Public Transport Management Bill

I wish to advise members that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to an amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to omit clause 15. The amendment, therefore, is out of order and no question will be put on it. However, the veto certificate may be debated in the context of this part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My understanding is that the financial veto and its provisions are to avoid the Crown being exposed to any financial liability. If you look at the amendment I am talking about, then you will see that it may expose some regional councils to some liability to pay some compensation for declining, but there is nothing in that that would force the Crown to have to compensate any regional council for that. If we set this as a precedent, then we could allow the financial veto to be used on any legislation that may impact on revenues for any territorial local authorities, regional councils, or whatever.

I would really like the Speaker of the House to give a more considered ruling on this, because I have always understood that the financial veto applies only where there is a direct relationship and an exposure for the Crown. There is no mandatory requirement for the Crown to settle any compensation if they are declined.

💬 Hon Annette King: Where do you think they get their money from?

Well, there is the Minister chipping in on a point of order, which she should not be doing—and her microphone is live and she should shut her mouth, but frankly—

💬 Jill Pettis: Oh, Maurice!

Actually, she should. And as this is a point of order, that member should shut hers, too.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please be seated. First of all, the Minister could not be heard on the microphone, because I had my finger on it so she could not be heard. The other thing is that I would remind members that when there is a point of order on the floor, it is terse and to the point, and no one says anything other than the member addressing the Chamber.

I will leave it at that, and I would not mind, if it is possible, someone giving us a clarification, because I do believe that this move expands the use of a financial veto way beyond what Parliament and the Budgets of Ministers of Finance have to include. The Government funds a whole lot of organisations. If we were passing legislation that might make another organisation have some money shortfall and mean that the Government would have to come and pick that up, then immediately the financial veto would kick in, and there is no end to where that might lead.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member. I just refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 115/1, and I will read it for the member’s benefit: “During the committee of the whole House, the Government will be able to make a submission to the chairperson that an amendment or a change proposed to be moved, appears to have more than a minor impact on the fiscal aggregates … and 24 hours’ notice has not been given. If there is doubt about whether a proposed amendment may have more than a minor impact … and 24 hours’ notice has not been given, the proposed amendment or change should be ruled out. The onus is on a member proposing to move an amendment to a bill … to give 24 hours’ notice if there is any possibility that the amendment may have an impact on the fiscal aggregates …”. So the Speaker’s ruling is quite specific, but it does not stop the member from debating the issue.

I think that is an issue. When I was writing this stuff I did not have any—any—belief that this amendment has an impact on the fiscal aggregates, and I think it would be very hard for a member to believe it would. It does not have any mandatory requirement for the Crown to pay anything to anybody. I would have put it in 24 hours sooner if I thought that this would mean an exposure to the Crown. It is not. I am just saying that this is an incredibly long bow to draw, because if, for instance, the Arts Council or the ballet or something else found it had a shortfall because of some legislation, then the Government could say it was ruling it out because it might have to pick it up at some later stage. There is no mandatory requirement for the Government to pick up any of the regional councils’ costs for declining a service. That is why I think that this issue needs to be referred to the Speaker. I am happy for it to be left in abeyance and for the veto to sit for now, but I would like some further advice brought to the members of this Committee, because it goes well beyond what I thought the financial veto does.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. I just say that I have made a ruling on it and I have given the member the Speaker’s ruling. I might also add that the amendment may have more than a minor impact, and that is straight from the Speaker’s ruling. The member may, of course, debate the issue here, and I am happy to move on with that now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would draw your attention to Standing Order 320(1), and for your benefit, I will read it out: “A certificate relating to a bill may be given only when the bill is awaiting its third reading.” In that context and in the context of Standing Order 320(4) can I suggest, as Mr Williamson suggests, that the matter be left until a later date.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I tell the member that I have already made that decision. I refer the member to Standing Order 319(1).

As the financial veto is now part of the debate—with you having made your ruling, Mr Chairman—perhaps for the benefit of the member who has raised it, I should say that the reason given for the veto and for the Government not concurring is that exposing regional councils to the liability to pay compensation for declining to register commercial services may expose councils and, therefore, the National Land Transport Fund to significant financial risk. As the member knows, the majority of the money for passenger transport services comes through the National Land Transport Fund. That is the reason the veto has been provided.

We now move into Part 2, which is by far the real substance of the Public Transport Management Bill. I will just allude to some factors about the amendments that I have proposed. If members want to follow along, then they are welcome to look at my explanatory notes that follow my amendments, starting on page 14. In these notes I make it clear that the amendments will allow for—and I stress that they will allow for—integrated network planning under regional public transport plans, or RTPs. They will allow for integrated ticketing and integrated fares, but not to the extent of restricting individual operator discounting policies or requiring without adequate compensation an operator to incur reduced fares from its usual rate as a result of integrated fares. These are, I think, sensible provisions.

I want the Committee to just focus on how the bill got to where it is. I am told—and I have no reason to disbelieve it—by the Bus and Coach Association and by a number of bus operators that a series of meetings and consultations occurred back in 2006, at which the Government, quite properly, said that it was concerned about public transport and its management and about how it could get the best value for the dollar, and that it would embark on putting in place a new regime. The Bus and Coach Association and its various members were fine with that. They met and cooperated in what was a fairly extensive process of consultation. If that is not true, then I would like the Minister to pick that up at any stage and say that it did not happen.

What happened at the end of that consultation, and what was then taken to Cabinet in February 2007, was a position that—although some players were slightly aggrieved with it—all players in the Bus and Coach Association, as a representative of all the bus operators, could actually live with. It was called option B and had some reasonably sensible provisions in it. It likely went a bit far for some players, but, as far as the Government was concerned, it was about the best compromise and it was the right way to go. The bus operators who came to those meetings and consultations walked away confident that that was what was coming as legislation, so did the Bus and Coach Association. But when the bill finally hit this House a few months ago, they were simply gobsmacked to see that what the actual legislation—the words in the bill—said was not close to what the agreed position had been. They were pretty disgruntled about that. They actually started to blame officials, which I said was a bit unfair. They said that some real tangles had obviously occurred in the drafting of the legislation from when it was agreed with them, in terms of how it would be, compared with the bill as introduced. They then began a process of trying to make submissions, to talk to various players, and so on to suggest that the bill could be refined and brought back to the agreed position, but they really got nowhere.

