Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the chair and members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work. I would also like to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission to the select committee.

This Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to cut unnecessary red tape and to create better, more effective legislation. The bill will lead to streamlined decision making and less prescriptive planning processes for those in the transport sector. It will allow councils greater flexibility to plan for the needs of their regions. It will ensure both central and local government get better value for money from their investment in public transport.

The bill has three main components. First, it makes changes to the planning and funding framework of the Land Transport Management Act. This channels around $3 billion of central government funding annually into roading, public transport, and road safety. Second, it will also streamline the framework for assessing toll-road schemes and will simplify the Act’s concession agreement provisions while facilitating roading public-private partnerships.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: You’ve got the wrong speech. Who’s listening anyway?

You should listen, actually, as a convicted drunk-driver, because they drive on roads as well.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Point of order—I think I know what it is.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Deputy Speaker, you are not a convicted drunk-driver.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the member must not bring the Speaker into the debate. Be very careful on the pronouns that you actually use.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I have ruled. The member should not bring—

Mrs Dyson is not a convicted drunk-driver—sorry, is—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked him not to speak to your ruling; he did. At this point he should go. [Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the member to stand and withdraw the comments.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will now contain himself to do the speech.

Right, where were we? The bill has three main components. First, it makes changes to the planning and funding framework of the Act. This channels around $3 billion of central government funding annually into roading, public transport, and road safety. Second, it will also streamline the framework for assessing toll-road schemes and simplify the Act’s concession agreement provisions, which facilitate roading public-private partnerships. Third, it establishes in legislation a new public transport operating model.

Submitters were generally supportive of the bill’s intent to simplify the Act’s planning and funding framework. To achieve this, the bill will focus the Act’s purpose and decision-making criteria on an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest. This will make the Act simpler, clearer, and easier to understand.

The bill will also simplify central and regional transport planning processes. The bill consolidates the regional land transport strategy and regional land transport programme into a new regional transport planning document, the regional land transport plan. It also consolidates the national land transport strategy and the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding into a single document, the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport. The select committee recommended amending the bill’s provisions on the new Government policy statement to give clearer guidance on what might be included in this document.

The bill will also do away with the obligation for regional transport committees to include representatives from a list prescribed in legislation. This will give the committees’ elected representatives the right to decide whom they need to hear from.

Rules against borrowing will also change. Currently, borrowing is allowed in two situations: firstly, borrowing that is repaid through the use of toll revenues that are not part of the National Land Transport Fund; secondly, borrowing for cash-flow management of the National Land Transport Programme, repaid from the National Land Transport Fund. This bill will remove this artificial distinction between borrowing against the fund and other transport revenues. It will do this by allowing borrowing to be used for future projects, should there be a good case and should it be prudent to do so. This type of borrowing would be subject to agreement from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance.

Provisions for a regional fuel tax will be repealed. This will guarantee that costs imposed by a regional tax are not spread across all regions. It will also safeguard productive sectors that use fuel for non-transport related reasons from the additional costs of going through a refund system to claim back the tax.

The second significant area of change is to tolling schemes and concession agreements. The bill will simplify the process for approving toll-road schemes. A number of existing statutory tests, many of which are currently duplicated elsewhere in the Act, will be replaced with a single high-level test requiring tolling proposals to be efficient and effective.

The bill removes the requirement for toll roads to include at least one method of payment that does not collect personal information. Motorists’ privacy will continue to be safeguarded by the Privacy Act 1993 and the availability of an un-tolled route. The committee recommended that motorists’ privacy is further safeguarded by amending the bill to limit the circumstances in which personal information can be retained by the toll operator. As part of these changes, the bill will enable the existing toll road in Tauranga, Route K, to be brought under the toll-road regime that applies to other toll roads.

The bill also simplifies the road leasing policy set out in the Act’s concession agreement provisions, reducing potential barriers to the use of public-private partnerships for the purposes of constructing or operating new roads.

Finally, this bill establishes in legislation a new policy framework for an ongoing partnership between regional councils and public transport operators for planning and contracting public transport, known as the Public Transport Operating Model. Almost all submitters on the bill were supportive of this new model.

The bill will also repeal the Public Transport Management Act 2008, carrying over relevant provisions into the Land Transport Management Act. The bill will require all public transport services in a region to be segmented into units and provided under exclusive contract to the regional council. Regional councils will be required to identify in their regional public transport plans the units they propose to contract, the policies applying to operators of units, and any taxi and shuttle services the region intends to financially assist. Services that do not form part of a region’s core urban public transport network will be exempt from operating under contract and will be identified on an exempt services register, held by the relevant regional council.

The committee recommended amending the bill to insert principles for planning and operating public transport services that will guide decision making. The principles are those that were used in the development of the Public Transport Operating Model and they incorporate the Government’s objectives for public transport services.

The committee recommended amending the bill to express more clearly the intended purpose of regional public transport plans and simplify the content requirements for regional public transport plans. The committee also recommended a number of other amendments to ensure existing services and operators are not unduly affected by the transition to the new framework.

In closing, I would like to once again thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members for their work on the bill. A number of worthwhile refinements have been made. This bill will provide a durable piece of legislation that promotes an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system. I commend this bill to the House.

