Transport Legislation Bill

I think it would be fair to say that Part 2 is reasonably brief in its clauses. [Interruption] I say to Dr Mapp that I think a fair person seeing this and realising that it goes only to just less than one page would say it is quite brief. However Dr Mapp makes a very good contribution, as he normally does, about the technicality of that because it does refer to enormous schedules that are to do with which Acts are affected, and which come into the new regime, and which ones go out. I have to say that this is where I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation about some of the legislation. I look at a particular provision in Part 2, which is clause 53. I apologise in advance to my adoring drive-time audience that I will be really boring by doing this, but I am going to read clause 53 and then ask the Minister what it means.

Clause 53 is headed “General savings provision”. We could say that this is something to do with superannuation or long-term nationhood building. No, we should look at the wording: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing, or the bringing or completion of proceedings, that relates to an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty.” What on earth does that mean? I will read it out again: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing,”—what is a “matter or thing”?—“or the bringing or completion of proceedings, that relates to an existing right, interest, title, immunity, or duty.” Clause 54, which is lovely stuff, states: “Transitional regulations—The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations—(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to, or in place of, the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:”. How bad does it have to get before someone calls an end to this sort of nonsense, where we are allowing for transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act, whereby those provisions may be in addition to or replacing those that are already in the current Act?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Labour lunacy.

My colleague is right. I think clause 54 deserves another reading, because I do not know what it means, and I am asking the Minister to get up and tell us what it means. I will read it out again: “The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations—” I am happy with that. I know about the Governor-General and about making regulations by Order in Council, so that is great. The regulations are: “(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions”—remember this is transport legislation, not superannuation, or anything—“concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to, or in place of, the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:”.

What does that mean? I think it means that if we have got it wrong, if we have messed it up, then we have an ability to come back at any time and make some savings and some transitional provisions to cover the ones that we got wrong in the first place. How pre-emptive is that! The Minister is basically saying that because he does not know what he is doing, he will put in a clause that allows him to keep changing the legislation as we go along, so he can keep fixing up the mess-up he made along the way.

This bill could have been done more simply. There are a lot of provisions that the National Party is supportive of, and a lot of provisions for which we would have been happy to come to the party and save this time on a lengthy debate that will have to be gone through. It would have been all simply handled, in Part 1, when the Minister had dealt with that “safety at reasonable cost” provision. He has refused to answer who is on his big list. We will be delving into that later in the debate on the title.

I am going to leave it to my colleagues to get into some of the details of some of the specific schedules—like technical amendments to the principal Act, amendments to various Acts such as the Local Government Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act, and so on. It is quite complicated. We have an absolute right to hear, and the Minister has an obligation to get up and explain, a few of these bits and pieces. They are quite technical, they will involve the lawyers, and we have that right.

I will take up the invitation of my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson and refer to the schedules. I guess that most people would reasonably think that a Transport Legislation Bill deals with various items of transport—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Cars and trucks.

Some people would even say cars and trucks, and so on. I have been carefully looking at schedule 5, and it refers to the Transport Services Licensing Act—fair enough. It refers to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act—fair enough. However, there are also references to the Immigration Act, the Electoral Act, and the Health Act. There is even reference to the Oaths and Declarations Act. There are references to the Privacy Act, and, indeed, the Ombudsmen Act itself.

So Part 2—innocent though it might seem on the face of it—amends a whole swathe of legislation. In fact, it amends 26 separate Acts, and that is not speaking of the regulations, which have already been pointed out.

I wish to refer to another serious matter in clause 54, “Transitional regulations”. These are normally quite innocent, but what it actually says here is that rather than the Act coming into force on 1 December 2004—we will return to that matter in the next debate—the Minister under these transitional powers is given the power to bring various parts, clauses, provisions, sections, and subsections of the Act into force when and as he pleases. So here we are passing legislation, virtually under urgency, because the bill has to be passed in the next few days, yet the Minister is giving himself these extraordinary executive powers to, in effect, thwart the will of Parliament.

In the weekend the Government announced a constitutional inquiry. Do members think it will refer these sorts of executive powers to that inquiry? Of course, not! When we get serious issues like this, with the executive bound to decide when, where, and if it is going to introduce legislation into effect, these sorts of things are expected to go unremarked. I guarantee that the Minister will not take a call on this matter. But maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe he is actually reading up on these issues right now, so he can make a proper response. Because he ought to, because we need to know that the executive will not abuse the authority of this Parliament.

