Transport Legislation Bill

Tonight I want to re-emphasise to the Committee that the National Party has been very, very clear on this bill. A lot of it is something we support, and we would have been very happy to give our vote to the legislation, if not for a few little things—which we probably would have lived with, as one always does when another party is putting legislation through—but also for one big thing. That one big thing, which is central to this whole legislation, is the removal of the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.

I simply do not understand it. I see Michael Cullen sitting in the House. He is always guarding the purse strings and is careful to make sure that money is not spent in a foolish way. I ask him why he would not want to have a transport regime that stated that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. I bet his officials said—I had better put in an Official Information Act request for his Treasury advisory papers—“Minister, you need to go to Cabinet and fight to keep in legislation that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.” I know how it works, and I bet that was what he was in there fighting for on behalf of Treasury.

But the most important thing, I think, that this Committee and the people listening need to know is that after I had run this matter in the first speech on Part 1, the Minister of Transport got up, belittled me, and said: “Oh well, that’s just National; its members are all over the place—just like the submissions. Some thought that was an issue, and others didn’t.” And he is right. Let us go through the list. Who thought it was a serious omission and needed to be fixed?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Everyone.

Well, Mr Mapp is not quite right. He said “everyone”; I think that one could say “near as damn everyone”, because someone who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said the opposite. [Interruption] Sorry, there were two—two cyclists. That is whom the Minister is using as his weight of evidence. I have been able to show the Committee today that the Automobile Association, Business New Zealand, the Road Transport Forum, the Bus and Coach Association, the ports companies through a joint submission, the Aviation Industry Association, and Federated Farmers opposed it. In fact, it is very hard, if one goes through my list of submissions to the committee, to find anybody in New Zealand, other than those two cyclists, who is for it—and I need to make sure they are kept in this debate, because they are what the Minister is hanging his entire issue on. Every other organisation involved in transport—with some of them, like the Automobile Association, representing a million or more people—made it very clear that this legislation was deficient because it removed the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.

I understand why, in politics, when there is a very strong ideological difference between left and right, Government members would want to do that, and why they would want to say: “Look, we’re taking the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost out of this legislation because …”, but we have not heard that. There has been not a mutter, not a murmur, not a nothing, other than the Minister saying; “Oh, you’re confused, and there were just as many submitting the other way.” Well, I tell the Minister that there were not. There was hardly anybody, representing anybody, saying anything other than: “Why are you removing provision of safety being at a reasonable cost?”, because that is the test that will stop some fruit loop in the future from doing some idiotic thing in transport, with bizarre costs and almost no benefits. Even right now, I simply do not understand why this issue does not transcend all political colours and all persuasions in the entire spectrum, or why the Government is not prepared to say: “Yes, we accept it.”

That change was requested by all those organisations. I will not go through the list again, but one will not find a major organisation representing transport—or even a minor organisation representing quite a number of affected people—that did not want provision of safety being at a reasonable cost put back in, and did not make it the cornerstone of its submission. Let me tell members—[Interruption] No, Business New Zealand is not a good example, because its submission was lots and lots of pages.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Ha, ha!

I was just saying—I say to Judith Tizard, who is cackling up the back there—that some submissions were only a page long. There was one page from the port companies, and that issue is all they submitted on. Federated Farmers’ submission was two pages long; again, it was nearly all about the provision of safety being at a reasonable cost. Yet the Government will not even take a call to explain its removal.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to respond to some of the comments made by Maurice Williamson. He was going on and on in his speech about safety at reasonable cost. I think that the problem with the reality we face on the roads today is that every excuse in the book has been used by authorities, local bodies, and people in charge of transport, to avoid having our roads safe. Mr Williamson talked about cyclists. I am a cyclist myself in Auckland. Cyclists have been getting a raw deal, for years and years. There are just not the proper provisions throughout most of Auckland for safe cycling. If one cycles down many of the inner city streets—for example, Symonds Street is a nightmare—there just are not the provisions there for cyclists. There are some off-road cycleways in Auckland and, hopefully, Auckland City under its new council will expand off-road cycleways and improve conditions for cycles. I think that this legislation will help the council, because it will enable it to work hand in hand with the various authorities in this bill, to promote proper safe cycling.