What I found interesting was that along came the spectre of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Let us not muck around the bush here: this is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s bill—OK? This is not a bill for the bus company in Taihape. This is not a bill for even the Christchurch base. The people in Christchurch, in Red Bus Ltd, think the operation they have down there is absolutely superb. They have integrated fares and ticketing, and they did not need this legislation to do it. This legislation is not needed in Dunedin, in Invercargill, or in Eketāhuna. This legislation is to appease the left-wing acolytes of the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which want to take total and absolute control.

When I met with the chairman of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—and I have a lot of time for Mark Ford; I think he is a super guy—he told me something that gobsmacked me. He said that the authority was OK with the bill now, because even the Bus and Coach Association and all the operators agreed with it now. I was really taken aback. I thought I had made a bit of an idiot of myself here, because I did not think they did agree with it and were confident the bill still needed some change. So I came back to Wellington with my tail between my legs feeling a bit embarrassed, thinking: “Wow!”. So I called up Raewyn Bleakley at the Bus and Coach Association, and asked: “Have you guys changed your position on the Public Transport Management Bill?”. She answered: “No.” I said that I understood there had been some meetings and that the association agreed that the bill was fine. “Absolutely not.”, she said. I told her that that was what I had been told, and referred to one of the operators, a Mr Ritchie from Ritchies Coachlines. She said: “Yes, to be fair, he did, but the rest of the operators present at the meeting”—and I want this to be really clear and put on the record—“didn’t agree, and in the end we agreed to a final position that we would put to the Government, and even Mr Ritchie of Ritchies Coachlines agreed to that.” So I came away from this situation really staggered that I had been told by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority that the Bus and Coach Association and its members all agreed to this almost Trotskyite legislation, only to find out that that was not true. But then, here is the real rub: New Zealand First decided—and I think quite properly—not to allow the bill to go even further, which is what the amendments that were going to be put up by the Government would do.

If members look at the minority report to the bill, they will see that the Labour members were wanting to move even further to put unbelievable delegated powers into the hands of the regional council—powers that would mean it would almost be able to determine what colour buses could be painted and what the drivers’ hats looked like. In the end Labour could not get that through the select committee, because Peter Brown did what I think was the right thing and said that New Zealand First will not support option C.

💬 Rodney Hide: Why did he do that?

The member can speculate on why he did that. He can even ask Mr Brown.

💬 Rodney Hide: He told you.

No, he told the select committee something. What I am saying to the Committee now is that when we got this bill sorted and Labour realised it did not have the numbers, the tricky little deal became quite clear within hours of that. It was to report it back with option B, which is option B+. We were told originally that the Minister was going to throw some amendments forward, but what has happened now is that the Greens have come in and put forward these amendments. I guess, if anything, the National Party is outraged at the process. The Labour Government is always on about consultation, saying: “We consult. We listen.” So it went out and did a proper consultation process. Well done! It then got to a position where everybody involved thought an agreed position called option B was going to happen. Cabinet then passed a whole series of agreements, which I refer to in my explanatory note. Cabinet minute CAB(07)5/3A refers to “original Option B”. That is what the Government agreed. All players were happy.

Even the National Party—I give that commitment—would have been OK with that bill. But it did not happen that way, and when the actual aggrieved parties, which do feel very aggrieved at the process, tried to get this poured back and took what I think is a staggeringly good submission from Professor Taggart to the Regulations Review Committee about the constitutional impropriety of allowing the delegated powers of authority to direct what is going into this bill and actually are a breach of it, what happened? That stuff considered by the Regulations Review Committee did not even get referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It did not even see the light of day when we were deliberating and considering the bill. We did not even know that the Regulations Review Committee had had that review, or had written to us. So when we asked that the bill be recommitted to the select committee, it was a matter of: “Oh no, not on your nelly!”. Labour has sat on this legislation for over 2 years from when the consultation started—2 years—and it would not allow a one-day select committee meeting on what came back from the Regulations Review Committee. In fact, we would have taken only a couple of hours to take what the Regulations Review Committee put in place. I want to repeat that and be strongly on the record about it.

The amendments I have proposed are not what National would have put up. They are not what the Bus and Coach Association would like. They are not what someone’s mates or someone who is funding a political party want. These amendments reflect absolutely and directly the original decision taken by the Labour Cabinet. I have said to this Committee—and I repeat it so it is clearly on the record—that if the Minister can show why these amendments do not reflect option B, I will be very interested to know why, because we have had advice that this is very much in line with that option.

What this whole process calls into account is the whole way legislation is done. It is just wrong to go and consult with affected parties, to get their views, to get agreement, to bring stuff to Cabinet, to show a Cabinet minute, and to say: “We’ve got your views; we think they’re incorporated.”, and for everyone to go away happy, then, when it finally comes time for the legislative process to actually fast track some of those changes, to do it without their knowledge. I understand why there is a severe level of anger from the various operators and from the Bus and Coach Association—a professional organisation deliberately there to represent the views of its operators—at getting completely and absolutely shut out of the process. I say to members, including Rodney Hide, that they should look very closely to the amendments I am putting up. They are not done lightly; they are done seriously to try to reflect something the Government would do, and National would support it.

It is great to stand up on behalf of Auckland and Auckland residents and consumers of public transport. And that is what we are debating here in this Committee—not what a bus company wants, not what a political party might like, but what is in the best interests of Auckland, and in particular, as Keith Locke will agree, the very fine people of Epsom. As a consequence of the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper supporting option C, there will now be greater competition for contracts, for public services, and for public transport. It will mean that new entrants can come in. We know they are waiting in the wings, and those operators who offer the best value for money will win the contracts. We as consumers of public transport will get better reliability, better frequency, better time-of-day coverage, and more convenient services and flexibility to meet customer needs. All this means better value for the $94 million in public subsidies. It is no wonder the dominant operator is worried that option C will pass, because now there will be genuine competition for services.

