that has perhaps served well in the past, I believe that the context of “safety at reasonable cost” is still maintained within the legislation through the wording that has been recommended to us by the select committee. This matter is not only in The Civil Aviation Act; it will also be covered in the Land Transport Act.

I believe it is important to strengthen safety in land transport. We in New Zealand lose far too many lives through road accidents, and far too many people are crippled by the head injuries that occur on our roads—injuries that are avoidable yet so debilitating. So we in United Future certainly welcome the strengthening of the need to consider safety in this part. We accept the amendments that have been proposed by the select committee and will be giving our support to this part of the legislation.

I welcome the opportunity to follow the member who has just resumed his seat. If we wait in this Chamber long enough, we finally hear something sensible from United Future. I think, by and large, United Future covered the issues pretty well. Let me state from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We will never ever vote against safety when it comes to transport. We realise that safety is a very important element in the whole mix of transport, so we will be supporting this bill. But that is not to say that what the National Party and, indeed, ACT said can be dismissed. Without the constraints of reasonableness, we get safety at any cost. I take members back to the time, a few years ago, before we had the provision regarding safety at reasonable cost. I speak from my experience on the waterfront. Anything that was seen to be unsafe, somebody stopped something for—stopped a ship from loading or discharging in order to have a look at it, examine it and modify it, or what have you. It was a totally unreasonable action.

The submission that sticks in my mind, the Air New Zealand submission, outlines that pretty darned clearly. I think it implies that if we take the constraint of reasonableness away from the costs of safety, then we are unwittingly likely to start a competitive scenario, inasmuch as operators will say that they will not get picked up for something that Air New Zealand would be picked up for. Because the other operators think they may get away with something, their safety level will go down a bit. Air New Zealand, I would say, will maintain safety at the appropriate level, but there may well be operators who will try to drop the safety net and get away with it. We need only to have one mishap to know that we have paid dearly for having no constraint on safety at reasonable cost.

I share the concerns Larry Baldock alluded to about roading. I recall a document produced when the Hon Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport. It was called Better Transport, Better Roads and outlined the fact that 15 percent—I think I am correct on that figure—of road deaths were caused by bad road design, poor engineering, or something along those lines.

💬 Larry Baldock: You are right.

The member says I am correct. In those days we were talking about 500 to 600 people dying on our roads each year. Fifteen percent of that is close to 90 people—if the total is 600 people, it is 90 people; it is somewhat less, obviously, if the total is 500 people. That is a lot of people. I believe the cost of a life has now been put into legislation as being something like $2.5 million, not $2 million as the Minister said. That is a lot of money. Never mind the human cost; that is a lot of money. I think this bill, by having safety at—dare I say—whatever cost, will compel the Government to look more seriously at the state of our roads. I know that the Minister knows I welcome that. If he does not know this already, let me tell him that I believe the state of our roads has been poorly addressed for years now, in terms of funding. I believe that this legislation will give the Government an incentive to say it had better start to look at roads if it is to get rid of the provision for safety at reasonable cost.

I recall the time some years ago when somebody who was in charge of our motorway network came on nationwide TV and stated, almost with a smirk on his face, that we did not need to have centre barriers on our motorways. If I had agreed with him then, the way that he put his point across would have made me disagree with him. Only moments later, the Rt Hon David Lange came on the programme and stated that we would have centre barriers on our motorways. I was grateful for that. I do not know how many lives just doing that has saved—probably hundreds, if not thousands.

Another area I think the Government will be compelled to look at very seriously is the state of our rail-track. A chap called me the other day and asked me to come out and look at a section of rail-track. It was in Tauranga, on the line that goes from Auckland to Tauranga, which is heavily used by port traffic. The section I looked at runs through the residential area—it has houses on the high side and houses on the low side—in a gentle curve. The guy who asked that I come out there had a few colleagues with him. He bent down and, as I did shortly afterwards, literally plucked out bolts all over the place. That is not good enough. In fairness, I was so worried about the situation that I rang the Hon Harry Duynhoven there and then, and he got straight on to it.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha, ha!