I have recently visited Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia, where a much higher proportion of the population cycles because their Governments make serious provision for cycling. Sometimes they take a parking lane off and put a two-way cycle lane along it instead. It is not only a question of safety, but also a question of health, if people are to cycle for short journeys. Most of the transport journeys in urban settings, including in Auckland, are for relatively short distances of a kilometre, 2 kilometres, or 3 kilometres. These journeys could be done by cycle, if there were the cycle lanes and cycleways to encourage that.

So I very much support the safety emphasis in this legislation, which was worked out in very close collaboration between Labour and the Greens. I think it would do people like Mr Williamson and his National colleagues credit if they took up cycling themselves, to try to encourage people to use cycles and therefore reduce car congestion. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The Chair will not allow a speaker to be drowned out. I can hardly hear the member. I say to members that chaos may be the parent of creation, but in this Committee we will have order.

I will not talk just about cycling, but also about facilities for pedestrians. Again in Auckland, half the time there are not proper footpaths around the city and there are difficulties at traffic lights, particularly for disabled people. Important improvements are needed. There are still a lot of pedestrian accidents, including accidents at traffic lights. The turning lanes at intersections are not adequate, and often create difficulty for pedestrians, and particularly for older citizens. There are still projects going ahead without proper cycling and pedestrian facilities. There was a big debate in Auckland recently in relation to an overbridge over the Grafton Gully motorway extension, because it did not have cycle facilities and proper pedestrian facilities. Under the cycling and walking strategy being developed by the Government, in collaboration with the Greens, on which initial draft discussion papers have been presented, hopefully in every road and transport project that goes ahead, consideration will be given to proper facilities for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. This is not only in relation to road projects. Each rail development project can have cycling and walking facilities in it. One of the advantages—particularly in a place like Auckland, which is rather hilly—is that the railways are relatively level and are good for also providing walking and cycling facilities. So that is one issue that the Greens, including the Greens in Parliament, will be promoting.

One of the interesting points about that last contribution was the one that Mr Locke made very early on, when he talked about Labour and the Green Party getting together to make sensible legislation. He was very enthusiastic about that point, too. Interestingly, the Minister of Finance nodded in affirmation, because he knows that is what lies in the future for him. He is looking forward to that new coalition. We saw that last week, because legislation was passed and—get this—the Labour - Green - Māori Party—

💬 Keith Locke: Isn’t that good?

That is what Mr Locke said. That is the real choice that will confront New Zealand at the next election—the Labour - Green - Māori Party coalition. That is what the constitutional select committee is all about—the Labour - Green - Māori Party facilitation of debate on that issue. That is the sort of thing those parties are doing. I just wanted to draw that point to the attention of members.

The only credible support for this legislation—actually, it is incredible support—is one submission made by two cyclists. All the other groups, as my colleague Mr Williamson referred to, representing literally millions of people in this country, said no to this legislation. It has been pointed out quite carefully that at least in those circumstances we would expect the Government to defend the abandonment of a principle that millions of people want to retain: safety at reasonable cost. No, we do not get that. Instead, we get the flimflam of the weasel words that are scattered through this legislation about environmental sustainability and economic benefits. Those are things that we cannot quantify. That is the danger of this legislation: on the one hand we have the certainty and security, which is surely a cardinal principle of legislation, of safety at reasonable cost, and on the other hand we have conjecture, hypotheses, and uncertainty, which are the very enemies of good legislation.

There is one further thing, and we are not just opposed to this. The Government made much play that a former Minister of Transport was in the Chamber and, indeed, had been the Minister of Transport in 1995, and Government members boasted about their inclusions. I say to the Government that we have listened to the people of New Zealand. We have been listening over a period of time and yes, there has been a fundamental change in the way we should develop public policy. Concepts like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not elicit great concern 15 years ago, but today they do. Surely the lesson from that, and surely the lesson for legislators and for those aspiring to represent the public, is to listen to the public. The public has made it very clear, I suggest, that the election will be fought on the principle that the law applies to us equally. That will be one of the great cardinal issues in the coming election. So that is why National has said it might have done certain things in the 1990s, but it has listened to the people who have said that it went too far. National has listened to the real concerns about the future viability of this nation and the way that people interrelate together. In the law itself, there should be one principle. People should not be sectioned out according to ethnicity, and then get special rights and obligations.

💬 Darren Hughes: How’s the polling going?

That is exactly what the junior whip wants. He wants to be able to divide people by their ethnicity, and to say that some get special rights that others do not, simply on the basis of ethnicity. We are opposed to this legislation on that fundamental ground itself.

