Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

It was interesting to listen to the Hon Maurice Williamson. People would never have thought, from the questions he was asking, that he was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that dealt with this bill. I am sure he was awake. I recall that he questioned people about the single agency, having gone on about the fact that he had created seven or eight separate bureaucracies. He is a member of the National Party, which has said it would get rid of bureaucracy. When we actually do that, National members vote against it. That tells us so much about the National Party. It created seven or eight different sets of bureaucracy in transport; we have pulled that number back to three or four.

We had very good information from the person who is putting in place the new agency—one Brian Roche. I know that the National Party trusts him, because both Governments have used him in very important roles. He was the head of Housing New Zealand when I became the Minister of Housing, and we have used him to chair the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. He is being used to put this agency together because he is a very competent gentleman—and so are the people who work with him.

This is interesting legislation. I think it is one of the most important that I have worked on in the 12 years that I have been in Parliament, because it finally addresses regional needs and gives regional government the power to fund regional needs. It gets us away from the issue of people in the South Island asking why they should pay for the creation of new infrastructure in Auckland, or people in Waikato asking why they should pay extra for Wellington infrastructure, and so on and so forth. It is interesting that National members will vote against it, because people in the Bay of Plenty will want to know why National members are voting against their having the ability to finance the $200 million worth of projects that they desperately want done, and that will not be done unless there is a regional fuel tax. People in the Wellington region will want to know why National members are voting against the $400 million worth—I think it was—of projects that will not be able to proceed if the regional fuel tax is not available to that region.

Of course, people in Auckland will want to know what the National Party would do to electrify its rail system. The other day I drove from Greenhithe to Mount Wellington. I was almost always on a motorway. I left Greenhithe at 4.30 p.m. and I got home just before 5 o’clock. I was driving on motorways that had been built by this Government; not one bit had been built in the 9 years of the National Government. I drove through “Spaghetti Junction”, which was built by this Government. National members opposite who say they are serious about infrastructure development are a joke. They are saying to the people in Auckland that they do not support their having public transport. I was able to make that journey in less than half an hour because Aucklanders are getting on public transport in a way that they have never done before. They are able to do that because we have spent real money on it—significant money. But we know that to meet the ongoing demand—and it is growing by the day—we need to electrify the rail system.

National members say they will do it by magic. They will not support this bill; they will have some other way of funding the electrification. Well, we are waiting to hear what that way is. Maurice Williamson is supposed to be the National transport spokesperson, and he has yet to say what its policy is to come up with $600 million to electrify the rail system—or whatever the sum might be. Aucklanders are waiting to hear. They want to put in an order for new electric trains, and they know that unless this bill is passed they will not be able to do that. They want some certainty about the funding. Will they get it from the National Party? No way.

Aucklanders and New Zealanders also want to know why the National Party is voting against hypothecation. For years those members have said that it is terrible to take money out of the petrol tax and road-user charges and use it for something else. National members will vote against that. They have to tell people why they will vote against it, because it was their big policy at the 2005 election, if I recall rightly. They were going to spend all the fuel tax on roads, Maurice Williamson said. But now he is going to vote against it. His party is going to vote against it. Why is it going to do that? Is it just to spite somebody on the Government side of the House? Is it just to spite New Zealanders who believe that it is the correct thing to do? Why is the National Party going to vote against hypothecation?

That was a very interesting speech from Mark “Julius” Gosche—the man who built every road that exists in Auckland and believes he is the founder of New Zealand’s transport system in the sense that every road he travels on has been built by the Labour Party. That is absolute rubbish. The reality is that this Labour Government has not completed the roading network in Auckland. It is a complete fabrication for its members to say they are doing it now. The reality is that they have not done it, and they will not do it, because they will not introduce a regional petrol tax. Their Prime Minister has said they will not introduce one next year. They are passing legislation today to give them the ability to put in a regional petrol tax, and then the Prime Minister says she is not going to introduce it! She will not go to the polls knowing she is telling the public of Auckland that they are going to have to pay another 10c on their fuel bills. She refuses to do it.

💬 Hon Annette King: That’s wrong.

