Mapp Wayne: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14033] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to contribute to this short part and also to the schedules. I follow on from a particular point made by the Hon Maurice Williamson and it is this: in the life of a Government there is not much opportunity in a legislative sense to deal with any particular issue. Essentially a Government has one shot at it—well perhaps in this case the Government has had two. It had the Land Transport Management Act and amendments thereto and it has had this bill—the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. There will not be any other legislation in this Parliament that deals with the administration of the roading and transport issues in Auckland and indeed in New Zealand. So what the public look for in a Government is that it gives it its best shot and comes with a complete package that will actually make a difference. 
If the Government had done that and had really attempted to come up with an inclusive complete solution embodied in the two pieces of legislation—the Land Transport Management Act last year and the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill this year—we might have been able to support it. Unfortunately we cannot. The reason we cannot is that the legislation represents such a missed opportunity. I find it appalling that the Minister in the chair Chris Carter is so woefully lacking in knowledge about the transport situation in Auckland that he thinks that this bill will take away the authority of local authorities and compact it all into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is simply not true and that is why the Government is in such a mess on this stuff. It is that kind of ignorance that has led to such a miserable attempt. 
At the select committee a proposition was put to the submitters which were all the territorial local authorities in the Auckland region—all eight of them. The select committee asked whether the submitters would like to compact together central government local government and regional government into a single organisation that had funding powers and management powers to really get to grips with the crisis. They said yes that it would be the best solution. If the Government had come up with that solution we would have voted for it. That is what Auckland City Council wants. That is what North Shore City Council Manukau City Council and Waitakere City Council want. 
All the territorial authorities in Auckland want a complete solution. Instead they are served up a half-baked solution and one wonders why. We hear it from the Greens—they are actually anti-development. They do not want roads. They are against roads. They oppose every innovative and reasonable project. They even oppose the North Shore busway and I find that extraordinary. They delayed it for a whole year. That is the reality. The Minister got up and said it has started. The Minister is wrong yet again. What has actually started is the development of the Esmonde Road Interchange. That is not part of the busway. The busway is the roading and the stations associated with that. The interchanges have to be done first and only then will the busway be done. I predict that it will take 10 years from inception through all the myriad of planning processes through the blockage put in place by the Greens before a single bus or car travels on that busway—and that is a simple project. 
If we really want to get to grips with transport in Auckland we have to make big changes; not these fiddling little changes that the Government has delivered up. The public in Auckland will give its verdict in 12 months’ time. It will say that the miserable efforts of the Labour Government are not good enough. It will vote for a party that has a concrete and complete solution because that is what is needed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Unfortunately I have missed much of the debate on this bill but I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution. I am quite concerned about what the National Party is saying because it was in power for 9 years and it did little or nothing for roading in this country. Indeed when I was a consultant involved with an operation in the Ports of Auckland and the Port of Tauranga setting up a commercial entity I went to the Rt Hon Winston Peters who was then a National Party MP. I explained to him that by increasing the hours of waterfront work by using more modern equipment and by moving into the container age we would be having so many trucks and so much traffic on the roads—coupled with the Japanese vehicles that were coming in at a fairly significant rate at that time—that our roads would not keep pace. The honourable member might recall that Winston Peters produced his own member’s bill to get better funding for roading in this country by using the excise tax in full. So to hear the National Party bleating on that this bill will not do what it is meant to do I find a bit unusual. 
I realise that we are dealing with Part 3 but the purpose clause basically tells me that the bill is worth supporting. The objectives and the principles in the purpose clause tell me that the bill is worth supporting. Basically the roads in Auckland need to be fully addressed. I was at a NGC Winter Lecture Series lecture the other night where Dr Cullen was the guest speaker. 
Darren Hughes 
: Great speaker! 
PETER BROWN 
: It was a good speech. Actually it was quite different from what he has been delivering in this Chamber. He said that walkways and pathways have a role to play. He said that public transport has a role to play but to have no doubt—I think those were his exact words—that we need roads in this country and more of them. I have never heard that Government say that so forcefully. 
I say to the Greens that they have been hoodwinked to some degree because the Labour Government has suddenly realised that we need more roads and that there are people who want to drive their cars on roads free of traffic congestion. Some years ago I drove through Auckland on my way to Whangarei. Members might recall that a cow jumped off a truck and the police were trying to shoot it. That stopped the whole of the traffic in Auckland at that time. I realise I am ranging wide but I want to address some of these issues. 
Darren Hughes 
: How’s the cow? 
PETER BROWN 
: The cow was not very good. The policeman had five attempts at it before he killed it. It stopped the whole of the traffic in Auckland for hours. The situation in Auckland is deplorable. No modern city in the world would tolerate it. It pleases me—I am back on to schedule 5 now Mr Chairman—that finally there is an amendment that will allow the local strategy to be taken into account. 
This bill is about building roads for Auckland for the benefit of Aucklanders and for the benefit of this country. If we do not get the local people pulling together and working out what they want with the appropriate amount of funding to deliver it then we will get nowhere fast. This bill is but a start. I would have thought that the National Party would be a little bit more understanding of the fact that to be able to start on the roading system in this country—on Auckland in particular—we need first of all to pull the local bodies together. The paragraphs added to new section 12(6)(b) in schedule 5 as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 231 make some solid attempt to do that. Paragraph (b) states: “from a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council give effect to the matters in the Auckland regional land transport strategy required by section 175(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998” and so it goes on. That is exceedingly important. It is a small paragraph and it is a change in the bill as it came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
I have to say that if the Government had not chosen to change that New Zealand First would not be supporting the bill. Mr Jim Peters represented us on the select committee because he is a specialist in local Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Power that this is an important clause. He would be well advised to read it. I know he is a lawyer.