I heard Maurice Williamson say that the ACT party is supporting Trotskyite socialism, but I have to say that full contracting models operate in Adelaide, Brisbane, and Perth, and when I last looked they were not Trotskyite socialist places. Christchurch itself is 98 percent contracted, and to be honest, in the period 1990 to 2005, Auckland moved from being the second-highest user of bus transport in Australia and the New Zealand region to the second-lowest on a population-patronage ratio. The needs of customers in Auckland have not been met since the Transport Services Licensing Act 1989 came into force with its two-tier commercial and contracted bus systems. That legislation was another example of Wellington bureaucrats getting it wrong when it comes to Auckland. Aucklanders cannot have fully integrated electronic ticketing until we get this change to full contracting. Patronage now is about 52 million; Auckland wants to see it up to 100 million by 2016.

I notice that the dominant players did not come waving cheque books looking to pressure me in the last few days. They must have known it would not do any good. They pinned their hopes on New Zealand First after being promised by New Zealand First that they could deliver, but as everyone discovers, that is not a very smart idea.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Allegations have been made by Mr Hide that people came with cheque books to influence New Zealand First’s position on this legislation. I take total exception to that—absolute total exception. Not one iota of a suggestion of that sort of carry-on has been made to anybody in New Zealand First. It is absolutely disgraceful. We have a member over here who tackled Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) with tapes and transcripts that were found to be false. He is firing allegations out left, right, and centre. I insist that he withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I say to the member on my left that it would be out of order to suggest that a member takes payment to act in a certain way, and the member must be careful not to do that. I would caution the member to desist in the way he does that and to withdraw.

I withdraw.

💬 Peter Brown: And apologise.

Shut up, Peter.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very sinister, serious accusation. I cannot think of anything more serious—

💬 Dail Jones: Repeat it outside.

💬 Peter Brown: As my colleague says, if the man has not got the gumption to stand, withdraw, and apologise, then I challenge him to say that outside the Chamber—I challenge him. I want the withdrawal and apology.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I asked the member to withdraw and he did so, and I asked him to desist and he told me that he would. I would like to leave it at that, but I just caution the member that he cannot, in any way, imply that members take payment. That is totally out of order.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will leave that—

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

They do not let the ACT party speak at any time. What is going on?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please be seated. I call Mr Brown.

💬 Peter Brown: Perhaps you could give me some guidance, Mr Chairman. What has a member got to accuse another member of for an apology to be received? He has accused people of being—effectively—on the take. I cannot think of anything worse. I have heard people be compelled to withdraw and apologise for a lot less offence, and I believe that I am entitled to an apology.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member taking offence?

💬 Peter Brown: I said that from the word go.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): OK, I now ask the member to apologise. The member has taken offence.

Well, make up your mind.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member Peter Brown has taken offence, the member Rodney Hide will apologise.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member will apologise first.

No.

💬 Peter Brown: Get the words out.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Both of you just calm down. Just feel relaxed, and when you are feeling relaxed, relax even more, both of you. I have a yellow card in here.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You asked me to withdraw, and I did.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, I know you did, but I have to say, Mr Hide, that Mr Brown has taken great offence and has asked that you apologise as well. Having listened to him again I have accepted that position. So I ask the member to apologise.

I refuse.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You leave me no alternative, Mr Hide. I ask you to apologise. Then the member leaves me no alternative; the member will leave the Chamber.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just as a matter of clarification. What is the status of Mr Hide’s vote and the vote of the ACT party in this Chamber?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): They can still vote.

They can still vote?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, they are still entitled to their vote.

As we look at Part 2 of the Public Transport Management Bill, which talks about the regulation of public transport, there are some queries that anyone viewing the legislation from a distance would have about the actual process that has been engaged in here, because there was clearly an agreement between the parties involved in this case—the Minister, the regional councils, and the public transport providers such as the bus companies. There was clearly an agreement.

The Minister interrupted earlier saying there was no such agreement, that it was still up for public consultation to make a final decision. Well, that was not the case. All the parties involved believed there had been an agreement, and an agreement in substance. It actually went through the detail of what they wanted to do. That actually went to Cabinet for approval, so there was an agreement. One does not have an agreement like that and decide 6 months later that one wants to change it under the guise of public opinion—there was an agreement.

What Mr Hide referred to was the way in which the voting changed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which many of us found very perplexing, including the Government members of the committee who did take some time to understand what was actually going on. But Mr Brown made it quite clear why he changed his mind, and it was an interesting insight into how New Zealand First operates in the political process.

The public will, no doubt, be very much concerned about what they are seeing in this bill, because not only are there questions about political process, there are questions about why legislation that is supposed to look after public transport in our biggest city in all regards is being pushed through without the genuine process of consultation, without an agreement in principle being carried through, and without the parties involved being able to come to a solution that is constructive for all involved. This is not a question where one has to take sides. It is not an issue where one has on the one side the public transport providers, and on the other side the people in favour of public transport, such as the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which has to manage it. It is not as if there is a major divide there. Both parties have come together and reached a solution.

Yet the Government of the day will not do what both parties have agreed upon. The Government of the day, the New Zealand First - Labour Government, is doing what it thinks is best. It is not doing what the parties that are important in this decision have actually agreed upon. That is the problem we encounter in this situation. There was an agreement. It was an agreement that would work for the industry, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and for the public transport users. That agreement was made in substance and, if anything, it should be enshrined in law. It is not up to the Government of the day to use public consultation as an excuse for changing an agreement that it has already made. It is not up to the Government of the day to go out there on some whim and decide that it has a better idea than what the players in the industry have who actually agreed on a concept. Political parties should not change their motives halfway through the electoral cycle of the bill going through the select committee. This is something that is simple.

There was an agreement. It went through Cabinet level. It has been supported, it is valid, and it should be enacted. That is what the National Party would want to see this Government do. We do not want to see this Government make up its own mind, and say it believes in something that it knows is not what the parties agreed upon. We want to see the Government stand up and deliver what the parties had agreed upon. We challenge the Minister to do that. The Minister knows there was an agreement. The Minister cannot come into this Chamber and say there was not an agreement, and use the idea of public consultation to get away with changing her mind. The reality is that parties have relied on that agreement, but it has not been enacted here.