The people here are elected, are accountable to their constituents and to parties who are part of this Parliament, for the legislation we pass. These debates are recorded. Do we think the Minister will be issuing press releases as to when he introduces particular clauses, regulations, and so forth? No, the Government will just do it. It will be a Gazette order, I guess. How many people read the New Zealand Gazette these days? How many lawyers, even, read it? The answer is “very few”. So this Parliament is empowering the Government to pass into law this legislation by stealth.

I am surprised, actually, that New Zealand First would want to be part of that. New Zealand First is voting for this bill. It had particular concerns, but it is voting for these kinds of clauses. I would like to think that it has properly considered the way this works, because it actually flies in the face of the opening clause. No wonder this provision is buried at the very end of the bill! No wonder it is buried in this kind of clause! Because although the Government intended to delude the public that they would get new transport legislation on 1 December 2004—the very first clause says that—in reality we are empowering a Minister of Transport to do this. My colleague has referred to maybe future reckless Ministers doing this. I suggest this Minister will be the reckless Minister who will introduce it whenever and however he wants.

I want to address clause 51, “Dissolution of Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a submission, and then a follow-up clarification, from the Automobile Association. That organisation represents more than 1 million people in New Zealand, a quarter of the population, many of whom will be listening to this debate. The Automobile Association raised a very important concern—that is, the bill dissolves the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and instead forms Land Transport New Zealand, but it does not address the end of the funder/provider split. That is the really important issue the association brought up.

The Automobile Association acknowledged that it is not a complete return to the bad old days, when the Minister of Transport who lived out the back of Waipukurau had the road from the corner to his house tar-sealed. The association acknowledges that it is not a return to that, but it did specify that in its view not enough was done in the bill to safeguard special interests, to provide checks and balances, and in its words to ensure that special interests, whether local in nature or otherwise, were prevented from influencing the transport funding allocation process.

At the moment, as I understand it, in terms of current funding arrangements the Minister approves the output classes of funding, but when this bill comes into existence he will approve the funding for the national land transport programme. Admittedly, under the new situation he will not approve the funding for specific projects, project by project, so that will provide some independence from political pressures. However, when the Minister approves the national land transport programme, he will include in that programme specific projects within each funding category.

Yet the Automobile Association—an organisation that represents so many people, and an organisation, I might say, that supported the overall philosophy of this legislation and the tidying up of Crown entities—has raised concerns about that. This is an important issue, and I would like the Minister to take a call and reassure New Zealand that the Automobile Association’s concerns are not valid, and that there was no need to address them in the bill.

We at the select committee asked the Automobile Association to follow up its concern with an example, and it gave us the funding of the road safety education programme. Under the present situation the Land Transport Safety Authority has a road safety education programme, but under the new legislation other agencies will be competing against Land Transport New Zealand for that funding. I do not have time to go into that example in detail, but I would be interested to know the views of other parties in Parliament. I know that New Zealand First always supports the Automobile Association and its submissions, and I wonder how that party feels about this concern.

I finish by summing up the Automobile Association’s concern. It said that there would be a potential conflict of interest for Land Transport New Zealand—that is, the new entity—in making allocation decisions regarding road safety advertising, education, and information provided by itself, vis-à-vis road safety engineering and enforcement activities provided by outside agencies. However, that issue was not addressed satisfactorily by the current legislation.

I certainly share the concerns of my colleagues. I, too, was alarmed when I saw clause 53, “General savings provision”. I understand that a considerable amount of that $250 million is still in the pot, so the concern would be that that money is spent on actual road construction and is not frittered away on a lot of airy-fairy policies with regard, maybe, to additional road signage or the whims of Land Transport Safety Authority policy.

I am also concerned about what that means. If the Minister can do what he likes in terms of the effect of the bill, and can undertake different aspects of this bill at any time before it comes into effect, what does that really mean? Perhaps he will take a call and explain that.

There are a number of things in the offing and one of them, of course, is the implementation of the vehicle emission policy. My understanding is that the policy does not exempt pre-1980 cars, and that will have a significant impact. There are questions about whether the policy is being implemented for environmental purposes, safety purposes, or whatever, but what will the Minister’s position be in relation to that? How soon will he move to incorporate the Land Transport Safety Authority with Transfund, and what will happen to the policy recommendations of the Land Transport Safety Authority at that point? Will he take them over and have some sense brought into that argument? After all, when it comes to vehicle emissions, there were no cars pre-1980 that were actually designed with a catalytic converter, which is now what may be required to be installed. Pre-1980 cars were not designed to have catalytic converters. Of course, when cars with catalytic converters were coming in—

💬 John Key: Does your car have one?

