Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I thank members of the select committee, particularly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in this case, for the work that they have done on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It has been given a very thorough examination and a number of valuable amendments have been made.

The bill amends the Land Transport Management Act 2003, known as “the Act”, and it also repeals the Public Transport Management Act 2008 and carries over its provisions, as modified by the bill. The bill is part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to cut unnecessary red tape and to create better, more effective legislation.

The bill has three main components. First, it simplifies the Act’s planning and funding framework. Second, it streamlines the Act’s tolling and public-private partnership provisions, and, third, it implements a new public transport operating model.

Key changes made by the bill are, first, to planning and funding. The bill amends the Act’s planning and funding framework by making it simpler, more streamlined, and less prescriptive. To achieve this, the bill focuses decision making on three key criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. It also combines the former five national and regional transport planning documents into three main documents. The bill simplifies the Act’s consultation provisions and enables regions to tailor their engagement processes to specific situations. The bill also allows the New Zealand Transport Agency to borrow against National Land Transport Fund revenue to finance projects with the approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, should circumstances suggest there is a good case for borrowing and it is prudent to do so.

The bill also amends the Act’s tolling and public-private partnership provisions. The bill simplifies and streamlines the Act’s framework for assessing tolling schemes and processes for improving public-private partnerships. These changes will reduce potential barriers to the use of the Act’s tolling and public-private partnership provisions while maintaining robust approval processes. In respect of regional fuel tax, the inefficient and impractical regional fuel tax put in place in 2008 is repealed.

Finally, the bill establishes the public transport operating model in legislation. This model provides a new framework for building long-term partnerships between regional councils and public transport operators to deliver public transport services. The model will deliver more competitive public transport services that are less reliant on public subsidy. Over time, public transport users will see better integration of services and better-quality services with more focus on customer needs.

The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is an important bill and I am confident that it will only improve land transport planning and decision making, as well as ensuring that central and local government get better value for money from their investment in public transport. It will also support all of our efforts to cut unnecessary red tape to create better, more effective legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and to reiterate that Labour continues to oppose this bill. Despite putting up some excellent Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage that would have improved this bill, the Government kept its head down. It remains stuck in the tarmac, dedicated to building roads, roads, and more roads, to the detriment of everything else.

The truth is that this Government wants this bill to pass so that it can borrow more and charge more on toll roads. The bill clearly shows that the Government’s direction in land transport is to build more and more unsustainable roads and spend more on motorways to nowhere. It seems that the Government woke up one day and realised that the roads of national significance projects are too expensive and that it is going to have to borrow to fund them or make them all toll roads. That is the truth of why it needs this bill. That is what is at the heart of this bill. Without increasing petrol tax beyond 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. That is $930 million over the next 5 years that would need to be borrowed.

Meanwhile, this Government continues to underfund local roading. I am sure we will hear about more local roads in this debate. We will hear more about local roads in this debate, and I know my colleagues have many a story to tell on that. The current level of subsidy sees State highways receiving $142,509 per kilometre, compared with just $7,573 per kilometre for local roads. How unbalanced is that? That just shows you that what this Government is up to—

💬 Hon Maryan Street: More and more highways.

Yes—more and more highways. It is addicted to tarmac, and does not care about the local people.

When you look at the purpose of this bill, it says it all. The Government has removed references to words like “affordable”, “integrated”, “safe”, “sustainable”, “accessible”, and “one that promotes public health, environment, and social responsibility.” During the Committee stage we sought to understand why the Government thought it could remove those criteria and reduce them down to three, which is what it describes as streamlined, project-level, decision-making criteria—three criteria—to give effect to the Government policy statement, and to be effective and efficient.

What is being cut out? Let us remember what is being cut out. “Affordable”—what is wrong with “affordable”? I thought this was a Government that prided itself on being fiscally responsible, but it does not want to have that as a criterion in this bill. It does not want to have the word “integrated”. It has removed “integrated”, which is about incorporating not only roads but also rail and coastal shipping. Coastal shipping has died a death under this Government. We were making progress under the last Government, and it has died a death under this Government, which is so committed to roads. It is not committed to rail in real terms; it just wants to make sure that we have no other way of getting around except by roads.

The Government wants to remove the word “safe”. Surely we want a land transport management system that is safe. What is wrong with “safe”?

💬 David Bennett: Look at the road toll.

Well, roads have not—[Interruption] No, he does not. Maybe, as that member was saying, the roads of national significance should not be safe. Is that what the member is saying? Is that what he is saying? Look, we just had a fantastic weekend when nobody was killed on the road. Nobody was killed on the road, and that is down to the hard work of many, many people over many years. Certainly, I am sure that the people who were responsible for the wonderful road safety we had over the weekend will be very concerned to hear that this Government does not think “safe” is a decision criterion.

The Government has also removed the words “responsive” and “sustainable”. “Sustainable” is a dirty word for this Government. This is a word that this Government does not like to use. It does not understand it, but I thought it might understand assisting “economic development”. Would you not think that a National Government that, again, prides itself on being fiscally responsible, and that boasts all the time about its wonderful economic management, would want to have a criterion that requires land transport management systems to assist economic development?

