Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

There was a long and winding road of a discourse from the previous speaker on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, Andrew Little, who was regaling us with stories of State Highway 3 in Taranaki, an area commonly known as “Taradise” by those of us born there or those who may have discovered the joys and charms of the area and choose to live there now.

This Government is committed to the constant improvement of our arteries of commerce—our roads and highways—and the extensive work on State Highway 3, just north of New Plymouth, the Bell Block Bypass, is testament to that. The Mount Messenger road, which used to strike fear into my aged grandmother when she remembered later on in life incidents of travelling over it when she was a young girl, is now being tamed, curved, and smoothed into docility, despite the treacherous substrate of greywacke. Work on the northern outlet has gone on and is due to be completed next summer, along with the stretch between Vickers Road and Elliot Street. Work that was ignored by the Labour Government in the times of unparalleled surplus has been undertaken by this Government in stages, despite the global financial crisis.

This Government believes that the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill will facilitate our aims of simplifying and modernising New Zealand’s transport system nationwide so that it is efficient and cost-effective and able to better serve the needs of growing our economy. I commend this bill to the House.

Wow—limited applause for the member, Dr Cam Calder, who just took his seat. In the regulatory impact statement for this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, one of the first bullet points, where they say what the main objectives of this bill are, emphasises value for money within each activity class. That is very interesting, given that the Kapiti Expressway has a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.2 percent and that it is one of the projects that the Government is crowing about—the roads of national significance. A leaked report last year by the engineering consultants Beca Group showed that the $515 million investment would yield a return of just $118 million over 30 years, or, as I said, a cost-benefit ratio of just 0.2 percent. So I wonder, in terms of the Government’s objective of emphasising value for money within each activity class, in this bill, whether the Kapiti Expressway meets that objective. Because it would seem to me, on the face of it, that when you are spending $515 million on something and you get a cost-benefit ratio of $118 million over 30 years, that is a pretty awful investment.

I want to acknowledge the people in the communities of Raumati South, Raumati Beach, and the Kapiti Coast, because this bill proves the fear that they have held since December 2009 that this Government is blinded by its roads of national significance agenda, pushing through massive roading projects against economic argument, against environmental argument, and, most of all, what is most concerning, against the communities and the communities’ transport needs. This bill shows that this Government is hell-bent—come hell or high water—on huge roads of national significance going through and ruining people’s lives, people’s communities, and they make no economic sense.

This bill will allow the Government to do more borrowing for this roads of national significance scheme. We were already told that the cost-benefit ratio of these roads simply does not stack up—simply does not stack up. I just want to, again, repeat the leaked report from Beca Group last year that a $515 million investment would yield a return of just $118 million over 30 years. The economic case does not stack up with the Kapiti Expressway and the environmental case does not stack up.

I have here with me, just in front of me, the signatures of 4,072 people, mostly from the Kapiti Coast, who are opposed to the Kapiti Expressway—opposed to the Kapiti Expressway. Let me go through some of the comments that have come through here. I have picked just a random page, but I am sure it will be awful for the Government: “To Minister Steven Joyce”—it is quite simple—“Stop the proposed motorway going through the Kapiti Coast.” Another one is from Joe Donovan: “I agree with this petition and hope that the Government will think carefully to do what’s best for this thriving community.”—I agree with this petition and hope the Government will think carefully to do what’s best for this thriving community. But, as we know, this Government has not done so; it has pushed on with the Kapiti Expressway.

I find it very interesting, given some of the messages that were sent to the people of the Kapiti Coast by the Government in terms of what the roading solution was going to be for the Kapiti Coast. In December 2009 Steven Joyce dropped the bombshell on the people of Raumati South and Raumati Beach that the expressway was coming, but let us look at what Nathan Guy said in February of that year: “I am working hard with Mayor Jenny Rowan to get this project started this year, as the funding has already been allocated. The transport Minister”—sorry, he says here “Steve Joyce”; they must be friends—“will be briefed on this project when he visits the Ōtaki electorate next month to understand how important it is.”

