Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Williamson Maurice: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1664] 
7.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Can he guarantee that the increased funding that will be made available to the National Land Transport Programme will be enough to ensure the completion of the August 2005 Transit New Zealand 10-year State highway forecast as published? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am assured by the Minister of Finance that that is his intention. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can the Minister or anybody in the House have any confidence in a process that had the chief executive of Transit asked on  
Morning Report 
: “Have you heard anything from the Government that they are going to make up the $685 million shortfall?” and the chief executive replied: “I’ve only heard that advice this morning as you did on the radio.” and is he worried that if the chief executive had been in the shower at the time he may not have known the money was coming? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I am not worried by that. As I said before I am assured by the Minister of Finance that it is his intention that we increase the funding to the State highway budget so as to meet the projections that were forecast in August last year. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Minister of Transport explain the comments of Hamilton West MP Martin Gallagher in the  
Waikato Times 
 on 1 March that: “It’s my credibility … You can imagine how I feel. I don’t like it one bit … I am just aghast at what’s gone on … It’s like groundhog day … Transit has put eggs on a lot of our faces.” in regard to Transit’s 10-year plan for Hamilton when both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance knew late last year that Transit would be making such arrangements in the latest 10-year plan? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members even of the same party that if they interject during questions they put themselves at risk. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am sure that the member for Hamilton West—Mr Gallagher—the local councils and the local population in Hamilton will be relieved and pleased when they see the final form of the State highway plan in June. 
Martin Gallagher 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the member to table that  
Waikato Times 
 article so that the House can clearly understand that the last three or four sentences attributed to me were not correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that had the Hon Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Transport not stopped the gradual transfer of petrol tax from the Crown account into the roading account there would now be billions of dollars— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question being asked by Mr Brown is clearly outside the Standing Orders. The Minister cannot be responsible for things that were done or were not done last century. Right from the beginning the question was clearly out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member like to rephrase his question so that it is specific to the Minister’s responsibility. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that had the Hon Maurice Williamson when he was Minister of Transport not stopped the gradual transfer of petrol tax from the Crown account into the roading account there would be billions of dollars more in the roading account and that our roading problems would be much less severe? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware that at the time National blocked proposals from New Zealand First to divert more of the petrol tax into roading rather than the consolidated account. I am not surprised by that because even at the last election National was saying that it would not divert the fund until after 6 years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is interesting that you allowed that question after Nick Smith had questioned whether it was appropriate. It seems to me that it would be just as appropriate for someone on this side of the House to take a trivial point of order and suggest that the transfer was not made and that the Government could pay for the absolutely dopey policies of New Zealand First that were part of the price of coalition and then ask the question of how much more funding that should go to roads is being diverted now to pay the price of dopey policies and coalition arrangements with New Zealand First. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: First of all I am appalled that the member described the abolition of the surcharge on superannuation as a dopey policy. It was in fact the main condition New Zealand First imposed for coalition in 1996. But more substantially although the Minister has no responsibility for what Mr Maurice Williamson did—indeed most of his colleagues have denied they have responsibility for that—the reality is that the consequences of that decision may still be current and they are the responsibility of the current Minister of Transport. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My complaint is twofold. Firstly Mr Brownlee got up and added a whole lot of words into his supposedly valid complaint and talked about New Zealand First’s dopey policies—funny that; National stole them all at the last election. My second point— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please come to the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well my real point is that Mr Bennett—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will come to order or it will be a very empty House soon. I know the prospect is entertaining for some but will the member please address the point succinctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My second complaint is that Mr Bennett got up and I believe purported to read from a newspaper when that newspaper article in the way he recited it simply does not exist. Now that is a very serious offence in this House and if he wishes to dislodge that claim he can table the document he said he quoted from. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: He may well do that if he is given an opportunity to do so but it is too late because the House has addressed that point of order. The point I want to come back to is the point raised by Mr Brownlee. When questions are asked certainly historical comparisons are permitted—provided of course that they relate to the Minister’s portfolio. In that particular instance they did. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Is the Minister aware that if he had been looking in 1999 for a 10-year State highway forecast for highways to be built in Auckland it would have looked like this blank sheet of paper—absolutely bare with nothing on it—and if the then Minister Mr Williamson had dropped it it would have gone altogether? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult to hear. I ask the Hon Mark Gosche please to rephrase his question in terms of ministerial responsibility—and I wish all members to hear that so I do not have to ask them twice because they will lose their questions if I do. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Is the Minister aware that if he had been looking in 1999 for a 10-year forecast for State highways to be built in Auckland in the following 10 years it would have looked like a blank sheet of paper and had the Hon Maurice Williamson then dropped the forecast it would have gone altogether? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question cannot possibly be in order; otherwise it would lead the House to all sorts of questions about all sorts of irrelevant and extraneous matters. The question must be asked: why can a man of Mr Gosche’s experience—a former Minister of Transport—not ask something that is more helpful to someone on his own side? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member so that question is out of order. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can the Minister justify the recent announcement of further delays to the upgrading of New Zealand’s most deadly highway State Highway 2 between Pokeno and Thames where over 40 lives have been lost in less than 5 years giving it the name the “killer highway”; and how many more lives will be lost before his Government commits to a four-lane expressway over that section of State Highway 2? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am informed that work has already commenced on that stretch of highway. But further I note that the final outcome of the 10-year State highway forecast will not be known until June. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very clear question of how the Minister could justify the delays and he in no way— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister did address the question. That is not a legitimate point of order. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has the Minister of Transport received from the Hamilton City Council regarding a breach of contract by Transit in its recently announced 10-year plan due to the council having taken actions in reliance on its agreement with Transit to complete the Avalon Drive bypass in the 2006-07 year; and what does the Minister intend to do about that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am of course aware of dissatisfaction in the Hamilton area with the current draft State highway plan. I envisage people will be much more pleased when they see the final version. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister confirm—notwithstanding the hard-working Hamilton West member’s frustration at aspects of Transit’s processes which is shared by the Hon Trevor Mallard and other Ministers—that road funding in the Waikato has increased significantly under this Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is indeed true and will be even more so when the final State highway forecast comes out in June. 
Martin Gallagher 
: To clear up any ambiguity I seek leave to table the  
Waikato Times  
article alluded to by the member for Hamilton West. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just like clarification from the member who is seeking leave as to whether he said in that article that this was another groundhog day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and given of course that we are not having trivial points of order that is out of order. Leave was sought to table that document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.