And “improving access and mobility” has gone. I think we saw during urgency the disgraceful performance of this Government and the lack of regard it has for people with disabilities, and that is what this means—that is what this means. Removing accessibility and mobility, not having those as criteria, is a slap in the face to the people throughout New Zealand who have disabilities and who rely on the Government to actually recognise that for them to get around, we have to take special care and provide special access.

And then there are other things, like social responsibility. Of course, they are dirty words for this Government. I do not think it would understand what social responsibility meant. Here is another one: “environmental responsibility”.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: No idea.

There you go. We had the Hon Maryan Street speaking this afternoon about the Budget and about the fact that nothing about the environment was mentioned in the Budget speeches—no new initiatives, no new money. So I guess those are our concerns about the bill. This is why we are very concerned about it and why we continue to be opposed to it.

There are other things about the bill. It abolishes the ability to have a regional fuel tax. That is just another cynical attempt by the National Government to prevent the Auckland Council’s plans for its transport system. The Minister of Transport already has complete control of whether a fuel tax is created. We know that Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee do not get along with Auckland, but some of us live there. Some of us are just very, very keen to see the plans that have been laid out, by our properly elected mayor and council, to ensure that we have a future transport system throughout Auckland that is fit for purpose, that will cope with growing populations, that does not rely on building more roads when we do not have any more room, and that actually extends public transport. But abolishing the ability to have regional fuel tax takes that opportunity away.

And, of course, local communities, under this bill, have less say in supporting transport projects that benefit them. The bill reduces opportunities for community input into the transport systems. We in Labour strongly believe that every community should have the ability to have its say about its transport systems, but this Government is taking that away, just like it is taking away other things that underpin our land transport system. It is taking away the right of communities to have a say on their local transport systems.

So this bill will do nothing to fix the shambles the transport portfolio has been in since this Government took over, with years of wasteful mismanagement. The sad thing about it is that future generations will pay the price for the very, very stunted and short-term thinking that this bill demonstrates. It is a missed opportunity, and it undoes much of the good work that Labour did when it was in Government around progressing and upgrading land transport management systems. It is a real shame, and that is why Labour is opposed to this bill.

I just want to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Minister of Transport for the way that this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, was progressed through the select committee. I thought that the members of the committee did a very good job, and I would like to acknowledge the National members who are here in the House tonight, who have followed this bill with interest throughout that process.

I would also like to acknowledge the Labour members. Darien Fenton was part of that committee, and it was very disappointing to hear her speech tonight. I thought it was probably one of her worst contributions to this House, and I do not say that lightly. I have seen a few, Darien, and this one just did not do it, you know. I do not know what the matter is, but I think it is because Julie Anne Genter should lead off for the Opposition when it has its first speech on transport bills. She is the real transport spokesperson for the Labour Party. It does not even have one, and it fell to Darien tonight.

I feel sorry for you, Darien. I know that this is not your area. I know that you are into labour relations and those sorts of things, but it is a bit sad that they put you out as the first batter for the Labour Party. The Labour Party has got no policy.

💬 Darien Fenton: We’re going to have Phil Twyford back, so he’s up next.

Mr Twyford? He is not on the committee any more. No, he has moved on. It is a bit of a shame, so I feel sorry for you. So I just want to apologise to the people out there that Darien does not actually—this is not her forte.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full names.

So—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full names.

Darien Fenton. So it is a bit of a shame for her that she is having to lead off the Opposition speeches.

Those members are all going to talk about roads of national significance and say how bad they are. I want to see one member of the Labour Party come to Hamilton and say that. Come to Hamilton in the next 15 months and say that in front of my people. No one over there would have the ability to do that, and I want to see you come and say that.

💬 Dr David Clark: Oh, so it’s all pork barrel?

Oh, yes, we have got one—we have got a winner. We have got a winner here. He is going to come and say it, after he says: “Worst economic record for 50 years.” That is the next line he is going to promote, is it not?

But, Julie Anne, well done.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full name.

You have taken over the Labour Party policy on transport. It is wrong, it is not what the public wants, and you are going to lose votes for the Labour Party. And those New Zealand First members there, who are still trying to work out what transport actually means, you are also going to lose votes by sitting with those other two parties. It is such a shame that we have to debate it in that manner.

This is a good bill. It is good for transport, it is good for the solutions that we want, and people want it as well. Thank you.

It is a shame that the senior member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, could not summon up more thought, more intelligence, more substance, or even more wit in that last contribution. It is really a shame that a bill as important and far-reaching as the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill did not get a more serious treatment from the member opposite, who gave it only 3 minutes.

There are a number of reasons why the Labour Party opposes this bill, and Darien Fenton summarised them very well. It is true that this bill narrows the principal legislation’s purpose statement and decision criteria in a way that we feel is retrograde and unhelpful to the future of New Zealand’s transport system. It is true that this bill reduces the say that communities all around New Zealand have in setting the transport priorities that they pay for with their petrol tax and their road-user charges. It is true that this bill, perhaps most damagingly, opens the door and facilitates more long-term debt and use of toll roads to fund a National Land Transport Programme whose priorities are fundamentally wrong, and that is why we oppose this bill.