Yes, I am focusing on the issues contained in clause 30, which are inherent in this bill—in its title and its conception. If we as a nation continue to go down that path, and in all general legislation always seek to identify Māori people as a special class with special rights and special privileges, then this country will falter. I have listened to many, many New Zealanders on the North Shore, and they do say they are worried about that trend. That is why there was such an outpouring about it. Even National did not understand the sense and depth of outpouring on that issue from the general public. Addressing that does call for some simple rules that are the foundation of every modern democracy: that the law applies to us equally, and that in democratic States we look first to the individual. We put the individual at the apex of our system, and rights are connected to individuals, not provided on the basis of people’s race and ethnicity. That is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.

This bill could have been made right, and National could have ended up supporting it. All that was required was for the Government to listen to two things. First the Government should have listened to all the submitters who said they wanted to have reference in the legislation to safety at reasonable cost because that was predictable, certain and known, and people could plan on that basis. Organisations and companies with literally billions of dollars of investments need to be given predictability, and they asked for predictability in their submissions. In fact they did more. They subsequently wrote letters to me and to Mr Williamson, and I guarantee that they wrote those same letters to the Minister of Transport as well, to ask him to reconsider the issue because they could see the danger of shifting away from a tried and true principle. Yet the Minister simply ignored them. So ignorant was the Minister on this issue that he came along to the Chamber earlier today and said there was, of course, a range of submissions, with some people saying yes, some saying no, and others saying maybe.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: A balance.

Labour talks about balance. Its balance, I guess, is that about 98 percent here and 2 percent there looks like fifty-fifty to it. That is the kind of balance the Government believes in. If the Minister, who is, after all, said to be the responsible Minister on this issue, had taken note of the submissions, he would have understood that particular issue. So we are opposed to this legislation on that basic issue in its own right.

The second point is one that I have mentioned, but I just want to restate my concern at what I find buried in this legislation—and this is a point of issue around general legislation. We should not be identifying people by race or by ethnicity, and then giving them special rights in general legislation. We acknowledge on the Opposition side of the Chamber that there is Māori land law, Māori language—all those things—and treaty settlements. In those things, obviously, we expect to find specific reference to Māori ethnicity and particular references to Māori, because we do understand our history. But we are into the 21st century. This Minister no doubt spoke to Shane Jones in the weekend. Shane Jones gave a very interesting interview earlier this week, in which he said: “Settling historic grievances was last century’s problem. That should not be the issue that we look toward in the 21st century. In the 21st century we should be looking at people achieving in their own right.”

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

I move, That the question be now put.

A great deal of legislation that we pass sets out to sustain the unsustainable, and to perpetuate behaviour that has no future. That has been true of most of the transport legislation that has come before this House, and of most of the transport initiatives that have been followed in this country for a very long time. This bill, I suggest, is culture-changing legislation, in that it sets out to persuade people to behave in ways that give my children a future, and to change the behaviour of waste. It sets out, in fact, to look at the underlying problems and to address them.

I have never driven. I have managed to live a reasonable life in spite of not having driven. Part of the reasonableness of my life has been that I have not had to run a car. I have worked fewer hours, spent less time in going to places, and spent less time in travelling than most people. I find it rather bizarre that in a time when we have never had so many cars and so many roads, we have never spent so much time in travelling. One has to say that, maybe, we have been getting it wrong. I would suggest that this piece of legislation, in fact, addresses that—getting it wrong—and tries to get it right.

What sort of a future are we looking for? A future where the streets are safe enough to send our kids out on to, a future where we actually have choices about how we get to places, and a future where, in fact, we will be able to climb into our motor cars when we need to, because I suggest they are going to be around for a while. This bill does that. This legislation is good, culture-shifting legislation. As I said before, not much of our legislation is culture-shifting legislation. Most of it sets out to perpetuate unsustainable behaviour. We probably do not have a lot of time to get more of this kind of legislation in front of the House. I think we have an aimlessness and a pointlessness out there that this legislation addresses, as well. One cannot have two cars in every garage. May I say that in the Tasman District—a district adjacent to my city of Nelson—67 percent of households last year had two or more cars. I tell members that the cost of those cars is that people are working to earn two or more incomes per family.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: That is their choice.

This bill does not take away choice; it gives choice—genuine choice. Having umpteen different models of motorcar is not choice. Having a choice between safe cycling, safe walkways, safe buses, regular buses, frequent buses, and one’s car is choice, and this bill sets out to give that kind of choice.