The member may laugh, but Harry Duynhoven got straight on to it and addressed the issue.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: He’s like rust; he never sleeps.

I can tell the member he was certainly on to it that day. Within a few days there was a team of people working on that rail-track.

I have seen something else on the same rail-track that concerns me enormously. I will not go into the details now, because I would put the whole Committee to sleep.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: It’s a good story. We want to hear it. It’s about safety.

The National Party is interested, which is very good. The track is actually near the foreshore and runs across the seabed. Does that lift the interest of the National Party even more? I am referring to the old rail bridge that crosses Tauranga Harbour.

💬 John Key: I know it well.

The member knows it well; perhaps he has dived off it. I can tell him that bridge looks as though it needs some tender loving care and attention. I have raised that with the people involved, including Harry Duynhoven, and I have had a very positive response. I understand that the bridge will be inspected very shortly, if not now. My view of the situation is that I would expect some work to be done on that bridge, but I will let some expert tell me whether I am right or wrong. This legislation will, I believe, put the Government in a difficult position from time to time in looking at things like that. The legislation combines the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, and New Zealand First welcomes that. We believe we should get a more professional, businesslike approach as a result of that, and I believe there will be a closer look at roading and the rail-track.

But one little area that I must refer to, because I feel that I am running out of time, is the issue of when a ship is not a ship. It is raised under clause 25, and it is a little thing that really bugs me. Clause 25 provides that: “land transport—(a) means—(i) transport on land by any means: …”, and it then goes on to state: “and (b) includes—(i) coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries, or ferries or barges on rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure:”. However, the bill then goes on—and I know that members are very anxious to hear this—to refer to transport on land, although I cannot remember the exact clause. I say to the Minister that that will confuse a few simple sailors out there. They will say they are aground, and ask whether they are land transport—transport on land. They will ask what they are, and whether they should look up the Land Transport Safety Authority regulations now that they have gone aground. We were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that a coastal ship should be a form of land transport for funding purposes only. Well, why does the bill not just state that?

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Good point—that’s why we’re voting against it.

The member says that is why he is voting against the bill.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: But the member is going to vote for it.

We will vote for it, I say to Mr Williamson. I tell the member that quite categorically. New Zealand First will never ever vote against safety in transport.

We think that a little tidying-up could be done in this bill, which would make for a bit of clarity here and there. But we will support the bill because overall it will put more onus on the Government to address the problems in roading and on our rail-track, and we will ignore that little glitch in terms of shipping and what have you, and take it for what it is. We will just have to educate all the sailors out there who may understand that they come under the Land Transport Safety Authority for something that they really are not meant to come under it for, and tell them that that is not the case.

It is always interesting to follow New Zealand First, whose members say for 1 minute that they will support the bill, and then say for 10 minutes why they should not support the bill, and talk about the rail tracks in Tauranga. I know the bridge that the member referred to very well, and the Hon Maurice Williamson knows very well about the parking area under it. It is a great parking area, and there is a lovely restaurant there. I know that bridge. This bill has a very important subject, because it deals with safety. We should never compromise on safety. Although some of the principal elements of the bill are areas that National can support, overall we cannot support anything that compromises safety and removes the factor of safety at reasonable cost that previous National speakers have spoken about.

We support the merger of Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That concept concerns the operational role, and we have no problem with allowing that to happen. That body will then become Land Transport New Zealand, which is fine. National supports the concept of one body being able to handle those areas. The policy area, however, moves from the Land Transport Safety Authority back to the Ministry of Transport. That is where the Minister will have control over the outcomes and objectives, and that is clearly identified. We support that. We have no difficulty with that, at all. There have been major concerns with regard to the way the Land Transport Safety Authority has operated over the years, especially from the trucking firms and from the big earth-moving operators in my area that have done much of the work on the roads throughout the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty, and on the highways around Tauranga. They have had major concerns with regard to some of the requirements that the Land Transport Safety Authority has imposed on them.