The Minister of Transport is saying that that is wrong—it cannot be right. She is going to go out there and introduce a little bit of the tax so she can potentially go back to the people of Auckland and say they will have some certainty about their electric trains. The very thing Mark Gosche was talking about having certainty about—for the purchase of electric trains—is up in the air because the Prime Minister will not actually allow them to impose a regional petrol tax next year. She does not want to do it because it is not politically expedient for her to go into an election campaign with a regional petrol tax for the communities of Auckland and other big cities around this country.

The other thing Mr Gosche said that was quite interesting was that we need to give power to the regions so they can fund what they want to do. It was a very important point for him to emphasise—power to the regions. How come, in this legislation, he has not listened to what all the regions have said—apart from a few of the main cities that have a public transport issue? All the other regions wanted to have the ability to dictate where that 10c would go. The Waikato region, the Bay of Plenty region, and the Taranaki and King Country region wanted to have the ability to determine what that 10c was spent on. But in this legislation, there is a mandatory apportionment. I say to Mark: “Give power to the regions, if that is what you are going to do. If you are going to give them power, listen to their submissions, because their submissions said they wanted to have power to distribute that money. They did not want you to tell them they had to spend 5c on public transport. They wanted to have the ability to determine that for themselves.”

By not doing that, he is not giving power to the regions; he is doing what the Labour Party does, and knows it does best—telling people how to live their own lives. It is a party based on redistribution and on the principle that it knows better. The regions went to you in this select committee process, they came in front of you, and they implored you to take—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

—into account the wishes of the regions. The regions want to have the ability to distribute that money in the manner that fits their requirements. The Labour Party will not allow that. The Labour Party will not allow the regions to do what they wanted to do, and its members ask why we vote against it. Why would we vote for something that all the regions, apart from some of the main centres, said they found was a problem? Why put through legislation that the regions are not happy with? It does not make any sense. The regions came to the select committee and they had a reasonable, rational case for them to be able to distribute that 10c according to their needs, and the Labour Government ignored them. It ignored them because it is paying back the Greens.

That is what it is doing with this legislation. It is not about what is right for New Zealand, it is not about what the regions want, it is not what the regional land transport committees around the country have been advocating or seeking; it is what this Labour Government needs to do to stay in power. It needs to get the Greens onside, and to do that it has compromised the select committee process, it has compromised the submissions of all those regions—all those rural, provincial regions that came out and said: “Just give us the ability to determine what we do with that money; just give us that power.” What was so hard about that? Why cannot the Government of the day give the regions of New Zealand the power to decide what happens with that money? No, it will not do that. That is the fundamental problem with this legislation; it is the fundamental problem with this Government.

I am happy to take a short call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and particularly on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 209. I realise that I left the House somewhat on tenterhooks on Thursday afternoon when I drew attention in my second reading speech to what I called then the Minister’s pork-barrel clause, whereby the projects that the Ministers can decide should occur in Auckland—not in any other region, but with the second 5c in Auckland—were not subject to any set of Auckland regional priorities. I was particularly concerned that in a bill that strengthens the role—quite rightly, we in the Greens think—of the regional land transport strategy and adopts the principle that regions can determine their own destiny, their own priorities, for expenditure and whether to levy a regional fuel tax, it was quite inappropriate for Ministers then to be able to impose projects on Auckland that were not in accordance with the priorities in the regional strategy. The Supplementary Order Paper fixes that, and we are very happy that that has been fixed.

The Supplementary Order Paper adds a short statement to new section 65N(1), inserted by clause 31, which states that the Ministers must be “satisfied that the projects are consistent with the Auckland regional land transport strategy”. That is a big improvement. It closes a big loophole that the Greens were very concerned about, and we are now able to vote for the bill. Although we are not ecstatic about everything in the bill, we are now able to vote for the bill on balance without further reservations.

The Auckland regional land transport strategy was prepared under a very democratic process, as provided for in the Land Transport Management Act. There was large-scale consultation. As I recall, about five options were put out, although it may have been six, for the balance of expenditure between roads and rail, and for different kinds of projects that were to be funded over the long term in the region. The public got involved and chose which option they wanted to go for. They chose well, in my view. They said that they needed to get the rail system fixed and that it was a high priority, and they chose option five, which did that. It would be quite inappropriate to allow that decision to be overturned for projects that did not even make it on to Auckland’s priority list at all to be funded by the Minister’s 5c, which, let us remember, is not money that comes from central government. The Government, for that second 5c in Auckland, raises the loan and puts it on the Crown’s balance sheet, which does not require any immediate expenditure, but it is Auckland that pays an extra 5c on its petrol to raise the money to service that loan. If Auckland is paying to service the loan, then it is essential that Auckland gets to say what projects it is used for.