We have very different interests within this political environment. We have the Greens, who will be very much in favour of public transport, for example. It will say how public transport is important, and how we need to provide alternative forms of transport within our biggest city. It is right; an agreement was actually made. There was a solution that all the parties agreed upon to support that concept. Yet we are not enacting it. We are not enacting what the parties had agreed upon. What can be sillier than that? We had a solution to an issue—a big issue—and we are not supporting it through the legislative process. How can the Government of the day in good conscience stand up and say it represents the people of New Zealand, especially the people of Auckland, when it will not do what is in the best interests of those people, when it will not do what it has, as a commercial agreement, agreed upon in a commercial setting, and through its Cabinet process? It is using the guise of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to get out of that agreement and out of the performance of that agreement. That is a shame, and it is a shame for all those political parties in the Government because they have not held their word.

The great losers will be the public transport users of Auckland, because they will get a result that the main players know will not be effective. The main players know what would have worked and they came to that solution. That is all the National Party wants to see happen; we want to see the agreement of the main players enshrined in law. The Government of the day has the opportunity to do that. It should pull this bill, take it back to the select committee, and do what was rightfully agreed upon in the first place.

I hate to disagree with the preceding speaker, but I have been talking to players around this bill for some months, as have other Greens, and it is quite clear that the councils in Auckland, the Auckland Regional Council, and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, all favour option C, and have favoured that system of contracting out the network, from the very beginning. It is true that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and others have always considered that option B is better than the present system; it allows more specification in the contracts, settlement of disputes through the courts, and all the rest of it, but it certainly favours a fully contracted system and was submitting very strongly on that through the whole process, and rightly so.

Maurice Williamson referred to Ritchies Coachlines. Some of the smaller players had been somewhat worried about the system up until now, with the bigger players shutting them out, because it is so easy for them to snatch a commercial route and use the big profits off that route—a main route—to cross-subside a contracted, subsidised route, undercut the opposition, and keep market dominance in a place like Auckland. This legislation is levelling the playing field and allowing efficient operators to compete properly, which is, I think, the point that Rodney Hide was making for ACT.

The operators are a bit short-sighted in not supporting option C. Although in the short term some of the bigger operators might lose some of the cream they are getting through dominating routes by being able to charge more or less as they wish, by not having to show their books, and making undue profits, in the long term a fully integrated system—buses connecting properly, and buses connecting with trains and ferries—where people have more confidence in the system, will mean more throughput for all the operators, and more money for their shareholders. So I think they are looking at the issue in a very short-term way. As we stated before, we cannot have proper integrated ticketing without connectivity of routes, timetables, the electronic swipe cards, etc., all worked out by the regional authority, and with the regional authority having the power to put that in place.

There is another issue in terms of the information. Option C provides for all the information to be provided by the operators so that the system can be properly planned. The amendment being moved by Jeanette Fitzsimons in Supplementary Order Paper 249 that will implement option C requires the regional authority to have a plan, and to have the contracted services as all part of that plan. If that is not done properly the operators, too, have a right to appeal against that, and they are required to be very open about patronage, throughput, and everything else, so that that planning can be done much better. There has to be a good service, with proper frequency, proper timetabling, and proper connectivity, and we cannot achieve that under option B. We have to go to option C.

Under option B an operator can drop out of commercial service with 90 days’ notice. That can knock out the whole connectivity of the system. There has to be a fully contracted system where one operator cannot just—effectively—muck up the whole system on its own initiative. Anyone who is really serious about a good transport system in Auckland, Wellington, and the other big cities should think seriously about supporting the amendments put up by Jeanette Fitzsimons. They will be effective.

It is interesting that ACT, which is a party known for free competition, and all the rest of it, has understood that good companies will benefit out of this. They can bid on a level playing field for the contracts and we will get a much more efficient system. It is important that we pass option C today.

When the bill first emerged at its first reading, it identified three options: A, B, and C. Option A is the status quo, and option C is the fully contracted model. But the Government bill, in its explanatory note, was very damning of option C. There was a paragraph or more that really made it quite clear this was not an option the Government favoured—it was very, very damning—and option B was the option it favoured. New Zealand First has always supported option B, but when we got to select committee and the submissions came in, particularly from the industry players, we found out that there were two option Bs: option B as in the bill, and option B as was apparently agreed or understood in the earlier discussions the industry had with officials. It was the first option B—the one that did not make the bill—that the bus companies in particular favoured and that rested comfortably with New Zealand First. That has been our position from the word go. We have not changed our mind. We have not been bullied into thinking something else, and we are now in a position where we favour the option B that was agreed between the players and the officials before it came into the bill, as against option C, which the Government is supporting because of the Greens, and about which the Government in the explanatory note wrote very, very damning comments. I do not think I have ever seen an option or an alternative written up in such a derogatory manner. It was effectively dismissed by that bill. By reading the explanatory note no one would have ever thought the Government would ultimately be supporting it. So if there is any change in this House, it is from the Government. It is going with the Greens, the Māori Party, and ACT.

💬 John Hayes: And New Zealand First.

Wake up, man! Wake up! Members should listen to him. Members should give him a pinch. He is not quite awake. He should take a Berocca. The Greens, the Māori Party, and ACT were not represented on the select committee. Members of those parties did not even take the trouble to go along and listen to what people had to say. They just dreamt up a Supplementary Order Paper that fits with the Government’s change of heart, and quite clearly that Supplementary Order Paper will get through the House thanks to 10 or 12 MPs who have not studied it in the least—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Or heard the submissions.

—or heard the submissions, or, in all probability, spoken to anyone in any detailed form. In the course of these submissions a number of submitters were very enthusiastic about their industry—very enthusiastic. They felt passionate about it. If this bill goes through with option C, as it appears it will, we will dampen that passion, that enthusiasm, and that determination to do right by administering bus companies and buses. We will destroy it. A successful bus service needs four qualities. It has to be reliable, convenient, comfortable, and affordable.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: And it has to be safe.

And it has to be safe—five qualities. If a bus service does not have all those five qualities, then people will not use it. It has nothing to do with the colour of the buses, or whether they are administered or centrally controlled by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. It has everything to do with the service that is offered. As I say, those are the five qualities that a bus service needs. If we dampened the enthusiasm, determination, and competence of the bus companies, we would be in danger of second-rate, or less than adequate, buses being put in that the public will not use. That disturbs us. We believe that if there are enthusiastic participants then they should be given a chance to develop that enthusiasm. That is a very simple philosophy.

