Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

This is a very important bill affecting land transport in New Zealand. A lot of effort and work has been put into this legislation by many people. I will begin by thanking members and staff of the Ministry of Transport for the work they have done in helping to prepare this bill and servicing the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee during its hearings. I also thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the very good work they did on this bill during its time at that committee. In particular I acknowledge the chairmanship of Mark Gosche in steering this bill through the committee.

The bill is important because it has a number of key aspects to it. The first is that it reserves fuel excise duty for land transport purposes. This is something many members of this House have wanted for a long time, and in this respect I would like to acknowledge members like Peter Brown and Mark Gosche who have argued this for many years. This is called hypothecation—in other words, dedication of all funds that are taken from road users, either by a petrol excise duty, road-user charges, or motor vehicle licensing—and it is put into the National Land Transport Fund dedicated to transport. For many years Governments have dipped their hands into that money and spent it on other activities. No one is saying that they were not worthy activities, but the money was certainly not being spent entirely on transport. This bill ensures that whatever revenue is collected is then dedicated to transport.

It also introduces 3-year regional land transport programmes and a 3-year National Land Transport Programme. It puts in place a 3-year planning cycle, which is something people have said we have needed for a long time. The first real long-term planning came in Budget 2006 when we set out funding over a 5-year period. What came through very strongly was the need to have longer-term planning for our transport system to ensure that those who are building the roads, those who are providing the passenger transport, and those who are involved in the transport sector have the ability to plan ahead and know what they are doing.

It also provides for a 3-year Government policy statement. This is important. The Government policy statement will be set out for a 3-year period and it will be updated every 3 years so that we can ensure that people know the expectations of a Government and where its priorities are in transport. The bill also streamlines the membership of the land transport committees. As is known by many members in this House, land transport committees in some areas have been large and cumbersome and have found it hard to make decisions. The bill reduces the number of members on those committees while retaining community representation. It also brings about the merger of two Crown entities—Transit and Land Transport New Zealand—into a single statutory Crown entity. It implements much of the Next Steps review that we undertook in terms of changes to the transport sector. The aim is to have an efficient, safe, well-integrated transport system for New Zealand with every mode working well.

We know that transport is more than just roads. Roads are important, but it is more than just roads. This bill allows for the introduction of a regional fuel tax. A region can decide that it would like to bring in a regional fuel tax for a particular project it wants to bring forward and see funded. I see it as a very fair mechanism. For example, if Auckland wanted to bring in a regional fuel tax to electrify rail and ensure a better journey for those travelling on trains in Auckland, it would then, through a phased-in regional fuel tax, pay for it out of the region. I see that as being very fair, because people in Invercargill would say: “If everyone is getting their fair share of the National Land Transport Fund, then why would we pay for a project that Auckland wants over and above that fund?”. The regional fuel tax is not compulsory. It is not imposed; it is a tool in the tool box of regional councils and regional authorities around New Zealand if they wish to use it. They have to ensure that they have consulted with their community and that they have agreement on their priorities and their projects.

I will also talk briefly about the Supplementary Order Papers attached to this bill, particularly the one about which we have just had a debate about in terms of its inclusion in the bill. Rather than the Government forgetting about the workers, in less than 12 hours after the Toll sale being agreed to, we have introduced, through this Supplementary Order Paper, the retention of the superannuation rights of Toll workers. It could not have been done faster than the way this Government has done it, by adding a Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. [Interruption] A bill could not be introduced when the rail had not been purchased. It would be stupid to bring in a bill to protect superannuation rights when the trains have not been purchased. That is the sort of thing we might have got from National, but it certainly is not what one gets from this Government. Rather than forgetting the rights of workers, within hours we have ensured that their rights are retained, and those are the facts.

I was a little disturbed by the talk about forgetting about the workers. We all know that the workers of New Zealand got a 68c increase in the minimum wage over 9 years of a National Government. That is how much National cared about the workers, and New Zealanders should never forget that. Today National members are crying crocodile tears about the workers when we know that in 9 long years they increased the minimum wage by 68c.

The debate today on the Supplementary Order Paper being part of this bill is important. It told us that National opposed the purchase back of rail by the Government. That is what the debate told us, and I am glad New Zealanders were able to hear it. As I said, this is a very important bill for Parliament. I welcome the debate; it is timely. I commend the bill to the House.

I want to take the first of what I hope will be many calls that you will allow the Opposition, Mr Chairperson. One of the things that this Government is getting very cute at is bringing legislation to this Parliament. If we look at the size of the Land Transport Management Bill we see it is a 247-page bill but it is being brought in in only two parts. There is a Part 1, then a fractional Part 2 that contains a little bit of miscellaneous provision. Because of the way in which the debates now occur at the Committee stage we deal with bills part by part.

This is a massive Part 1 that is, as I said in my second reading speech, like the curate’s egg—it is good in parts. I will not even begin to say that this bill is bad across the board, but if things are done reasonably and this Parliament works as it should, members of the Opposition should be allowed to pick a 5-minute speech on each of about five or six of the main subjects the Minister has just covered. The Minister talked about Toll, then she talked about hypothecation, then she went on to talk about the Government policy statement, the planning cycle, and so on. I want to cover off a few of those things right now. I think the Minister is dead right about getting a more concentrated planning cycle that everyone can work around. I think it has been overdue for a long time and I congratulate her on legislation that sets up those structures.

