Baldock Larry: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9699] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to address this part of the bill and particularly a couple of my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 153 to clauses 70(1) and 79(1) in which I want to see the word “efficient” inserted into the objectives. I believe it would be best if clause 70(1) read: “The objective of Transfund is to allocate its resources in a way that contributes to an integrated safe responsive efficient and sustainable land transport system.” That is the kind of system that I believe New Zealanders want and it is the one this Government ought to be committed to delivering. 
We have had a great deal of discussion this evening about “efficient” and what it would mean. Members have talked about us wanting to get our money’s worth from the system whether it is put in by way of road-user charges petrol excise or tolls. However we may contribute not only do we want that the money be spent efficiently but also we want to get a good outcome from our expense. I believe that the outcome New Zealanders want is greater mobility—as I said earlier “efficient mobility” but we will take out the word “efficient”. We want to be able to get around without being stuck in traffic. If we choose to travel by train as the speaker before me said—riding on public transport and getting there quickly and cheaply—that is a choice New Zealanders have but most want to be able to travel in their automobile. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh no! Who told you that? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is a stunning comment I know but it is true. Most of us want to move around in our automobile because we consider it to be the most efficient way to get around this country given that we do not have huge populations that will sustain the kind of train network we see in other countries particularly in Europe. 
The member who spoke somewhat earlier is still committed to the fact that all the money for Transfund and Transit should come by means of a fuel excise tax. He considers that to be an efficient way of collecting the money and he completely rejects the user-pays principle. I am astounded by that. I still do not understand how he considers that this bill will provide for what he calls generic tolling—that somehow tolling schemes will spring up all over the country—when most people have commented on how difficult it will be to get a tolling scheme under way. There is a huge contradiction in that. 
The whole point of the bill is about giving communities choice about the way they meet their roading needs and I support that principle. I particularly support it for Tauranga where people will be able choose the way they solve their roading network. I have some sad news for the member who spoke earlier: his party leader may well be finished as the member for Tauranga. Although right now he is running around telling Tauranga people that tolling is a terrible rip-off he will have to turn round to explain to his supporters in retirement villages around Tauranga—people who do not even go across the bridge more than once a week—that they will have to pay another 30c per litre on their fuel. They have plenty of time to be able to avoid the bridge and go by the alternative route that will be provided. He might find that some of the support base he has relied on for a long long time may begin to dwindle away. I think he should wake up and realise as also should the other member of his party who lives in Tauranga that in meeting the problems of the city there needs to be many different tools in the tool bag. Not all of them are delivered in this bill as we said earlier but they are coming. They will be delivered so that communities can choose which particular tool to pick up to meet their needs. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: Far short of Route K’s expected numbers. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is doing just fine. Once the bridge is built Route K will be a marvellous way of getting across the city and to the other side of the harbour. 
Clause 79 discusses Transit and its objectives. Again I believe that the word “efficient” should be inserted in subclause (1) so that it reads: “integrated safe responsive sustainable and efficient land transport system.” I fully support that Transit should be the lead builder of highways in New Zealand. I believe that Transit does an excellent job. Also I believe that the requirement now for Transit to give a 10-year programme for its new State highways is an excellent move forward. It will mean that people have more certainty. However it is becoming painfully obvious to everybody that the funds that will be available to Transit to build the land transport system will be limited.