September 9 will be a very significant day. The sneaking in of option C during the Committee stage, against officials’ advice and against public submissions, is a very serious matter. It reflects what the Privileges Committee was hearing about the fact that the Labour Prime Minister, Helen Clark, did not bother to tell the public 6 months ago that she knew about evidence that she did not mention. Now we have the same behaviour when the Government introduces a bill.

According to the Government, option C, which was not introduced during the select committee hearings, is being brought in to enable regional councils to prohibit commercial services. However, according to the officials and the Government: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses, thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” These are the words of the Labour Government and the officials, and they are set out in the explanatory note on the bill.

During the select committee hearings, right towards the end, we thought that the operators were resigned to the fact that they would even have to accept an option B+. In good faith they accepted option B, and that has actually got add-ons, but they reluctantly accepted that, and suddenly the Hon Mark Gosche, the chairperson, tried to twist the arms of the select committee members by saying that Cabinet did not agree to option C but that the select committee wanted that option.

We could see that the officials were put under enormous pressure. They kept pleading with the select committee by saying that option C was a radical departure from option B, and that, under the tight timetable of reporting back to the House, there was no way that they would be able to put together amendments and good legislation. New Zealand First agreed to that, and the majority of the select committee listened to the submissions, and even swallowed it and said that option B was at least what operators believe in. But National members have been firm in our principles. We did not even agree to option B+, but we thought we would try to make amendments that would be good for the legislation.

When the bill was eventually introduced into this House, Labour did not even bother to introduce its own amendment, and it used the Green Party as an excuse to bring in last-minute changes to an option that the Government itself said would undermine business confidence—and it will undermine business confidence. This will amount to a confiscation of private property rights. There are bus operators out there who have worked long and hard over the years, have built up their business, and have made them commercially viable—but now we have councils. Of course the councils would welcome option C, because it would give them total control. Who would not want that? Any public body would love to get its hands on funds and then have total control over everything. That is when the New Zealand public would start to get really sceptical.

The true colours of the Labour Government are coming through. It would love to have total control over everything, but that is not right. Public transport is for passengers; it is not for some council officials or planners to get their hands on in order to come up with some grandiose scheme. We were told that without option C we could not have an integrated ticket. Who said that? In Christchurch that is happening under the current environment. In Wellington everybody is talking about the Snapper card, so why should it be the case that what happens in Christchurch can happen in Wellington but not in Auckland? Regional councils or transport authorities that have funding have the say, so it is a challenge for them to come up with ideas on how to push integrated ticketing. We were told by the operators that this has started to happen. It is simply unacceptable to give the easy way out to an authority that is already holding the purse strings, with an additional unlimited power to introduce any control over private operators.

What will happen next? If the Hon Harry Duynhoven is not happy with the taxi service, will that be next? Will he introduce some sort of legislation to nationalise taxi services so they can all be painted in one colour, go in one direction, and charge one type of fare? That is what the Labour Government and the Greens are staring down the barrel of—nationalising everything. They just cannot stand private enterprise. They cannot stand people being innovative. Actually, the hidden agenda has now become very clear. In the original bill that was introduced the word “affordable” was not in the purpose statement. The majority of the select committee argued very hard to insert the word “affordable”.

Now we understand why the phrase “affordable public transport” was not included in the original bill. Option C would mean that even if a bus route or whatever is commercially viable, the regional council, in its great wisdom, can come up with a preference, decide to remove those operators, and actually start to hand out subsidies, converting a commercially viable route into a contracted one that ratepayers and taxpayers would come up with subsidies for. What a ridiculous notion in 2008! Something is working, but just because it does not suit the people with controlling minds—like Labour members and councils who like to impose their own wishes on others—Labour will introduce legislation that wastes ratepayers’ money, increases rates, and increases tax just because some of them have fancy ideas of how people should travel and how those services should be provided.

Bus operators who do not require a subsidy have actually been able to build up a commercially viable service because they are able to attract passengers. They have to deliver the service. Why are their services commercially viable? Because they are interactive and reactive to passenger needs. If the passengers do not use those services, then they will not be commercially viable. The fact that some of those services are commercially viable proves that it can be done. But a Labour Government never likes to see private enterprise making a go of it, and it is always sceptical about private enterprise wanting to make a profit. Actually, there is a profit element in an individual who wants a high salary to reflect and reward their services. Profit is a good motivating factor for people to be innovative. When passengers decide to use those services we should encourage them, not discourage them.

I can just see 9 September being a very important day. It will be the last nail in the coffin of the last days of this Labour-led Government. This is an outrage, it is an abuse of process, it is abuse of the consultation process, and National will not have a bar of it.

I take a brief call to answer one or two of the points that have been brought up along the way. The previous speaker, Pansy Wong—an Auckland member, I understand—did not seem to realise that one of the reasons for making quite a change of emphasis in the Public Transport Management Bill was the major input of Auckland local government and the submissions that were made, which clearly had an effect on the way the bill was thought of by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by members of Parliament who were prepared to listen to submitters.

With regard to the comments the member made about the word “affordable”, I say that if one looks at the report-back version of the bill, one sees submitters raised the use of the affordability concept and it was added to the bill. Of course, that aligns this legislation with the Land Transport Management Act, which affordable public transport is a major part of. So I am very pleased that the point the member made has been taken care of. That is surely what the select committee process is supposed to be about: ensuring that improvements are made to bills. I say that in all the time I have served on select committees, which is some 18 years, that has been the purpose of having them. I say to Ms Wong that in my select committees and in any committee that I have had anything to do with, the purpose was to improve the outcome. We actually need to take note of what is said in submissions.

I want to address very quickly a couple of Mr Maurice Williamson’s amendments. If one looks at the ones that refer to the issue of integrated ticketing—if one looks at his new clause 12(3)(i)—one sees that any regional council, if it specifies a control on commercial services in a regional public transport plan, may also specify detailed controls in the plan. A control may “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to issue, use, and accept an integrated ticket specified in the regional public transport plan:”. So operators have to accept an integrated ticket. If one goes to subclause (6), one sees that “No control may be adopted under subsection (3)(d) to subsection 3(1)”. I then tell members to read paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subclause. I think if I was a commercial operator who was operating under a dual scheme like that, I would be very much keener to take my own ticket for my own company rather than be part of an integrated ticketing scheme.

