Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18771] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is an interesting day when we are discussing legislation in regard to public transport. If we look at the history of this legislation and at some of the other issues that are going through the Parliament at this time we see they have a very similar background of corporate involvement in decision making beyond what we would expect the parliamentary process to engage in. 
In this case we had an agreement between the major parties involved in the issue. The public transport providers—in essence the bus companies—the major regional provider the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and other regions were involved. The Government of the day had made a purely commercial decision as one would expect in the sense that it was agreeable to all the parties involved. That decision was never followed through even though it got Cabinet approval. The Minister may like to deny that and say it was subject to some kind of formality through the consultation of the parliamentary process but that is not the reality. The parties involved understood that they had a commercial decision and that was the expectation of everyone involved. Then when it comes to the reality of passing the legislation through this House the Government has changed its mind and goes against that commercial decision and does what it thinks is expedient to satisfy its supporters. 
That is very much the theory of what we are seeing in the Winston Peters saga as well. It just shows the whole nature of this Government that it cannot be trusted on its word. It will go against the people it has made agreements with in the past it will do what it feels is right at one particular time to achieve political advantage and it has no concept of what the public wants. It is not governing in the interests of what is best for New Zealand. The parallels between this bill and what we are seeing in the Winston Peters saga are very similar. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please come back to the bill. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This bill is a very convenient example of the way this Parliament is being used by the Government to keep up its profile in legislation that is not appropriate. Let us look at what Parliament should be discussing; it should be looking for a solution that is in the best interests of public transport users. A solution was provided and agreed upon. Why will the Government of the day not continue to uphold an agreement that was made in good faith by parties sitting around a table and negotiating in the best interests of public transport users? Public transport is an issue that we have to deal with and there needs to be some solutions. Auckland is the prime example of where we need public transport solutions. The parties involved need to include the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to the effect that it does transport issues in Auckland. We need to include the bus companies which have a big role to play in the Auckland public transport network. We also need to include the Government because the Government of the day has an important role in providing the solutions. 
But we cannot allow the Government of the day to use legislation just to pay back its mates. We cannot allow the Government to use legislation in a way that does not achieve the purposes of public transport and this is what we are seeing from this Government today in this Chamber. Why does the Government need to do this legislation under urgency in the last weeks of a dying regime? That is the question the public will be asking. The public will want to know why this Government would not stick to its word and why it had to move away and do what it felt was expedient just to satisfy its supporters at the last moment before going into an election campaign. That I think is what members of the National Party were so aggrieved about in the select committee process. We went into it in good faith. We went in there looking for a solution that would solve public transport problems and help public transport users in Auckland and we looked for an objective solution that would be appropriate. We were encouraged to find that the parties had actually come to an agreement at some point in time and that Cabinet had actually supported and approved it. There was no approval subject to any political process. The Minister in charge of the bill Annette King is just making that up at this stage to try to get away with the fact that the Government changed its mind.