Labour opposes this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, because it sets in permanent bitumen the National Government’s fossilised approach to transport infrastructure and its determination to waste taxpayers’ money on monster motorways that serve no real purpose, other than to be a monument to this Government’s profligate spending on outmoded transport infrastructure that harks back to the 1950s era of sprawl and motorways. The central way in which this bill achieves that is by changing the purpose of the current Act. The current Act says that its purpose is “to contribute to the aim of achieving an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system.” What could possibly be wrong with that purpose and that aim for our land transport? But this is what the Government wants to do away with.

Let us have a look at the reasons why. Well, the question of affordability comes up first. Is our land transport system affordable and are the Government’s plans affordable? Well, clearly they are not. That is why this Government is having to raise fuel excise taxes by 9c a litre, increasing the cost of living for hard-working New Zealanders right at the time when they can least afford to face new costs. This Government is not prepared to bring down the cost of electricity and it is prepared to increase the cost of fuel so that it can pay for its unaffordable monster motorways—its roads of national significance.

Is the land transport infrastructure integrated? Integrated, of course, means making sure that different modes of transport can work well together. Well, again, this Government does not believe in different modes of transport; it believes there is only one way to move people and freight around New Zealand, and that is with cars and trucks. It does not believe in rail and it does not believe in coastal shipping, so of course it does not want the purpose of this Act to be that land transport should be integrated, because it simply does not believe in that.

Does it want to be safe? Well, the Government has already withdrawn funding from local councils for their safety promotion programmes, so it is making it harder for councils to make their roads and their pedestrians and cycleways safer. But, in fact, the Government has also indicated that it is prepared to sacrifice the lives of people travelling on local roads, the lives of cyclists, and the lives of motorcyclists, so that it can pay for its roads of national significance. So of course this Government does not want to have safety included in the purpose of this Act.

Is it responsive? Well, it certainly will not be responsive to New Zealand’s needs. It will be responsive to this Government’s fixation with roads, but nothing else. And is it sustainable? Well, we know that the least sustainable form of transport is the car, especially the car carrying a single occupant.

So this Government has no commitment to a sustainable land transport system. That is why the National Government is gutting the Land Transport Management Act by doing away with all of that and simply narrowing it down to “effective, efficient, and safe.” Well, I do not believe the safe bit, because the Government has not demonstrated its commitment to safety, and “effective and efficient” basically just means “Does it implement National’s fixation on roads?”. That is all this bill is about, and that is all the Act will be able to achieve once this bill is passed.

The other thing that this bill does is it removes the ability for local councils to implement a regional fuel tax if they choose—if they choose. The current Act does not commit anybody to a regional fuel tax, but what this does is take away that option. We know that the Government’s programme is unaffordable, and that is why it has had to increase fuel taxes to pay for its monster motorways. It says that that is what it is all about—it is about paying for the roads of national significance.

Even if we believe that it is about building roads—and most people do not; most people think that the increase to the fuel excise tax has a lot more to do with helping this Government reach its surplus, because it has failed to actually get the economy moving, so it had got to reach its surplus somehow else, and that is by increasing taxes on ordinary New Zealanders. But even if we believe that it is about building roads, we know that, actually, only CPI increases are required for the Government to meet its roading programme. If the Government would just take a sustainable approach to transport infrastructure, if it would not stick to its politically motivated programme that ensures that a group of projects is started before the next election and another group of projects is started before the election after that, if it would abandon that political motivation and focus on a sustainable approach to land transport, then those excessive increases to fuel taxes would not have been required, and New Zealanders would have just a little bit more left in their back pocket.

But we know that sense and planning have nothing to do with this Government’s approach to land transport infrastructure. It is all about ideological madness. The next example of the ideological madness is using a public-private partnership to build Transmission Gully. This bill allows for greater use of borrowing to build the Government’s unaffordable transport infrastructure. It cannot afford to pay for it, even with its excessive tax increases, so it needs to open up the opportunity for borrowing. Well, a public-private partnership is the worst possible form of borrowing that it could undertake. There is no evidence that a public-private partnership is more efficient or more effective than simply using the public sector model.

In fact, this Government was not prepared to release the public sector comparator for Transmission Gully. It is not prepared to tell the public how much it thinks it would cost to build Transmission Gully under the traditional model. I think the reason for that is that it knows that the public-private partnership will not stack up against the traditional model. The Government has not been able to demonstrate that it will cost less to build it by a public-private partnership. It relies solely on intangible, supposed benefits and simply relies on the theory that the private sector can do it better. The evidence says that that is just wrong. If you look around the world, all you have to do is look across the Tasman at Australia. We know that public-private partnerships for roading infrastructure have often been a dismal failure there.