I am very familiar with integrated ticketing schemes. In Europe they are very common; I have obviously used them when I have travelled to Europe. In Holland, for example, one can catch trains, trams, buses, in some cases canal boats, and even taxis all on the same integrated ticket—and it is a universal ticket used right across the country. I think that is an excellent scheme. Without having an integrated ticketing scheme that is paramount, I think operators would obviously choose to have their own scheme.

Just for the benefit of the previous speaker, I say that she may like to do a bit of research and look into a company called Carrington buses, which operated very briefly in New Plymouth. She may find that some of the things in this bill are actually very good provisions to have, considering the history of that particular company.

I think one of the answers to the integrated ticketing question is actually contained in Mr Williamson’s proposed new clause 12(6). It requires compensation if one is going to take away someone’s rights. That is what Mr Williamson’s proposed amendment provides; that is what the Public Transport Management Bill does not provide.

New Zealand First members believe that if someone’s rights are diminished and taken away, they are entitled to compensation. I say to Mr Williamson that that is the point, is it not? I have read his amendment and I have understood it. Either the Minister for Transport Safety has not understood it or he does not believe in compensation. I think under the Human Rights Act and other such legislation, compensation would have to be paid. So this bill is perfectly consistent with a good integrated ticketing system. As I said in the second reading debate, I am familiar with the Oyster card system in the United Kingdom, which is what is intended here, and I look forward to it.

I am terribly disappointed that the ACT party could possibly be supporting this Labour Party - Greens legislation. That is what the legislation is. Mr Hayes does not seem to understand who is supporting this bill; neither does Mr David Bennett, who seemed to be talking about something else. This bill is opposed by the National Party and by New Zealand First. One of the reasons that I as the New Zealand First spokesperson on local government oppose this bill is that history shows us that local government taking over control of public transport means increased rates. That is what this bill will mean. If the bus system is making a loss, the ratepayers will have to pay more to make up that deficit.

I am absolutely staggered that someone like Mr Hide, who purports to be in favour of reducing rates, supports legislation that will increase the rates of the people of Epsom. It is quite unbelievable. Mr Williamson shakes his head and bangs his head; I will not do that as far as Mr Hide is concerned—I leave it to Mr Williamson. The bill must inevitably increase the rates of the people of Epsom, because that is what happens when local government takes control of public transport. That is what happened in the past. Those of us who have lived in Auckland since the 1960s, as I have done, know all about it.

When I read for the first time option C in the explanatory note of the introduction copy of the bill, I could not believe that anyone could possibly support it, because it says: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses, thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” Clearly, that was a well-thought-out viewpoint in the bill as introduced. I must congratulate the National Party member Pansy Wong on highlighting option C in that way. Central Auckland is better served by her than by Rodney Hide in so far as the inner-city members are concerned, and, clearly, she has the interests of the people of Botany—is it Botany—

💬 Pansy Wong: Botany would do.

—at heart, because she does not want to see their rates going up, either. Mr Hide is all in favour of Auckland rates going up, and Epsom ratepayers’ rates going up. When we bear in mind the value of Epsom properties, we realise that their rates will go up more than the rates anywhere else in Auckland City.

The explanatory note comment that I referred to says that if we support option C, we will reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate. Well, why have a one-size-fits-all approach? That is what option C supports. New Zealand First supports innovation. The buses on these runs—especially the Epsom runs—could have computer links, air conditioning, music, and suchlike; that innovation is possible, but not with a one-size-fits-all approach, which this bill supports, and which ACT supports. Roger Douglas would never support this bill. I can already see a potential argument between him and other members in the ACT caucus on this decision. It is quite extraordinary. option C, which New Zealand First and National oppose and everyone else supports, would potentially undermine business confidence. The explanatory note says so. Some members in this Committee are supporting legislation that the explanatory note says will undermine business confidence.

It goes on to say that option C will reduce the control that operators have over their businesses. A bill that Rodney Hide and the ACT party support will reduce the control that operators have over their businesses. Well, New Zealand First is a middle-of-the-road party when it comes to economic issues, and, in a middle-of-the-road way, we in New Zealand First say that operators should have control over their own businesses, should know what they are doing, and should be able to make their own decisions, because private enterprise knows best how things should be done. However, we appreciate that one cannot make a profit out of public transport, even in Auckland, and that there needs to be a mixture of public and private operators.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have a heap of amendments, and I have not got to speak to any of them. I have had only two calls of a general nature.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I call the Hon Maurice Williamson.

The Public Transport Management Bill is broken into two parts, of which the first has only three clauses. The rest is all in the second part. Thank you for the call, Mr Chairperson; I would like to think that I could take two specific calls on Part 2.

If we really focus on this bill, we see that the nub of it is the level of control that the regional councils have over commercial services. The Government has tried to portray National’s amendments as opposition to integrated ticketing. I debunk that myth by asking Government members to look at my proposed new clause 12, because I am actually very supportive of the requirement for integrated ticketing.

In the end, option A, which is the status quo, was not working. Everyone accepts that. Even the bus companies and the Bus and Coach Association accept that. But to go to option C would have almost taken us back to the old days when the Auckland Regional Authority ran the buses. It is worthwhile doing a quick survey of Auckland members. I ask those members whether they think the buses worked well when the Auckland Regional Authority had total control. That is the question; it is not hard. Answer A is that it worked well, and answer B is that it was a disaster. I ask those members to put their hands up if they remember the old Auckland Regional Authority running the bus service well.

💬 Peter Brown: Rodney Hide did.

💬 David Bennett: Peter put his hand up.

No, he did not; he was indicating that Rodney Hide did. I do not think Rodney Hide did, actually; that might be an unfair interpretation. Well, I think that option is the clear winner, because not a single hand went up. Not even Metiria Turei from the Greens thinks that when the Auckland Regional Authority had total control, owning and running the bus company, the buses were run well. We actually had the Aeroflot version of buses: awful, dirty, “take it or leave it”, and timetabled however the Auckland Regional Authority liked.

