Coddington Deborah: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9324] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is totally opposed to this bill and I am surprised that when the Minister stood up he did not more effusively thank the Green Party for its support in writing this bill. It is one of the worst-kept secrets in Wellington that Heather Simpson and Roland Sapsford were the real authors of this bill. Roland Sapsford is the Greens’ chief policy person and works directly for Jeanette Fitzsimons. His title is “Advisory Group Coordinator” according to one of his business cards which also has the Parliamentary Service crest on it. He is also one of the campaigners who are particularly against the Wellington inner-city bypass and he is a spokesperson for the pressure group Campaign for a Better City. 
I believe that Paul Swain has his heart in the right place in respect of this bill but his problem has been that many of the details in it were nutted out when Mr Gosche was Minister of Transport. My understanding is that officials were told by Ms Simpson what to write and if they gave advice that was not welcomed that advice was either ignored or they were told to go away and try again. I also understand that Mr Sapsford was involved in the process all the way through and had a strong involvement in the bill’s development. 
Despite all the work from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and all the submissions we now see that efficiency is only one of the criteria to be used when roads are planned. But whose money are we using here? It is money obtained through road-user charges. A sum of $2 billion a year is collected from road-user charges and at present not even all of that is used on roads. This bill will not add one new kilometre of motorway to the existing network. 
When this bill was announced and people were asked about the eastern motorway in Auckland Judith Tizard asked why that should proceed just so that people who lived in Pakuranga and Howick could have an extra half-hour in bed in the morning. Where does that arrogance ring a bell? It is the same sort of breath-taking arrogance we had from that Associate Minister of Transport when people complained about their rates being increased to fund railways that no one will ever go on because they will not go anywhere near the North Shore. She told those people to sell their houses and buy new homes. When there was an outcry that vehicle emissions testing would raise the costs of warrants of fitness she told them to buy a new car. 
As members have already pointed out the other issue is that this tolling will apply only to Tauranga. That is a classic example of the return to parish-pump politics which we got rid of years ago. It is one of the ways Labour has used to get support from United Future and it has used this bill to keep the Greens happy. Under this bill tolling of existing networks will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. If the situation in Auckland at the moment is not exceptional I do not know what is. 
Mr Swain talked about a new mechanism in future legislation that will solve Auckland’s traffic problems. Why not bring it into this bill right now Mr Swain? He has had a golden opportunity to solve something that was started 30 years ago. That is when the western bypass and link-ups through Avondale and across the top were put on the planning board. They have boasted about starting on “Spaghetti Junction” which has just added further to the confusion. Instead of developing “Spaghetti Junction” the western bypass should have been developed—then we would have gone somewhere not just to solving the problem of the loss of economic growth in Auckland but the loss of opportunity for business. Business people in Auckland especially out in eastern areas like Tamaki a big commercial area can get out and do business only between 10 o’clock in the morning and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. The rest of the day is destroyed because they are sitting in those huge parking lots we call motorways. That situation contributes to vehicle emissions and dirty air in Auckland. 
Road-user charges will now also be used for coastal shipping. That will mean a redistribution of taxes—again collected from the motorist—to subsidise New Zealand’s shipping organisations which are crying because they have been subjected to more competition. Those taxes will be used to create more jobs for wharfies. 
This bill will not deliver private sector involvement. As I said we had the opportunity to get Auckland’s motorway solutions addressed in the same way they have been addressed in Sydney and Melbourne. We heard from international financiers like Macquarie Bank which asked for the 35-year limit on concession agreements to be flexible—sometimes less than 35 years sometimes more. But what did we hear? We heard the Green member—who does not even like cars and who has a huge bias against them—declare that to him 35 years was ample. That person is someone who makes jewellery for a living but who knows more than Macquarie Bank about what is flexible or not in terms of a concession agreement. 
As the Hon Roger Sowry said we listened to all those submitters who came before the select committee thinking that they would make a difference. Mayors from Auckland appeared and gave very emotional submissions. They were people who cared about the people in their city and were trying to do something about the problems. There were submissions from people out in the country like those in the Wairarapa where there are huge problems with the funding of roads. Why did we even bother? 
 We now see that the Government will set up a new company called Track Co. We already know that there will be an exclusive deal for Toll Holdings to operate on the rail-track that was purchased by the Government. Under this bill Toll Holdings will be subsidised by motorists to prop up Track Co. That will directly benefit an Australian company that has signed an exclusive deal with the Government to operate on the rail-track. Motorists will get nothing from this bill and if we look at the consultation process we see that everyone from Maori to the Historic Places Trust has to be consulted. That is what the Greens get in return for supporting Labour on the Supreme Court Bill. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons has proudly said that as a result of this bill “transport” in New Zealand will no longer mean just the car and the motorway. The strategy means that rail bus ferry barge bike and footpath gain equal status. As Peter Brown said the car is here to stay and we must get used to it. Green parties around the world have recognised that. Three years ago in 2000 the  
Financial Times 
 reported that the Green Party in Germany had embraced the car. I quote: “After years battling against motorways petrol-guzzling motorists and anything that slows up a bicycle Germany’s environmentalist Green Party has taken a step towards ending its rage against cars.” Here is the most important bit: the strategy paper from that Green Party went on to acknowledge that “for women the car means security on the streets at night and the possibility of combining family and career. For the old and handicapped it is a synonym for independent movement.” That is why there is such a bias against the car because it symbolises freedom and people’s ability to choose. The Greens hate anything to do with freedom of choice. 
Mark Gosche said it all. He could not defend the bill at all—all he did in his speech was attack National. Well attack is the best method of defence. Mark Gosche said that ACT did not want money going into public transport. ACT does not mind money going into public transport as long as it is money from people who want to use public transport. But why should motorists be forced to fund coastal shipping cycleways walkways and railways they do not use when they cannot even plan their journeys across Auckland so that they arrive on time? This bill is a dog and ACT will not be supporting it.