Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12820] 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 25 October. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise in support of the first reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It is a further step in this Government’s progress in terms of providing the administrative infrastructure to carry on the significant work we have been involved in both in the building of roads and in the improvement to public transport. I am pleased to see that this Government is committed to improving our bureaucracy—the agencies and Government departments that are charged with implementing transport policy. 
I recall that back in 1999 when I became the Minister of Transport it probably took me a week to meet with all the Government agencies and departments that had been set up but now we will see that number reduced again. I am sure that that is a good thing because our experience was— 
Simon Power 
: Why is this member against bureaucracy? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: —it was just spread too thinly—that the expertise in transport as previous Ministers of Transport will know is not large. We do not for instance have university courses—or we never did when I was the Minister—that people could go to that would set them up as good bureaucrats policy analysts and implementers of transport in New Zealand. We found that many of those people were working in different organisations but this bill will put Transit New Zealand and Land Transport New Zealand together into one entity a New Zealand Transport Agency which I think will be able to carry out its work in a much more efficient and proper way. That follows on from the work that the Minister of Transport has done in the Next Steps process which looked at the structures and which has come up with what this bill now delivers. 
The other important issue in the bill that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I chair will be looking at is around the question of regional fuel tax. That will be allowed for in this bill should it pass—which I am sure it will—and that will allow an excise duty of up to 5c per litre to be added on to the existing duty and to be used for each region after the regions have been through a process that will involve the Minister. In this bill we have also put together a better planning process. It has new structures again that are probably streamlined in a way that will get much better results and it has plans that will be more realistic in their time frames. So I am very pleased that this legislation is coming forward. 
 Some important challenges still face us. We have a huge road-building programme throughout New Zealand. I travelled back and forward to the North Shore on the weekend as many Labour Party members did and quite frankly it was very hard to go anywhere on the North Shore where there was not a busway being built a new road being widened motorways being improved and so on. That is a picture we will find up and down the country. However we do need to continue the process of better planning. We do need to allow for extra funding so that transport infrastructure or services that are important to a region can be brought forward sooner than the current funding regime would allow for and that will mean that regions that are prepared to pay extra will get their infrastructure more quickly. 
The other thing that needs to be noted in this bill is the use of the fuel excise for land transport only. That is something that I think every member of this House would support. I do not think any party would vote against that particular element of the bill. If it did then it is not following its own policies because all parties have said that they want what is collected off the motorists to be spent on the transport infrastructure and services in New Zealand and surely that is something we will do. Just as an added little bonus there will be some of that relief that the pleasure boat maritime search and rescue boat safety education and maritime safety services people have been asking for. That is another small part of this bill but it is important for people who feel that it is wrong to pay excise duty on the fuel that was purchased as if it was going to be used on our roads when in fact it is being used on our oceans. 
I look forward to the opportunity for this bill to be referred to our select committee. It is as I said a very important step down the path of improving our transport infrastructure. It deals with a better bureaucracy in terms of the new transport agency; with the question around a regional fuel tax; and with the hypothecation of the fuel excise taking care of better planning. I know that we will be able to make improvements to this bill through the select committee process and I look forward to bringing it back to the House next year. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I say from the outset that in the National Party’s view this legislation is very much like the curate’s egg—it is good in places. There are parts of it we are very supportive of. In fact parts of it contain policies we campaigned on at the last election. Many many New Zealanders I am sure will remember the red and blue billboard the first in a series that said: “What’s your petrol tax for?”. On the blue side of the billboard we campaigned on one word “roads” and on the Labour side it was “Treaty lawyers wanangas hip-hop tours twilight golf” etc. 
Dr Cullen has said at times that the National Party was a bunch of loonies for wanting a petrol tax—that is what he said—and that it was just absolute “loony-nomics” to suggest that all the petrol tax should be dedicated to the Land Transport Fund. Surprise surprise! What a difference a 2-year period makes! Since the 2005 election campaign Dr Cullen has come onside. I am not going to be churlish and dwell on that. I thank him; it is a great idea. I think it is finally time because it has been a barrier for a lot of New Zealanders to pay anything further for the roads while money was being stolen. When I was the Minister of Transport a number of people used to say to me: “While you are stealing money from the— 
Peter Brown 
: What did you do about it? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Brown is not taking account of the fact that during the 1990s when National was in Government there were serious structural deficit problems across the nation. But here we have a Government that has been running surpluses for a long time and not spending anywhere near as much as it could do or should do. 
