Wong Pansy: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wong Pansy: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17057. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I am looking forward to seeing whether the Government rejects New Zealand First’s amendment. Does that mean New Zealand First would then not support— 
Hon Member 
: Will you support it? 
PANSY WONG 
: My learned colleague Maurice Williamson has already given that indication. But we will be interested to see whether New Zealand First pulls its support for the bill if the Labour Government does not accept its amendment. 
I want to talk about two points. Part 1 is the largest part in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and there are quite a few issues that I would like to raise with the Committee. In one of the regulatory impact statements—that is the reasons why this bill entered the House—the advisers pointed out that there is a need to meet a national transport objective. They said that the existing organisation and the existing structures are not clear and because of that they are not delivering the Government’s priority objectives. However it is difficult to deliver the Labour Government’s objectives because in previous years it has talked about such things as having economic transformation and sustainability; this year it has dropped that completely and talks about an emissions trading scheme. So it is difficult for the various agencies of local government that are supposed to deliver Government objectives if the Government is not very clear about what objectives it is going to pursue. 
I want to share with the public that I doubt very much whether the passage of this bill will make it easier because it talks about these agencies grouping themselves together and delivering the objectives set out in the GPS which I presume is something akin to a Government policy statement. Part 1 gives the definition of GPS and section 84 inserted by clause 32 states: (1) “A GPS which is issued by the Minister every 3 financial years enables the Minister to—(a) guide the Agency and the land transport sector on the outcomes and objectives and the short- to medium-term impacts that the Crown wishes to achieve—(i) through the national land transport programme; and (ii) from the allocation of the national land transport fund; and (b) link the amount of revenue raised from road users with the planned levels of expenditure …”. This is all very good until we get to the next section. Section 85 states: “To avoid doubt a GPS is not—(a) a direction for the purposes of Part 3 of the Crown Entities Act 2004; and (b) a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989; and (c) a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989.” 
So one could be forgiven for asking whether this Government policy statement is really going to give clear direction to the super-transport agency that Part 1 is going to set up. We know what the Government policy statement is not but we are not clear what it is. Anyway in the preparation of the Government policy statement section 87 states: “(1) The Minister must in preparing the GPS—(a) be satisfied that the GPS—(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system; and (ii) contributes to each of the following: (A) assisting economic development: (B) assisting safety and personal security: (C) improving access and mobility:”—unlike the Prime Minister’s motorcade that parked on the disabled parking bay I presume that means—“(D) protecting and promoting public health: (E) ensuring environmental sustainability;”. 
Maybe the Minister can take a call and explain to us how any agency or any Government policy statement will satisfy this motherhood and apple pie stuff because formulating a plan that tries to achieve all of these at times conflicting objectives would be almost impossible. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us what the time line is in terms of issuing the Government policy statement that takes into account all these objectives—which of course are all fantastic and well meaning. 
But I can just imagine anybody who wants a public transport system—a rail or roading project—simultaneously achieving all those objectives about protecting and promoting public health. I presume it means that somehow we have to look at fuel usage or the design of the bus or rail carriages. I am not too sure what else we can do to promote public health. After all at the select committee the Labour members said they were not actually very happy with advertisements on buses. I thought we could promote health with messages on buses but they said they did not want to see any messages promoting public health on buses. Also how do we assist safety and personal security? They are very lofty ideas. I am not sure how they will all be carried out. 
National members are not the only ones who have lots of concern about this bill. I want to share with the Minister the Committee and the public the view of Local Government New Zealand which is the shall I say overall coordinating body for all local government in New Zealand. Local Government New Zealand like most people supports the general intent of the bill. But it is worried. Firstly it feels that the consultation and the provision in the bill would not foster the partnership relationship and as we know the Labour Government has always claimed it is in partnership with local government. But Local Government New Zealand believes that this bill is being imposed on it rather than being developed in a partnership way. 
Secondly it is very concerned about accountability. It wants to know how the creation of a super-agency—the New Zealand Transport Agency which will end up encouraging a top-down process planning will be driven by a technical consideration and will be solely focused on a national solution—would be beneficial to the regions. I think it has raised a very very good point. It uses the example of local communities in the Bay of Plenty and Christchurch. Apparently those two good cities have successfully used non-statutory agreements founded on best practice and political agreement to develop long-term strategies. Their big concern with the existence of this super-agency is whether those local community - derived solutions will still have room to blossom. 
The other issue I have raised before about that lofty idea of the Government policy statement concerns how the consultation requirements will be conducted under this bill. Local Government New Zealand reckons there is duplication between the consultation requirement under this bill and the Local Government Act 2002. I cannot say that Local Government New Zealand is a body that will be anti-transportation. It raised concerns firstly about the super-bureaucracy and secondly about the fact that the partnership approach was touted but was not implemented during the development of this bill. So with the super-agency that will be created how will this genuine partnership exist? I do share its concern about the duplication of roles within the bureaucracy. 
I am sure that the Hon Maurice Williamson would have shared with us again the fact that 10 years ago he was being got at on a daily basis about the super-agency that should be broken up because the national interest has always overridden the regional interest in terms of transport. So he conceded that and then 10 years later it is a case of back to the future.