Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): That was the most remarkable series of assertions from the Labour member Helen White about what this bill intends to do what the benefits are and what the risks are of not following through. But ACT has a differing view which was presented in the report back on the Land Transport (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill which some people might say is a version of bus communism" but let's give the Government the benefit of the doubt.Hon David Bennett: Socialism.SIMON COURT: Well all socialism ends in communism. You know that. So the policy intention is that this bill will achieve the objectives to regulate public transport and to prioritise mode shift—that's bullying people out of cars and on to public transport walking and cycling. Then there's fair and equitable treatment of employees. Well imagine that. New Zealand already has laws that require employers to treat their employees fairly but for some reason the Minister responsible for the bill at the time the Hon Michael Wood insisted that fair and equitable treatment of employees be included in a bill about public transport for goodness' sake as well as improved environmental health outcomes.Public transport serves a vital good. It enables people to get from their place of work to home from home to school wherever they are going in large numbers. It's meant to be efficient. It's meant to be delivered in an effective way so it can move the most people in the shortest possible time. Environment and health outcomes should not be in this bill. Environment legislation is covered by the Resource Management Act. Climate legislation is covered by the emissions trading scheme which puts a price on emissions. Health outcomes are up to the public health agencies. This bill is another example of the incoherent approach to delivering better value for money more affordable living for New Zealanders. It's confused and frankly it's unnecessary. It's a waste of the committee's time and ACT does acknowledge that the officials who contributed to this bill and came to the select committee were doing their best to help committee members understand it although it's quite clear that some of those on the Government side of the House still don't understand it.This bill enables regional councils to own assets directly by removing the requirement for local authority interests in public transport services to be held in a council controlled organisation. I'm going to read that again—it enables councils to own assets directly. Now has anyone heard of three waters? The three waters reform which is a bill that passed yesterday forces councils to hand over their assets in three waters and this bill says they should own public transport assets. The incoherence the confusion the lack of policy principles is not remarkable; it's what's got us to this place in six years.But Kiwis shouldn't worry because there's going to be a general election. ACT has some practical policy solutions to get to you on the bus get your bus there on time and get you to work on time or school on time if that's where you need to go.What else does the bill do? It requires public transport services to be procured and planned and operated in an open and transparent manner. I would hope to goodness that in New Zealand services procured with taxpayers' and ratepayers' funds are procured in an open and transparent manner. Because if they're not we'd want the Auditor-General to go and have a look at it wouldn't we? Wouldn't we? Oh no does this now need to be included in a public transport bill? What else has failed in the last six years?Simon O'Connor: You don't have enough time.SIMON COURT: Oh I don't have much time—I'm going to stick to the bill. The bill proposes to encourage greater collaboration between regional councils and territorial authorities. For people listening at home who think that all councils are kind of the same regional councils typically control regional land transport plans. They have a regional overview—a really important role. Territorial authorities are your city council and your district council which often provide the infrastructure—for example the bus stop or the local road the bus travels on. Of course they should collaborate. How on earth is that since the Local Government Act was amended by a former Labour Government to give councils the power of general competency which means they can do anything anywhere at any time they like including competing with the private sector Helen White and it isn't a very good idea if you want the private sector to be delivering efficient services and to have a fair go to have local government soaking up its overheads with ratepayers' funds and going out there and competing unfairly with the private sector. But imagine greater collaboration between regional and district and city councils. Well of course that is necessary but the power of general competence has led to councils becoming less competent at everything. It's expanding the definition of public transport—and this is the kicker; this is what really tears ACT's nighty—to clarify the treatment of on-demand public transport services as public transport services. These guys want to patch over Uber. These guys want to use taxpayer and ratepayer funds to subsidise services on demand. I've got an app on my phone. If I want on-demand services I can get them now. It's absolutely unnecessary incoherent overreach from a Government that is out of ideas and has failed at everything it's tried to deliver including getting the buses to run on time.So we can assume there are worthwhile benefits from public transport which are shared by the fare-paying passenger and the road operators due to reduced congestion and emissions at peak times because of course if you're operating a diesel bus if you're operating a private motor vehicle that runs on petrol and diesel you will pay for your emissions under the emissions trading scheme.So let's assume there's an economic model that demonstrates there are worthwhile benefits from public transport and that's why it should be delivered as efficiently as possible so that costs are minimised and benefits are maximised and the people who pay for it should be the people who benefit from it to a large degree. It's not clear that this piece of legislation will do that. In fact it's much more likely that regional and city councils who want to take on the role of owning the buses and owning all the infrastructure—and remember they're already cash strapped. Remember that one of the reasons for the three waters reforms is because apparently councils can't borrow any more money. They're already cash strapped. So where on earth they're going to get the money to buy all these buses and build all this infrastructure is unknown.So let's assume that it needs to be delivered as efficiently as possible. Well the people who benefit are the people who get to use the bus. But under this Government's model fewer and fewer people are paying the full cost or even a fair share of the cost of public transport. And then you think about all the people on the road who might say "Well I would use the bus if it arrived on time and if it was a good service." And yet what did the former Minister Michael Wood do for the people of West Auckland? He said "Instead of a northern northwest busway like the one that we built out in the North Shore you can have bus stops on the side of the motorway at Te Atatū and Lincoln Rd."And that former Minister said in a select committee that that's what good public transport looks like. Now ACT disagrees. So do the people of West Auckland. That is the most outrageous claim from the former Minister Michael Wood—that bus stops on the side of the motorway represent good public transport. But that's the vision—bus communism patching over Uber and bus stops on the side of the motorway—from a Government that said climate change is a nuclear-free moment and that you should all get out of cars and get on the bus.Anyway it's only a few short weeks to the election. There will be a referendum on the former Minister's bus stops on the side of the motorway in a few short weeks and I think the people of West Auckland will vote against them. So what would that do? Well let's assume there's an opportunity to reset expectations. We would say there's a need for investment in public transport and the transport infrastructure and networks and services in general. Best way to do that? Get the cities and districts to tell central government what they need to deliver for a growing population. Establish 30-year infrastructure plans that lock that in so future politicians can't come along and say "You get light rail you get a bridge."—that won't happen under an ACT 30-year infrastructure plan—and lock in the funding and financing including bringing in billions from the private sector to support the delivery of good public transport and transport infrastructure."