Brownlee Gerry: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9692] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Right at the start of Part 3 we find the reason the Prime Minister so confidently said in the House today that Labour could not fix the problems of Auckland transport and could not put right the difficulties that New Zealand communities are faced with when it comes to their need for roading. The reason for that can be found in clause 70 “Objective of Transfund” where subclause (2) states that “Transfund must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility which includes—(a) avoiding to the extent reasonable in the circumstances adverse effects on the environment;”. That is a very broad and most definitely contestable circumstance put upon Transit when it comes to considering any project at all—adverse effects on the environment. 
Some people in this country believe that every time a key is turned in a car there is an adverse effect on the environment; that every time the wheel of a car turns full circle on a road there is an adverse effect on the environment; that every time a bit of shingle is quarried to build a road there is an adverse effect on the environment; and every time some new tarmac is laid down somewhere there is an adverse effect on the environment. 
Under subclause (2) Transfund must take into account the need for the views of affected communities to be taken into account by persons and organisations preparing land transport programmes. I spoke before about the incredible list of affected parties that clause 15 picks up. So we have not only the all-catching subclause (2) enabling every environmental enthusiast in the country to hold up a roading project anywhere but also the obligations on Transfund to go out and find the objectors and consult them. 
Subclause (2) also states that Transfund must provide for the need for persons and organisations when preparing land transport programmes to give early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives in a way that contributes to the objectives referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). This means effectively that if there is a big group out there that thinks bicycles are the answer then the roading is out. If there is a big group out there that thinks walking is the answer then the roading is out. If there are a lot of people in the whole phone book of organisations that must be consulted then we see a complete slowing down of these projects. 
I repeat for the Minister’s benefit that one of the most respected engineering organisations in this country Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner—the Minister nods his head because he knows—asked the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee whether it could have some way of speeding up these projects. People might have thought: “No hang on. There should be a reasonable amount of process when these projects are put together.” But Beca Carter said that under the current arrangements a road that takes perhaps 2 years to build—therefore many many kilometres long—can take 7 years in the consent process. 
 I ask the Minister to explain how clause 70 of Part 3 will in any way mitigate against the extensive resource consent process that is there now. It will not make a blind bit of difference. All it will do is ensure that the Government has a huge fund of money being collected from petrol tax—from the 4c that my constituents pay on every litre of petrol in Christchurch—accumulating for its use. We have seen in other parts of the bill the legislation allowing it to put its hands in that pot.