More than ever—more than ever—the transport system in New Zealand needs to take account of sustainability. It needs to take account of social well-being, the needs of communities, the environment, and economic efficiency. Unfortunately, what this bill does is cement in place the very narrow and distorted definition of economic efficiency that this Government has used to justify its roads of national significance. The National Government has gone on this motorway-building binge for the last few years, wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, building white elephant, duplicate, over-engineered, and gold-plated motorway projects that will be an albatross around the necks of future generations of motorists.

The bill also abolishes the regional fuel tax, which is just part and parcel of this Government’s systematic stripping away of the powers and the options that local government might have to fund its own transport priorities. We have seen it recently in the debate in Auckland, where within minutes of the report of the Auckland Council’s consensus-building group on funding options being released—and noting that he had not even read the report—Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Transport, ruled out the very recommendations that that body of expert opinion recommended, including a regional fuel tax to fund Auckland’s future transport agenda.

But I want to focus the rest of my comments tonight on an issue that has not had much attention in the debate so far, and that is a really insidious part of this bill, which strips away the democratic rights of Aucklanders in setting the priorities of the transport programmes, services, and infrastructure—trains, buses, and ferries—that they pay for with their road taxes, with their road-user charges and petrol excise duty, and with their rates. This bill takes away the power to make decisions about Auckland’s transport system, and hands those powers to Cabinet. It puts those powers in the hands of the executive, at the expense of local government and the elected representatives of the people of Auckland. I think that is just unforgivable.

It is just the latest move by this Government to clip the wings of the Auckland Council, which it cannot abide. We have seen so many examples now that it is hard to keep track of them. There is a whole debate going on about the response to the housing affordability crisis in Auckland, and we will come to that on another day.

What this bill does is it strips Auckland Council of its right to determine the priorities for spending what is currently about $459 million a year. Thirty-three percent of the rates that Aucklanders pay goes to Auckland Transport. This bill takes away the ability of Auckland Council to have a say in setting those priorities. It is the only council in the country that is losing its democratic right. It is the only one, and why is that? It is because this Government has a difficult, problematic relationship with Auckland Council. The wrong guy won the mayoralty, and the Government has never ever got over it. That is its problem, and it will come back to bite it.

There are two reasons why the measure in this bill is particularly offensive. The first is that it amounts to a giant loss of accountability for that $459 million a year that Aucklanders contribute out of their rates to transport. They are losing representation while they are being taxed. It is taxation without representation. It is a fundamental democratic principle that does not seem to be a matter of any importance to the National Government. It is quite happy to say to Aucklanders: “Never mind what you think. Never mind that 63 percent of Aucklanders want to see the city rail link built as a matter of priority. We in the National Government are going to impose this from Wellington.” Gerry Brownlee, the “Minister of Gridlock”, from his comfortable ministerial office in Auckland, is giving the big middle finger to 1.4 million Aucklanders and saying: “Never mind what you think, 1.4 million Aucklanders. You pay your rates, you pay your taxes, but I know best, and I am going to set your priorities for Auckland. Never mind what you think.”

This Government loves to treat Auckland with contempt. It is its No. 1 sport. We saw it, actually, right back in the setting up of the Auckland super-city, when Treasury and the Ministry of Transport advised Cabinet that Auckland Transport would be more accountable if it was set up within Auckland Council as a department. But Steven Joyce knew better. Steven Joyce advised Cabinet: “No, set Auckland Council up as a council-controlled organisation—that way we can better control it.” That is exactly what this Government has set out to do. It wants to control Auckland Transport by requiring in this legislation that it act consistently with the Government policy statement. So Auckland Transport will take its marching orders not from the people of Auckland but from Cabinet. That is what is going on with this legislation. It is Cabinet telling Auckland how it is going to run its city, and what the priorities are for its transport system.

💬 Andrew Little: They always do that.

That is exactly right.

There is another basic principle of politics in Government called subsidiarity. Subsidiarity means that decisions should be made as close as possible to the location where the consequences of those decisions are felt by those people who live with the daily consequences. It is Aucklanders who have to live with the consequences of this Government’s policies and its priorities. It is Aucklanders who sit in traffic for an hour in the morning and an hour at night because this Government does not give a damn about their transport system, and continues to want to impose a 1950s ideology of suburban sprawl and motorways. That is the mindset of the National Party, and it does not give a damn. It does not give a damn that Aucklanders are actually crying out for something different.

I want to say something, to conclude, about what National has done in the transport area. It has poured billions of dollars into gold-plated, wasteful motorway projects. It has neglected public transport. Not a single new piece of public transport infrastructure has been initiated since these turkeys have been on the Treasury benches—not a single piece of new public transport. It is an absolute bloody disgrace. National has neglected rural roads. It has neglected State highways. It has run down KiwiRail. And now in this bill it is doctoring the legislative framework for our entire transport system in order to take power away from local communities and give it to Cabinet. What an absolutely disgraceful record. And I say to the National Government that it has gone too far. There is not a shred of consensus left in the transport sector after 4½ years that this Government has been in power.

