Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

With regard to this opportunity of debating a bill to amend the principal Act, the Land Transport Management Act 2003, I could not let the opportunity go past to test just whether the Government is genuinely serious about welcoming public-private partnerships—that is, private-sector participation. When I have looked at projects overseas on a regular basis, from the Millau Bridge in the south of France to the M6 Toll in Birmingham to the M7 in Sydney to the ConnectEast project in Melbourne, I have seen that those projects have all had a concession period in the order of 50, 60, or sometimes 65 or 70 years. The private funders have all said to me that the legislation in New Zealand is so restrictive, at 35 years maximum, that every time they try to configure up a funding proposal, they find that they just simply cannot make the return in that time frame.

Thirty-five is not the absolute number, because if we read the principal Act, it states that the term of a concession agreement must not exceed 35 years, and the Minister gets to set what that time is. It may be that the Minister chooses 25 or 35 years, but I would like to remove that artificial limit of 35 years, so I have put forward an amendment to the principal Act that changes the figure from “35” to “70”. I stress again to members that that is just a maximum. It will be a real test as to whether Labour really does want the private sector involved in public-private partnerships, because that would be the one issue that I have had raised with me as being the barrier, more than any other, by the financial institutions. If 35 years has to be the limit to recover one’s net investment in the public-private partnerships, then it just cannot work. I would say to the Minister again that she should look at any of the very successful public-private partnerships that we know about, including some that I have seen around the place—certainly in New South Wales, Victoria, Britain, France, and other places—and she will find that none of them have been able to be configured up with a concession period of 35 years. That is the reason for the amendment I am putting forward in my name.

I will come back to the eastern suburbs of Auckland, because that poses an important question. People ask me where, if they are to pay a regional petrol tax, their double-track, electrified railway line is. They ask where their dedicated busway is. Where are their options to use public transport? The people of Invercargill do not want to pay for all of these things, but why should the people of the east Auckland area pay for all these things when there is no railway line in sight for them? There probably never will be, because of the economics of trying to build a new railway passenger system and so on. I think that those people have a genuine issue.

The next issue I would raise with the Minister, which is quite an interesting one that needs some work done on it, is to do with the fact that the power has now been granted to the Secretary for Transport to designate what a State highway is. One of the problems we have had in this country for a long time—and I acknowledge that it was the case under both National and Labour, so I am not getting at anybody—is that the designation between either State highway or local road is too much of a blunt instrument. I think that we probably need to go to, say, a three or four-tier category, like a number of other jurisdictions do. We should have roads of national importance, roads of regional importance, roads of strategic importance, and then local roads. I find it bizarre that in my electorate, when I look out of my electorate office each day, I look out on to the six-lane Pakuranga Highway, which carries 64,000 vehicles per day. I want to stress that number, because it is more vehicles per day than any other road other than the motorway—64,000 vehicles per day; more vehicles than any road other than the motorway. Yet that is a local road, funded, administered, and operated by Manukau City and its ratepayers. I wonder why that is, when I can look at another road elsewhere, even in Auckland, that, because it has the designation “State Highway” in front of it, is 100 percent funded from petrol tax and road-user charges because people were lucky enough to get that designation.

I think that if there is one thing we will need to do in the future, and I know that other jurisdictions have done it quite well, it is to try to segment the various roads. We will have to say that this is a road of national importance and it will be 100 percent, this is a road of regional importance and it will be 75:25, and this is a road of local importance and it might be 50:50, as we do. It may be that we could even get down to some small roads that are more the property developer and local territorial authority’s responsibility to be funding the vast bulk of, but I would just stress again that I am not sure whether giving the Secretary for Transport this power is the right thing to do. I know that when Transit used to do the complete review of what was designated in the State highway system each year, there were all sorts of pressures on people. Some of the local authorities wanted their roads out of their books and they wanted them moved to being State highways, because if they could get that, then those roads would be 100 percent funded by the State. Others were always on about and asking why this road was a State highway and another road was not. This legislation will confer to the Secretary for Transport quite strong powers.