No, my car does not have one, and it was not built to have one.

💬 John Key: I’ve got a Commodore.

What year is it?

💬 John Key: 2001.

2001? Actually, I do not know. But I think it will be interesting—

💬 Darren Hughes: That member drives a Rolls Royce.

Really? I am enjoying this. It is just wonderful how we all take great interest in vehicles and in our cars!

Obviously, there is some considerable concern and debate about this particular policy coming through from the Land Transport Safety Authority, so it will be interesting to see whether the Minister exercises the largesse provided by the transitional regulations under clause 54. Will the Minister exercise his largesse and actually bring a bit of sensibility to the policy for vehicle emission testing, and have an exemption for pre-1980 vehicles, because there is some concern about the legitimacy of the basis for that policy.

The Minister could exercise his rights under clause 54, because pre-1980 cars do not have the ability to have catalytic converters attached to them without some serious difficulty. Perhaps that would compromise safety and, given that this bill is meant to be all about safety—however, with the emphasis on environmental sustainability—the Minister will, hopefully, put some rationality into the policies being floated with regard to vehicle emission testing—and, I might add, into the policies about speed limit reductions that are also taking place.

Those are two policy areas and that is what this bill is meant to be all about—bringing policy back into the ministry. So perhaps the Minister will use the transitional regulations and actually put a bit more control and sense around the speed limit policy being put forward, too, by the Land Transport Safety Authority. After all, in our area, where the average speed limit is about 89 kilometres an hour instead of 100 kilometres an hour, the proposal is to drop the limit to 80 kilometres an hour, which is absolutely nonsensical, particularly as a speed problem cannot be proven with regard to the one, or maybe two, fatalities on that particular stretch of road.

So the general savings provision is a concern, and we would hope for transparency in any sort of funding that will be affected by this legislation. We want to make sure that that is handled appropriately and, of course, we are very concerned about this Government’s fiscal capability.

I think that the member who just resumed her seat has raised some interesting issues. They are not entirely within the scope of Part 2, but if she is entitled to raise them, it may not be a bad idea for me to respond to them.

Part 2 is quite simple. Apart from the various schedules that some members seem to have read—which is always encouraging—it is primarily the part that dissolves Transfund New Zealand and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That means that both of those organisations move into a new organisation called Land Transport New Zealand, although the policy functions revert to the Ministry of Transport. [Interruption] The member wants to know when, and the answer is 1 December. I hope that is helpful.

The member also raised matters about vehicle emissions testing. That piece of work is being ably managed by my colleague the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Judith Tizard, and it is not for me to speak at great length about it. But I do just say that the status of emissions management in New Zealand through cars is probably the worst in the Western World. It is a matter of disgrace that it has not been addressed by successive Governments.

One interesting little factoid that comes out of taking an integrated approach to transport is that if one looks at human health and safety instead of just safety, one finds that a number of people are killed on our roads. I am afraid that the figure looks as if it will just exceed 400 this year—lower than last year, and the second lowest figure for decades. So we have managed to take the blip out of the rise we saw a year ago.

But, interestingly, about 400 people also die prematurely from air emissions—pollution—arising from transport. Those are not people with names and addresses.

💬 Deborah Coddington: That’s nonsense. Those are nonsense statistics. Are those scientifically based statistics?

Indeed they are. The member has decided to interject. Let me just jump down her throat a little and say that the difference between the two groups of figures is that one group has people’s names and addresses—and, indeed, those of their relatives and loved ones—and the other group is an epidemiological, statistical derivation. But the statistics are still people.

The fact of the matter is that we have paid careful attention to reducing the road toll—and good on us! It is now time for us to start to get on top of the damage that is caused to human health by emissions from motorcars. That is why we have begun the emissions—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Some of the speed policy is nuts.

That may be, but the fact of the matter—because the member raised the issue—is that this is the first Government, through the good work of the Hon Judith Tizard, to get on top of vehicle emissions. We are at the stage where just a couple of months ago in various parts of the country we have begun piloting, so that we can get a look at what is coming out of the pipe now.

