Duncan Helen: Road Traffic Reduction Bill — Second Reading 
Duncan Helen: Road Traffic Reduction Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11141] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 That speech was really a doozy was it not? To hear Maurice Williamson talk one would think that he had actually done something about the roads when all of us here in this Chamber know that he did nothing. He did not introduce private sector funding of roads. He did not introduce any ability for private sector firms to be involved in roads at all. I think we had better buy him a couple of gross of Twink pens because he is rewriting history at such a rate that he will need them. That speech was absolutely unbelievable. But the reality is that everybody knows that for the 6 years he was Minister of Transport and for the 9 years that party was in Government they did absolutely nothing. The mess that this Government inherited in Auckland’s roads is attributable—not entirely but in no small measure—to the stewardship of that party and of Maurice Williamson. 
Seriously now I thank my Green Party colleagues Jeanette Fitzsimons and Mike Ward for their work on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee when we were considering the Road Traffic Reduction Bill which we considered in concert with the Land Transport Management Bill. It was really interesting being on that select committee and listening to the submissions that came in. The submissions fell into three lots. There were those people who took a balanced view and said that yes we do need to do a variety of things on our roads to make sure that we deal with the problems. They were concerned to look at traffic reduction or the management of traffic on our roads. Then there were the people—mainly Green supporters—who do not have a lot of time for cars on roads and who really wanted us to move quite strongly on alternative means of transport. Then there were the—mainly—business submitters who started their submissions by saying they did not want to talk about the Road Traffic Reduction Bill because it was a load of rubbish and they did not agree with anything in it. They would then go on to talk about the Land Transport Management Bill. 
When the questions started committee members suggested to those submitters that there should be a two-pronged approach to the problem and that maybe there would be some benefit in demand management. When they were asked that question they all agreed that yes there would be some benefit in demand management and that there were things that could be done to improve the volume of traffic on our roads and to improve the way in which people and city councils deal with the traffic. But though they could see that we had to drag it out of them by questioning. When those people were asked direct questions they had to admit that as well as the building of roads there are other strategies that need to be implemented and in fact we need to do what the land transport strategy states. We need to take an integrated approach to transport and we need to look at a variety of ways of dealing with the issues that are raised. 
On the North Shore there is a real problem with traffic—in Onewa Road for example where the road comes down to meet the motorway. But the passenger funding that was put in place by this Government increased passenger transport use down Onewa Road—the people using the buses—by 27 percent. That is really good because it means that if there are fewer people going by car—one to a car—but 30 or 40 people going by bus down that road then the traffic congestion is reduced. That has got to be good in terms of the cost of transport and of having to develop roads and it means that we can look at alternative strategies. 
The intent of the bill was to get transport decision makers to consider traffic demand management as well as the support of transport infrastructure. The bill required the Minister of Transport and regional councils to develop targets timetables and measures for the reduction of motorised traffic. That was intended to result in an increase in support for public transport walking and cycling at the expense of major roading projects. The second part of the bill was designed to broaden the mandates of Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. The Land Transport Management Act provided for that which has made Part 2 of this bill redundant. But the Government has worked with the Green Party to look at ways in which its objectives could be met through the land transport strategy. We managed to reach an accommodation—a meeting of minds if one likes—on the ways in which the Greens’ objectives could be met by the land transport strategy and by incorporating some of those ideas into the Land Transport Management Act so that it was a win-win situation. I do not mean just a win-win situation for the Government and the Greens but a win-win situation for the people of New Zealand—particularly of Auckland where I come from and where transport problems are causing a great deal of difficulty on the roads around there. 
This Government has taken a broad-ranging look at the transport needs of the country and a broad view of what needs to be done to improve them. For a start one of our key objectives has been the development of the New Zealand land transport strategy. It represents a fundamental change in the way that we deal with transport in New Zealand as it is the first time that all modes of transport—road rail sea and air—have been looked at in an integrated and a long-term way. The strategy has five main objectives. It is designed to assist economic development to assist safety and personal security to improve access and mobility to protect and promote public health and to ensure environmental sustainability. I am sure everybody in this House would agree that those are admirable objectives. 
 The Land Transport Management Act signalled a new era for the planning and operation of this country’s transport infrastructure. The legislation ensured greater consistency in the long-term planning of the networks a more integrated transport infrastructure and a multimodal approach to the sector and it will also provide new mechanisms for the funding of roads. As I said to Mr Williamson at the start of this speech this Government has made it possible for the private sector to be involved in the provision of roads if it wishes if there are protections in place to ensure that there are alternative free routes for those people who do not wish or cannot afford to pay tolls and if the projects are in the public’s interest. 
I will finish by giving members a personal anecdote. In 1985 I was living in England and the M25 was opened—the outer ring road around London. It was marvellous. We would get on to the ring road from north London where I was living and drive right around London even though it was further to drive than the other roads because it was so easy to get to our destination. In 1989 I went back to London and stayed at my daughter’s place. We were going to north London and I said to her that we would just take the M25. She said: “For heaven’s sake Mum do you want to be stuck in a traffic jam for 10 hours?”. That was the difference. In 4 years that road had gone from being a quick and an efficient method of moving around London to being just a huge traffic jam. It had become absolutely congested. The reality is that if we just concentrate on building roads we do not solve traffic problems. We need roads—of course we do—and Labour does its best as the Government to provide new and vital traffic links. But the reality is that a multifaceted approach is needed in order to solve the transport problems of this country.