But there is a range of questions that we want answered. For example, in relation to the regional petrol tax, which I hope to be able to cover as well, how come we now see an Supplementary Order Paper that instead of saying “You can introduce a regional petrol tax if you want.”, now states that there will be a schedule associated with it? Supplementary Order Paper 209 proposes to substitute a new subsection (4) of section 65G in clause 31. Subsection 4(b) states: “the total rate of any regional fuel tax scheme may not exceed—(i) 2 cents per litre … in 2009; and (ii) 5 cents per litre … in 2010.” That is really interesting, because later on I will refer to a quote by the Prime Minister, who said that she had no intention of allowing the regional petrol tax to be put on to long-suffering motorists “next year”. She made that comment in June 2008 so I presume “next year” means 2009. However, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, in almost flouting the wishes of her Prime Minister, has shoved a schedule into the Supplementary Order Paper to allow a rate of 2c in 2009.

There is more that National members would like to debate, if you will give us those calls, Mr Chair. The first is to do with the structure of the new agency, because I think it is always worth while trying to look for gains in efficiency of Government departments, not that that has happened under Labour when we look at the hugely bloated growth in bureaucracy and floor space in the 9 years since Labour came to power. If the Minister wants to debate that issue, I am happy to give her the total number of bureaucrats and the total amount of floor space that has been rented since Labour came in. I am happy to look at some efficiency gains, but we must always call into question those issues of conflict of interest.

I tell the Minister, and she probably remembers it well, that in the mid-1990s the clarion call from local government was that Transit, by being both the funder of roading and the provider of the State highway network, had a complete conflict of interest. I have the documentation and the letters from councils up and down the country. I dug them out of the box at the time the select committee process was going on. They told me over and over again—indeed, they kept beating me up—that I could not let Transit be the one who decides who gets what money and also be the operator of the State highway network, because Transit would continue to favour itself. In the end I gave into that, because I thought there was some real merit to the case that Local Government New Zealand and others were running—that there was that conflict. What is really interesting now is that we are putting them back together again. We are going to take the funding agency—that is, Land Transport New Zealand—which decides which projects get which money in each year, and then we are going to incorporate it back into that body and call it the New Zealand Transport Agency. That is the very body that is looking for State highway funding all the time, in the form of Transit New Zealand.

So again on one of the calls that I will take on Part 1, if we get them, I will explore whether there is enough protection. We were told at the select committee that there was. Interestingly, enough of those who should have been concerned about that conflict did not express it, and, in fact, when asked about it said that no, they thought there were enough protections. I would like the Minister, if she can, during one of her calls to give a detailed explanation to the Committee about how those protections will work to stop the agency being both the funder of roading and the owner and operator of the State highway network. If we talk about conflict of interest, I would have thought that today we have seen one of the most classic conflicts of interest ever to occur in this country. We have seen the Government buy back the rail network today, and today we have also seen the Government put an increase in road-user—

I welcome the member’s support for the changes that have been made in planning and funding. Obviously, the member, as a former Minister of Transport, understands those issues well. But I know that the issue of one agency was raised at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and that considerable debate took place at the committee about this issue. I know also that the chair of the establishment board, Brian Roche, appeared before the committee to talk about how the new board would manage the transparency between the operation of the old Transit agency and the responsibilities of Land Transport New Zealand.

My understanding is that a very good briefing and a very good understanding was given to the committee as to how the new agency would operate. A lot of thought has been put into the operation of the new agency to ensure transparency. That was a matter of concern, and I acknowledge we need to have transparency. My understanding is that a very good briefing was given to members, and that they could see a serious issue was being taken seriously and addressed by the establishment board and by those who have some knowledge of how the sector works. It is important that we do not ever have one part of an agency dominating any other part of the agency. Therefore, the way it operates and the transparency of the operation are very important issues. I think the previous speaker should have been reassured by the submissions made to the select committee, and no doubt the chair of the committee will talk further on this issue shortly.

The previous speaker is obviously interested in the regional fuel tax, and I know that the National Party is very keen for this Parliament to pass that part of the bill. National members do not wish to vote for it and they do not want to dirty their hands, but they do want it to be passed because they know it is another tool in the tool box. I am waiting to see whether Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will cross the floor of the Chamber and vote with the Labour Party and other members who are supporting this bill, to support the regional fuel tax. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has assured the people interested in Penlink, the people who are interested in building a road in their area, that he would cross the floor to support the regional fuel tax. This is the time for him to come to the Chamber and say he will do what he said he would do, for the sake of the people of Whangaparāoa. One cannot make those sorts of promises to people and think they will forget them. They do not forget them; they remember them. They have them in their minds. Those people took note of that, and they are waiting for Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to come to the Chamber and vote when we get to the vote on this part of the bill, to ensure that the regional fuel tax, as a tool for regional government, is able to be used.

I move, That the Committee report progress and sit again presently.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

House resumed.

Instruction to Committee