Wong Pansy: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18661] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 September 9 will be a very significant day. The sneaking in of option C during the Committee stage against officials’ advice and against public submissions is a very serious matter. It reflects what the Privileges Committee was hearing about the fact that the Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark did not bother to tell the public 6 months ago that she knew about evidence that she did not mention. Now we have the same behaviour when the Government introduces a bill. 
According to the Government option C which was not introduced during the select committee hearings is being brought in to enable regional councils to prohibit commercial services. However according to the officials and the Government: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” These are the words of the Labour Government and the officials and they are set out in the explanatory note on the bill. 
During the select committee hearings right towards the end we thought that the operators were resigned to the fact that they would even have to accept an option B+. In good faith they accepted option B and that has actually got add-ons but they reluctantly accepted that and suddenly the Hon Mark Gosche the chairperson tried to twist the arms of the select committee members by saying that Cabinet did not agree to option C but that the select committee wanted that option. 
We could see that the officials were put under enormous pressure. They kept pleading with the select committee by saying that option C was a radical departure from option B and that under the tight timetable of reporting back to the House there was no way that they would be able to put together amendments and good legislation. New Zealand First agreed to that and the majority of the select committee listened to the submissions and even swallowed it and said that option B was at least what operators believe in. But National members have been firm in our principles. We did not even agree to option B+ but we thought we would try to make amendments that would be good for the legislation. 
When the bill was eventually introduced into this House Labour did not even bother to introduce its own amendment and it used the Green Party as an excuse to bring in last-minute changes to an option that the Government itself said would undermine business confidence—and it will undermine business confidence. This will amount to a confiscation of private property rights. There are bus operators out there who have worked long and hard over the years have built up their business and have made them commercially viable—but now we have councils. Of course the councils would welcome option C because it would give them total control. Who would not want that? Any public body would love to get its hands on funds and then have total control over everything. That is when the New Zealand public would start to get really sceptical. 
The true colours of the Labour Government are coming through. It would love to have total control over everything but that is not right. Public transport is for passengers; it is not for some council officials or planners to get their hands on in order to come up with some grandiose scheme. We were told that without option C we could not have an integrated ticket. Who said that? In Christchurch that is happening under the current environment. In Wellington everybody is talking about the Snapper card so why should it be the case that what happens in Christchurch can happen in Wellington but not in Auckland? Regional councils or transport authorities that have funding have the say so it is a challenge for them to come up with ideas on how to push integrated ticketing. We were told by the operators that this has started to happen. It is simply unacceptable to give the easy way out to an authority that is already holding the purse strings with an additional unlimited power to introduce any control over private operators. 
What will happen next? If the Hon Harry Duynhoven is not happy with the taxi service will that be next? Will he introduce some sort of legislation to nationalise taxi services so they can all be painted in one colour go in one direction and charge one type of fare? That is what the Labour Government and the Greens are staring down the barrel of—nationalising everything. They just cannot stand private enterprise. They cannot stand people being innovative. Actually the hidden agenda has now become very clear. In the original bill that was introduced the word “affordable” was not in the purpose statement. The majority of the select committee argued very hard to insert the word “affordable”. 
Now we understand why the phrase “affordable public transport” was not included in the original bill. Option C would mean that even if a bus route or whatever is commercially viable the regional council in its great wisdom can come up with a preference decide to remove those operators and actually start to hand out subsidies converting a commercially viable route into a contracted one that ratepayers and taxpayers would come up with subsidies for. What a ridiculous notion in 2008! Something is working but just because it does not suit the people with controlling minds—like Labour members and councils who like to impose their own wishes on others—Labour will introduce legislation that wastes ratepayers’ money increases rates and increases tax just because some of them have fancy ideas of how people should travel and how those services should be provided. 
Bus operators who do not require a subsidy have actually been able to build up a commercially viable service because they are able to attract passengers. They have to deliver the service. Why are their services commercially viable? Because they are interactive and reactive to passenger needs. If the passengers do not use those services then they will not be commercially viable. The fact that some of those services are commercially viable proves that it can be done. But a Labour Government never likes to see private enterprise making a go of it and it is always sceptical about private enterprise wanting to make a profit. Actually there is a profit element in an individual who wants a high salary to reflect and reward their services. Profit is a good motivating factor for people to be innovative. When passengers decide to use those services we should encourage them not discourage them. 
I can just see 9 September being a very important day. It will be the last nail in the coffin of the last days of this Labour-led Government. This is an outrage it is an abuse of process it is abuse of the consultation process and National will not have a bar of it.