I am very glad that has been fixed. I thank the Minister for recognising the danger, going into the future, that some future Minister might use it for totally pork-barrel reasons, which would not be appropriate.

It still, however, leaves the fundamental problem of transport funding, and that is the financial assistance rate. We still have a problem that if Auckland, and I use Auckland as an example but it is the same anywhere, wants to build a State highway for Aucklanders to use to get from one side of Auckland to the other—let us say State Highway 20—then that is 100 percent funded out of the National Land Transport Fund, paid into by motorists across the country. OK, fine; it is like that in every region. But if Auckland wants to improve its rail system to carry millions more passengers from one side of Auckland to the other, performing exactly the same function, then Auckland has to find at least half of the money to do that. If we compare dollar for dollar, rail is the better option.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I took an Auckland-focused interest in this bill because that is where I live and have worked for many, many years, and it is where my family live. Over those years I have travelled up and down the pitiful motorways that we had in the 1990s and experienced the years of transport neglect that we saw under past administrations, particularly National administrations. It is a great pleasure to see this bill come in, on top of all the things that this Government has already done.

I heard one of the members opposite calling out that Mark Gosche did not take public transport to his place at Greenhithe. He did not say that, actually. He said that he drove. If he had wanted to take the bus he could have used the northern busway, which is a fantastic investment in the area that I work in, on the North Shore. I was present at the opening of the busway. I walked along the motorway with the Prime Minister.

💬 Dr Jonathan Coleman: I thought you worked in South Auckland.

No, I work on the North Shore. I tell Jonathan Coleman to catch up. It was a very proud moment to see the railway on wheels that we have on the North Shore.

I live in the west of Auckland, even though I work on the North Shore. I live in a part of the town that is serviced by the railways. My experience of them has been very interesting. Apart from the fact that my son worked as a ticket collector on the railways for years, when he was at university, I remember what a mess they were. The railways were single tracks, so they were very, very slow. The rolling stock that was bought had mud and grass hanging out of it, the railway stations were run down—they were not a particularly nice place to be—and the trains ran on single lines. There were years and years of argument about that, and about how we would pay for them to be fixed. I am really pleased that one of the provisions in this bill will enable the electrification of rail. The Government, of course, has already assisted with double tracking of the rail in Auckland. That is well under way, and it is making a huge difference.

The National Party needs to answer some questions about its opposition to this bill. People in Auckland are quite worried about National’s opposition and what it means. How will we pay for the electrification of railways if a future National administration decides it is not a good idea?

💬 Hon Member: It won’t happen.

Well, that is true. We do not have to worry, I suppose, but these are the questions that are being posed. The other day Brian Rudman in the New Zealand Herald said that Mr Williamson should tell us what his party will do in Government if the regional fuel tax becomes law in a few weeks, despite National’s opposition to it.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: They don’t have any ideas and don’t have any policy.

That is right. That is the problem. National members do not have any ideas, and they are not telling anybody what their plans are. It is of great concern to the people who live in Auckland, and it is of great concern to the workers of Auckland who are relying increasingly on public transport. We heard a ridiculous display from National members this afternoon. They were trying to pretend that they care about workers. It was just astonishing. It really was one for the books.

This Government has expanded public transport funding. The Minister said in the House today that funding was frozen at $40 million during the 1990s, and now it is 15 times as much as that. But we will have to continue with investment in public transport, and that is what this bill enables people in Auckland to do through the contribution of the regional fuel tax.

I am also interested, as one who works on the North Shore, in Penlink.

💬 Hon Member: When?

Has the member not seen my office in Birkenhead? He should come and visit me. I would be happy to welcome him to my office at 88 Birkenhead Road. The Penlink people have come to see me, as well. They are very, very concerned, and I am very, very concerned, about what might happen if this bill is not passed and the regional fuel tax does not go through. I wonder what Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith will be saying to those people when he has to explain to them next week that National voted against this bill. What will be his answer? What is going to happen next? People from Dr Smith’s electorate are very concerned. They came to our select committee and talked about Penlink and their support for this bill, yet their local MP is voting against it.

