Fitzsimons Jeanette: Land Transport Management Bill — Third Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Land Transport Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9807] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens welcome the passing of this bill and celebrate 2 years of collaborative work with Labour to bring it about. It heralds a sea change in transport planning and direction. It is a move to a balanced multimodal system that matches each transport mode to its best use respects people and the environment and addresses transport demand as well as supply. I thank and congratulate the previous Minister of Transport Mark Gosche on his early work on the strategy and on this bill and I thank and congratulate the present Minister Paul Swain on seeing the job through so ably. I thank Helen Duncan for her excellent chairing of the select committee which made a lot of progress with the bill. I also thank the officials who have been so helpful. 
Let me go back to the beginning of the story. In late 2001 it was clear that more money was needed in the National Land Transport Fund if we were to address a serious lack of choice in transport options a serious overloading of the road infrastructure a wasteful underuse of rail and a frustrating non-existence of effective public transport and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Labour proposed a 4c increase in the petrol levy and every party voted against it except the Greens. Yes all those parties that in the last few days have grizzled about lack of funding for transport refused to support the funding increase. The Greens accepted the responsibility of funding a decent transport system but on condition that funding was spread in a balanced way across modes and the decision-making system reflected modern criteria of social good. 
The first step was the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 which clarifies where we are going now as a country. The second step is this bill which implements our agreement to change the objectives of Transfund Transit and local authorities. The new criteria for transport funding will take us gradually towards a sustainable transport system that can survive the huge shocks that are in store for us very soon—and the world is still in denial about those shocks. Nothing less will ensure the survival of our cities our commerce and our economy which currently are running on near empty. All major oil companies now recognise that world oil production has peaked or is close to peaking. Estimates of when the decline begins—and that of course is when the price begins to rise really steeply—vary from 5 to 20 years. What we do know is that currently we are finding one new barrel of oil for every four we burn. That is of course why the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and why it may well continue to invade Middle Eastern countries where most of the remaining oil is—hopefully without New Zealand’s support. 
The era of cheap oil has for a short moment in history made it possible for each individual in a few rich countries to carry a tonne of metal with him or her whenever he or she moves. It was never logical; it will not even be possible for much longer. Cars will remain a big part of the transport scene for a long time yet but we must start to use them more sensibly and we must start to develop the alternatives or face a future in which we can no longer move around. 
Driving the same necessity is the effect of all the oil we have burnt so far—accumulating exhaust emissions in the atmosphere which is starting to change the climate. Resource depletion and pollution are two sides of the same coin. They are two overwhelming reasons why this shift in direction has to start now. Add to that another reason: road crashes are the main cause of death for children under 15. Reduce the total miles travelled by car and those deaths will reduce too. 
So this bill adopts bold new objectives: an integrated transport system where one can make connections between cars trains buses ferries and cycles and where each mode is used to best purpose; a safe transport service that notices the vulnerable—the children the pedestrians the elderly and even dare I say it the slow—a responsive system that replaces a rigid cost-benefit calculation based on untestable assumptions with an approach that meets needs where they are greatest and involves people in the planning; and a sustainable system that requires road builders to take care when crossing fragile ecosystems and avoid the siltation pollution and habitat destruction that so often go with road building’s cut-and-fill approach. Substantial new funding has been going into the National Land Transport Fund since April last year and to make sure that it is used for projects that meet the new criteria Transit is reviewing the major projects that were approved under the previous rules to see whether they still comply. 
We have heard some entertaining polemics in the debate this week. We have heard Roger Sowry complain bitterly about congestion then say he wants to see more traffic on the roads. He is utterly opposed to finding ways to reduce traffic and he wants to see more of it. How many hours a day does he want to spend driving? We have heard constant demands for efficiency to be put into the bill despite the fact it is there already in several places including the purpose clause. We have heard Larry Baldock bravely try to define “efficiency” when no one else could or would. He told us that “efficiency” means “efficiency”. That is helpful! Then he said it means moving people around without delay. I do not think economists would agree that that is efficiency—that is effectiveness and that is already in the bill too. We have heard Lockwood Smith declaiming against responsibility especially social and environmental responsibility. He just wants roads irresponsible roads—the more irresponsible the better one has to assume. 
Then there is Maurice Williamson who does know something about transport but his prejudices always get in the way. He says we just cannot get people out of their cars. He needs to let the facts get in the way of his prejudices. In the last 3 years in New Zealand with only a modest increase in funding and therefore in service and frequency we have seen a 25 percent increase in the use of public transport. It is simple really: if it is not there one cannot use it. The figures prove that if it is there people will use it. The Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd has just announced the next phase of the Auckland rail upgrade and a business plan to increase patronage from 2.5 million trips a year to more than 20 million. I had the very good fortune yesterday to meet Jamie Lerner the famous former Mayor of Curitiba the Brazilian city that has grown from 600000 people to 1.8 million and whose transport system still works. That is because public transport passenger trips have gone from 20000 to 2 million a day. If that city can do it we can. 
We have heard Peter Brown say we need more fuel tax to fund roads instead of tolls. But when we did exactly that his party would not vote for it. As I pointed out in question time today the latest round of petrol tax makes that better because for the first time none of it goes into general revenue. The proportion of petrol tax going into transport has just increased and the Opposition still does not support it. 
There is a particular kind of fury that erupts whenever the dominance of the motorcar over our lives is challenged in any way and we have heard a lot of it this week. I would like to sum up with a possibly politically incorrect quote from Mayor Jamie Lerner. Mother-in-law jokes are very non - politically correct but I feel OK about using it because I am a mother-in-law myself and I know my daughter-in-law and I would agree on this sentiment. He said yesterday: “The car is like your mother-in-law. You have to maintain a good relationship with her but you should never let her run your life.”