Genter Julie Anne: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9786. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I have to say that sitting through the select committee process on this bill was quite discouraging. Similarly to the Government’s asset sales legislation its gutting of the Resource Management Act and its gutting of the Local Government Act it was another example of a charade of democratic process.During the select committee process the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a large number of really excellent submissions and I have a huge stack of them right here. They were well informed. They were made by people who work on the ground on transport issues—people in regional councils and local councils. We heard submissions from very concerned citizens who are wondering how New Zealand is going to respond to climate change with its transport spend; how New Zealand is going to reduce the burden of chronic disease on the health system which is actually increasing because of our transport system; and how New Zealand is going to deliver a transport system that works for everyone including the elderly the very young those on low incomes and those with disabilities.Despite some very strong consistent themes in the submissions there were very few changes made to the first draft of the bill. I regret to say that some of the very young and earnest submitters—ordinary citizens who care enough about New Zealand to participate in the supposedly democratic process we have for improving legislation—were treated very poorly by some of the Government members on the committee. As with so much else the Government did not listen to stakeholders. It voted on every part of the bill with its one-seat majority on the select committee—it was a 5:4 split on every part of the bill. Like so many other controversial things this Government is doing it hasused its very narrow majority to force changes that do not reflect the views or concerns of most New Zealanders.I will talk in detail about the parts of this bill that are the most problematic during the Committee stage of the bill today. There are quite a few of those parts and I will just touch on a few right now. In my minority report I highlighted my concerns with the lack of response to the submissions about changing the purpose of the Act; changing the make-up of regional transport committees; borrowing to pay for projects in the national land transport programme; going to public-private partnerships which are essentially a more expensive way of borrowing for some very low-value highway projects like Transmission Gully; and removing the regional fuel tax which would have allowed a region like Auckland and perhaps other regions to raise revenue that it desperately needs for its transport priorities.Right now I would like to speak to my concerns about the new Public Transport Operating Model that the Government has spent so much time on with existing bus operators. The purpose of the Public Transport Operating Model is supposedly to improve the competitiveness of public transport operators when in fact we see it does the exact opposite. Much of the detail is not in this legislation. It will be set by Order in Council by the Minister. But what I have learnt through talking to specialists in the area is that the new Public Transport Operating Model entrenches the existing monopolies of existing bus companies. What it does is protect existing bus companies from having to compete in the provision of bus services and this may be true for other providers as well.Essentially what is going to happen if there is not proper competition in the provision of public transport services? For example we are not even going to have tenders; we are going to have negotiated contracts on competitive routes like the Northern Express. At the moment average tenders are only 1.1 so obviously there is no competition in most regions. There is not gross cost contracting in Wellington and Auckland which has led to bus operating costs being 40 percent higher in those two cities than in Christchurch where there was gross cost contracting.The Government has not listened to economists or public transport specialists. It has listened to the bus companies which naturally want to maximise their profits by avoiding competition. So what we have seen is a model tailored to their needs and to their desire to maximise profit. It is going to increase public transport fares for users. It increases the public transport subsidy that must be paid by regional councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Ultimately it is not good for New Zealand’s economy. It is good for the bus operators—the private monopolies that National protects.