So we need to get the Government actually looking at the real options, not adhering itself to ideological madness. We know why the Government is doing this. We know why the Government is doing this, because look at the enthusiasm from the private sector to provide this money. The enthusiasm was enormous because the private sector saw an opportunity for a low-risk, high-return investment—a low-risk, high-return investment. The Government has taken all the risk out of Transmission Gully. It does not matter how many people use it. It does not matter whether it is the right road or whether people end up using it or not. The private investors will get their money. It is going to cost New Zealanders $2 billion more than it ought to. It is going to cost New Zealand taxpayers $2 billion more than it needs to. Why? So that the National Party can provide a low-risk, high-return investment for its mates. That is who it is about, not New Zealanders, not road users, and not public transport users. This is all about the National Party’s mates. That is what it is about.

Over on this side of the House, we believe in an integrated system. We believe that roads are important, we believe that rail is important, and we believe that coastal shipping is important. We do need an integrated system. That is why the purpose of this bill should be about building an affordable, safe, and integrated system that is sustainable. That is what this Government is taking away with this bill. It is going to ruin our transport infrastructure, and it locks us in to a 1950s vision of transport. This is a fossilised Government that is stuck in the past. The bill is going to be detrimental to the economy up and down New Zealand, as New Zealanders are forced to pay for this madness and for monster motorways.

I never thought I would say these words in this House, but I wish Phil Twyford was back. Phil Twyford was the reasonable, sensible face of Labour Party transport policy. Now the Labour Party has given up not only economic policy to the Green Party but transport policy to the Green Party. What kind of Labour Party are you? What kind of Opposition is the Labour Party when the Green Party dictates your policy, and the Green Party tells you what to say in this House? Be a real Labour Party.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that it is outside of Standing Orders to suggest that any members or parties are under the influence of any other group.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not—[Interruption] Order! I do not believe that the assertion was made that the member was under an influence. I understand that it is a reasonably fine point, but I do not think that that assertion was made with clarity.

Oh, those members are so sensitive, but they are going to be more sensitive when the regions of New Zealand hear these words, the words coming from the Labour Party spokesperson on transport, that the car is the least sustainable form of transport. I will say that again: the car is the least sustainable form of transport. Another thing he said in his speech was that there will be only CPI increases for the transport budget—only CPI increases. The other thing he said was that the Government is wasting money on outmoded transport infrastructure and big projects like monster highways. Labour will not support the roads of national significance. That is true, is it not, Darien Fenton? I know it is, because in Hamilton we have the Waikato Expressway being built. I would like to see the day when a Labour member of Parliament or Minister-in-waiting comes to Hamilton and actually says that.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Been there.

Ah, they cannot come and say that. They came to the paper. It was in the Waikato Times a few months ago. Martin Gallagher, that great MP from Hamilton West, who is nearly as great as the current MP from Hamilton West, asked the question of the Labour Party members: “Do you actually mean what you say?”, and they would not answer. The members of the Labour Party would not answer that, because they know that they cannot go to Hamilton and say that they are not going to support the roads of national significance.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What did Sue Moroney say?

Sue Moroney does not have any opinion on this matter. That is the Labour Party: no opinion, because it knows that it is bad policy.

I wait for the day when that member Iain Lees-Galloway and the leader of the Labour Party come to Hamilton and are asked by the councillors and the mayor and all the big parties in Hamilton whether they are going to support the roads of national significance and the Waikato Expressway, and they will not say a word. They will not say a word, because they want to go into the next election having no commitment on this. But their real feeling is that they will not support it, and today we have seen this in this House. That is a shame, and that is why you are going to lose provincial votes. Do not give in to the Green Party any more. Be a true Labour Party: stand up for reason and for Labour Party values. You are not the Green Party. We look forward to this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill progressing through Parliament. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I want to start by acknowledging the previous speaker, David Bennett, and the rant from the previous speaker. My question to him and also to the other member from Hamilton, Tim Macindoe, is why is he so desperate to have people from Hamilton getting out of Hamilton and going to Auckland?

💬 David Bennett: We’re not.

Yes, you must be. You must be, because you go on and on and on about the Waikato Expressway. That is what it is for. You want to see people from Hamilton going to Auckland because they cannot get jobs in Hamilton because that member has done nothing about job creation, just like the rest of his Government. That was a rant from that member, but we have come to expect that. I would like to advise the House that, actually, in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee he shows a little bit more decorum, and he did chair—

💬 Andrew Little: Sometimes.

Sometimes—not when Andrew Little was there. Now Sue Moroney is back we can probably expect to see lots of decorum.

There were 98 submissions on this bill, and we heard 29 submissions. One of the good things the select committee did was to go to Auckland to hear from interested parties. That is quite unusual, really, for this Government, which seems to want to cut back on the select committee process frequently.

So returning to the bill, having praised the chair of the select committee—and he was too busy shouting across the House to listen, which is pretty common, may I say—I want to talk about the bill a wee bit because its purpose is to reform the Land Transport Management Act 2003. I thought I would inject a little bit of history into the Land Transport Management Act 2003 because that was a brilliant piece of work done by the former Labour Government and it represented the biggest change in land transport funding and management since the 1980s. Prior to that it was a complete mess. The land transport management funding framework was incredibly flawed. There was no strategic direction. It did not allow for an integrated approach to be taken to land transport because it focused on roading.

