Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13995] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the Hon Maurice Williamson and thought about the 1990s and what sort of overall framework and vision the National Government had for transport. My first thought was Tranz Rail. My next thought was Fay Richwhite—advisers to Tranz Rail in March would-be owners in May and eventual owners by sleight of hand. I thought of the numerous papers and checked them at the weekend to make quite sure I did not have it wrong. But in 1999 that former Minister of Transport had not solved one issue in Auckland. The white papers the green papers and all the thinking that came through in 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 and 1999 showed that the issue was left unsolved. So I find it rather rich for someone to stand here and claim that that National Party had an answer for Auckland. The real issue is that it had no answer. In 1999 in the last desperate days before the election that was even more evident than it is today. 
Therefore with that in mind New Zealand First came to the issue—first of all because the deputy leader of New Zealand First Mr Peter Brown is the transport adviser to our party; and secondly because we have worked and are working still on a major transport initiative for our policy for the next election whenever that may be. We are looking at a policy new directions 
  
which will set a different pathway from what New Zealand has had in the past. In that policy is ample provision for Auckland. 
When this bill first came to the House we in New Zealand First felt that it was not the answer. On our party’s part we agreed that it should go on to the select committee but in the course of the committee’s deliberations I felt on behalf of New Zealand First that this legislation was but a partial answer to what is a very major problem. I want to look at those issues that developed around the bill with regard to the select committee submissions. 
The first was the one touched upon by the Hon Maurice Williamson. Was there to be the integration of a local authority land transport system for Auckland or was there to be a policy of national networks with one major entity rather than the one proposed? There was some support for the grand idea of one entity incorporating rail water transport and all the various modes. But I believe that quite sensibly the Government of the day has rejected that and instead is taking the approach that first one must walk before one can run. 
 Also in that regard we felt that if that was to be so in some ways—and I said so and was pleased to see that it was partially acknowledged and the changes are in the proposed Supplementary Order Paper—there ought to be a real clarity and consistency in order to make this thing work and it is our belief in New Zealand First that this can work. It can work if there is goodwill and if there is a real attitude and a will to make it work. It will not be so successful if we begin with the assumption which has been made by the National Party that this will not work and that the answer is not a diminishing of the number of authorities involved in transport which it is but instead looking for a more radical answer which I really suspect disregards the whole nature of local government in the Auckland region. 
To come back to the bill therefore we believe that the bill does set out sound objectives with regard to the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system. The management of funding is a major issue for transport. The care of assets and the issues with regard to water quality are all covered in the bill. We believe that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will do the task in the way that it has now redesigned and reset. 
One of the issues that came up and was advanced to members of Parliament who met with the Auckland Regional Council was the fact that for some reason there was not sufficient recognition given to the nature of the work of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee; and particularly there did not seem to be quite the appropriate acknowledgment of the importance of a regional land transport strategy. I am pleased to say that the Government has acknowledged there needed to be some changes in the bill as it comes to the Committee stage which should ensure there will be greater clarity and objectivity with regard to the way Auckland transport matters are viewed. 
I want to say our party supports the role of the Auckland Regional Council. We support the whole nature of the Auckland local bodies. In saying that we acknowledge there are issues. Those issues will be resolved district by district and region by region in October. We support a democratic response by Auckland ratepayers; that is the election of their duly elected councils. We therefore support the whole structure—as advanced here—of a regional land transport committee being set up to cover the territorial and other groups as modified by the bill of 2003 and that that body ought to have a role in setting the broad framework not the fine detail. This bill envisaging a detailed objective implementation role for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is a sound approach. 
So at this point we give our support to the bill. We will make some submissions on the floor in Committee but the bill seems to us at this stage with all that is known to be a reasonably honest attempt to try to make a breakthrough in what has been a historically obscure and obstinate problem for people who live in Auckland. To come back to the Hon Maurice Williamson that problem is not one just for 2004. There has been a problem in Auckland from 1987 and it was there through all those years. The problem has been there ever since and it ill behoves any responsible member who represents an Auckland electorate to come to this House and not give this a reasonable understanding and recognise a reasonable attempt by the Government to try to meet the demands. 
This is not an answer for 2005 or 2008; it is a gradual development in trying to overcome the inertia lack of funding lack of will and lack of Government direction especially over the last two or three decades. No bill no matter how great it is in substance will be able to do that without care and great deliberation. New Zealand First supports this bill to the House in Committee and we will make further comment there. We believe it is a reasonable attempt at this stage to try to do what has not been done in Auckland before. With that will come problems as one can envisage but the bill is at this point one that New Zealand First can support.