However, moving to the area of safety at reasonable cost, that is an area that we have great difficulty with, because, in our view, the bill does downgrade the whole area of safety. If we look at clause 7, which amends sections 33(2)(e) and (f) of the Civil Aviation Act, we see it provides that one of the requirements is: “(e) the need to maintain and improve aviation safety and security, …”. But the word “assist”, which was previously in the bill, has now been taken out. The proposed section 33(2)(f) states: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development: (ii) improves access and mobility: (iii) protects and promotes public health: (vi) ensures environmental sustainability:”. The difficulty that we have concerns the difference between the words “assist” and “ensure”, because there is a major difference. When I look at what the word “assist” means in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is paramount in terms of being an authority on these matters, I see it means to help persons, or the process of helping, and to take part in or be present at something. That is what “assist” means.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What’s the derivation?

I will not go into that, because it goes a little bit further than that. However, when we look at what the word “ensure” means—and this is a really important area, because in my view the word “ensure” carries far more weight—we see it means to make safe. That is what it states in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. It states that the word “ensure” is to make a person or thing safe, and in brackets it states that is against risks—to make certain that the thing is secure. When I look at the difference in wording between the words “assist” and “ensure”, I would note—and this is my view and National’s view—that it is far more powerful to use the word “ensure” than “assist”.

However, in the bill, with regard to clause 7, which I have just mentioned, and clause 16A, which proposes to amend section 152 in the Land Transport Act concerning the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules, the point that I make is that nothing should compromise safety—absolutely nothing. Reading out those definitions from the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is the foremost authority on these matters, makes it very clear that the word “ensure” carries far more weight than the word “assist” does.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Have you checked Webster’s?

I do not have Webster’s with me, but I know that it would certainly state something similar. The amendment to section 152(c) in clause 16A, the new majority amendment, provides that the Minister may make ordinary rules to assist economic development, and the amended section 152(f) provides that the Minister may also make rules for the purpose of “ensuring environmental sustainability:”. The point that National has concerns about is that greater emphasis is going to environmental sustainability than to the safety aspects that we would consider to be important.

I want to move to a practical example of that. In my electorate, the big dairy company is Fonterra. Fonterra will be moving its products from the Waitoa dairy factory through to Morrinsville, where other products will be coming in. They will then move to Te Rapa before they are railed through the Kaimai Ranges to the Port of Tauranga. That is a very sensible move, which will get transport and trucks off the road. However, the very point that I make about safety is that there is a major highway, State Highway 27, that runs through the area at a place called Tatanui. It is a major highway, with traffic coming from Auckland and going south, and vice versa, and there is a rail crossing with no barrier arms on it. In fact, I have written about that, because I think it is a major safety issue that Transit will need to look at, as will the New Zealand Railways Corporation. I am not quite sure who is responsible; maybe the Minister can help me with regard to that. But the situation is that a major highway, State Highway 27, comes through and crosses State Highway 26, which runs between Morrinsville in the west and Te Aroha in the east. There are major highways and a rail crossing with no barrier arms there. In recent times the compulsory stop sign at the railway line at Tatanui, at which one had to stop when coming from Auckland on State Highway 27, has been taken away, and there is now a give-way sign as one comes through on to highway 26.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Under this bill there won’t be a sign at all.

No, and the point I make, which this Committee needs to realise, is that we cannot compromise on safety. I have written to Transit—in fact, while waiting to get on the plane at Hamilton Airport this morning, I was talking to Transit members specifically about this point—and I have written to Railcorp about it, as well.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What did they say?

They are going to look into it, and that is good. We do not want people to die because things like barrier arms are not there, in terms of the safety that one would expect. Certainly we do not want to see deaths occurring on a major highway. We should salute what Toll Rail is doing, in moving Fonterra’s products on that section of rail-track. I think that is good, because it gets heavy trucks off the road. But it is an example of a situation where safety can be compromised, and National will have no part of that whatsoever.

