Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12465] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak after that brilliant performance—because it was a performance—by a Minister who was somehow trying to explain after 4½ years what can be done for Auckland. The unfortunate thing is that if we were to go down Queen Street this very minute or tomorrow morning and ask people what has been done about Auckland’s transport they would reply very very clearly that nothing has been done. That is the sorry part. In the mind of the average Aucklander nothing has been done. 
And in case my friends in National start to smile nothing was done between 1990 and 1999 either. There were attempts made and it might be that if the National Government had been given another term it might have made it. But I recall the numerous papers of the 1990s. There was a white one and there was a green one—in fact three papers came out. The Hon Maurice Williamson came up to Auckland to tell people what was to be done and how it could be done but the reality for Aucklanders was that they saw no change. I am sorry to say to the Minister of Local Government that nothing will be accomplished if this bill goes out like this in its final form. 
This is a confused bill. Whether or not it is deliberately confused and contradictory it is confused. It states in the opening preamble that: “The changes in transport governance are designed to promote increased integration of decision-making in respect of Auckland land transport. Overall responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council (through its Regional Land Transport Committee) while a new council-controlled organisation (the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA)) will be established to undertake the integrated planning funding and development of Auckland land transport.” I say to the Minister that in the very words of the preamble there is complete and utter confusion. Although it has not confused some of the Auckland mayors it has certainly confused people who looked at the bill in the last week and wondered exactly what its intention is. I will read it again: “responsibility for land transport strategy will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council” while the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority will undertake “integrated planning funding and development”. When I look at clauses 27 and 28 I find the bill even more contradictory. 
When the bill was announced last week there were broad comments in agreement from the Auckland Regional Council and the Mayor of Auckland because they like us welcome any step to try to improve the situation that has prevailed over the last decade or more with regard to Auckland’s transport. So I read from Gwen Bull’s statement that they were very pleased that at long last in their minds—and they obviously have not read the bill carefully enough—this is a major step with regard to funding aligning regional and transport strategy and setting up a new entity that is almost adequately funded to implement the strategy. 
John Banks the Mayor of Auckland said very clearly that it was a positive step. He said that given the huge amount of money being moved around he now needed to get his head clearly around the detail of the bill and that is exactly what needs to be done carefully in the select committee. He said: “We are committed to putting a submission to the select committee which would argue very strongly our reservations in the strongest possible way.” 
He was concerned about the actual proportionality of the whole bill and that if 85 percent went to one group where the rest would go. He made the comment that hopefully it would not go into everyday operating expenses. These are two comments from two major Auckland organisations in broad agreement because like many of us who have lived and worked in Auckland over the years they were looking for improvements in what we have seen over the last decade. 
I will come back to the point I raised at the beginning—the confusion. I am genuinely confused because section 175 of the Land Transport Act 1998 sets out the requirements for the preparation of a regional land transport strategy. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 changed the required representation of the regional land transport committee and said that it must now consist of “suitable persons” who were to be chosen by the relevant regional council to represent the following interests—and I will go through those interests—and with this purpose: the objectives of economic development safety and personal security public health access and mobility and environmental sustainability. These were the prime interests to be considered by the membership of the committee—by those who were going to make up that committee. 
There was talk of cultural interests. The regional council was to be represented on that committee. Numerous territorial authorities were to be on it. The authority itself was to be represented on that committee and so would Transfund. The purpose normally of a regional land transport committee is to set up a regional land transport strategy and thereby serve for at least 5 but mostly for 3 the ongoing strategic needs of the region. 
So in the 2003 changes nothing had changed. First of all a regional land transport committee’s work would be to undergo consultation with the various groups and interests that were named. From that would come the projects and the priorities then the financial forecasting that needs to be done with regard to those projects and last of all Transfund would approve the projects. In a normal funding year—by June of this year—the local authority would find the projects approved or not approved for the next year beginning 1 July until the end of the following year. 
That is the normal process but when I look at this bill I find some real inconsistencies in the clauses that I have named. The first one is in clause 27 “Application of funds by ARC” with regard to the new body. It states that the Auckland Regional Council which is responsible for the funding of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority may not specify individual activities for which funds may be used. 
 Secondly clause 28 states: “From 1 July 2005 ARC’s regional land transport strategy … must not include—(a) references to specific activities and their prioritisation; or (b) any regional passenger transport plan …”. Thereby comes my other confusion: which plan and which funding base are to prevail or are they both to prevail? The whole purpose for any development of Auckland’s transport is the promotion of clarity and certainty. That is the issue that has bedevilled Aucklanders over the years along with a lack of funding. This bill purports to be an attempt to meet the issues of Auckland with regard to transport and governance but that other confusion resides in two bodies—both supposedly involved in planning and both involved in funding. As one will be independent and one will expect a little bit of settling down time in the creation of the new body the Auckland Regional Transport Authority there is not clarity and certainty about the role of each of those bodies. 
I say to the Minister that I thought the bill would have a very clear governance structure—that of the Auckland Regional Council—and I would support that. It would form the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee along with other bodies and that new body would prepare the strategy. But the strategy has not been prepared. In the normal sense the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority group would be the operational arm. It would be the group empowered to do the job and with the funds to get on with it. This bill does not provide for that. Therefore on behalf of New Zealand First I find it very difficult to support this bill especially in the time frame the Minister has proposed. These issues need thought they need care and they need the utmost attention by Auckland local bodies with associated interests in respect of their submissions to the select committee. Again we have a Government that is pushing a bill on. The result of that will be seen later in the afternoon with regard to the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) where belatedly we see that serious issues that should have been clarified are not. The result is that they are back before the House. This bill needs time it needs care and it needs to be legislated in the proper way. I will wait to see how it proceeds at the select committee.