Well, here we are, 10 years afterwards and we have a bill that is all about roading. This bill undermines all of the good work that was done with that Act, along with the Public Transport Management Act. It made significant strides in our land transport systems, including public transport. But of course public transport takes a back seat under this Government. All of that work—there was a 2008 Act, also brought in by the Labour Government, that enhanced New Zealand’s transport planning and funding system. That Act provided for fuel excise duty for land transport purposes and changed the way that fuel excise is set, to provide more certainty for future investment. That was a very progressive move by the previous Labour Government. We increased the investment in public transport tenfold and the funding for passenger transport services.

While I am talking about the history of this bill can I also just remind the House that it was Labour that initiated double tracking, electrification, an extension of passenger transport to other parts of Auckland, the reopening of railway links, some of which are now being closed, and the North Shore busway. I was just gobsmacked to hear Steven Joyce—the Hon Steven Joyce—claiming credit for the electrification and the double tracking of the Auckland rail system, because I know that is not true. I live in west Auckland. I know who started that project. I know it was Labour that did that, and I found it pretty outrageous actually that Steven Joyce would try to take credit for that. I suppose he has to in a way though, because there are not many other public transport system initiatives that he can take credit for.

As I said, this bill undoes much of the good work that was done in the 2003 Land Transport Management Act. It does show that the Government has realised that its roads of national significance projects are too expensive and it is going to have to borrow to fund them, or make them all toll roads. Without increasing petrol tax beyond the CPI adjustments, the New Zealand Transport Agency would need to borrow $930 million over the next 5 years to keep the roads of national significance on track. Let us say that again—$930 million will need to be borrowed over the next 5 years to keep the roads of national significance on track That is why we have to have this bill. The Government has realised that it cannot afford it, and it is going to set it up so it can borrow more. It can set up public-private partnerships, and it can toll people, hard-working people who are already struggling to get by.

The change in the purpose section, in clause 4, I think says it all. I will talk a little bit more about that when we get to the Committee stage, but the only reason that I can see that the Government is making changes to the purpose section is that it no longer wants a transport system that is affordable, integrated, safe, sustainable, and accessible, or one that promotes public health and environmental and social responsibility. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the fact that the Government has amended the purpose section. It is about National trying to tighten its control of land transport so it can cherry-pick more projects to suit itself. The sad thing about that is it removes, and this bill removes, the opportunities for local communities to support transport projects that benefit them. That is something that I think communities are getting pretty outraged about.

The bill reduces opportunities for the community to have input into transport systems. Every community should have the ability to have its say about its transport systems. But what have we got? We have got the debacle in Auckland where you now have a consensus on a way forward for funding for transport, and the Government will not have a bar of it—will not have a bar of it. They brought together a whole lot of people—business, unions, transport experts, the cycling forum—all sorts of people have come together and agreed on a system of funding into the future for Auckland, and the Government is just pulling that they are the big boys in town. Wellington should tell Auckland what it has to do for the future.

I live in Auckland and I support the plans that have come from our council about the future. I am sick of being on roads that are jammed to the hilt. I do not believe that building more roads will change that. In fact in Auckland there is nowhere to build more roads.

💬 David Bennett: Come to Hamilton. We’ll take you round Hamilton.

No, no, no, you are sending the people to Auckland. That is the problem. If you stop sending all those people to Auckland through the expressway, we probably would not have so many problems. I am sick of that. I want to see a city in the future that is supported by this Government. It is not supported by the Government. The wonderful unitary plan that has been widely consulted on throughout the city is being ignored by the Government. It does not want communities to have any say in the future of their cities or their transport systems. That is what this bill does. The Government also continues to underfund local roading. It sees a subsidy on State highways, which receive $142,509 per kilometre compared with $7,573 per kilometre for local roads. So a huge subsidy is going into State highways, compared with the local roads. I am sure that other speakers are going to want to talk about Transmission Gully and the expensive project that is turning out to be.

This bill, as I said at the beginning, undoes all the good work that was done by Labour over 10 years. We inherited a mess in the road transport system. We put in place some very, very good systems and projects. We allowed communities—wanted communities—to have a say. This bill undoes all of that and goes back to roads, roads, roads, like we had the last time National was in Government.

Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I rise to oppose this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, but it is probably more aptly called the “Road to Nowhere Bill”. You could call it the “Put It On the Credit Card and Pray For a Brighter Future Bill”. But I guess most important for our National MPs who are all fired up now, many of them who do represent the regions, is that you could also call this the “Regional Road Kill Bill”, because what this bill is doing is taking away regional decision making. It is taking away regional autonomy. It is basically saying that this Government does not care about the regions. No, no; this Government cares only about motorways in the big cities. It cares only about these uneconomic roads of so-called National Party significance. All it cares about is putting it on the credit card and borrowing more for these uneconomic roads. I believe it should be called the “Regional Road Kill Bill”.

This bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, deals with transport planning and funding issues. It is a big deal because it deals with the future of our economy, the future of our cities, and the future of our towns and the way that Kiwis get around, whether that is going to be more expensive or cheaper, faster or slower, stuck in gridlock or not. These are key issues for our country, and the Greens have got solutions.