The next myth I want to dispel relates to this graph I am holding. I hope that our cameras in the House can get a nice close-up so that my adoring drive time audience in Auckland if they have a TV on can see this. I am holding up a graph showing the amount of money spent on roading as a percentage of GDP. That is the standard international measure that should be used. It is drawn in blue for when National was in Government and it is drawn in red for when Labour was in Government. I know that Sue Kedgley will be delighted with this graph because when Labour came into office the amount of spending on roading went down. But that is not what Labour would have us believe. It would have us believe that the amount of money spent on roading went up. Well actually it has gone up every year we could ever name even back in the 1950s and the 1960s except for one year. This little straight brown line on the graph shows the actual dollars. It is not a really good measure because as the GDP grows we would expect revenue to grow. But what is interesting about that first full year of a Labour Government—2001—is that it is the only year in the last 50 years that the actual spending on roading went down—not the percentage of GDP— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Rubbish! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: These are the Ministry of Transport’s own answers to parliamentary questions so I have to say that that the member is wrong. 
But I say to Mr O’Connor that he should not take my account of it. He should take what the New Zealand public say in a survey done about our transport network in Auckland. The headline states “Motorway work has not helped the crawl”. Then it goes on to show that the speeds being achieved in Auckland at present are the worst that have been. So Labour members can get up and wax lyrical all they like about what they have done. We should have a survey of 1000 people in Auckland at random—and I am happy to bet my salary against Mr O’Connor’s salary any time—and ask just one simple question: “Has congestion got better or worse?”. I tell that member that he can have my entire salary for the year if Aucklanders come back saying that they think congestion has got a lot better. I can tell that member what the answer will be. The poll will show that it has got a lot worse. 
Another part of this particular legislation that we find really quite obnoxious relates to the Government running surpluses. It is interesting that at question time today we heard that the surpluses are now “structural”. They are not cyclical any more; they are structural and they are mega-big surpluses. I find it unbelievable because I now have a copy of  
Hansard 
 from 1992 and I would like members to listen to this. In 1992 the National Government—and there is Mr Brown saying we did not do anything—tried to implement a regional fuel tax of 2c a litre that would last for only a 3-year period. It was 2c a litre over 3 years. 
Hon David Parker 
: Waste of time. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Let me tell Mr Parker what the Labour Party said. It said it was an outrage that the Government was trying to introduce regional fuel tax. The member should read the  
Hansard 
—here it is: Volume 526 from June-July 1992. Labour voted against it. 
Eric Roy 
: What page? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will give the member the page reference. The best quotes occur on page 9041. There are another couple of doozies on page 9045. Labour voted against a 2c regional petrol tax that was to last for only 3 years and that was a disgrace. Now the legislation that the Government is bringing to the House at a time of mega-surpluses is not for 2c and it is not for 5c; it is for 10c a litre and it is to last for 35 years. How come it was so evil back then? By the way I have lovely quotes from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the  
Dominion 
 and the  
Evening Post 
—and I think that even the  
Auckland Star  
was still going at that stage—from people like Pete Hodgson saying—listen to this: “This tax measure is not progress. It’s a disgrace. Instead of being an exercise in environmental friendliness it’s prostituting the environmental cause to bring in a 2c a litre regional petrol tax.” 
I think that members on that side of the House had better start stumping up to the public. How come back then when the country was in major deficit and did not have enough even to pay for the running of the schools and the hospitals Labour was opposed to an extra 2c regional petrol tax for only 3 years? 
Peter Brown 
: What year? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It was 1992—June and July. Here is the  
Hansard 
 for Mr Brown to read—Volume 526. Labour waged a campaign and those members voted for it. Their record is in here. I know that Mr Parker was not here. I do not think that Mr O’Connor was here in 1992. How about Mr Barnett? I am trying to find someone who was here in 1992. No there is not anybody in the Chamber tonight who was here in 1992. I may be it but all I can say is that those who were here like Annette King the Minister who is in charge of the bill—oh no; actually she was gone in 1992. She lost her seat in 1992. 
Eric Roy 
: John Carter was the only one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: But Annette King was not a member of Parliament between 1990 and 1993 was she. But there were others. Pete Hodgson certainly was because he is quoted as saying it was just a disgrace and outrageous and wrong. I have to say that it is just amazing that it could be so wrong back then—when it was only 2c a litre for 3 years—but that when it is 10c a litre for 35 years it is all right. Now as I said this bill is a bit like the curate’s egg—it has some good bits. I quite like the idea of providing for a Government policy statement to set out the Government’s planned investment and funding priorities for the next 3 to 6 years. I think that is a sensible move. I think changing to a 3-year planning cycle is a sensible move. 
There is one organisation I will be watching with great interest—Local Government New Zealand. I will watch with great interest because when I was a Minister it was on my case regularly about the conflict between the funding agency and the provider of roading. Back in those days Transit was just the one agency. It was the provider of State highways and it allocated the funding. What Local Government New Zealand said to me over and over—and I have got all its documents; I have kept them all and I am really pleased I kept them—was: “Minister Transit has an inherent almost sort of drive to fund its own roading rather than ours. There’s a complete lack of transparency and a complete lack of consistency. The bids all come up and lo and behold State highways get a better than expected allocation each year and local roads seeking to get the financial assistance get to be the poor cousin.” 