I mentioned earlier, and I have mentioned at times to the Minister, that I hope we will have the expertise to make sure that local authorities, in providing that choice, genuinely consider the needs of the transport disadvantaged in such a way as the rest of us, those of us who do climb into cars—and I am one of those these days; it is somebody else’s car and I pay for it, but I do climb into cars—but who actually have other choices. May I say I actually still catch the bus from the airport from time to time, and it is probably quicker than getting a cab. One might have to wait a little longer for the bus, but it gets one here to Parliament just about as quickly as a cab. It goes through the tunnel and misses out on the queues of traffic. That is the kind of future that I think this bill will provide for all New Zealanders. Wellington does that well. In Auckland one sits in queues of traffic that is going nowhere extraordinarily slowly. I fail to understand the good sense of that; I do not see any good sense in it. But Aucklanders do sit there forever in their cars, going nowhere.

So the Greens have much pleasure in supporting this legislation. We believe it is good legislation. We are proud to have been part of forming this legislation, and we look forward to seeing it passed.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Deborah Coddington: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has not been given a call on the title.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I seek leave for the ACT party to take one call, and for us then to proceed to the closure motion.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not.

I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to respond to that absolute nonsense from the Green Party. The title of this legislation—the Transport Legislation Bill—is very misleading. This legislation will do nothing to improve transport in New Zealand. In fact, it will set transport back two decades. The Green Party says that it increases choices. How can the Greens say it increases choices and at the same time be so opposed to cars? Cars give New Zealanders freedom of choice. They give old people, mothers, and families freedom of choice. Why does the Green Party think that bus transport is more sustainable, environmentally, than car transport? The Green Party members have obviously never been stuck behind a diesel bus that is grinding its way up a hill and belching out black diesel smoke. Cars have become more efficient and more environmentally pure than buses have in the last two decades.

The main objection that we heard from all the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was that this legislation codifies, for the first time, the Government’s specific land transport strategy. We heard from Business New Zealand, the Automobile Association, the Road Transport Forum, the Cycling Advocates Network, Federated Farmers, Queenstown Lakes District Council, and numerous other submitters whose concerns were ignored. They said that legislation should be flexible and robust enough to actually just accommodate a Government’s range of policies, rather than spell out, in word for word detail, the four objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy, which was written by Roland Sapsford from the Greens office in conjunction with Heather Simpson in the Prime Minister’s office. A deal was done whereby that strategy would be allowed to go through in return for the Greens’ support on the Supreme Court Bill. That was MMP at its worst.

Even though we are talking about land transport, which includes all the motorists in New Zealand who use the roads, let us not forget that this bill actually defines coastal shipping, barges, and ferries as land transport, as well. So this bill includes the users of all those services. New Zealand’s future economic viability is put at stake by this legislation.

💬 Darren Hughes: Nagger, nagger!

When that member’s voice breaks he may be able to get up, take a call, and contribute something sensible to the debate. Meanwhile he just sits there, chirping away—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please continue.

Overwhelmingly the submissions on the bill requested that the sustainability filter, which has now taken the place of safety at a reasonable cost, be changed. It has not really been changed; it has been tweaked and tinkered with. We now have more weasel words such as “maintain” and “improve”, but the only thing that is to be ensured under this legislation is environmental sustainability. How can one have transport legislation, for which the main objective—

💬 Darren Hughes: What a nagger.

That member obviously does not care about safety. He does not care that airlines, and the helicopter industry, will have to be more concerned about how they pollute the atmosphere than about the safety of their passengers. That is what this bill does, in stating that environmental sustainability will be ensured, but safety will be assisted. [Interruption]

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the Minister of Fisheries is under the influence. I think he was calling out “A party of crooks.”, or something similar to that. He is nodding his head. The Minister Mr Benson-Pope is completely out of order, and he should be required to withdraw and apologise for those remarks. He should sober up.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Prebble. I actually thought that I had heard that myself. If that was the case, I ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

I would have thought that it was a case of pots and kettles. To get back to the title, this bill amends already the legislation that we passed just last year. The Government could not get the legislation right last year. How do we know whether next year its transport policy may not change again? The Government itself may change. If that happens we will have to go through this whole process again, because this Government will have specifically written into the book its transport strategy.

I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2), the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 300.