I come back to the point I made earlier that this bill downgrades the safety factor. The bill talks about “ensuring environmental sustainability”, and that is fine, but the word “ensure” is far more definite than the word “assist”. In the public’s mind assisting and promoting, and “assisting land transport safety and security”, are not as great as ensuring that those things will happen. That is the reason why National will not be supporting this legislation. It is fine in parts. We have no difficulty with what will happen to Transfund and no difficulty with what will happen to the policy area of the Land Transport Safety Authority, which is to go back to the ministry—we have no trouble at all with that. But where safety at reasonable cost will be a factor, then there are issues that we cannot support.

I want to turn to a specific issue contained in clause 30, “Who must be consulted about land transport programme”. As has become the habit with this Government, once again we see separatism creeping into legislation where it has no place at all. Yes, that is extraordinary. New subsection (4A) of section 15, inserted by clause 30, states that the following entities and people must be consulted when a land transport programme is being prepared: Transit, regional councils; territorial authorities; every affected approved organisation—as opposed to unapproved organisations—the Ministry of Health, the Accident Compensation Corporation, the Commissioner of Police, the Secretary for Transport, the Ministry of Justice, land transport users, affected communities, Māori, and the public.

I have to ask the Government—it is a serious question—why Māori have been put in there specifically, separate from the public. I thought Māori were part of the public. When we talk about all New Zealanders being treated equally under the law, we are talking about the public of New Zealand. That seems a reasonable proposition.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: The legal counsel did a very good job.

I guess that the Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, would admit that, yes, he is a member of the public of New Zealand. He would be consulted in that capacity. He is also a member of his local community up on the East Coast, in Ruatōria, I guess, and he would be consulted as such. If there is a land transport programme that proposes a new road, bridge, or something of that nature, in his area, he will be consulted, firstly, as a member of the public from that area, secondly, as a member of the affected community, and, thirdly, as a Māori person, with a different interest, I guess, from either his interest as a member of the public or his interest as a member of an affected community.

I wonder what particular thing the Minister of Māori Affairs would say he would be consulted on as a Māori. Would it be his concerns about taniwha? As a member of the Māori community, would he have major concerns about the new bridge to be built in Ruatōria? The Minister seems to be acknowledging that he has serious concerns about taniwha in Ruatōria. Well, maybe he does. Would he be consulted on his spiritual needs, on the wairua of this land transport programme? Would he, as a Māori person, also be consulted on the basis of tikanga Māori? On the issues of land transport programmes, there is simply no case for Māori to be consulted separately and apart from their capacity—the Minister included—to be consulted as members of the affected community. They have the same interests in land transport as everyone else in the community. Similarly, they have the same interests as members of the public.

One of the things that National is very committed to is ensuring that our laws apply equally to all New Zealanders. That is a fundamental platform laid down by our party. It was set out in the Ōrewa speech as clearly as anything could be. New Zealanders in their hundreds of thousands have responded to it, and the Government seems to have listened to that response, in some respects. There is huge public yearning that we all be treated equally. Is that not what last week was all about—the whole issue of the Unknown Warrior, of all of us recognising that sacrifice? Despite all of that, today, yet again, we see in general legislation—

I am quite sure that Mrs Wayne Mapp will be very interested in that contribution from “Mr Denese Hēnare”. Rather than prolong the debate, I will just read a section from the Transit New Zealand Amendment Act of 1995. Section 42L, “Maori interests to be considered, reads: “No output or capital project which affects or is likely to affect Maori land or Maori historical, cultural, or spiritual interests shall be included in a national roading programme … unless the Board, the Land Transport Safety Authority, … regional council, or territorial authority preparing the programme—(a) Has consulted every iwi or hapu that, in its opinion, will or may be affected by the output or capital project;”. I wonder whether that legislation draws this tacky part of the debate to a close.