Now I have to say it was a pretty compelling case and when one looked at a number of years of Transit’s behaviour I think that it could easily be argued. The reason we separated funding and providing—the reason we set up Transfund New Zealand and Transit—was that Transit was to manage the State highway and Transfund would fund all the land transport programmes which would be the State highways the private roading network etc. We were supportive when Transfund was moved into the Land Transport Safety Authority and made up Land Transport New Zealand because that was no conflict. But now the Government is proposing merging back the agency that decides who gets the money and one of the major agencies that will be bidding to get that money. I will watch with great interest what Local Government New Zealand and a whole lot of councils around this country have got to say on that. 
Finally can I say that we oppose this bill for a lot of reasons but mainly for what is not in it. The Land Transport Management Act has been a complete and absolute barrier to private sector investment in roading. We are one of the few countries that do not have it. Instead of this bill opening up land transport management freeing it and taking away the prescriptions it has actually done nothing and it is silent on it. The National Party is totally opposed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me say from the beginning that New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee and the principal incentive we have for giving that support is the fact that the Government has finally agreed to transfer all the petrol excise tax that goes into the Crown bank account into the National Land Transport Fund. New Zealand First has been advocating that for a long time well before I arrived in this House. But certainly since New Zealand First came here with several MPs we have advocated that the petrol tax that goes into the Crown bank account should in fact go into the National Land Transport Fund as roading has suffered as the Hon Maurice Williamson said because of the lack of injection of funding. 
Now we were a little reluctant to support the innovation as we called it of the regional fuel tax but we do recognise that regions in this country basically get responsibilities thrust upon them by central government and therefore it is reasonable to say “we will give you the additional funding stream if you so desire.” We know that the Auckland region will want it and I have no doubt Wellington will follow shortly thereafter and probably the area I come from the Bay of Plenty region will be fairly swift off the block—I do not know. They will not all want 10c a litre. Auckland most certainly will—5c to go to the electrification of the rail and 5c to go into roading. Bay of Plenty will want something less and I suggest that Wellington will want something less. 
But it intrigued me listening to what the Hon Maurice Williamson had to say about National’s track record because in 1995 I think that was the year the Rt Hon Winston Peters had a bill drawn out of the ballot that would have taken all the petrol tax that went into the Crown bank account at that time—I think it was 21c—and put it into the roading account. What did the Hon Maurice Williamson say when he had the opportunity to do something? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Tell us. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will quote from  
Hansard 
 for Mr Woolerton. I have the Hon Maurice Williamson’s  
Hansard  
here. He said: “The first thing is there would not be enough roading projects or enough contracts out there to do them.” That is what he said in 1995 when a bill gave him the opportunity to do what he now says he has wanted to do for several years. He went on to say: “Even at conservative estimates with the doubling of the current annual road expenditure and present levels of charge Transit New Zealand has identified no more than $500 million worth of projects that are worth doing into the future.” That is all the Minister of Transport at that time the Hon Maurice Williamson could come up with in terms of an argument against putting all the petrol excise tax that goes into the Crown bank account into the National Land Transport Fund. 
I draw it to members’ attention that at that time only 9c a litre went into the National Land Transport Fund but something like 20c to 21c went into the Crown bank account. In other words under the regime of the Hon Maurice Williamson the petrol motorist was being ripped off big time. He said —I think he alluded to it or stated—that the reason was that the Government was running in debt and was not running in surplus so the National Party at that time thought it wise and fair for the petrol motorist to pay for that shortfall. 
Currently at this point in time 23.8c a litre from the petrol motorist goes into the roading account and 18.7c goes into the Crown bank account. In July next year that 18.7c will all go into the roading account—the National Land Transport Fund which pays for more than roading. That represents a transfer of $570 million a year into roading. I say to members that we are still building roads or enhancing roads in this country particularly in Auckland that were planned for in the 1960s and should have been well built by this time. This money going across will help significantly but not as much as it would have done had it been transferred across when National had the opportunity. Since that time concrete bitumen and steel have all gone up hugely in price well above the inflation rate and well above the CPI so to some degree we are playing catch-up. In other words the 2007 dollar will go nowhere near as far as the 1990s dollar and it is not just inflation that has taken care of that. 