The last thing I want to do is to mention what I think is grossly unfair, and I hope that at some stage this matter can be reconsidered, and that is the representation on the regional transport committees by road users. It was brought to our attention along the way by the Road Transport Forum and by the Automobile Association that their people pay for all of this, and I guess that is exactly right. It is the motorcar driver and the truckdriver who pay either the petrol tax or the road-user charges, and, therefore, they should seriously have a voice. It should not have to be a crowded-out voice or multiple voices, where they can win the day by their numbers, but I would have thought that the old “no taxation without representation” principle really, really should have kicked in here. Yet the regional transport committees—we are dropping the word “land”, I remember—are still not acknowledging that those people have a right to both be represented and have voting rights. Yes, they have to be consulted, but so too does Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and everybody else. If we look at the consultation list I cannot think of anybody who will not be consulted along the way; in fact, we probably should have put in an amendment stating that anyone who was not consulted will be anyway. But these people are the ones who pay the piper. I think that the Automobile Association and the Road Transport Forum represent very well the vast bulk of either motorcar drivers or commercial road users, and I would have thought that letting them have a place at the table of the regional transport committees that are setting regional strategies would be the right thing to do.

I said that that would be my last point, but I would point out one other problem I have with regional transport programmes. Something like the Kōpū Bridge is in the Waikato zone. I know that for the Waikato region, Kōpū Bridge is not its high priority. It is not its highest priority; there are lots of things to do with the Waikato Expressway and lots of things to do with other roads around Hamilton, Cambridge, Huntly, and Ngāruawāhia. But the biggest priority of the Kōpū Bridge rests with people from Auckland and with people from the Coromandel who are trying to get to and from Auckland. We have people living on one side of the region who are trying to get through that bottleneck to the other side, and when they are locked, blocked, and stopped, it is by far a major priority. But when it comes time for the region where that located point is to set its priorities, it does not. So, again, one of the issues we have about informing the National Land Transport Programme is that it should be very careful not to be driven solely by the regional plans. Thank you, sir.

I move, That the question be now put.

When we look at the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that is before us we see that it includes the regional petrol tax, which is the part of the legislation that everybody has been focusing on. I will come back and focus on that as well, but, first, I want to draw the attention of the Committee to another part of the bill, which is to do with representation on regional transport committees. This legislation provides for a certain number of Government appointees to represent certain areas. I believe there are five such appointees to represent the areas mentioned in the New Zealand Transport Strategy, and there is to be formal representation on each transport committee to that effect.

The problem with that is that if there is a full complement of appointees, which would be the norm, then there is the potential that in some regions the number of local government representatives may be fewer than the number of Government appointees on the regional committee. There would be the potential, if, say, a busy mayor did not attend a meeting, for the Government-appointed officials on the committee to be in the majority; the elected representatives from that region would not have a majority at that meeting. I believe that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we had the numbers on the potential for that to happen. A number of committees represent areas that do not have a lot of territorial authorities within their region and this situation could potentially happen to them. So there is then a dilemma if a regional transport committee’s decision making is being made by appointees rather than by elected representatives. There would be a tremendous uproar in many areas if people knew that the decision makers were not their elected people but, rather, the appointees under certain requirements in the legislation. That could be a fish-hook that comes out in the future and it is something that the Committee needs to be aware of.

The regional petrol taxes present an interesting dilemma. We have already touched on the fact that the regions are not being given the discretion to determine how to use that money. There is no discretion, it is a mandatory apportionment—5c one way and 5c the other way. It is 5c for roading and 5c for public transport. A slight amendment was made to that at the select committee to bump up the 5c for roading and to take a little bit off the 5c for public transport in relation to things like walking and cycling, but those components were minor. That defies the submissions we received from around the regions, which wanted discretion. It was obvious that the regions wanted the ability to determine their own future and not to have a mandatory clause saying that it was a 5c-5c split.

When we spoke to those regions we indicated that we would put forward an amendment to that effect. However, it appears that we do not have the numbers for that amendment to go through. It will be interesting to see whether the New Zealand First Party will make a commitment when Peter Brown gets up to speak as to whether it is in favour of the 5c-5c split, as in this legislation, or whether it would give regions such as the Bay of Plenty, which has asked for discretion in relation to the 10c.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Taranaki.

Yes, and Taranaki and Waikato. New Zealand First indicated at the select committee that the discretion was of prime importance and it is now time for that party to stand up and deliver. If it does so, then we may have the numbers to achieve that goal.

💬 Peter Brown: Have you got a Supplementary Order Paper in?

We will if the member agrees to do it.

💬 Peter Brown: Oh, it depends on us!