If there is a good thing that comes out of the wasteful, mismanaged, ideologically blinkered management of transport by this National Government, it is that the next Labour-led Government will lead major reform. It will lead major reform, and the legacy of the National Government will lie in tatters. I say to the members over there that all the things that you have done for the last 4½ years will be swept away, because people do not want the kind of transport system that you have ushered in over the last 4½ years—not you, Mr Assistant Speaker; these people on the National Treasury benches. There will be major reform. People will notice the difference. There will be public transport in our cities. The local roads will be maintained properly. There will not be billions of dollars wasted on motorways, as the National Government has done. And that, actually, will be the legacy of that party’s tenure on the Treasury benches.

I rise to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I would like to start out by talking about the cost of transport, because I think it is something that Government members probably do not know that much about. What we know from the regulatory impact statement and from the Government books is that central government spends $3 billion a year on transport infrastructure and services, and local government spends $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year. So all together we are talking about $4 billion to $4.5 billion a year of spending on transport from local and central government.

Of course, that money that they spend comes from New Zealanders. It comes from petrol taxes, from road-user charges, and from rates. But, of course, a much larger cost is the cost of vehicles and fuel to run them, so our road network does not work unless households and businesses have vehicles and have fuel to run those vehicles. New Zealand households and businesses are spending in the order of $12 billion a year on vehicles and fuel to run them.

💬 Andrew Little: How much?

Twelve billion a year. So while the Government is taking our tax money and spending it on transport infrastructure and spending in the order of $4 billion a year, households and businesses are actually having to spend three times that much on vehicles and fuel to run them. And, of course, all of that contributes to our current account deficit, because in this country we do not manufacture vehicles and we do not produce petrol that is used in the tanks of cars. Even if we did find oil off the East Cape, we would not be using it in the tanks of our cars and trucks, because we produce light sweet crude oil here in New Zealand and we export all of it.

So the total cost of our transport system is more than the amount of taxpayer money that the Government is spending on infrastructure. It is the money that households and businesses have to spend on vehicles and fuel to run them because they have no other choice, because subsequent Governments have spent all of the money on infrastructure for vehicles and cars rather than looking at a more cost-effective solution, which would look at what the best way is to move people and goods. What is the most cost-effective way to move people and goods? What the Green Party is advocating is simply a rational approach to assessing the problem of what the most cost-effective way is to move people and goods.

It turns out that since we have a very extensive road system, the biggest bang for our buck is going to be in improving the productivity of our road system and of our existing rail network. That means investment in capital expansion of our rail network so that we can deliver better services for exporters who are using rail freight to get their products to market and also investment in passenger transport and safe walking and cycling, because New Zealanders would actually like their kids to be able to walk and cycle to school, but they simply do not have the choice. And, of course, it is much more cost-effective to provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure than it is to constantly increase the supply of roads for more and more vehicles.

We live in an interesting time. It turns out that the trends of the past 50 years are no longer continuing in the direction that they were going in. Yet another report has come out of the United States, there have been reports from Australia, and there have been reports here in New Zealand that show that the fundamental drivers of transport demand are changing. What we have seen is absolutely no increase in traffic volumes on State highways since 2004. We have seen no increase in heavy-vehicle traffic volumes since 2007. This is an opportunity that the National Government could be seizing to catch up on the lack of investment in alternatives—that means safe walking and cycling, public transport, and rail freight. All of that enables our transport network to work more efficiently. But instead it has declined to take a rational approach to the assessment of transport infrastructure.

What it has done through the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding is have three measures by which it is going to define the effectiveness of the projects: one is efficiency, one is strategic fit, and one is effectiveness. Efficiency is the benefit-cost ratio, or BCR. That is the amount of benefit the project provides divided by the cost; that gives you the benefit-cost ratio. What we have seen is that the vast majority of spending from the National Government on transport infrastructure has very low economic efficiency. The New Zealand Transport Agency has that data available. I have brought it up in the House many times. We have seen the relative benefit of our spending start to decline, and it is actually all very low right now because the Government is prioritising projects that do not have very great benefits relative to their costs.

But it justifies these projects on two other criteria: strategic fit and effectiveness. The strategic fit means whether they fit the strategy as defined by the Minister. The Minister of Transport said the strategy is to build the roads of so-called national significance, which are just some pet project motorways that the Government thinks are going to win it votes. So it is a very circular logic, obviously, because to meet the strategic fit when it is defined as building this particular motorway—well, only building the motorway is going to meet that strategic fit. It is a bit of circular logic there in terms of what the Minister has said: “We want to build these motorways. Never mind that they have very low economic efficiency; we will say they have high strategic fit because the Minister said we had to build them.” Effectiveness is very similar. Effectiveness is how effective the project is at achieving the strategic fit. We have got two circular logic reasons for justifying projects. We have one that is about economic efficiency, and by that test the roads of so-called national significance absolutely fail.

Unfortunately, we are talking about the single largest bit of spending in the National Infrastructure Plan. When the National Government talks about its plan for lifting our economic competitiveness and productivity, it often refers to investing in productive infrastructure, but about 90 percent of the money it is spending on productive infrastructure in the National Infrastructure Plan is on these roads of so-called national significance, which have low economic efficiency. It is spending tens of billions of dollars on projects that have very little benefit relative to their cost. There is an opportunity cost. Most people do not see the opportunity cost of not spending that $10 billion on projects that would have greater benefits and actually reduce the costs that New Zealand households and businesses are having to spend on transport. Instead of reducing the costs that we are spending on transport by investing the money in a network that works more efficiently, the Government has decided to spend the vast bulk of the money on new infrastructure—on a few projects that will win it votes.