We welcome this bill for a number of reasons. We have no problem with Land Transport New Zealand merging with Transit. We think that probably makes good sense. I know that the Hon Maurice Williamson objected to that because basically he was the Minister who split them up. But we see some common sense in combining the two entities and making one organisation totally responsible for road building and other matters in this country. We think that is a move in the right direction. But we have one concern and that is in this bill—and I want to record it here—the Treaty of Waitangi principles are mentioned. I challenge anybody in this House to tell me— 
Hone Harawira 
: I’ll be next. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh the honourable member will tell us. I will listen with interest when he tells us what the Treaty of Waitangi principles are and how they should affect a Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I can tell members that at the select committee we will be asking officials and indeed anybody there who thinks they have an interest in this sort of legislation what the Treaty of Waitangi principles are all about as they pertain to roading or indeed as they pertain to anything. So I forewarn the House that that will be a concern that New Zealand First will take on board and try to address. 
A little bit in this bill that pleases New Zealand First no end—and the Minister made reference to it the other day in a question and answer session—is the part the Minister has taken directly from our transport policy. I want to read that policy because it says it all. I am reading from the section headed “Recreational Boating” which states: “The New Zealand Coastguard provides an essential service but is dramatically under funded relying heavily on donations and voluntarily raised income.” It goes on to state—we have a couple of options here but it is the second option that the Minister has taken on board—“New Zealand First will … allocate petrol taxes generated by boating activities to these operations.” Again we say it is about time. This has been a long time coming. The leisure boat industry is a major industry in this country. It is also a cause for concern to professional mariners such as myself. We go out on the harbour we know and understand the boating rules and we might see a group of individuals out on the harbour or sometimes further afield with a case of beer or what have you thinking they can manoeuvre or meander their craft anywhere they want. They are very dependent on the coastguard coming to their aid when they get into real trouble. We think it is about time that some official funding went to help that organisation and indeed other organisations that are involved with recreational boating. 
So we compliment the Minister on taking that initiative. She read our policy. She admitted in a question and answer session in the House that it was a New Zealand First policy and we think that is a good move. There is much more to this bill than we have had time to cover right now but New Zealand First will most certainly support this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou e te Whare. Tena koutou e takuwhanau e matakitaki mai anai te pouwhakaata. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us in the House. Greetings to my family watching on television. 
] 
A couple of weeks ago BP raised its petrol prices by 3c a litre. That does not sound like much; it is such a small amount that it does not even have a coin value any more. But as all those Maori families who headed back home on Labour weekend for unveilings reunions weddings church hui and other gatherings found out 3c a litre very quickly adds up to a lot of money. 
These are the families who on the same day were identified in the  
Social Report 2007 
 as experiencing high levels of inequality. They are the same families who even the Labour Party faithful know have been hurt by the actions of their own Government which has acted against their interests as evidenced in the discussion on remit 38 welfare benefits at the Labour Party conference just last weekend. 
That remit I tell those who have not seen it calls for the Government to urgently consider more assistance for those on low incomes and single and invalids benefits and for other beneficiaries and caregivers who have been deliberately cut out of support under the Working for Families package. 
That report I referred to  
Social Report 2007 
 stated that some 12 percent of the citizens of Aotearoa live in households with incomes below the OECD threshold and that to no one’s great surprise Maori and other ethnic groups are those most affected. The report shows that 22 percent of Maori 29 percent of Pasifika and 13 percent of others are affected. Unfortunately that is the continuing theme running right through all of this Government’s social policies. 
Beneath the veneer of social equality beats the heart of a Government that deliberately ensures that Maori and Pasifika consistently make up the most underprivileged sector of our society. It is those families who are continually bypassed in the economic growth of this country that the Maori Party is concerned about as we think about funding for land transport purposes. 
This bill will impose a new regional fuel tax of up to 10c per litre of petrol for regional transport projects. Of that 50 percent is for roading and 50 percent is for public transport. Hopefully the select committee process will encourage innovative ideas to ensure that low-income families are not doubly penalised by this new fuel tax. 
As the MP for Te Tai Tokerau and a regular commuter into and out of my North Shore and west Auckland constituencies I am constantly blown away by the magnitude of the Auckland traffic snarl. It takes me just over 3 hours to get from Kaitaia to the outskirts of Auckland and then it takes me another hour to get from the harbour bridge to my mum’s place out in Avondale. I am glad it is not a traffic scenario I have to deal with daily but then I do not know that my constituents out west will be too keen on the proposed solution either. They will be happy to know that more money is going into public transport and roading but they will not be too keen to hear that it is coming out of their pockets. 
Mind you it is only in the last few years that Tamaki-makau-rau has got its fair share of the roading dollar based on its economic contribution to the country. Before 2003 it got a lot less. Wellington and Canterbury though are still significantly underfunded compared with their contribution to the national economy so maybe Auckland ain’t that badly off after all. Which region gets what has long been a source of controversy. Hopefully this bill will ensure more strategic guidance from the Government about funding priorities. 