I am really pleased as an Aucklander, and as someone who has worked there for years and years, to see this bill come through and to see some answers for once—building on the years and years of work this Government has done—to our public transport issues.

It is a pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to make a contribution to the Committee stage of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I want to talk specifically to new section 4, inserted by clause 5, which refers to the Treaty of Waitangi, and to take this opportunity to express the disquiet New Zealand First has in terms of this provision. Section 4, as it stands now, states: ”In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Māori to contribute to land transport decision-making processes …”. I have submitted, on behalf of New Zealand First, an amendment to omit the words “principles of the” but to still retain reference to the Treaty of Waitangi.

New Zealand First’s position in respect of that wording should not come as any surprise to this Committee. Our amendment shows that New Zealand First is consistent on this matter, and is an indication of our strong feelings and belief that undefined principles by this House have no real benefit for this bill. It is not about doing away with the Treaty, as some of our opponents would like this House—and, indeed, the New Zealand public—to believe; nor is it about doing away with reference to the Treaty in legislation. We would like to see references to the Treaty retained but not references to the principles, because they are undefined and lead to a lot of unclear understanding.

I want to give an example of how that applies in our society today. At the moment we have 21 different district health boards, each required to deliver health services that give due recognition to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. First, I suggest to members of the Committee that each district health board probably has a different understanding of what those principles are. Secondly, I had the privilege of availing myself of our wonderful health service about 18 months to 2 years ago, and after my operation I asked the surgeon under which principle of the Treaty of Waitangi he had undertaken his service to me. He could not give an answer. He told me just to be thankful that he was able to carry out his duty. That doctor was able to do that without any reference to the meaning or understanding of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I suggest that this bill will be just as effective without references to undefined principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and I hope the Minister will consider lending some support to the amendment I have presented on behalf of New Zealand First. Again, I say to the Committee that New Zealand First does have difficulty in terms of supporting the bill if the words “the principles of” are retained in new section 4. We have no difficulty with the section as it is proposed if those words are omitted. Kia ora.

I am looking forward to seeing whether the Government rejects New Zealand First’s amendment. Does that mean New Zealand First would then not support—

💬 Hon Member: Will you support it?

My learned colleague Maurice Williamson has already given that indication. But we will be interested to see whether New Zealand First pulls its support for the bill if the Labour Government does not accept its amendment.

I want to talk about two points. Part 1 is the largest part in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, and there are quite a few issues that I would like to raise with the Committee. In one of the regulatory impact statements—that is, the reasons why this bill entered the House—the advisers pointed out that there is a need to meet a national transport objective. They said that the existing organisation and the existing structures are not clear, and, because of that, they are not delivering the Government’s priority objectives. However, it is difficult to deliver the Labour Government’s objectives, because in previous years it has talked about such things as having economic transformation and sustainability; this year it has dropped that completely and talks about an emissions trading scheme. So it is difficult for the various agencies of local government that are supposed to deliver Government objectives if the Government is not very clear about what objectives it is going to pursue.

I want to share with the public that I doubt very much whether the passage of this bill will make it easier, because it talks about these agencies grouping themselves together and delivering the objectives set out in the GPS, which, I presume, is something akin to a Government policy statement. Part 1 gives the definition of GPS, and section 84, inserted by clause 32, states: (1) “A GPS, which is issued by the Minister every 3 financial years, enables the Minister to—(a) guide the Agency and the land transport sector on the outcomes and objectives, and the short- to medium-term impacts, that the Crown wishes to achieve—(i) through the national land transport programme; and (ii) from the allocation of the national land transport fund; and (b) link the amount of revenue raised from road users with the planned levels of expenditure …”. This is all very good, until we get to the next section. Section 85 states: “To avoid doubt, a GPS is not—(a) a direction for the purposes of Part 3 of the Crown Entities Act 2004; and (b) a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989; and (c) a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989.”