There is one other point that I would like to raise right now, and that is clause 14 of this bill and what it does. Clause 14 of this bill takes away the right of regional councils to determine the strategic direction for transport in their areas. In particular, it takes that away from Auckland Council and gives it to Auckland Transport. Clause 14 says that the strategic direction they are setting for transport in their region has to be consistent with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. Of course, the Government policy statement is written by the Minister, who just says: “We want to build these projects not because they are economically efficient, not because they are going to deliver benefits for the country, but because we think they are going to win us votes.”

So what the National Government has done with this bill—there are many bad aspects to this bill—is take away the ability of local ratepayers to determine what their money is going to be spent on. It also takes away the right of Aucklanders to determine what their money is going to be spent on, what transport solutions are going to work best for them, and it puts it all in the hands of the Minister, who is writing his Government policy statement on a whim.

Ultimately, those roads of so-called national significance in the Waikato, north of Auckland, and in Wellington are not going to be used by very many people, and they are certainly not being paid for by the users. If you look at the traffic volumes on these routes, they are much smaller than the average daily traffic volumes on an arterial in Auckland. Auckland Council will not even have that much money to spend on upgrading those arterials or investing in productive infrastructure that would mean there were fewer cars on those arterials. Ultimately, what is going on here is the National Government is saying to Auckland that it is not going to let it have its regional fuel tax, it is not going to let it fund the solutions that would actually work for its communities; it is going to make its rates be spent on National’s electoral priorities and it is going to make sure that the fuel taxes of Aucklanders stuck in traffic well into the future are going to pay for some very low-value motorways. Thank you.

I am pleased to pick up after the member Julie Anne Genter has resumed her seat. She talked about circular logic. What happens when the member speaks is that the logic goes round in a circle, because what she says makes so little sense that by the time I am speaking I am actually seeming like quite a luminary, so I appreciate the member’s contribution to this debate on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill.

💬 Andrew Little: It ain’t as good as you make out.

Bring it on—bring it on. The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill goes to the heart of opening up the highways and byways that are fundamental to the economy of this country. The members over there say we should all be travelling around on unicycles or buses or something—I do not know—assuming somehow that they must levitate, that they are hoverbuses or something, because buses actually need roads as well. But so does a region like Northland, where $800 million of that Northland economy makes its way to Auckland via State Highway 1. The State Highway 1 roads of national significance project is a project this Government is committed to, and this bill goes to the heart of saying that this is about getting priorities and synergies right in terms of economic priorities, because when we do not, what we know is we end up with clogs and bottlenecks, and every Aucklander will know that.

For every member on that side of the House who says they are going to get rid of the Pūhoi to Auckland road, the party vote for the National Party goes through the roof, because everyone in Northland knows that the Pūhoi to Wellsford road is so important to Northland’s economy. I commend this bill to the House.

I am surprised that the last speaker, Mike Sabin, gave a 1½ minute speech on such an important bill. I felt that the speech was undercooked, unpalatable, and indigestible, and so is this bill. The Minister of Transport said that the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is about cutting red tape and saving money. In fact, it is about much more than that. It makes some fundamental changes. It alters the objectives of the Land Transport Management Act. It changes the funding framework for land transport activities, including roading, public transport, and road safety; it repeals regional fuel tax provisions; it changes the framework for assessing toll road schemes; and it establishes a policy framework for the relationship between regional councils and public transport operators.

So I am starting first with the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Agency. The bill changes those objectives 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”. The deletion of the words “affordable”, “integrated”, and “sustainable”, and all that those terms mean, will be a huge mistake for New Zealand. Essentially, the bill means that the Government is interested only in saving money as its first priority, but, actually, much more is at stake. The agency should be seeking much better integration of transport modes. As the era of the dominance of fossil fuel transport comes to an end—and it certainly is, 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 the cost of the road network expansions and maintenance continue, then, increasingly, it is going to be necessary to ensure a properly integrated system, so that the best use can be made of all modes and of the alternatives to more and more cars and bigger and more expensive motorways, which is what the Government’s agenda is really about.

Similarly, it is essential for New Zealand to design a transport system, especially for freight from one end of this country to the other, and especially also for personal transport at peak times in the larger cities, so that the system is sustainable. That means economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable, and if that ceases to be an objective, as proposed in this bill, then the vast effects of the transport system will not be adequately controlled or mitigated. As a result, the very environment that we rely upon for healthy lives and a good quality of life will be significantly degraded, as, indeed, it has been in many other countries in the world.

The bill will also entrench the current situation that has been with us for decades under successive National and Labour Governments, in which we do not 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 properly assessed. Land transport will continue to be, I think, a political football, kicked about in different directions by whichever political flavour is in power at any given 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 upon us by global conditions and developments.

We need an entirely new approach that converts our system to one that, over time, firstly, makes better use of our vast renewable energy opportunities, especially to produce electric power; secondly, reduces the dependence on imported liquid fuels; and, thirdly, replaces more clogged motorways with attractive, safe, comfortable, and affordable public transport options, as well as facilitating more cycling at peak times. The bill is going in entirely the wrong direction.