Of course when the Maori Party members think strategically we think of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which Parekura Horomia Nanaia Mahuta Dover Samuels Mita Ririnui Mahara Okeroa Dave Hereora and my ministerial whanaunga Shane Jones voted to delete. That does not give us much hope that the New Zealand Transport Agency will bother to meet its Treaty obligations. I mean if the Government ain’t going to bother why should its agencies? 
We will also be interested to learn whether the views of tangata whenua have been considered in the drafting of this bill and we are very interested to hear about provisions in this bill aimed at reducing the consultation process. We are already concerned about the number of councils not bothering to consult with Maori even though they are required to do so under the Local Government Act. 
We note that the publication  
He Wharemoa Te Rakau Ka Mahue 
 which came out just a couple of months ago stated that Maori felt that engagement with local government was not genuine and was often conducted after the real decision-making had already been done. Maori also feel that any interest in engaging Maori normally happens only at election time and tails off very quickly after that. The Maori Party is wary of any moves in this bill that might make this situation worse. 
The Maori Party also takes the opportunity of this debate on funding for roading and public transport to again raise the crucial issues of peak oil and global warming. With the price of oil already at US$89 a barrel and no hope of future price drops there is an urgent need for formal national planning on energy use and conservation of fossil fuel for ramping up community education on energy alternatives and for encouraging personal ownership of national goals. 
We are happy that some of the regional fuel tax will go towards more public transport but given the ever-increasing car mania in this country more thought might have gone into more innovative ideas to encourage people to car pool use public transport bike or even walk. Building more roads does not reduce fuel consumption and does not lead to a low-energy future. 
This bill is part of a well-overdue step to increasing access to affordable public transport in a world crippled by rising fuel prices. Petrol is a major cost to whanau and any tax hike will hurt those on low incomes who have large families. We will be seeking assurances during the select committee process that iwi and Maori communities will continue to have the right to be consulted as is the obligation under the Local Government Act. 
We support the development of low-cost public transport and we urge all members of this House to give serious consideration to some of the complex concerns raised in respect of public transport the needs of our more vulnerable communities and the more pressing issues of peak oil and climate change. The Maori Party will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is the only party in this House that has not spent years calling for all tax on petrol to go into roads. We are proud of that position because there is really no more reason why all petrol tax should go into roads than there is why all tax on alcohol should go into booze barns or all tax on cigarettes should go into tobacco factories. There is no particular reason why motor fuel should not be taxed just like any other product or any other source of revenue. 
But there is another reason too why in the past we have not had full hypothecation of revenue from motor fuel. Two major Government studies—each of which has taken years and considerable resources and neither of which has led to any action at all—have looked into the costs that motoring causes to the economy as a whole. Both the Land Transport Pricing Study of the late 1990s and  
The Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study 
 of the early 2000s established a remarkable amount of agreement that the costs of motoring to the public purse that are not paid for out of the National Land Transport Fund and are not covered by petrol excise or road-user charges are very considerable. The minimum amount was around $1200 million a year with the upper limit of the band being considerably above that. These are costs for things like dealing with air pollution water pollution from runoff from building roads climate change noise and all the health and policing costs that are not directly paid for out of the National Land Transport Fund or the accident compensation levy. It is a substantial amount of money and it has always seemed to me rather fair that motorists should pay it. What is not fair is that petrol users have contributed towards that cost and diesel users have not. All road-user charges have been going into the National Land Transport Fund and all petrol excise has not. 
The other thing that has been unfair about the situation is that it is totally untransparent. There is no indication that the money that has been taken as excise and not put into transport projects has in fact been spent on dealing with any of the externalities of roading. It has just disappeared into the general consolidated account. So although the Green Party has never called for full hypothecation and in fact believes that those external costs should be covered by motorists we will not oppose that part of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill but we will be pushing for payments to be made to cover those external costs out of the National Land Transport Fund itself. 
The Green Party has also been pushing for years for the electrification of the Auckland commuter rail system. It is absolutely the key to better public transport in Auckland. It is the key to an upgraded signalling system; to newer electric units that will be quieter cleaner and more reliable; to a huge increase in capacity on the commuter rail; to greater reliability; and to trains actually running on time. Until we have made that basic step we cannot look at the further developments that are needed such as a connection to the airport and a connection under or through the central city between the southern line and the western line which would start to give us a genuine commuter rail network in Auckland rather than just two lines that do not really talk to each other. 
The problem has always been that under the crazy funding system known as the financial assistance rate central government cannot put anything into a project like this which is clearly of national importance unless regional or local government pays half. The Auckland Regional Council after years of neglect of public transport had got to the stage where it simply could not raise rates any further in order to contribute to decent public transport systems. The money was there in the National Land Transport Fund but it could not be spent because of the rule that regional councils have to raise half. 