💬 Jill Pettis: Well—

No, hang on. Before Jill Pettis puts her foot too far in it, let me tell the Committee what her own Minister of Transport and her Government said in the explanatory note of the introduction copy of the bill: “Under option C, legislation would be changed to allow regional councils to decide how scheduled public transport services are provided, including retaining the status quo, adopting a regime …”, and so on. It further states: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses, thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” That is what the Minister said—not the National Party, not New Zealand First, and not even the Greens. That is what the Minister said. It is in the explanatory note of the bill as introduced. In the explanatory note the Minister says: “For these reasons option C is not preferred.”

Harry Duynhoven then went on to say: “Oh, but we listened.” Well, hang on. That would be a nice little crutch to use, except that nobody wanted option C but the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Nobody else wanted it: none of the bus companies, not the Bus and Coach Association, none of the operators—not Red Bus from Christchurch, or others, and not even some bus companies from the member’s own area. They did not think it needed to go as far as that, but the Auckland Regional Transport Authority did. It goes back to the old days and the spectre of Mike Lee. Mike Lee would like the Auckland Regional Council to own the bus operation again. Let us face it: he would like it to own it. That is where he comes from. He is a terrible old left-winger who loves that ownership and control. Harry Duynhoven tells us that this Government listens, but it listens to one submitter and ignores the rest. It ignores the bus companies, the Bus and Coach Association, and a whole range of other people.

I want to canvass clause 12. The Minister in the chair, Harry Duynhoven, finds some stuff in my amendment to that clause unacceptable, and I want him to tell me what it is. My new clause 12 states: “(1) A regional council may specify a control in a regional public transport plan, if—”, then states the conditions. We should remember that this is a control on commercial public transport. Let us say that I am a bus operator who has put my own skin in the game. I have gone out and bought my own buses, I am operating a non-subsidised service, and I am providing a very good product that the public likes, but someone will now be able to come along and shove some controls on me, even though I am not asking for a subsidy—if I were, there are the negotiated powers to do so. But if I stick to my own business, and run it like a trucking company is run, or a courier company or a taxi company, the regional council will now be allowed to impose some controls.

Members will be surprised to hear that National is OK with that. But there need to be some conditions. I put it to the Committee that in my amendments I have translated those conditions from the agreed Cabinet position. In my new clause 12(2) I have stated: “If a regional council specifies a control in a regional public transport plan, it may also specify in the plan—(a) any transitional arrangements …” that it wishes. I would like the Minister to tell me where clause 12 makes him uncomfortable. Paragraph (b) states: “the process that the regional council will adopt for determining any such transitional arrangements.” The regional council can put these things into its plan.

New clause 12(3) is really good. It states “A control may—”. You see, when Annette King was in the chair earlier on she said that National does not believe in integrated ticketing, in integrated fares. Actually, we think it is vitally important. A number of regimes, like the New South Wales Government, have tried to implement it by fiat. It was going to be in place for the Olympic Games in 2000, but in 2008 Sydney still does not have it. So the Minister cannot tell me that we can force integrated ticketing by fiat.

New clause 12(3) states: “A control may—(a) require a minimum period not exceeding 6 months for the operation of a commercial public transport service … immediately following the commencement of—”—which is fine—and “(b) may require a minimum period of notice (which may be not less than 35 working days and no more than 65 working days) for—(i) commencing a commercial public transport service:”. So there is a notification period. If the Minister is uncomfortable with these provisions I would really like to hear about it, because this is what Cabinet agreed to. I see Chris Carter over there thinking that Cabinet actually agreed to this. He is right. All of this was agreed by the Labour Cabinet; I have not heard the Minister deny that.

New clause 12(3)(c) states that a control “may require a minimum period of notice … for withdrawing a commercial public transport service;”. Again, that is right. There is a proper period where one would notify it. New clause 12(3)(d) states that a control may “identify commercial public transport services that must be registered collectively provided that each such control: (i) applies to no more than one route;”. One can put these controls in but one can do it only route by route, which is actually quite sensible. One cannot have one control for the whole of Auckland. If one wants to put a commercial service control in, it is done route by route. Each such control also “(ii) applies to that route for one period in a day of no greater than two hours of continuous service;”. One can have more in the day, but not for more than 2 hours for that particular control. Subparagraph (iii) states: “specifies no greater service requirements than in the applicable regional public transport plan and supplementary documents for that route;”. This all sounds good.

Let us move on to new clause 12(3)(e), which states that a control may “require compliance with specified quality standards and performance standards:”. Is anyone opposed to these amendments? They are in my amendment. I would like to hear from someone who is opposed to them. No? New clause 12(3)(f) states that a control may “require any commercial public transport service to be an integrated service:”. I thought that was what the Government was always on about—that it wanted a greater service. Well, this provision will require that. That sounds good. Someone must have an objection somewhere!

New clause 12(3)(g) states that a control may “require the application of common emblems or signs …”. The Government was really hot on this. The bill was originally going to force one to paint one’s bus whatever colour was decided by the regional council. Howick and Eastern Buses, which has always had beige and maroon buses, might have been told to paint its buses Labour Party red.

💬 Jill Pettis: Whatever!

Jill Pettis would have loved that.

As I was saying, my amendment in new clause 12(3)(g) refers to common emblems and signs but not common colour schemes—it would not force the buses to change colour.

New clause 12(3)(h) states that a control may “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to use integrated technology specified in the regional public transport plan:”. Is that really bad? It is exactly what the Government said it wanted. In other words, one puts out a public transport plan, and—in contracting with commercial services—one puts in the control, which has to be complied with. That is good. I do not understand what is wrong with that.

Here is the nub: new clause 12(3)(i) is a cracker. It states that a control may “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to issue, use, and accept an integrated ticket specified in the regional public transport plan:”. According to Labour, National is opposed to integrated fares and ticketing, yet here in my amendment we have “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to issue, use, and accept an integrated ticket specified in the regional public transport plan:”. New clause 12(3)(j) states that a control may “set out and apportion integrated fares on a reasonable basis without undue discrimination and in accordance with the following factors: (i) time: (ii) distance travelled …” and so on, just like airlines do with their fare construction units that break down an end-to-end fare.