Is it not wonderful to see that the National Party is influenced by the ACT party? We are so pleased that the National Party is returning to its constitutional roots and recognising the freedom of the individual. The ACT party is quite happy for the National Party to adopt its policies. The Minister of Transport forgot to mention the 1992 amendment to the Maori Land Court legislation, which also brought us into the situation we now have with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It gave the Māori Land Court the ability to consider vesting title of the foreshore and seabed under customary rights. But we are very pleased that the National Party has now come back to its senses and is following the ACT party’s lead on this—one law for all.

I want to comment on the issue—coming back to this legislation—of downgrading safety in terms of land transport. We got a hint at question time today why this Government is doing this. It is actually a good way for this Government, we found at question time, to reduce hospital waiting lists. The Prime Minister herself said that waiting lists are reduced because people suffering from cataracts are being knocked down by cars and killed. I would say that the reason people suffering from cataracts, and who are on waiting lists for operations, are being knocked down and killed by cars is that they cannot see the cars because they have cataracts.

I want to follow on from what Peter Brown brought up. He said New Zealand First would never vote against legislation that promoted safety. But this legislation pits safety against environmental sustainability. That is the issue. One cannot have the two things. The Minister of Transport says one can. I disagree with that, and the ACT party disagrees with that. They are two issues that will be in constant conflict with each other.

But there was a good point that Peter Brown brought up; people laughed at him, but he is absolutely right. If members look at clause 25, “Interpretation”, they will see that “land transport” now also means coastal shipping. But “land transport” does not mean only coastal shipping; it also means the infrastructure, goods, and services facilitating land transport by any means, and also in terms of coastal shipping, ferries, and barges. The reason that that is important to debate is that if we look at the infrastructure, goods, and services facilitating that transport—that is, transport on land by any means—and take that clause in conjunction with clause 30, “Who must be consulted about land transport programme”, which provides that the authority in preparing a land transport programme has to consult with Māori, we find we will never ever get any infrastructure relating to land transport. I am leaving roads out of the equation at the moment. I am talking bus shelters.

More important, what will happen with jetties and ports when the foreshore and seabed legislation goes through? What will happen with reclaimed land. Every time the authority prepares a land transport programme, and whenever local authorities prepare land transport programmes, they have to consult Māori. What will happen when those programmes are drawn up, and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill goes through? I have to guess, because that legislation is being rushed through without our even seeing it properly, but we are informed that reclaimed land will be under the guardianship—the kaitiakitanga, which is the current politically correct word—of the Department of Conservation, and it will be impossible for any form of commercial development, in terms of coastal shipping, to go ahead at all, unless, of course, as we saw when taniwha popped up around every bend in the roadway—

I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this Transport Legislation Bill, and pick up on a few points I have been listening to with regard to airline safety. We are concerned about the safety of airlines—everybody is—but airlines are controlled by international safety rules and regulations, and we deal with only the landing side of things. Airlines have to be controlled internationally because they are expected to fly internationally. Therefore, the whole legislation around airlines is quite a separate issue.

As far as the search and rescue side of things goes, that is controlled here in New Zealand. We do our own search and rescue operations. This legislation is designed to give a much better process for our search and rescue organisations. It will make it a lot easier for them to operate under the regulations we have in place.

I will now move on to the safety of roads and the state of our roads. We have heard that a large percentage of the deaths on our roads can be directly attributed to the condition of the roads. That is correct. One has only to drive on some of our roads to find that Transit, the funding organisation—Transfund—and the local regional authorities have not provided the funding to upgrade certain sections of the road. They keep putting it off, hoping that, perhaps, new legislation will come in that will allow the improvements to be funded from elsewhere. Each organisation keeps passing the buck. Transfund keeps shuffling the money backwards and forwards between projects and not getting on with them. Therefore, a lot of projects are sitting on the drawing board and have not been completed. The need for funding has been put aside. A large chunk of funding goes into the consolidated account from our petrol tax; New Zealand First believes that it should be put towards roading. That is what it is collected for.