It always seemed very peculiar to me that if we wanted to build a State highway or a motorway from one side of Auckland to the other mainly for the use of Aucklanders who want to drive from one side of the city to the other it would be 100 percent funded by central government out of the National Land Transport Fund. But if we wanted to build a railway to do exactly the same thing and carry exactly the same sort of people from one side of Auckland to the other side then Auckland would have to fund half of it. So it is not exactly surprising that for many decades roading has gone ahead and public transport projects have not. 
We now have the situation whereby the way to fund this project seems to be a regional fuel tax. Because the project is such an important key to unlocking the potential for public transport in Auckland the Greens will support this bill. We note however that the Government’s half of the project is to be funded by raising a loan on which Auckland pays all the interest for 30 years. Auckland’s half is to be funded by its providing the capital and interest. That does not sound like a fifty-fifty split to me but anyway this is the way the Government is doing it and this is the way it is proceeding. At least the thing is going to get done. 
The bill as I first saw it allowed the whole of up to 10c of regional fuel tax to be levied by a regional council and all of it put into roading. The Greens said we could not support that. There has been a huge imbalance for many years between the billions spent on roading and the few millions spent on public transport. We have to have a better balance than that. So we settled in the end after some negotiation on no more than 5c for roading and an additional 5c that can be raised for other projects if the regional council wishes as long as they are alternatives to roading and we try to get some balance. We can if we wish raise all of it for public transport. Auckland’s share of the 10c for public transport would be more than 8c but other regions are less likely to do that. 
So what could we do with that other 5c? Of course we could build other public transport systems such as busways and make improvements to rail systems. We could do travel demand management such as computer and network-based carpooling systems school travel plans workplace travel plans better cycle facilities flexible minibuses in smaller cities that are more responsive to demand and ferries. There is a whole range of alternatives to the one person one car model that we are sadly lacking in all of our cities large and small and that should be built with that second 5c. 
It is not clear yet how much of a regional fuel tax that Wellington for example will raise and what it will spend it on. But it is quite clear that no more than 5c can go into that gross white elephant Transmission Gully which will be a sink for money forever without ever actually being built. If they want to raise more than 5c then the other 5c will need to go into some of the greatly needed public transport projects in Wellington. Rail upgrade projects are greatly needed all over the city. Hopefully the regional fuel tax will speed up the introduction of public transport in a number of centres because it is money that is there only if it is used for this sort of purpose in some of the regional cities that have very poor or no public transport at the moment. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is with huge— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The old reflexes are getting a bit slow but the presence is still there. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The reflexes are slow because the great danger is that we take for granted the huge strides made in transport over the last 7 to 8 years. That is the problem with the slow reflexes I say to the good member for Taupo—and a very active member he is. I say to him that that is the danger. The danger is that we have short memories in this country. We have short memories in this country when we reflect on how hopeless the previous National Government was in terms of transport. There was only one good National Minister of Transport—he came from the Waikato region—and that was the Hon Rob Storey. What did National members do to him? They axed him; they dispensed with his services. 
This Government has an exceptionally proud record in terms of transport in this country to which the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is but another very very important addition. The previous speaker Jeanette Fitzsimons spoke very eloquently about the need for public transport. The reality is that this Government has spent a record amount on promoting public transport in this country. It puts the previous Government to shame. 
As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West I take this opportunity to acknowledge the really good leadership and partnership that we have had between the Minister of Transport’s central government agencies our regional government agency—Environment Waikato—and the Hamilton City Council. I acknowledge the work that local government and my good colleagues Mark Burton Sue Moroney Dianne Yates and Nanaia Mahuta—and I will take some small credit myself as well—did in lobbying for the wonderful package that the Joint Officials Group put together for the Waikato along with places such as Auckland and Wellington. That was a culmination of local government regional government and central government working together. It was also a very good example that we in this Government mean business when it comes to transport in the Waikato. We mean business when it comes to improving transport in the Auckland metropolitan area. We mean business when it comes to improving transport in the Wellington area. We mean business when it comes to improving transport massively in the South Island. We mean business when it comes to improving transport in the regions. 
I think the frustration of the Opposition members comes from their being able only to watch and wonder at the progress we have made. [ 
Interruption 
] Again I acknowledge my good colleague the member for Hamilton East Mr Bennett. In his quiet moments he will admit that when he came into this Parliament after he was elected he was shocked at the absolute inaction of some of his colleagues. This Government has done so much. We can look at the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
. We can look at the integration of massive extra spending on State highways roading and public transport. The irony is not lost on me that we had those blue and red billboards with one of the previous leaders of the National Party on them—I am not sure which leader of the National Party it was; National has had about five or so in the last 10 years—that said: “What should petrol taxes be used for? Roads.” Well here is the message folks: that is exactly what petrol tax is being used for. Petrol tax is being used for transport—nothing more nothing less. Indeed there is a further subsidy from the consolidated account and that is indicative of just how much we are spending as a Government on transport in this country. [ 
Interruption 
] I know that it hurts; I know when we hear the interjections from the Opposition that it hurts. It is wonderful to be in a Government that is seriously committed to transport. Those interjections are indicative of a party in Opposition that has a memory loss a memory blank at what little its Government did—zero—in the transport area. 