We should be learning from the lessons of other countries, where the headlong race to build more road capacity has resulted only in more and more demand, especially at peak times. You only have to look at cities like Los Angeles to see that—the city that has basically destroyed its own environment with the demand for the use of the motor car.

You can also see, on the same west coast of the United States, the city of Portland, which shows the right way to go. I went there and saw where they stopped building more motorways. There is actually an off-ramp that is cut off and does not go any further, because at that time that city decided on a new direction, the sort of new direction that New Zealand should be going in. That city provided a very comprehensive light rail system for its population, which is now extremely popular and goes to most parts of that city—a city, by the way, that is not too different in population from our own city of Auckland. The effect of feeding demand with capacity is a vicious circle that costs vast sums of capital expenditure and increased maintenance costs, and, in addition, causes very large increases in externalities such as the cost of accidents, health care, and deaths, and increased costs in relation to pollution, waste, delays, community severance, business dislocation, and so on and so on.

I also note that some of the best aspects of regional transport administration will be removed by this bill. Firstly, the non-voting representatives of a prescribed list of interests as members of regional transport committees are removed altogether. This reinforces this 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, which in local government is considerable, the quality of the input of volunteer experts in public transport, transport safety, cycling, walking, business operators, transport operators, the Automobile Association, and on facilities for disabled people was very significant and is too valuable to lose. Worse still is the intention to remove the option of regional fuel taxes, and that means that a regional council will no longer be able to persuade its population in favour of such a tax, which could offer an inexpensive, effective, and fair way of funding important regional transport options. That will be lost too.

Finally, one has to wonder what is really behind these changes. It seems to me that this Government is excessively influenced by road transport interests. New Zealand First is focused on a modern, sustainable transport system for New Zealand. This bill will not deliver that. We will vote against it.

I commend this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, to the House. We should pass it.

I rise to take a call on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I begin by expressing my considerable disappointment in the last member who spoke, Chris Auchinvole, a member who in the past has attracted my admiration and, indeed, on occasions, respect for his worthy contributions to this House, but that speech, frankly, is an embarrassment. But it is more than an embarrassment, because it demonstrates the ongoing contempt and disrespect in which this House is held by members of this Government. To stand up in the third reading of this bill, an important bill that makes radical changes to the administration of land transport policy in this country, with a cursory, barely two-sentence submission by that member is, frankly, a disgrace. Mr Auchinvole knows better, as, indeed, do the leaders of his party in this House tonight. It is incumbent, of course, on the Opposition to take the debate on these important points.

This bill makes considerable change to the administration of land transport policy in this country. It changes, amongst other things, the purpose of the primary legislation and, therefore, of the New Zealand Transport Agency. In what has until now been an agency that has been driven by a sense of a comprehensive approach to land transport, an integrated approach to land transport, this bill now minimises it and reduces it, in the reductionist sort of approach that this Government favours, to a much narrower set of parameters and drivers. It replaces what is a comprehensive and integrated approach to transport with one focused almost entirely on efficiency, whatever that means. So it changes our approach to road planning. It introduces scope for more tolling and, therefore, for the privatisation of more roading, over and above the approach that typically, until now, has been taken, which is to regard roading, in a long, narrow country like New Zealand, as being integral to our total transport networks. But this bill will replace that.

You know, the irony of that is, of course, that only weeks ago—only weeks ago—we had rammed through this House, rushed through under great urgency, legislation that will increase excise duties on petrol by 3c a year for the next 3 years on the basis that it was needed for transport funding, but, indeed, what this bill does is give greater scope for toll roads and the privatisation of roading. So we cannot even get consistency in the approach that this Government adopts. We cannot get members opposite to defend this bill—to defend the approach taken in this legislation—so that we can better understand, and so that the members of the New Zealand public who are tuned in tonight, on this cold, windy, “haily” night, when people have got nothing better to do than to listen to Parliament, can understand. The citizens of New Zealand will be none the wiser from members of the Government, who choose not to defend this important and this critical piece of legislation. What a disappointment—what a disappointment.

I want to comment too on the other thing that, of course, this bill does. This bill from this Government, which purports to be the Government of regional voice and local voice, provides for and portends the greater centralisation of roading decision-making. I know that Mr Auchinvole, now that he realises the folly of his ways, is alarmed at that. He had not understood that that was in the legislation, and he expresses in his facial expressions great alarm and horror at that prospect. I can see it—I can feel it from here.

But I would be remiss in my duties if I did not come to the House tonight to talk about State Highway 3 and north Taranaki, because they will be sorely affected by this legislation—sorely affected. I want to talk about Taranaki, my tūrangawaewae, the area that is dear to my heart and close to my mind right now. I want to say that in Taranaki what we desperately need is a sense of coherence and cohesion in our roading planning, and this bill will not give it to us—this bill will not give it to us. What we also need to ensure in Taranaki and on State Highway 3 is that the local voice is heard, and this bill will deprive the people of Taranaki of that opportunity. You see, we need a good, coherent plan for State Highway 3, that section north of New Plymouth, and not just the Waiwhakaiho bridge and the 100-odd metres of that bridge and the stretch to Vickers Road but the 100 kilometres through to the little village of Piopio, which is actually in the King Country—it goes from New Plymouth to Piopio there. I also want to mention that little stretch of road just north of Hāwera around Normanby bridge, because that has been a big challenge to the people of Taranaki, as well.