Again, it was a very low-quality contribution that we saw from the member from the Waikato David Bennett, but I think he did touch on the change and how it was seen under Labour. I celebrate this. I congratulate this. Labour in its last term did do some great things for transport, particularly in Auckland. I would like to congratulate the Labour Party on the moves around electrification and double tracking in Wellington and Auckland—good stuff. I would like to think the Labour Party has moved with the times, because the National Party, these guys—and it is all guys in the House today—are stuck in the 1960s. They are stuck in a 1960s approach to transport. We see this in this bill that is all about removing local decision-making, putting more money on the credit card for motorways, and reducing the regions’ decision-making ability.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the select committee process, thank all the submitters, thank the officials, and thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were some improvements, I understand. I did not get the privilege to sit on the committee, but I understand that a new clause 43A has been inserted. This is around the privacy concerns about tolling. This is something I talked about in my first reading speech, based on concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner, so it is good to see some solutions proposed and the improvements to the legislation there. Other changes are around regional public transport plans and the hierarchy making with the Government policy statement on transport planning.

But, you know, let us get to the heart of this bill. What this bill is all about is the Government’s motorway agenda. When I was the transport spokesperson for the Greens, I used to call Steven Joyce the “Colossus of Roads”, but we have got Gerry Brownlee in the transport ministry now—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s Gerry—he’s a serious colossus. There’s a serious colossus there.

—and if there was a “Colossus of Roads”, there sure is with Gerry Brownlee.

What we see is that this Minister with considerable power has been given a pantry, which he has stocked with $20 billion worth of transport funding. The Minister of Transport does not have to go off to the Minister of Finance to get his spending approved. This Minister has got a pantry stocked with $20 billion paid for from the fuel excise tax and the diesel charges, and what we have seen is that this Government has totally cleaned out the pantry. The pantry is bare because it has spent it all on the roads of so-called national significance. The pantry is bare because it has spent it on the motorways—the Transmission Gullies, the uneconomic road from Pūhoi to Wellsford. That is why, as Darien Fenton pointed out, it is needing to borrow almost an extra $1 billion to fund the roads of national significance—the seven motorways in the cities.

So the agenda behind this bill is bad news because it does not even meet its own economic objectives. We know that the benefit-cost ratios for half of them would get any National member laughed out of a business board meeting if they proposed to go and borrow billions of dollars with benefit-cost ratios of less than one. Take Transmission Gully. Independent estimates previously put that at a ratio of 0.4. For Pūhoi to Wellsford, independent estimates put it at a ratio of 0.7. So for every dollar the National Government is going and borrowing from New Zealanders—borrowing from the future—it is planning to lose 30c to 60c. It would get laughed out of any business board meeting, but somehow it is doing it to our country.

This Government is removing the five previous transport objectives in the legislation: the objectives of being affordable, integrated, safe, responsible, and sustainable. I do not know what the National Party has got against being affordable, integrated, safe, responsible, or sustainable, but obviously it has got some concerns about those points, which I think Kiwis would find surprising.

The rationale behind this bill is tilting the balance of power as we make decisions on these key transport issues that shape our cities, towns, and economy. We are seeing considerable and enhanced powers given to the Minister of Transport. We are seeing consultation provisions being removed. We are even removing the non-voting members of regional transport committees. These are the people who sit on committees and do good work advocating for walking and cycling. It is a pretty hard job at the moment because the pantry is being made bare to spend money on these roads of uneconomic national significance. The Government is even getting rid of these people, who stand up in their community and advocate for walking, cycling, or public transport.

The Government is removing the regional fuel taxes. This is quite interesting, because the Government has the power of veto over any regional fuel tax right at the moment, so what it is doing with this legislation is quite literally putting its foot on the floor, rubbing it in, and making sure that regional fuel taxes are an impossibility. It is disappointing, because Auckland, which is obviously disappointed by the Government’s 1960s transport agenda, is setting out to try to provide solutions for its city—solutions that the city needs, like the central business district rail link. But what this Government is doing is making it virtually impossible for Auckland to be able to raise the funds itself. There are other potential funding mechanisms that Auckland Council is investigating and considering, but this Government is making it harder to see the transport solutions that city needs.

What we are seeing is an increase in borrowing under this legislation. I think we should have an intelligent and considered debate around the hypothecation of transport funding. I think there are some pros and cons. I mean, we are not going to see an intellectual, considered debate in this House with the National Government on the Government benches, but we have got to have a conversation. At the moment the funding raised from fuel taxes on diesel and petrol is spent on roads, for everything from public transport to road safety campaigns to policing through to motorways, and what this Government is saying is that it has blown the budget on the motorways and it has got to borrow more to fund it.

This is an incredible statement, because over the National Land Transport Fund’s 10-year funding horizon, which the Government allocates through the Government policy statement, it has got around $20 billion. Any other ministry would love to have a $20 billion kitty to play with over 10 years, and all this Government is saying is that it has blown it all and it needs extra money—it needs to put it on the credit card. Of course there is an argument for long-term borrowing to fund infrastructure investments across generations, but, look, this should be only in a situation where the infrastructure investments make sense, have good business cases, and have a good rationale.