Yes, it does in this case, because the public needs New Zealand First to do what it says it will do at the select committee, and not to come to this Chamber and change its mind as it normally does and just vote with the Government. That is the reality—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: We’re trying to be nice to him!

Yes, but to see some honesty from that party would be good in this case.

Basically this legislation takes away the ability of regions to determine their own future. It is set up on the basis that we will have a mandatory 5c-5c split for regions. The history of that is that in Auckland there is a need for public transport, and electrification was the big justification for this initial 5c—

I move, That the question be now put. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am a little bit slow on my feet nowadays. It has been a long day and I was beaten by the two members opposite who were seeking the call. Had I thought you would give me the call I certainly would have sought it, because I have not yet had a call in this debate. It is a very important bill. There is a whole range of aspects to it that have yet to be touched on. I urge you—

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

I had not quite finished my point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, Mr Brown.

I was simply urging you to reconsider. If you will not reconsider, then I seek leave to have at least one call. To be honest I would like more than one call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brown.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wanted to note that Colin King came down to the Chamber specifically to talk about Part 1 in relation to an issue in his own electorate in Blenheim. He is keen to take a call on this.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to members that I have accepted the closure and the only way this can happen now is for the member to seek leave to take the call.

I seek leave to take a call, for no longer than 30 minutes.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member being serious? Is he seeking leave for one 5-minute call?

I seek leave to take a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

There are aspects of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that New Zealand First is very happy with. I will name those aspects briefly, and I think the Committee is well informed on them. The first is the hypothecation of all the excise tax taken on petrol. We think that is long overdue. I think we are the only party that has consistently advocated for that, and we have done so since our formation. We are delighted that that will occur. We also like the idea that the excise tax taken on petrol that goes into leisure boats will be used for search and rescue activities in respect of that industry.

But we do have some concerns. One is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. We object very strongly to having the words “principles of the” in front of the words “Treaty of Waitangi”. Nobody knows what that means. Nobody has been able to tell us what it means. We think those words should be deleted.

We also have concerns about the regional fuel tax regime as it is stated in the bill. We will support the Minister’s amendments because they improve the regime. We have an amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to add another criterion that will make the whole thing subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. We are hopeful that the Committee will see its way to supporting that, because it seems logical.

I know that regional councils want a regional tax, but there is a better way of doing it. There is a better way of achieving the same end, and that is to hypothecate part of the GST taken on petrol into a regional fund and allow regions to bid for it. I suggest that anything over 20c a litre of GST taken on petrol is windfall GST. A year ago the GST on petrol was 17 point something cents a litre—today it is 23c. So 4c a litre going into a regional fund would solve all the problems. It will not add to motorists’ costs, and it will provide a fund that the regions could dip into, for want of a better term, on a project-by-project basis. I urge the Committee to give serious consideration to that.

New Zealand First will vote against the provision dealing with the regional fuel tax, even with the amendments. I urge the Māori Party to give consideration to our GST idea. I know that my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, has spoken to the members of the Māori Party, and I hope they take that on board. If they vote for this provision just as it is, then they are adding cents per litre simply for regions.

I think it was the Hon Maurice Williamson who outlined that not every area in the country will benefit from the regional fuel tax. The regions will pay it, but not every township will benefit. It is better that the money required is taken from the windfall GST. That would be acceptable right across this country. That would be easily done. The other night I spoke informally to the Minister of Revenue, the Hon Peter Dunne, and in two sentences he indicated how easily it could be done.

💬 David Bennett: What about the 5c-5c split?

I say to Mr Bennett that I am serious when I say that I did not make any promises about that whatsoever, except that New Zealand First would look at any Supplementary Order Paper provided by the member. But that member is too darn lazy to get off his butt and produce a Supplementary Order Paper. Had he done so, we would have given it serious consideration, but I am not paid to do his work. I am not paid one cent to do his work. I have watched his performance at the select committee with interest, and I see that he is carried by his senior colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson. If it were not for Maurice Williamson on that committee, the National Party would be hopeless. I do not agree with everything the Hon Maurice Williamson says, but I know he puts in the time and effort required to put his view across.

To come back to the issue of a regional fuel tax, I say that we have an amendment in the name of our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to insert a clause to make the regional fuel tax subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. That is a common-sense amendment, but I make it clear that after that it is very, very unlikely that New Zealand First will support the segment of the bill that deals with the regional fuel tax. We say there is a better alternative.

I seek leave to take a call.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.