Fifty-seven percent of the Taranaki economic output is geared towards export. Whether it is for oil and gas, or dairy, or some of the engineering activities that are there, 57 percent of the Taranaki economy is geared towards the export economy. That is twice the national figure. That is the significance of Taranaki and, therefore, the significance of the Taranaki infrastructure. We need roading that reflects the economic contribution that is made by the people of Taranaki. The province of Taranaki produces the highest GDP per employee in the country—

💬 Dr Cam Calder: That’s right—$120,000 per FTE.

It is the highest GDP per employee in the country. Cam Calder, who once hailed from that great region and who made the mistake of settling way further north of that region, knows. He is ashamed to be living in a region that is making far less of a contribution per capita than the people of Taranaki. One of the consequences of having a region that contributes so much to the economic well-being of the country and that contributes so much to our GDP, and whose employees contribute a disproportionately greater amount than any other employee in the country, is, of course, that it demands a skilled international workforce. Those people are travelling up and down the roads of New Zealand, and, therefore, in and out of Taranaki, all the time. Of course, the products of Taranaki—not only the goods that come off our farms but the products of our heavy engineering industry—demand good-quality roads, and we do not have them.

Here is what the local economic development agency said about State Highway 3 only last year. This is Venture Taranaki, the local economic development agency, which is one of our best economic development agencies in the country. Here is what it said in its report on State Highway 3 last year: “But there are some roadblocks that are preventing the Taranaki economy from meeting its growth aspirations and thereby contributing to the national economy. Our region’s roading network, particularly the central artery of State Highway 3—between Taranaki and the Waikato, and then on to Auckland—is failing to fulfil its economic potential.” It went on to say, because it is by intelligent people: “Where considerable effort has been made to get central Auckland moving, insufficient attention has yet been given to reviewing the critical links connecting Auckland to the rest of New Zealand—and thereby New Zealand to the world.” That illustrates the problem for Taranaki.

The people of Taranaki will look at this bill and they will say: “There is nothing in this bill for us. There is nothing in this bill that will improve the prospects of State Highway 3 for us.” This Government is doing nothing for Taranaki. It talks big and large about Taranaki and about the contribution that it is making, but the reality about the National Government running New Zealand in 2013 is that it could not give a toss about State Highway 3 and the infrastructure in Taranaki. It talks long and large about that region that contributes disproportionately to the great benefit of this country, but it will do nothing for the people of Taranaki to improve their roads.

That is an issue that the people of Taranaki and New Plymouth are getting angry about and agitated about. I am talking to them all the time, and they are going to see some action. They are going to see some action from the Labour Party. When Labour leads the next Government, we will see action on State Highway 3, on Mount Messenger, on Awakino Gorge, and on all that stretch of road. That stretch of road includes 65 kilometres of road heading north without a single passing lane. What person travels 65 kilometres in this country without a passing lane? Only the people of Taranaki, and they have had enough and they want it changed. This bill will not do it, and we will be—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: West Coasters do.

The West Coasters do. We will change this legislation to ensure the people of Taranaki have a better voice, a stronger voice, and soon they will have a stronger MP representing them in Parliament.

Improving our nation’s infrastructure is a significant part of this Government’s Business Growth Agenda. The key aims of this legislation, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, are to simplify the way transport projects are planned, funded, and undertaken; to eliminate the duplication that exists throughout the system; and to better align the regional and nationwide strategies. I commend this bill to the House.

I understand that the next call is a split call. Kris Faafoi—5 minutes.

Gerry Brownlee said in his opening remarks that this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, was about cutting red tape and saving money. Well, I think we would call that an exercise in political spin, because, under this piece of legislation, the Government has to do only three things—that is, give effect to the Government policy statement in terms of transport, for any transport decision that the Government makes to be effective and efficient. So I guess when you consider what the Transport Agency used to have to take into consideration, it is cutting a lot of red tape. But let us look, because it is always the case with this Government that the devil is in the detail—the devil is in the detail. What kind of red tape are we cutting here? The Transport Agency used to have to take safety into consideration. It used to have to take that into consideration, but that is red tape under this Government so let us get rid of that. After Queen’s Birthday weekend, during which we had no deaths on our roads—and congratulations on that to everyone involved—we are removing the need for safety to be taken into consideration when this Government is making its roading decisions. Under this Government, the safety on our roads is red tape, so it should be cut.

Let us look at what else the Government is removing from those things that we have to take into consideration. Our roading solutions are being integrated. So now we are just going to keep building more and more motorways. Do not worry about what freight we move on the sea. Do not worry about our air transport. Do not worry about our rail transport. Let us just blindly keep building roads. That is exactly what this National Government has been doing. And, funnily enough, we also no longer need to take account of—because this Government thinks that it is red tape—the environmental responsibility that we, as New Zealanders, have around the building of our roads. We do not need to worry about the environment any more when building our roads. Let us just build it whatever happens to the environment. Let us just do it. Do not worry about it, because, under this Government, being environmentally responsible is red tape. Let us cut it. Let us get rid of it. It is gone in this bill.