A discussion paper will go out on Monday that will then get the public’s viewpoint on where we might set these standards and how often we might require cars to be tested, and on whether, for example, pre-1980 vehicles should be counted. Those are things the member is welcome to offer her opinion on; we would look forward to it.

Then, progressively, the Government’s vehicle emissions policy will be rolled out, and we will start to pay attention to the statistical deaths of 400 people per annum, in the same way that we pay careful attention to the actual deaths each year of people killed in accidents on the roads.

I will follow on from the Minister of Transport, Pete Hodgson, and address Part 2 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I note that there are five clauses in Part 2. It is a relatively simple part of the bill, which is followed by the schedules.

In particular, I will traverse the ground of what Part 2 does. It essentially recognises the three independent bodies as they are today—the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Safety Authority, and Transfund—and the fact that each has a part that is policy and a part that is operational. The effect, if we like, of Part 2 is to strip out operational activities and to put them into one entity. The Ministry of Transport pretty much has a policy element today, the Land Transport Safety Authority has both operational and some policy people involved, and Transfund also has operational and some policy people. Under this part we will draw those people out and put them collectively in a group of staff at the Ministry of Transport that look at policy.

Broadly speaking, National is supportive of that. I think there is a strong case for saying that across the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Safety Authority, and Transfund, various policy people need to be thinking in the right direction.

Probably a year or so ago, before I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

💬 Simon Power: Those were the days.

They were happy times. In that 12 months on the select committee I learnt much about ships from Peter Brown’s many stories he regaled me with, as he sat next to me and I made him coffees. With his general swagger as we had a Tim Tam biscuit together, he would put his arm around me and share with me some quite interesting stories. It was touching stuff.

As I reflect back on that time, I recall something interesting about the policy work from the Ministry of Transport, the Land Transport Safety Authority, and Transfund. On one particular day someone came along to the select committee and said that there should be a policy differentiation for Māori New Zealanders due to the impact of emissions on them. I asked the obvious question about why Māori New Zealanders—people of the ethnic grouping of Māori—would be any more affected by emissions than any other New Zealanders. It was a pretty fair question. The answer came back that it was because of some of the places where Māori tended to live, and because of all sorts of completely rubbishy reasons. Of course, that probably would not happen today, post-Ōrewa.

But I am at least a little bit concerned to make sure that the policy work that comes out of this new body—because it will be pretty important—as combined and with a cadre of individuals involved in it, will be a lot stronger than what we have previously seen. Quite frankly, some of the policy has been absolutely complete and utter rubbish.

I want to talk a little about the schedules—in particular, the provision under schedule 2, relating to schedule 4, to repeal clause 27(3) and substitute new clause 3. I would term that the “Mike Williams provision”, which states: “To avoid doubt,—(a) a person who is a member of the board of one entity may also be a member of the board of the other entity:”. Mike Williams, being the Labour Party president, is on the board of Transfund—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Transit, not Transfund.

That is right. He decides which roads are built. My apologies to Mr Williams, who is on the board of Transit. He is also on the board of TrackCo—obviously he knows a lot about trains. He is actually on quite a number of Government-appointed boards. That provision is put in this bill to remove any doubt whatsoever for Mr Williams. As he looks at his future appointments under a Labour Government—and he no doubt hopes there will be quite a few of them—and as he looks around the “jobs for the boys” schemes rolled out by the Labour Party, he will be able to see that under schedule 4 there is no concern for him. He will be able to have many appointments. He will be able to take on a diverse range of Government appointments under that schedule.

I was not going to bother to speak, because I think the good sense of this legislation is very evident. However, I rise to speak to Part 2.

The Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will be dissolved. Those organisations have been primarily concerned with providing a land transport system that caters very well to those who drive cars. It is very clear that the future of the car will be different from its past. Peak oil is a reality. I have heard the Minister speak about it. It is likely to hit us; it probably has already hit us. The prices we are paying for oil right now may go up and down a little, but they are trending upwards. The demand is likely to exceed supply—if it has not already done so—sometime this decade.

Transport policy needs to be concerned about health, safety, and sustainability—they are all linked. Probably the most threatened groups in the community are children, cyclists, and the elderly, who have been poorly catered for by our transport system. Those who cannot drive, those who choose not to drive, those who are too young to drive, and those who cannot afford to drive have been poorly served. Those people’s transport methods are probably the most sustainable. They travel shorter distances, they travel only when they need to, they do not climb into their motorcars at the drop of a hat, and they tend to be healthier, as well—except when it comes to the safety angle. When it comes to safety, they are the most vulnerable.