So one could be forgiven for asking whether this Government policy statement is really going to give clear direction to the super-transport agency that Part 1 is going to set up. We know what the Government policy statement is not, but we are not clear what it is. Anyway, in the preparation of the Government policy statement section 87 states: “(1) The Minister must, in preparing the GPS—(a) be satisfied that the GPS—(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system; and (ii) contributes to each of the following: (A) assisting economic development: (B) assisting safety and personal security: (C) improving access and mobility:”—unlike the Prime Minister’s motorcade that parked on the disabled parking bay, I presume that means—“(D) protecting and promoting public health: (E) ensuring environmental sustainability;”.

Maybe the Minister can take a call and explain to us how any agency or any Government policy statement will satisfy this motherhood and apple pie stuff, because formulating a plan that tries to achieve all of these at times conflicting objectives would be almost impossible. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us what the time line is, in terms of issuing the Government policy statement that takes into account all these objectives—which, of course, are all fantastic and well meaning.

But I can just imagine anybody who wants a public transport system—a rail or roading project—simultaneously achieving all those objectives about protecting and promoting public health. I presume it means that somehow we have to look at fuel usage or the design of the bus or rail carriages. I am not too sure what else we can do to promote public health. After all, at the select committee the Labour members said they were not actually very happy with advertisements on buses. I thought we could promote health with messages on buses, but they said they did not want to see any messages promoting public health on buses. Also, how do we assist safety and personal security? They are very lofty ideas. I am not sure how they will all be carried out.

National members are not the only ones who have lots of concern about this bill. I want to share with the Minister, the Committee, and the public the view of Local Government New Zealand, which is the, shall I say, overall coordinating body for all local government in New Zealand. Local Government New Zealand, like most people, supports the general intent of the bill. But it is worried. Firstly, it feels that the consultation and the provision in the bill would not foster the partnership relationship, and, as we know, the Labour Government has always claimed it is in partnership with local government. But Local Government New Zealand believes that this bill is being imposed on it, rather than being developed in a partnership way.

Secondly, it is very concerned about accountability. It wants to know how the creation of a super-agency—the New Zealand Transport Agency, which will end up encouraging a top-down process planning, will be driven by a technical consideration, and will be solely focused on a national solution—would be beneficial to the regions. I think it has raised a very, very good point. It uses the example of local communities in the Bay of Plenty and Christchurch. Apparently, those two good cities have successfully used non-statutory agreements founded on best practice and political agreement to develop long-term strategies. Their big concern with the existence of this super-agency is whether those local community - derived solutions will still have room to blossom.

The other issue I have raised before about that lofty idea of the Government policy statement concerns how the consultation requirements will be conducted under this bill. Local Government New Zealand reckons there is duplication between the consultation requirement under this bill and the Local Government Act 2002. I cannot say that Local Government New Zealand is a body that will be anti-transportation. It raised concerns, firstly, about the super-bureaucracy, and, secondly, about the fact that the partnership approach was touted but was not implemented during the development of this bill. So with the super-agency that will be created, how will this genuine partnership exist? I do share its concern about the duplication of roles within the bureaucracy.

I am sure that the Hon Maurice Williamson would have shared with us again the fact that 10 years ago he was being got at on a daily basis about the super-agency that should be broken up, because the national interest has always overridden the regional interest in terms of transport. So he conceded that, and then 10 years later, it is a case of back to the future.

I will take just a very brief call to answer the member’s questions, particularly around the Government policy statement. One of the issues that has been of concern to Local Government New Zealand is that our transport planning has never lined up with local government planning, and, of course, it is a major partner in transport and has a major responsibility for its ratepayers’ funding. So the Government policy statement lines up with local government’s long-term council community plans. Local government is on a 3-year funding planning cycle and the Government policy statement actually lines up with that. We will put out a Government policy statement that local authorities can then take into account in their long-term funding proposals. This is something that local government has asked for and something that the Government policy statement enables.

The first Government policy statement will be issued in July. The consultation has taken place with many stakeholders by first issuing what we called a trends and issues paper. Through that consultation, which we did with many of the stakeholders, including Local Government New Zealand, we have been able to include the issues that local government would like to see addressed in a Government policy statement. We release that and then local authorities can use it for their long-term planning for local government. It finally lines up a whole lot of issues that are not taken into account now when we are planning for transport, and I think it is a very sensible move.

In accordance with the decision of the Business Committee for Dr Russel Norman to give his maiden statement at 5.30, I will report progress and ask to sit again presently.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.