And one that I am going to get into more detail around what is happening in my area is that this Government says that it no longer has a social responsibility when it is building roads in our communities. So damn the people and damn the effects that the roads will have on communities. Do not worry about the people. Let us just build the road. Let us just get it done. The Government no longer has to take that into effect. The feelings of people in those communities are red tape, so let us cut them. Unfortunately, that has been the situation for the communities of Raumati South, Raumati Beach, and on the Kāpiti coast, where this Government wants to build the Kāpiti Expressway.

Mr Brownlee also said that this bill was about saving money and economic development. Well, that is not necessarily the case, because the Government’s plan to build the expressway rolled over the top of a $350 million plan that Labour introduced late in its last term. This National Government introduced an expressway, a monstrosity, through the Kāpiti coast, which is going to cost New Zealanders $515 million, a considerable amount more than what was planned. When you talk in terms of the economic benefit of the Kāpiti Expressway, which this Government is going to build, it is a dog. A leaked report last year from the engineering consultants Beca Group showed that the economic benefit ratio of the Kāpiti Expressway is 0.2. For every $1 that New Zealand taxpayers spend on this road, we are going to get an economic benefit of just 20c. In terms of economic development and a good return for money, the Kāpiti Expressway is an absolute dog. The New Zealand taxpayer is going to lose money by spending money on this expressway, when what we could have had was a better local solution for the people of Kāpiti.

One of the things that this bill does is it removes the local voice from communities when transport solutions are being offered by this Government. This is absolutely a trend of this Government’s and that is very, very sad.

I want to just go back to the Kāpiti Expressway because it was a funny twist of events. When the National Government came into power, the member up in Kāpiti, the member for Ōtaki, Nathan Guy, was absolutely cool with Labour’s plan. He wanted the Western Link Road. He said he was working hard with the local mayor to get this project started because the funding had been allocated and the community wanted this road. Unfortunately, Steven Joyce and the National Party’s plan to keep building monstrosity roads rolled Mr Guy, and the Western Link Road turned into the Kāpiti Expressway. It is another example that this Government is blindly building motorways.

I rise to take the last call on this bill, the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, for the Greens. We will be opposing this bill because, as the House has heard from my colleague Julie Anne Genter, it is completely flawed. It is weighted towards roads, roads, and more roads as the only transport option. It allows this Government to borrow to fund infrastructure that may not stack up economically. It allows for public-private partnerships and road tolling, so it privatises more of the public purse. Worst of all, this bill once more strips decision making away from Auckland.

What is it about this Government? Why does it hate Auckland so much? One of the first things this Government did when it came into power was to remove Auckland’s regional fuel tax. It was being collected to invest in public transport—things like the electric trains—and was an opportunity for Auckland to save up for the central rail link, which has been on the agenda for years. In the Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it specifically asked to retain the ability for the council to gather regional fuel taxes because, as the council said in its submission: “It is important to not pre-empt the outcome of Auckland’s investigation and consultation process in relation to alternative transport funding mechanisms, by removing one of these mechanisms. Auckland Council considers that the removal of regional fuel tax as a potential funding option could be inconsistent with consultation principles established in case law.”

This bill not only undermines the council’s ability to raise money for transport options, but it also says that whatever decisions the council makes about the spending priorities it may have, they have to be consistent with the Government’s policy statement. As noted in the verbal submission from the Auckland Council, this provision—what the Government is trying to do here—cuts across section 15 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, which states that the governing body of Auckland Council is responsible and democratically accountable for setting transport objectives in Auckland.

The ratepayers in Auckland contribute about $400 million a year to Auckland Transport for transport infrastructure. I remind the House that it is not just roads. It is actually public transport, walking, and cycling options. It is not just the roads that the Minister may have chosen, for dodgy, uneconomic reasons. I spoke with the chair of the Auckland Transport board today, councillor Mike Lee, who says that this Government has deliberately singled out Auckland in this piece of legislation and has at least been consistent in its approach to dismantling any type of democracy for the region.

The super-city legislation was the first go the Government had. The legislation for the forced amalgamation also created the council-controlled organisation, Auckland Transport, which is now, with this legislation, fast becoming a Government-taking-control organisation. We have seen since then that the Government has sought to undermine Auckland Council in every way—in the Resource Management Act changes, in the decision-making process around the unitary plan, in the changes to the Local Government Act, and, more recently, with the housing bill that will force Auckland into more urban spread, when Aucklanders want a compact city.

The Auckland Council submission points out the potential for conflict, when it says in its submission that “The provisions relating to the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan need to take into account the different governance arrangements in Auckland and the existence of the Auckland (Spatial) Plan.”, which was required of it by this Government when it set up the super-city. This Government has interfered so much in Auckland that it is fast becoming the worst nanny State Government in history.

We will not be voting for this bill. It cedes power to the Government, so that it can give more power to its vested interests. The Skycity deal is a classic example of that. With this interference there is less control for ordinary citizens over their environment, and indeed over their lives. We will not be voting for it.

I thought we were actually discussing the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I am not quite sure what was going on there. You see, the key to land transport is ultimately about integration. That is what this bill does.

They always say that a journey starts from A and moves to B. Well, here we are at the third reading. We have moved from A through to B, so I commend this bill to the House.