The Minister of Transport mentioned respiratory diseases. He might also have mentioned type 2 diabetes, which is a disease the cost of which is likely to blow out to something like a billion dollars per year in this decade and in the next decade, from a figure of about $20 million. That disease is largely brought about by a sedentary lifestyle, which is the consequence of people spending much too much time in motorcars.

The Minister could perhaps set my mind at rest, however, that the new organisation that will replace the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will in fact have the expertise to make sure that the regional land transport strategies, documents that set out the roading and transport needs of communities up and down this country, do provide for the transport disadvantaged, and do ensure that those who drive are aware that they have legs and those legs can be used—that they can catch buses, they can walk, they can cycle, and they can choose other methods to get around. Perhaps the new organisation could look at some land-use measures that would avoid the need to move people around, by persuading them to live closer to where they need to be, and by persuading town planners to site industries in locations where people can get to them without travelling from one side of their communities to the other, at great cost.

We will be supporting the legislation. It is good legislation. It will ensure that we have a healthier New Zealand, that we have a sustainable transport system, and that the most vulnerable and most transport disadvantaged can actually get around when they want to. Those who use motorcars will be able to use them efficiently and effectively, if this bill goes ahead. We will support it.

I move, That the question be now put.

I was actually not going to take a call, but then I heard the honourable member Mike Ward make a contribution. For the first time, I have to say I am a bit worried about whether we should be supporting this legislation—after listening to his contribution. Clearly, he wants to tear up the roads and remove motorists from them, but the actual truth in this country is that we need more roads, which need to be wider and safer.

New Zealand First is hopeful that with the dissolution of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, and their amalgamation into Land Transport New Zealand, a much more proactive attitude will prevail through that organisation. We are hopeful that organisation will have a much more professional attitude, a much more caring attitude, and a much more businesslike attitude than the current organisations. I am referring more specifically to Transfund than to the Land Transport Safety Authority.

Roading in this country has not kept pace with vehicle numbers and traffic demand. It is a long way short of those. It is actually shameful that Government after Government and Minister after Minister have just taken dollars from the petrol motorist—thousands, even millions, of dollars—used them in all sorts of frivolous areas, and not spent an adequate amount of funding on roading. If we are silly enough—and I say that with sincerity—to think the motorcar will not play a prominent role in our society, then I suggest that we should think again. If there are any members here who believe that we can get rid of the motorcar, then I tell them that they are living on the wrong planet. That is not going to happen. [Interruption] I am getting a little worried; United Future members are agreeing with everything I am saying this afternoon, and that is a problem in itself.

The motorcar is here to stay. It might become more fuel-efficient. We looked at hybrid cars out on the forecourt only the other day, and they are very impressive vehicles. I am told by those who know a little more about them than I do that they can do 65 kilometres to the gallon, or thereabouts, and they go on to battery power automatically—there is no switch over. It is modern technology. But the motorcar is here to stay. Hopefully, more and more people will use public transport where and when they can, but it will never take over from the car. It will never take over completely from the car. If we want to get rid of congestion, sure, we should cater for the travelling public who want to use public transport—and maybe encourage people to use it—but we must improve our roading. That is very, very important.

I am hopeful, and New Zealand First is hopeful, that by getting rid of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund, by bringing them together in recognition of their common goals, we will get a far more professional organisation that will look at roading much more objectively, that will look at funding, and that will have the courage of its convictions to say that we cannot fund roads on a drip-feed basis. I hope it will have the courage of its convictions to go to the Minister of Transport and say: “Look! The average New Zealander doesn’t want tolls. Please think again.” I am very, very hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will take such a positive attitude, and that when the Minister asks what the best way is to fund our roads—I know he will ask that; he is a very objective Minister—the new organisation will tell him to read the Allen report in detail and see the advantage of borrowing to invest in our roads. The return is thousands of dollars per year in excess of what is invested. Indeed, I believe that the return estimated by the Allen report in terms of Tauranga, with its strategic roading network, is something like $7.60 for every dollar invested. That is a huge return and, dare I say—because I know that the Minister is listening—there would not be a greater or better investment of Government dollars than an investment in roading at this particular time in our history. We need to do something positive about our roading, and I am hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will do just that.

I move, That the question be now put.