What is happening around the local communities now is that speed limits are being reduced rather than roads being upgraded. I have come across reduced speed limits, as of 1 November, from 100 kilometres an hour to 80 kilometres an hour, simply because those particular roads are not suitable for a driving speed of 100 kilometres an hour. Although that reduction is a fine thing, why are those roads not being upgraded? Perhaps it is because the communities around that area are expanding at such a rate that the authorities are holding off putting funding in place until they know exactly how large the volume of traffic will be.

A third thing we mentioned was the state of the rail-tracks. The rail-tracks in New Zealand are in an abysmal state because money has not been spent on upgrading them. My colleague Peter Brown mentioned an area around Tauranga, but I am well aware that areas around Papakura, in south Auckland, have problems with subsidence under tracks. That subsidence has been reported, and has been marked off by the authorities that look after the tracks, but the tracks have not been repaired. Everybody is silent; members are shocked. Sooner or later, further subsidence under those tracks will end up in a train dropping from the tracks, into somebody’s backyard; it could well be a member’s backyard, if his or her property backs on to those tracks—[Interruption] Maurice Williamson is calling out; he may well have been pinching stones from underneath the tracks, to build his stone wall out the front of his house! The rail-track and the roading are not getting the funding that they should.

I would like to pick up on Lindsay Tisch’s comments, assist, and assure him those words have been struck out.

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to carry on from the question that was raised about the phrase “ensuring environmental sustainability”. The fact that there is not a definition of “sustainability” has been referred to in a number of the key submissions, but my concern relates to what this does for land transport, and the costs associated with land transport when applying for resource consent. It will mean now that because we have “ensuring environmental sustainability” in the bill, and with the importance and precedence in the legislation that the Government has now given it, it will have an effect upon resource consent applications and the ability for objectors to place emphasis on environmental protection.

Environmental sustainability is in the legislation in 11 different situations. A huge amount of emphasis has been put on environmental sustainability, and I suggest that it is taking precedence over the safety factor. There are situations whereby, while parts of the environment are valued and have some degree of real value, there are considerable safety issues, and environmental value will be compromised as a result of trying to meet some safety issues. The Coromandel Peninsula has a lot of very windy roads, and in order to make those roads extra safe, some of the corners will need to be taken off. I am sure there are a number of other roads throughout the country in other members’ electorates that are like that. However, when there is an application for resource consent for that work to be done, there will be objections from people who want the roads to remain windy and who will claim that there is an environmental reason for that. There will then be an argument between the safety aspect and the environmental aspect. Both aspects are written into the legislation, but I would suggest that because of the particular purposes of the Resource Management Act, objectors will pick up on the environmental sustainability aspect and compromise the importance of the safety aspect of this legislation. That, for me, would be an overriding concern, and I know that it has been raised by other speakers.

Another matter I would like to raise, which was also put forward by the Automobile Association and Roading New Zealand, is that new clause 16A looks at the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules. New section 152, inserted by clause 16A, states: “(g) any matter related, or reasonably incidental, to any of the following:”, and the first subparagraph states: “(i) the Minister’s objectives under section 169:”. Submitters said—and I concur with their concerns—that it was not appropriate that that be in the bill. I also do not consider it appropriate that that is in the bill. One reason put forward by the Road Transport Forum was that the Minister’s objectives do not comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. I do not think that many Ministers are aware that those legislative guidelines actually exist. Perhaps Mr Fairbrother should refer to those guidelines, so as to have a greater understanding of what they say with regard to this matter. It is a de facto fetter on the Minister’s freedom to formulate policy in Government and the electorate’s right to vote for parties espousing particular policies. It is impractical, inconsistent, cumbersome, and a surprise that it is there.

