Ward Mike: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Ward Mike: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9326] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Much is made in this place of the issues that divide us and our points of difference. The Greens have been pleased to work in tandem with the Government on this bill. It is a good piece of legislation it is a modest piece of legislation and it is a modern piece of legislation. It is not legislation that is way out or somehow beyond the pale. It is an attempt to bring New Zealand’s transport into line with that of those places that have managed to keep people and products moving and to look after the health and well-being of their communities and their environments. 
The Land Transport Management Bill is a key component in addressing New Zealand’s land transport strategy. It finds support from such diverse groups as the Council of Trade Unions the Business Council for Sustainable Development and the public health authorities. The bill sets out a framework for establishing safe sustainable integrated responsive transport systems and we are pleased to support it. We are pleased to see it here. In a planet that is living way beyond the capacity of the environment to sustain this legislation is culture-shifting legislation and makes better solutions possible. It has become very clear that we have not been able to solve our transport problems simply by building more roads—no communities have. They may work briefly but if building roads worked London Los Angeles or wherever we like to look—indeed we need look no further than Auckland or even my own home city of Nelson—where roads have been built for many many years now would be free of traffic problems. Clearly they are not. 
We have been pleased to be able to be part of changing some of the more complicated elements of the bill. An example of this is the simplification of the consultation procedures. Local communities must have a say in the transport solutions for their communities. The inclusion of local government consultation processes is an important part of that and they are included in the bill. People need to be consulted but not re-consulted and if an issue has been covered once and the community has had a chance of having a say on it that should be enough. We are pleased to see that the consultation procedures are robust but not excessive. 
Amongst some of the more contentious issues in the bill is the provision for demand management. When Jeanette Fitzsimons’ traffic management member’s bill came before the select committee its detractors labelled it as anti-business. They claimed that it was an infringement of their rights. In fact most businesses operating in a businesslike way will examine their issues from both sides of the spectrum. They will ask whether there are ways they can minimise the problem rather than simply throwing money at it and in fact that is what transport management is about. We are looking for the bill to provide measures to cater for problems that affect us by not simply throwing money at them but asking whether there are ways we can minimise them. 
Without exception when the submitters who said that Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill was anti-business were asked whether they were seriously telling us that when they are sitting on a motorway going nowhere and going there extraordinarily slowly in Auckland when they are surrounded by products and people moving just as slowly and getting nowhere very very slowly there are not occasions when they would rather that some of those people had found another way of getting there they said they were not opposed to that but they just did not want to be regulated. I said: “Well if we get the regulation bit out of the way what if we can make those other choices more attractive? What if those other choices were more cost-effective?”. Without exception they said: “Well yes I guess if you can do that that sounds reasonable.” That is what land transport management is about. It is about managing demand. It is not simply about throwing roads at it. 
This is not cutting-edge stuff. New South Wales and Western Australia have transport strategies that identify motorcar dependence as a major problem. Demand management is about addressing that problem not by banning motorcars but by providing more attractive and cost-effective solutions that address not just meeting the needs of the transport disadvantaged—that is those who cannot drive who choose not to drive or who cannot afford to drive—but providing choices for the movement of products and people whoever they are. 
How will the Transfund programmes contribute to New Zealand’s transport strategy and the intentions of the Land Transport Management Bill? They have to look beyond simply building roads and catering for cars to solutions that meet the objectives of the bill and address the problems associated with our motorcar-obsessed society. The first problem is congestion. Simply building more roads inevitably encourages more cars. We have seen it in Auckland. We have seen people move to the end of the motorway but their respite is brief. Bit by bit those roads become even more full and the congestion in the inner city becomes even greater. The air pollution issue with cars is well established and kills more people than accidents do. Water pollution due to the runoff from our roads is a major issue. There is the risk issue in that the more cars we have the more vulnerable people are on the roads. There is the health issue which is not just about pollution but also about the sedentary lifestyles imposed on people who are brought up with the idea that the only way of getting to places is to climb into cars. We have to provide other choices. There is also the cost issue in that motorcars are an extraordinarily expensive choice. 
The bill sets out objectives that address those issues. They include to assist economic development to assist safety and personal security and to improve access and mobility. That is for all New Zealanders—not just those who have motorcars but those who do not or who are unable to drive. That affects all of us for some of our lives. Friends of mine say they like driving; I say OK so if they are sitting at home and their kids ring up at midnight from 20 miles away and say come and pick them up do they say “Yippee!” and climb into their car? I do not think so. 
 Other objectives are to protect and promote public health and to ensure environmental sustainability. Some folk were concerned at the failure to include efficiency in the objectives. We believe that efficiency will always be a factor but are concerned at the likelihood that if it became an overriding concern it would undermine those other objectives in the bill. 
Deborah Coddington spoke about Roland Sapsford. We all of us have advisers in this place we all of us have experts to advise us and Roland Sapsford is such a person. He has had long experience dealing with transport issues and that is why we employ him in our office. That is a reasonable thing to do. I am a maker of jewellery; that is what I do. Deborah Coddington is a journalist. I do not think that undermines her right to be on that committee and to have an opinion. I just do not happen to agree with her opinion. 
Am I opposed to motorcars? No of course I am not nor are the Greens. We recognise that our cities were designed around motorcars. Our cities are as big as they are because of motorcars. But getting them to be used in ways that are sustainable is an essential part of the management of them. The freedom to choose was an issue raised by Deborah Coddington. The Greens are in favour of choice and this bill is in favour of choice. What it says is that before we build another road we should examine the other choices. We should examine whether we can make public transport more attractive. 
I sat on a train from Waitakere into the city. I can tell members that I had to wait for half an hour at a derelict railway station without any seats because the shelter about 100 metres away had had the backside kicked out of it. The trains were grotty and when I was looking to find out where to get off my train I saw that all the signs had been graffitied over. I could not tell where I was. It seems to me that there are some fundamental ordinary things that we can do to give people choices. That train was half an hour late at 5 o’clock at night I might add. We need to make those choices more attractive and more reliable. 
We need to make sure as well that people can actually use their legs. Our young people are likely to die younger and to linger whereas the present lot that are dying are dying older and are dying quickly. The next generation is likely to be larger fatter and to have type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and part of that is because they are brought up to travel everywhere in the motorcar. They do not walk. They do not cycle. For some of our trips walking and cycling are reasonable options they are healthier options and they are less expensive options. We share the concerns of the entire House about the inability to move people and products around. This bill is an honest attempt to do that.