The reason why the budget has blown out, of course, is that while the Government is off borrowing billions for these uneconomic motorways, what we have seen is road patronage flattening down, petrol prices go up considerably over the last 5 years, and public transport go through the roof in the last 5 years. We are seeing fewer funds in the National Land Transport Fund, so the Government has to go to the bank to borrow some more for the motorways.

It is not a good way to run the economy, it is not a good way to plan for our cities, and New Zealand is stuck in traffic because the Government is not offering alternatives to ride or walk to work, or to catch a bus or a train. Because those solutions are not there, it is going to be the Aucklanders in congestion cursing the National Government, because what it is doing through this “Put It On the Credit Card and Pray For a Brighter Future Bill”, or the “Regional Road Kill Bill”, is not going to be providing the solutions our cities and towns need for the future. That is what the Green Party is doing. We have done it for a long time, and it is something we will continue to champion.

In Government—sooner rather than later, we believe—what you will see a Green Government doing is funding a fair contribution towards the central business district rail link. We will be seeing things like the light rail link in Wellington. We will be trying to make public transport more affordable. Of course, this is going to help people get on the bus or safely cycle to work. It is also going to help those motorists because the more people we have taking sustainable forms of transport, the more room there is on the roads for the taxis and the plumbers, whom Michael Cullen used to talk about fondly. In summary, this is a bad bill. That is why we are opposing it. It is a 1960s approach to transport. I believe the Green Party is reflecting the future and the solutions this country needs, and I am proud to be championing them in Parliament. Kia ora.

I am very pleased to take a call on this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It is just a shame that we could not beam the contribution from the previous member, Gareth Hughes, into the households of New Zealanders on the 6 o’clock news, because, by crikey, would it do some fantastic things for the party vote for this party and put his party vote back where it belongs at about 0 percent. That contribution from that member, matched by the Greens’ friends in the Labour Party, shows exactly what those people think about what New Zealanders care about, which is infrastructure to provide an economic platform and to provide productivity. This bill goes to the heart—it goes to the heart—of providing the freeways, the highways, and the byways into the economic engine of this country.

Members from that party will wander up to Northland once a year to have their retreats. They have some fish and chips at the Mangonui fish and chip shop, they snap a couple of photos, they pontificate about the challenges of Northland, they come back to this place, and then say that the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance is the first thing they will get rid of. They would not say that up there. They would not say that up there, because they know what sort of reaction that would get. They do not understand that the importance of that road to the New Zealand economy is something that this party does understand, and that is why that road of national significance is on track and will happen.

When we had the whole of region economic summits in Northland, and when we asked what the biggest issue is for Northland’s economic growth and prosperity, what was it? It was State Highway 1—State Highway 1. The New Zealand Transport Agency said it would be a $35 million to $45 million addition to the Northland economy per year. That was back in 2011. I drilled into those figures a little bit further with our local economist: 15 percent of the Northland economy, that is $1,800 million per year, travels down that road, and by our improving that roading infrastructure it is not only about safety but also about empowering the Northland economy.

This legislation goes to the heart of providing the synergy across national land transport planning and programming with the regions, because there is a disconnect with what the regions are doing in many respects, and getting synergy is about efficiency and understanding how this whole country works and the importance of the roading network in it. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

The aim of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is to change the funding framework for land transport activities including roading, public transport, and road safety; repeal regional fuel tax provisions; change the framework for assessing road toll schemes; establish a policy framework for the relationship between regional councils and public transport operators; and bring the existing road toll at Tauranga under the Act’s road toll regime.

The changes made to the planning and funding provisions of the Act that I wish to mention include the funding framework being focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure; the decision-making criteria being changed to emphasise the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of the system; the replacement of the national land transport strategy with a statement on land transport used to set central government’s outcomes, objectives, and impacts; the removal of non-voting representatives from regional land transport committees; and the repeal of regional fuel tax provisions.

Starting with the objective and functions of the agency, I note that the changes to the objectives of the agency from the achievement of “an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system.” to the achievement of “an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system” will be a huge mistake for New Zealand. Essentially, it means that the Government is interested only in saving money as the first priority, but much more is at stake. The agency must seek much better integration of transport modes. As the era of the dominance of fossil fuel transport comes to an end, mostly because of the increasing costs and risks of production and the increased competitiveness of alternative energy sources; as the dominance of the use of cars for peak-time travel is increasingly non-viable in the big cities, especially at peak times; and as the competitiveness of other modes and the huge increases in road network expansion and maintenance increasingly favour those other modes, it will be increasingly necessary to ensure a properly integrated system so that the best use can be made of all modes and of the alternatives to more cars and more and bigger expensive motorways.

Similarly, it will be essential for New Zealand to design a transport system—especially for freight from one end of New Zealand to the other, and especially for personal transport at peak times in the larger cities—that is sustainable, and that means economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable. If that ceases to be an objective, then the vast effects of the transport system will not be adequately controlled and mitigated. As a result, the viability and usefulness of the system will be so seriously compromised that the Government’s own stated objectives in relation to efficiency and effectiveness will actually become unachievable. But, most of all, the very environment on which we rely for healthy lives and a good quality of life will also be degraded, and that is not the “100% Pure New Zealand” any of us want.