The other matter that submitters were particularly concerned about was the inclusion of the land transport strategy, because it makes it much more difficult to change those objectives within the strategy, and the Minister’s objectives as well. Does there need to be a legislative change to do that? That matter was raised by submitters, and I doubt whether the Minister will be able to answer that readily. Perhaps he would like to take a call and give us an explanation. However, there was some concern, particularly if the land transport strategy is like some of the other strategies I have seen, which are based largely on ideology, and does not have the thinking and the grunt behind it to be referred to in the bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I shall respond to what the Minister said earlier about how the “safety at reasonable cost” argument put up by National had been debated by some saying in their submissions that yes, there was a problem, but others said the opposite. I want to play a game with the Minister—“I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.” I have here all the submissions on the bill, I have the lot, and I am prepared to do the trade. I have a list here and I will read for the Committee the names of some of the organisations on that list. Members should remember that these organisations are huge. For example, the Automobile Association, which covers the biggest chunk of ordinary motorists, states in its submission: “The association is concerned about the removal of the term ‘at reasonable cost’ from the transport legislation as a result of this legislation. We consider efficiency and cost considerations to be an important element of transport decision-making, especially when seen from the perspective of our membership who are often required to bear the compliance costs of Government regulatory interventions in the transport sector. The association seeks the term ‘at reasonable cost’ to be retained.”

That is my first bid, and I am happy to go on. We have lots of others. Let us go with the Road Transport Forum, which represents all the big commercial operators in the country. The way to fix the legislation, they say, is by the proposed amendments: “Clause 18 of the bill should be amended by adding the following after the final word of the proposed section 169A of the Act, ‘(b) which achieve their purpose or outcome at reasonable cost, and (c) for the purpose of this section, a reasonable cost is a reasonable cost if the value of the cost to the nation is exceeded by the value of the resulting benefit of the nation’. ” Those are the first two bids. We have the Automobile Association, which represents ordinary motorists, and the Road Transport Forum, which represents the big commercial operators. Let us go with the Aviation Industry Association, which represents all the aircraft operators, and so on. [Interruption] Well, the Minister is going to come back and give us his big list of those from the other side of the debate, which I understand was from a couple of cyclists. But never mind, he will tell us that I am wrong, and give us the big listing of the organisations.

The Aviation Industry Association’s proposal states: “The above amendments should apply to section 72AA.” The Aviation Industry Association represents all the operators of aeroplanes. It states further: “Safety at reasonable cost is presently the cornerstone test for the Minister in determining whether or not a rule change should proceed. Under the proposed changes there is no longer a precise test as to whether or not a rule change will enhance safety. In fact, a rule change is only required to assist or help out safety and security. Only if the rule change also assists economic development, and so on. It is so murky, it is not funny.” So there are three. We have the Automobile Association, and we will now go to someone else. How about trying Federated Farmers? That organisation represents all the farmers in New Zealand, so they are getting some pretty big blocks here. We have heard from representatives of individual motorists and commercial truck operators, and the Aviation Industry Association, and what do Federated Farmers say? Their two-page submission, which is unusual for them, states: “Section 2.5. Federated Farmers is concerned that the Government does not intend to carry over the LTSA’s ‘safety at reasonable cost’ mandate into this new legislation. Federated Farmers is concerned with the lack of emphasis on efficiency in the proposed legislation and recommends the reintroduction of the words ‘at reasonable cost’.”

How are we going now? Is it looking pretty good? No, there are some more big organisations. How about all the port companies. I will not read the names of all of them, but they include the Port of Auckland, the Port of Otago, and the Port of Marlborough. I think that includes all the ports. Their submission, which is a one-pager really, because after the heading it only fills in the page a little bit more, states: “The current Act prescribes the Minister and the MSA’s prime role is to promote safety at reasonable cost. This concept has proven to be very useful when evaluating policy proposals in the past. By failing to recognise the importance of efficiency and cost, it could well facilitate the creation of a transport system that is inefficient, and consequently impacts negatively on the economy and living standards. This will normally be a trade-off between safety and cost, because the alternative is safety at any cost.”