As we all know, Nathan Guy got rolled. The last and I think the most important quote here from his press release says: “I see the Western Link Road, rail electrification to Waikanae, and extending the safety barrier from MacKays Crossing to Paekākāriki as a really important package for our region.” Well, in February 2009 Mr Guy thought that, but in December 2009 this Government changed its tune and broke its promise to the people of Kāpiti.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I have to say that sitting through the select committee process on this bill was quite discouraging. Similarly to the Government’s asset sales legislation, its gutting of the Resource Management Act, and its gutting of the Local Government Act, it was another example of a charade of democratic process.

During the select committee process the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a large number of really excellent submissions, and I have a huge stack of them right here. They were well informed. They were made by people who work on the ground on transport issues—people in regional councils and local councils. We heard submissions from very concerned citizens who are wondering how New Zealand is going to respond to climate change with its transport spend; how New Zealand is going to reduce the burden of chronic disease on the health system, which is actually increasing because of our transport system; and how New Zealand is going to deliver a transport system that works for everyone, including the elderly, the very young, those on low incomes, and those with disabilities.

Despite some very strong consistent themes in the submissions, there were very few changes made to the first draft of the bill. I regret to say that some of the very young and earnest submitters—ordinary citizens who care enough about New Zealand to participate in the supposedly democratic process we have for improving legislation—were treated very poorly by some of the Government members on the committee. As with so much else, the Government did not listen to stakeholders. It voted on every part of the bill with its one-seat majority on the select committee—it was a 5:4 split on every part of the bill. Like so many other controversial things this Government is doing, it has used its very narrow majority to force changes that do not reflect the views or concerns of most New Zealanders.

I will talk in detail about the parts of this bill that are the most problematic during the Committee stage of the bill today. There are quite a few of those parts, and I will just touch on a few right now. In my minority report I highlighted my concerns with the lack of response to the submissions about changing the purpose of the Act; changing the make-up of regional transport committees; borrowing to pay for projects in the national land transport programme; going to public-private partnerships, which are essentially a more expensive way of borrowing for some very low-value highway projects like Transmission Gully; and removing the regional fuel tax, which would have allowed a region like Auckland, and perhaps other regions, to raise revenue that it desperately needs for its transport priorities.

Right now I would like to speak to my concerns about the new Public Transport Operating Model that the Government has spent so much time on with existing bus operators. The purpose of the Public Transport Operating Model is supposedly to improve the competitiveness of public transport operators when in fact we see it does the exact opposite. Much of the detail is not in this legislation. It will be set by Order in Council by the Minister. But what I have learnt through talking to specialists in the area is that the new Public Transport Operating Model entrenches the existing monopolies of existing bus companies. What it does is protect existing bus companies from having to compete in the provision of bus services, and this may be true for other providers as well.

Essentially, what is going to happen if there is not proper competition in the provision of public transport services? For example, we are not even going to have tenders; we are going to have negotiated contracts on competitive routes like the Northern Express. At the moment average tenders are only 1.1, so obviously there is no competition in most regions. There is not gross cost contracting in Wellington and Auckland, which has led to bus operating costs being 40 percent higher in those two cities than in Christchurch, where there was gross cost contracting.

The Government has not listened to economists or public transport specialists. It has listened to the bus companies, which, naturally, want to maximise their profits by avoiding competition. So what we have seen is a model tailored to their needs and to their desire to maximise profit. It is going to increase public transport fares for users. It increases the public transport subsidy that must be paid by regional councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Ultimately, it is not good for New Zealand’s economy. It is good for the bus operators—the private monopolies that National protects.

I am very pleased to take this call. Once again, we see inconsistencies in thinking. We have heard from the member who just sat down, Julie Anne Genter, that we want more competition in the bus market, but then, of course, hers is a party that has been arguing against competition when it comes to the electricity market. It is quite confusing. We also had an idea of democracy that really comes down to it being democratic only if the Green Party agrees with it.

The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a good bill. It is ultimately about movement. As sort of an homage, if you like, to that aspect of movement, I would like to move that this bill progress to the Committee stage.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to.