The bill will also entrench the current situation with us for decades under successive National and Labour Governments—a situation in which we will continue not to have a genuine and comprehensive New Zealand transport strategy. The intent of the bill, under which the Government will issue a Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, will not be a sufficient basis upon which the planning and funding of our future land transport needs and options can be based. Land transport will continue to be a political football kicked about in different directions by whichever political flavour is in power at any particular time. It will ensure that there is no coherent, long-term strategy that we can work towards. It will mean the wasting of huge amounts of public funds on doing what we have always done: failing to provide for fundamental future changes that will be imposed on us.

We need an entirely new approach that converts our system to one that over time makes much better use of our vast renewable energy opportunities, reduces dependence on imported liquid fuels, and replaces more clogged motorways with attractive, safe, comfortable, and affordable public transport systems, as well as facilitating more cycling, especially at peak times. In my work on the city council I accepted the need for a better road network and, indeed, led the project for the completion of the ring road there and supported the completion of the southern motorway. But I also introduced, however, a living streets concept so that roads would be designed to enhance neighbourhoods and safety while making good provision for both road traffic and the prioritisation of public transport. I think Fendalton Road is an exemplar of this.

I went and studied examples of advanced, modern integrated systems such as those I found in Portland, Oregon, where I saw a cut-off motorway ramp. The city had simply said: “This is enough. These motorways stop here.” Instead, they replaced them with a new light rail system and much better bus services. That city is now one that we should look at as an example to follow. We must learn the lessons from other countries where the headlong race to build more road capacity has resulted only in more demand, especially at peak times; Los Angeles is the exemplar for that.

The effect is a vicious circle that costs vast sums in capital expenditure and increased maintenance costs, and in addition it causes very large increases in externalities such as the costs of accidents, health care, and deaths, and the increased costs in relation to pollution, waste, delays, community severance, business dislocation, and so on and so on.

I note also that some of the best aspects of regional transport administration will be removed by this bill. The non-voting representatives of a prescribed list of interests as members of regional land transport committees are removed. This reinforces the Government’s disregard for the integration of land transport modes and its determination to favour road transport over all other modes through planning and funding mechanisms. From my experience the quality of input of volunteer experts in public transport, transport safety, cycling, walking, business operations, and so on is too valuable to lose. It is just another way in which this Government is intent on the minimisation of local democracy.

The removal of these people is just silly, but worse still is the intention to remove the option of regional fuel taxes. Although issues in relation to these are significant, they are certainly not insurmountable. If a regional council can persuade its population in favour of such a tax, it offers an inexpensive, effective, and fair way of funding important regional transport initiatives that might otherwise not be achievable. The removal of this option is a great shame and is entirely unjustifiable. We need to try to broaden the funding base, not narrow it.

New Zealand First is focused on a sustainable transport system. We want more from the system than just roads. We want a modern rail system integrated with good roading, shipping, and air transport systems. We want to develop these with Kiwi expertise, rather than buying this from overseas, and the same applies to transport equipment, especially railway wagons and electric locomotives. That creates more jobs and more economically and environmentally sustainable transport facilities for this country.

The Government’s direction in this bill is entirely misconceived. It will damage New Zealand’s economy, social well-being, and environment for decades to come. We will, therefore, certainly vote against it.

It is a pleasure to take over from Mr Denis O’Rourke. Although his speech, to my ears, was for the most part very positive and obviously coming from a good, solid knowledge and experience base, I am still not quite sure whether he is going to vote for the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill or against it. Let us hope that he is going to vote for it, because this is a very important bill, and one that will serve the country well.

It is a disappointment to me to hear members on the other side speaking so negatively about such an important bill. I thought during the select committee process—and I am sure my colleagues think the same—that they were reasonably responsive, they were open to argument, they reasoned things quite well, and there was a touch of collaboration there, until we got back in the House. Then off Labour went with the Greens to satisfy its left-wing trade union base and sycophantic supporters, and out the window went common sense, reasoned argument, and any suggestion of collaboration.

Labour should be braver. It is a disappointment to me, and it lets those members down. It is a disappointment to the voting public and to those who will be assisted by the passage of this bill, and there are a lot of those. Fortunately, we will pass this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

For the avoidance of any doubt for my friend Mr Auchinvole across the aisle there, Labour will be opposing this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It is a bad bill. It will do nothing for transport. This bill is a bit of a curate’s egg. There are actually some good bits in it, but the rest of it is rotten and stinks. We are opposed to it, and we will not swallow this bill. In reference to Denis O’Rourke and Iain Lees-Galloway, this is a bill that does give you the dry horrors, even just thinking about it. It does get us pretty choked up.

I raise a question: what is this bill going to do for State Highway 3 in north Taranaki? David Bennett will know that State Highway 3 is the only northern link to Waikato. There are a lot of Hamiltonians who, when they need a break from that thriving city, that exciting city, come down the coast, down State Highway 3, to enjoy the delights of Taranaki—the mountain, the surf; the things you do not get in the Waikato. When you get sick of green paddocks and the flush of milk, you come down to Taranaki because you get the flush of milk and the green paddocks but you get the surf and you get the mountain as well. That is why a lot of Hamiltonians come down here. There are two very notable roads in Taranaki. The other is the Forgotten World Highway, which some people mistake for the pathway to the National Party research office, or sometimes Aaron Gilmore’s office. But it is not the Forgotten World Highway that we have to worry about because the residents on that highway quite like the way it is. That goes not quite all the way to Waikato; it heads off towards the other mountain.