I do not know how many more submissions there are, but I will be happy to take three or four more calls on this. Here we are—a submission from Business New Zealand, which represents all businesses. We now have submissions from representatives for the private motorist, commercial operators, the Aviation Industry Association, and the ports companies. Business New Zealand states: “Section 2.2. However, we are very concerned with the aspects of the bill that remove safety at reasonable cost, and it is our advice to return the words ‘safety at reasonable cost’ into the legislation.” I have shown the Minister mine. It is time he gave us his list, other than the names of the two cyclists.

I move, That the question be now put.

My honourable colleague Mr Williamson just gave us a very extensive list of organisations that are worried about the removal of “safety at reasonable cost”. I was surprised that the Minister of Transport did not leap to his feet, because he has a long list. Air New Zealand and the Aviation Association of New Zealand are not on that list; nor are Orion, Origin Pacific Airways, or any of those airlines. They are not on that list. The Automobile Association of New Zealand is not on that list. All the motorists of New Zealand—1.5 million; a great many motorists of New Zealand—are not on that list. The port companies are not on the list; nor are the farmers who Michael Cullen was trying to woo the other day by cutting their rates. Every business is not on the list. This is like a game. If it is not farmers or business people, and it is not pilots or plane drivers, and it is not Federated Farmers, then who is it?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: I can answer that.

Who is it?

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Two cyclists.

Two cyclists do not mind about “safety at reasonable cost”! This is from a Government that listens to the people of New Zealand! I wonder whether the Government has ever heard the expression: “If it’s not broken, don’t bother to try to fix it.”

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Unless you are a consultant.

Unless one is a consultant! It is not broken. Thousands of people were not marching in, giving submissions, saying that if only the “safety at reasonable cost” aspect had not been in the previous legislation, everything would have been fixed up; everything would have been OK. That never presented, at all.

I want to refer in particular to the rail industry. Some months ago the Government injected quite a lot of cash into an entity called TrackCo. In fact, it was so much cash that the Minister of Finance is not quite sure how much went in, but the initial amount was in the order of around $200 million. The indications are that it was considerably more than that. That money will be going into upgrading the rail track that is in need of repair in many parts of the country. There is a risk, I might add, that some politicisation of the process will take place.

But putting that to one side, one of the issues interestingly that came up at the time was about bridges, and fixing rail bridges across New Zealand, in particular on the West Coast of New Zealand. The issue here was that Solid Energy had done some work with people in the South Island to indicate how much needed to be spent on bridges in the South Island. Originally, the consultants came up with an amount of $50 million-odd. It then increased to about $71 million. In fact, the real cost of fixing those bridges on the West Coast, because there are hundreds of them, is literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Minister of Finance has the busy role these days of chaperoning the Foreshore and Seabed Bill through whatever political party of the week is willing to support it. It is most interesting. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is like a chameleon. It changes by whatever political party of the particular week is prepared to support it. But putting that to one side, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has had an opportunity to see what is happening in the transport legislation today. He might be interested to know that with the removal of “safety at reasonable cost” and the implication that that could have on bridges in the South Island, I suggest that may change the capital requirement of TrackCo. This is not just a few million dollars that we are talking about. We are not talking about the loose change in the pockets of one or two Ministers. We are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the removal of “safety at reasonable cost”.

Interestingly enough, I am not surprised that the Automobile Association so keenly rejected this legislation. I say that because we have had a few incidents recently where the public has become increasingly frustrated when going out to clip their front bushes, only to find a traffic officer hiding under them with his radar gun. People are out there on a Saturday morning with their clippers, trimming the fences to make them nice. Someone will ask: “What’s your name, sir?”. “It is the Hon George Hawkins, and I am here with my radar gun to catch a speeding motorist.” It is quite an interesting scenario that happens on Saturday mornings.

I move, That the question be now put.