The Government was trying to say—and I think it had a crack at it, but Dail Jones fixed it really well—what new clause 12(6) states, which is that “No control may be adopted under subsection (3)(d) to subsection 3(l): (a) that would prevent, inhibit, or deter any operator of a commercial public transport bus or ferry service from offering customers its services under a separate ticket … and a discount for one …; and (b) requires the operator to incur costs or a reduction in revenues for which it will not receive adequate compensation …”. It says that if one is going to force integrated ticketing on a person who has already built up a business, has some skin in the game, and has created some intellectual property around it, then—just like if someone had started a supermarket of his or her own volition, and the Government decided to come along and nationalise supermarkets—there has to be a property right, and, yes, it may be able to negotiate it out. A good negotiator will negotiate it out and say: “We don’t think that property right should stand, but we want something in return for it.” That is what this amendment does.

As we look at this legislation, I think Maurice Williamson raised a very good point in regard to what the Government is actually doing. It came into this House and proposed option C and is now going all out to make sure that this Parliament votes for option C, when in its written document, the commentary on the legislation, it said it had thought about that option and decided against it because it had an agreement with the parties involved. Now the Government is changing its mind, going against its pre-agreed process, and coming down and saying it wants an option C for political expediency. Why would the Government do that? Why would it come into this House and change its mind and go blatantly against what it had gone out and said publicly it had agreed upon? There can be only one reason, and Maurice Williamson has an explanation. The Government, in its general policy note in the explanatory note, stated: “Option C: Empowers regions to prohibit commercial services. … Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses, thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” Let us say it again: the Government would not favour option C because it would reduce the control operators have over their business. OK, I know it is hard to believe that the Labour Party would say that, but that is what it said. It also said that it would potentially undermine business confidence. That is an even more unbelievable thing for the Labour Party to say, because it has killed business confidence in this country over the last 9 years. But at least it said “business confidence” in one document that came out.

Why would the Government now go against those very reasons in this Committee? Well, there is a simple reason, and it is that this Government cannot be trusted. It never says what it thinks. It never says what it believes; it just uses the smokescreen of this Parliament to go about its business. This is just one big game for those members. The Labour Party knows what it wants from day one, and it just uses legislation and uses this House to put a slant on it so that the public out there can feel that it can be happy with it. The Parliament is used as a means of getting parliamentary and public support so that people are compliant, and then, just at the last minute, the Labour Party does what it had planned all the way through. It goes against public opinion. It goes against what is right, what is just, and what is fair.

Labour just does what it has to do to pay back its supporters, and we see that is part of this bill when we are debating Part 2. The clauses in Part 2 are being used by the Government to try to appease the public, to say that it has thought about it and gone through a consultation phase. But the real guts is what it will pass on the day, and that is in option C. That is underhand politics. That is the use of the political process for personal gain. That is the Labour Party through and through. That is what the public is coming to expect in the last 2 weeks of a dying regime. It will try to pass a legacy of legislation. It can see the horses coming through the gates. What is it doing? It is a scorched earth policy. It is trying to take this country down as it goes down. Well, there are only two things that will go down in the next couple of months, and that is New Zealand First and Labour. They are both going down together, because the public has seen through them. The public has seen through the little shenanigans that this Parliament has been put up to by Labour and it is having no more.

I will come back to Part 2. I tell the Minister to not put up another option C and some Supplementary Order Paper. I say she should stick to the bill. She should stick to what the Government agreed on. She should not come in here and put through some legislation that she always wanted to put through but did not have the guts to put up in the first place, and then not let the Parliament debate it. This is just an attempt to use what is sensible legislation, dealing with the sensible issue of public transport, for political gain so the Labour Party can pay back its supporters. It is a shame when Parliament is used in that process. The public sees right through Labour.

I move, That the question be now put.

Part 2 is a substantial part of this legislation. I encourage the Minister, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, who very kindly took a short call last time, to give us an assurance. The officials advising the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had problems coming up with drafting requirement recommendations for the last-minute push for option C. When the officials had problems changing the bill from option B+ to option C within the time frame, we suddenly saw that a Supplementary Order Paper with three double-sided pages was introduced by the Green Party. How do we know there is no technical problem? Who wrote this Supplementary Order Paper? We know that the officials advising the select committee said that in no way could they provide the drafting or the changes to get the bill from option B+ to option C. So we want the Minister to assure us that Parliament has not been misled into passing a bill—another like the Electoral Finance Act—that will lead every lawyer in town to line up, smiling, at the bank, after charging $500 an hour, because every operator will challenge this legislation.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: They could drive a bus through it.

Absolutely! And I tell the Hon Maurice Williamson that all the buses will be painted in certain colours; all the buses will be lined up to drive through this Supplementary Order Paper. I want to share with listeners the fact that operators are now seeing their good faith being broken, because they thought the select committee had adopted option B+ but they now suddenly realise it is option C.

Let us look at one of the new clauses included in the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper, new clause 15A, which is to be inserted after clause 15: “Exclusion of regional councils from liability to pay compensation for contracting requirements”. I think North Korean leaders and Chairman Mao would be very pleased with a provision like that. Subclause (1) states: “Nothing makes a regional council liable to pay compensation”—

💬 Hon Member: Might be listening!

—yes, Chairman Mao will still be listening, turning in his grave; he would be very proud of this Labour communist Government—“to any person for—(a) including a contracting requirement in a regional public transport plan;”. Here we go; this is serious.

Under this legislation a regional council could decide to eliminate a bus service, a commercially viable one that did not require ratepayers’ or anybody’s subsidies, and the bus operator would lose a property right—the operator would not be compensated. Boy—I think that even Zimbabwe, North Korea, etc., and some of the governing bodies in those countries, would be very proud of this Labour Government and the Green Party.

This legislation is ridiculous, it is incredible. In the Committee stage in this Parliament, option C is being imposed, and we are including a requirement that where bus operators lose their right to run their services on a commercial basis, they will not be entitled to compensation. But the fact that this amendment has been introduced in such a hurry means that nobody can guarantee—unless the Minister is prepared to take a call and guarantee—that those bus operators will let themselves be bound by legislation like that. Once again, we are seeing a Government handing out millions of dollars, because litigation cases will be taken by all those operators. How can a democracy like New Zealand pass legislation that says that people’s property rights can be removed without compensation? That is an outrage.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.

If this is the appropriate time, I seek leave for the amendments to Part 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The question is that the amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons be taken as one question. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 9 be agreed to.