State Highway 3 is a very important road to Taranaki and it has never featured on the list of roads of national significance under this Government, in spite of the fact that it carries every day literally tens of millions of dollars’ worth of valuable product. It is a lifeline to Taranaki—it is a lifeline to Taranaki. Most of the heavy lorries that supply the supermarkets and the shops have to go through State Highway 3 in north Taranaki. Many of the trucks, laden with Taranaki gold, the crude oil that is pulled out of the ground in the safe, extractive industries that are occupied there, have to go on State Highway 3. You would think, given that in that region there are no fewer than three National Party MPs—none of whom sit in the full Cabinet; the real Cabinet—that the Government might actually listen to what those members have to say. But, no, it does not. Never a word has been spoken about State Highway 3. The only concession given by this Government is to spend $15 million on 30 metres of road, which is a bridge just out of New Plymouth. The remaining 100 kilometres between New Plymouth and Piopio were ignored by this Government, until I actually raised this issue of State Highway 3 recently, and Jonathan Young has talked about but since.

Let me tell you about that road. It is a dangerous road. There are heavy lorries going on it, and they have to negotiate poor paving and poor bridge abutments. It is very dangerous if you are a truck driver, that is why we have very skilled truck drivers in Taranaki. It is very poor quality. Then they have got the Awakino gorge, which has been a point of debate for, frankly, decades. There would not be a year goes by when that piece of road is not closed for several hours because of an accident, as it was only a month or so ago. Then there is Mount Messenger—another very dangerous piece of road. Millions of dollars have been spent on repaving, trying to get it upgraded, and expanding the tunnels that are up there, but that does not improve the productivity of the roading. You would think that a Government concerned about productivity and good quality roads, and not wanting to make political gestures all the time, would look closely at that road. This Government has not done that.

There is nothing in this bill—nothing in this bill—that will shift this Government away from its highly dodgy benefit-cost analyses on its roads of national significance to have a look properly and in a considered way at roads that are of value to significant communities. Taranaki punches well above its weight in the contributions that it makes to the national coffers through taxes on income, GST, and royalties on those goods extracted out of the ground. Taranaki pays an enormous amount, and it is not too much to ask for a decent long-term plan on the upgrade of State Highway 3. It is long overdue and we have the means to do it.

One of the dangers of this bill, of course, is that we hand everything over to the New Zealand Transport Agency. This was the agency that only 2 years ago made an accounting error to the tune of $182 million—$182 million—and we want to give it the responsibility for oversight of this relaxation on tolling, making it easier to introduce toll roads, and for the introduction of a much less wholesome consideration of what is needed for our roads. It now wants to reduce that to criteria that focus on effectiveness, efficiency, and safety—never mind the cost to the public. The old wording, which required a much broader consideration when it came to roading decisions, is much more important. It requires that there be consideration of integration of not just roading transport but public transport and other modes of transport as well. That is all gone under this bill. That is wrong—that is wrong.

Provincial centres like New Plymouth, which some might describe in terms of “isolated” cities, which really have only one road in from the south and one road in from the north, are dependent on quality decisions being made under legislation like this and by agencies like the New Zealand Transport Agency. But nothing in this bill will improve the considerations and the quality of decision making when it comes to Taranaki roads. State Highway 3 south of New Plymouth has a highly problematic stretch at what is called the Normanby bridge. That is a 30-metre bridge as well but it happens to be on a dog-leg, and it is the cause of many, many accidents and many fatalities, with another fatality—just another fatality—only earlier this year. Yet the Taranaki Regional Council cannot get this Government to understand that real funding is needed to correct that problem. That roading and the structure of that roading would be an easy problem to correct, but it cannot get funding for it. Indeed, the Taranaki Regional Council ended up having to challenge the New Zealand Transport Agency when it said: “Choose between your Waiwhakaiho bridge and your Normanby bridge.” Taranaki Regional Council said: “No, we’re sick of having to choose between two difficult projects.”

Of course, what the Taranaki Regional Council could not also say was: “But we’ve also got just as much of a problem with State Highway 3 north.” That problem remains. There is only one MP in this House advocating the case for State Highway 3. It does not have to be a four-lane motorway into Waikato; it just needs to be a proper, decent, safe road rather than what is presently a very dangerous stretch of road. There is only one MP making that case, and that is the list MP based in New Plymouth, and that is me. The Government MPs in that area show no interest in standing up to the senior members of their caucus, their members in Cabinet, to say: “We need to fix this problem for the good of Taranaki.” The Government members will happily turn up to the opening of the peaker plants, the new drilling rigs, and all that sort of stuff, but when it comes to infrastructure for Taranaki they turn a blind eye and they have nothing to say. Thank goodness for the list MP based in New Plymouth who is prepared to take on the hard issues and make the case.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.