This Labour-led Government is committed to delivering high-quality transport networks. We are already seeing that now throughout the country. This bill is designed to maximise the performance of the Government land transport sector and to enhance New Zealand land transport planning and funding systems. In respect of that I pay a personal tribute to people like Chris Allen the retiring manager of Transit New Zealand in the Waikato who has been promoted to the Hamilton City Council. I know that my colleagues Sue Moroney and David Bennett want to congratulate Chris Allen because he has been a wonderful advocate for roading and transport in the Waikato. 
This bill also implements the recommendations from the Next Steps review of the land transport sector and it introduces measures that will allow New Zealand’s land transport sector to move forward in an integrated manner. You know the news is all good; the news is all good. The bill provides for a Government policy statement that will set out planned investment and funding priorities for the next 3 to 6 years. Interestingly the bill will create the New Zealand Transport Agency as a new Crown entity replacing the existing Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I think the appointment of the interim board of the New Zealand Transport Agency will be very important and I am sure that the Ministers and the Government will be paying due attention to getting the right skill mix but we should not underestimate the talent skill and dedication already in those two organisations which are to be merged. 
Going back to the billboards that featured one of the many leaders of the National Party that I saw in my city during the last election campaign—[ 
Interruption 
]—members should listen to this and listen carefully—I say that the bill will reserve fuel excise duty for the National Land Transport Fund from 1 July next year. Members of the Opposition put up and get their Business Roundtable mates to fund a whole lot of billboards around the country. This Government does not talk about it; this Government actually does it. In fact that crowd opposite spent 9 years in Government talking about it but what did they do? They did absolutely nothing. 
The bill will also introduce regional land transport programmes to rationalise land transport planning documents it will reduce consultation and it will encourage integrated land transport planning—another good step in the right direction. Regional land transport programmes will include land transport projects and services including State highways and will need to be prepared and consulted on every 3 years only so that we do not have this incredible perpetual annual navel-gazing. We can actually be moving forward and I think that is a great step to take. Also the legislation will enable the levying of a regional fuel tax which is a tool available to regions for priority projects that would not otherwise get adequate funding within the desired time frame. 
I have paid tribute to Chris Allen who is a fantastic manager of Transit New Zealand in the Waikato region. In the time I have left I will also take the opportunity to pay a particular tribute to Jenni Vernon and the regional council. I acknowledge Jenni Vernon’s wonderful work in terms of some of the regional planning her wonderful advocacy for land transport and the really hard work that she did—I know that Mark Burton joins with me in that acknowledgment as do Sue Moroney and Dianne Yates—in advocating for our region. The great Joint Officials Group scheme for the Waikato is due in part to Jenni Vernon. I acknowledge that and it is my hope that the incoming chair Mr Peter Buckley whom I congratulate and also the Environment Waikato team will carry on that very very good work in the land transport sector. 
I also acknowledge councillor Dave Macpherson from my own city’s transport committee the new chief executive Michael Redman who was the mayor at the time and their officials for their sterling work in terms of the Joint Officials Group programme. I am proud to represent a city that is really walking the talk with this Government and that in its own right has an integrated land transport management strategy. It does not just talk about public transport and buses but actually does those things. It is wonderful to see those green buses going around Hamilton. They are an absolute testament to this Government and its strong support for public transport. 
I am so delighted at the introduction of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. This is another great step in the wonderful work that this Government and Minister Annette King are doing to advance the crucial investment in the New Zealand transport infrastructure that is so critical to our economy and our society. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In speaking to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill I take considerable comfort from the knowledge and recognition of Maurice Williamson who commented that National’s opposition to the bill is as much about what is not in the bill as what is in the bill. National objects to the Government’s intention to put forward a bill to raise another excise tax. The Government is sitting on huge surpluses but has no intention to offset that excise tax. 
National also takes exception to the contribution provision of the regional fuel tax that would be directed into public transport especially from the point of view of the regions. There has been a lot of talk about the needs of the cities and National appreciates that fact but this bill totally overlooks the needs of the regions. 
There is a lack of any ability in this bill to consider what this country certainly needs—that is the creation of public-private partnerships. New Zealand is one of the few countries in the OECD that does not have any public-private partnerships around roading. On that basis National finds little difficulty in objecting to this bill. In saying that I agree that there are certainly some quite laudable things in the bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What’s your policy “Eight Ball”? 
