Williamson Maurice: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16909] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I shall respond to what the Minister said earlier about how the “safety at reasonable cost” argument put up by National had been debated by some saying in their submissions that yes there was a problem but others said the opposite. I want to play a game with the Minister—“I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.” I have here all the submissions on the bill I have the lot and I am prepared to do the trade. I have a list here and I will read for the Committee the names of some of the organisations on that list. Members should remember that these organisations are huge. For example the Automobile Association which covers the biggest chunk of ordinary motorists states in its submission: “The association is concerned about the removal of the term ‘at reasonable cost’ from the transport legislation as a result of this legislation. We consider efficiency and cost considerations to be an important element of transport decision-making especially when seen from the perspective of our membership who are often required to bear the compliance costs of Government regulatory interventions in the transport sector. The association seeks the term ‘at reasonable cost’ to be retained.”  
That is my first bid and I am happy to go on. We have lots of others. Let us go with the Road Transport Forum which represents all the big commercial operators in the country. The way to fix the legislation they say is by the proposed amendments: “Clause 18 of the bill should be amended by adding the following after the final word of the proposed section 169A of the Act ‘(b) which achieve their purpose or outcome at reasonable cost and (c) for the purpose of this section a reasonable cost is a reasonable cost if the value of the cost to the nation is exceeded by the value of the resulting benefit of the nation’. ” Those are the first two bids. We have the Automobile Association which represents ordinary motorists and the Road Transport Forum which represents the big commercial operators. Let us go with the Aviation Industry Association which represents all the aircraft operators and so on. [ 
Interruption 
] Well the Minister is going to come back and give us his big list of those from the other side of the debate which I understand was from a couple of cyclists. But never mind he will tell us that I am wrong and give us the big listing of the organisations.  
The Aviation Industry Association’s proposal states: “The above amendments should apply to section 72AA.” The Aviation Industry Association represents all the operators of aeroplanes. It states further: “Safety at reasonable cost is presently the cornerstone test for the Minister in determining whether or not a rule change should proceed. Under the proposed changes there is no longer a precise test as to whether or not a rule change will enhance safety. In fact a rule change is only required to assist or help out safety and security. Only if the rule change also assists economic development and so on. It is so murky it is not funny.” So there are three. We have the Automobile Association and we will now go to someone else. How about trying Federated Farmers? That organisation represents all the farmers in New Zealand so they are getting some pretty big blocks here. We have heard from representatives of individual motorists and commercial truck operators and the Aviation Industry Association and what do Federated Farmers say? Their two-page submission which is unusual for them states: “Section 2.5. Federated Farmers is concerned that the Government does not intend to carry over the LTSA’s ‘safety at reasonable cost’ mandate into this new legislation. Federated Farmers is concerned with the lack of emphasis on efficiency in the proposed legislation and recommends the reintroduction of the words ‘at reasonable cost’.”  
How are we going now? Is it looking pretty good? No there are some more big organisations. How about all the port companies. I will not read the names of all of them but they include the Port of Auckland the Port of Otago and the Port of Marlborough. I think that includes all the ports. Their submission which is a one-pager really because after the heading it only fills in the page a little bit more states: “The current Act prescribes the Minister and the MSA’s prime role is to promote safety at reasonable cost. This concept has proven to be very useful when evaluating policy proposals in the past. By failing to recognise the importance of efficiency and cost it could well facilitate the creation of a transport system that is inefficient and consequently impacts negatively on the economy and living standards. This will normally be a trade-off between safety and cost because the alternative is safety at any cost.”  
I do not know how many more submissions there are but I will be happy to take three or four more calls on this. Here we are—a submission from Business New Zealand which represents all businesses. We now have submissions from representatives for the private motorist commercial operators the Aviation Industry Association and the ports companies. Business New Zealand states: “Section 2.2. However we are very concerned with the aspects of the bill that remove safety at reasonable cost and it is our advice to return the words ‘safety at reasonable cost’ into the legislation.” I have shown the Minister mine. It is time he gave us his list other than the names of the two cyclists.