COLIN KING 
: I point out to members on the other side of the House that self-praise is no recommendation because when we look at the problems we are presently facing in the transport infrastructure and so on we see that the status quo or the present situation is entirely failing New Zealand. The  
Next Steps in the Land Transport Sector Review 
 report comments that the current situation is not “fully delivering” and that there are gaps between the “vision and the broad objectives” and there are “confused accountabilities”. So the Government has entitled the review Next Steps but in effect we have a failing economy mainly because we do not have an adequate infrastructural road system. Although we talk about the failed roading system in Auckland costing a billion dollars it is probably costing equally as much throughout the country. 
The New Zealand economy is performing pretty ordinarily. It is in urgent need of an efficient roading system. I want to talk about some of the challenges that we are facing in the provincial areas of New Zealand where we are totally ignored in relation to the ability to raise funds and prioritise things so that we can get them done properly. We are confronted with geographical limitations—like the insurmountable Alps and whatever—and with regional requirements and we need more funding in the regions so that we can get some of the infrastructure up to standard. On State Highway 1 along the east coast of the South Island we have the problem of trucks tipping over. The problems are enormous there and that is limiting this country’s economy. We are sitting in the Chamber discussing this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill but we have a long way to go on the issue. 
Roading ranges over a whole set of things—highways byways and streets. Every function of human society revolves around roading like dropping kids off at school taking produce to the port or to the works trucking and dealing in traffic around tourists. We need roading infrastructure that is a lot better. On that basis what shape are we presently in after 8 years of Labour? We are not in good shape. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: We haven’t sold one road—not one road. 
COLIN KING 
: As I said before self-praise is no recommendation. One would be struggling and stretching the truth to say New Zealand has a first-class roading infrastructure. When we consider the consequences of what is occurring on the main State highways we know we are in serious deficit. Sure money has been put in in that direction but it has not shown any benefit. 
Hon Member 
: Has that member been to Seddon lately—seen the new bridge we’ve built down there? 
COLIN KING 
: After 8 long years of Labour we still have a single-lane bridge over the Hurunui with regard to the experience of trucks rolling over. 
In this country we have very low-cost road infrastructure requiring high maintenance and we are using poor materials. I received an email today from a motor cyclist complaining about the cut-cost measures on State Highway 1 of putting wire ropes as guard rails. Has anybody stopped to think what this might do in terms of safety? It is not safe; it is dangerous. At the end of the day we really have some serious problems. I doubt whether this bill will get to the select committee but a lot more could have been done to get provisions in this bill to move the job forward. As I said it is more about what is not in the bill than what is in the bill. That is why National will vote against it. 
The strategic development of New Zealand’s roading infrastructure is enormously important to the economy. This is what brings us back to this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. In terms of roading problems we agree that road transport needs increased funding but we are opposed to the Government raising another tax to fund roading when it is sitting on massive recurring surpluses. Only 18 months ago we paid 5c in regional R funding and when we gave it away we believed we would be able to get it back and do regional development. But then we got the rules from the Government saying we would have to match it with another 5c. Again we are seeing a Government that does not play straight and true with its requesting of funds. So National will oppose this bill on the basis that we are not seeing the flexibility that would be appropriate. 
I would be quite interested in the suggestion that there would be some flexibility around the raising of a petrol excise tax if we could use it in the regions. Unfortunately that is not the case. It has to be a situation whereby 50 percent of it goes into public transport and I tell members that most of regional New Zealand is not really crying out for public transport. When we go to the Hurunui or Kaikoura to anywhere in Marlborough to Wanganui or to the inner parts of Southland we do not see that demand. 
In fact we would like to have the opportunity to use a fund of that nature to replace things. In Marlborough 280 wooden bridges have to be repaired but more money goes out of Marlborough than has ever come into it. The regions are doing well in spite of the Government not because of the Government. The Government should bear that in mind and be warned because when we look at the situation in the House we see very few Labour representatives from the regions. 
So it is quite appropriate that somebody from the regions wraps up this debate on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. National looks forward to the voting down of the bill. The bill is as much about what is not in it as about what is in it. When I look at the whole structure of things I think that it would probably be wrapped up best by the concerns expressed by Local Government New Zealand which reported that “a concern about possible additional costs for regions and land transport committees as a result of the new prioritisation was expressed by these people”; and that “a number of public and private sector parties consulted had concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the differentiated regional fuel tax regime.” So on balance National will oppose the bill for a number of reasons. On that basis I thank the House for the opportunity of replying to members on the other side of the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 72 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
that the committee report by 25 March 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 194(a) and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to.