Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18665] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 The Public Transport Management Bill is broken into two parts of which the first has only three clauses. The rest is all in the second part. Thank you for the call Mr Chairperson; I would like to think that I could take two specific calls on Part 2. 
If we really focus on this bill we see that the nub of it is the level of control that the regional councils have over commercial services. The Government has tried to portray National’s amendments as opposition to integrated ticketing. I debunk that myth by asking Government members to look at my proposed new clause 12 because I am actually very supportive of the requirement for integrated ticketing. 
In the end option A which is the status quo was not working. Everyone accepts that. Even the bus companies and the Bus and Coach Association accept that. But to go to option C would have almost taken us back to the old days when the Auckland Regional Authority ran the buses. It is worthwhile doing a quick survey of Auckland members. I ask those members whether they think the buses worked well when the Auckland Regional Authority had total control. That is the question; it is not hard. Answer A is that it worked well and answer B is that it was a disaster. I ask those members to put their hands up if they remember the old Auckland Regional Authority running the bus service well. 
Peter Brown 
: Rodney Hide did. 
David Bennett 
: Peter put his hand up. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No he did not; he was indicating that Rodney Hide did. I do not think Rodney Hide did actually; that might be an unfair interpretation. Well I think that option is the clear winner because not a single hand went up. Not even Metiria Turei from the Greens thinks that when the Auckland Regional Authority had total control owning and running the bus company the buses were run well. We actually had the Aeroflot version of buses: awful dirty “take it or leave it” and timetabled however the Auckland Regional Authority liked. 
Jill Pettis 
: Well— 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No hang on. Before Jill Pettis puts her foot too far in it let me tell the Committee what her own Minister of Transport and her Government said in the explanatory note of the introduction copy of the bill: “Under option C legislation would be changed to allow regional councils to decide how scheduled public transport services are provided including retaining the status quo adopting a regime …” and so on. It further states: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” That is what the Minister said—not the National Party not New Zealand First and not even the Greens. That is what the Minister said. It is in the explanatory note of the bill as introduced. In the explanatory note the Minister says: “For these reasons option C is not preferred.” 
Harry Duynhoven then went on to say: “Oh but we listened.” Well hang on. That would be a nice little crutch to use except that nobody wanted option C but the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Nobody else wanted it: none of the bus companies not the Bus and Coach Association none of the operators—not Red Bus from Christchurch or others and not even some bus companies from the member’s own area. They did not think it needed to go as far as that but the Auckland Regional Transport Authority did. It goes back to the old days and the spectre of Mike Lee. Mike Lee would like the Auckland Regional Council to own the bus operation again. Let us face it: he would like it to own it. That is where he comes from. He is a terrible old left-winger who loves that ownership and control. Harry Duynhoven tells us that this Government listens but it listens to one submitter and ignores the rest. It ignores the bus companies the Bus and Coach Association and a whole range of other people. 
I want to canvass clause 12. The Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven finds some stuff in my amendment to that clause unacceptable and I want him to tell me what it is. My new clause 12 states: “(1) A regional council may specify a control in a regional public transport plan if—” then states the conditions. We should remember that this is a control on commercial public transport. Let us say that I am a bus operator who has put my own skin in the game. I have gone out and bought my own buses I am operating a non-subsidised service and I am providing a very good product that the public likes but someone will now be able to come along and shove some controls on me even though I am not asking for a subsidy—if I were there are the negotiated powers to do so. But if I stick to my own business and run it like a trucking company is run or a courier company or a taxi company the regional council will now be allowed to impose some controls. 
Members will be surprised to hear that National is OK with that. But there need to be some conditions. I put it to the Committee that in my amendments I have translated those conditions from the agreed Cabinet position. In my new clause 12(2) I have stated: “If a regional council specifies a control in a regional public transport plan it may also specify in the plan—(a) any transitional arrangements …” that it wishes. I would like the Minister to tell me where clause 12 makes him uncomfortable. Paragraph (b) states: “the process that the regional council will adopt for determining any such transitional arrangements.” The regional council can put these things into its plan. 
New clause 12(3) is really good. It states “A control may—”. You see when Annette King was in the chair earlier on she said that National does not believe in integrated ticketing in integrated fares. Actually we think it is vitally important. A number of regimes like the New South Wales Government have tried to implement it by fiat. It was going to be in place for the Olympic Games in 2000 but in 2008 Sydney still does not have it. So the Minister cannot tell me that we can force integrated ticketing by fiat. 
New clause 12(3) states: “A control may—(a) require a minimum period not exceeding 6 months for the operation of a commercial public transport service … immediately following the commencement of—”—which is fine—and “(b) may require a minimum period of notice (which may be not less than 35 working days and no more than 65 working days) for—(i) commencing a commercial public transport service:”. So there is a notification period. If the Minister is uncomfortable with these provisions I would really like to hear about it because this is what Cabinet agreed to. I see Chris Carter over there thinking that Cabinet actually agreed to this. He is right. All of this was agreed by the Labour Cabinet; I have not heard the Minister deny that. 
New clause 12(3)(c) states that a control “may require a minimum period of notice … for withdrawing a commercial public transport service;”. Again that is right. There is a proper period where one would notify it. New clause 12(3)(d) states that a control may “identify commercial public transport services that must be registered collectively provided that each such control: (i) applies to no more than one route;”. One can put these controls in but one can do it only route by route which is actually quite sensible. One cannot have one control for the whole of Auckland. If one wants to put a commercial service control in it is done route by route. Each such control also “(ii) applies to that route for one period in a day of no greater than two hours of continuous service;”. One can have more in the day but not for more than 2 hours for that particular control. Subparagraph (iii) states: “specifies no greater service requirements than in the applicable regional public transport plan and supplementary documents for that route;”. This all sounds good. 
Let us move on to new clause 12(3)(e) which states that a control may “require compliance with specified quality standards and performance standards:”. Is anyone opposed to these amendments? They are in my amendment. I would like to hear from someone who is opposed to them. No? New clause 12(3)(f) states that a control may “require any commercial public transport service to be an integrated service:”. I thought that was what the Government was always on about—that it wanted a greater service. Well this provision will require that. That sounds good. Someone must have an objection somewhere! 
New clause 12(3)(g) states that a control may “require the application of common emblems or signs …”. The Government was really hot on this. The bill was originally going to force one to paint one’s bus whatever colour was decided by the regional council. Howick and Eastern Buses which has always had beige and maroon buses might have been told to paint its buses Labour Party red. 
Jill Pettis 
: Whatever! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Jill Pettis would have loved that. 
As I was saying my amendment in new clause 12(3)(g) refers to common emblems and signs but not common colour schemes—it would not force the buses to change colour.  
New clause 12(3)(h) states that a control may “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to use integrated technology specified in the regional public transport plan:”. Is that really bad? It is exactly what the Government said it wanted. In other words one puts out a public transport plan and—in contracting with commercial services—one puts in the control which has to be complied with. That is good. I do not understand what is wrong with that. 
Here is the nub: new clause 12(3)(i) is a cracker. It states that a control may “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to issue use and accept an integrated ticket specified in the regional public transport plan:”. According to Labour National is opposed to integrated fares and ticketing yet here in my amendment we have “require the operator of any commercial public transport service to issue use and accept an integrated ticket specified in the regional public transport plan:”. New clause 12(3)(j) states that a control may “set out and apportion integrated fares on a reasonable basis without undue discrimination and in accordance with the following factors: (i) time: (ii) distance travelled …” and so on just like airlines do with their fare construction units that break down an end-to-end fare. 
The Government was trying to say—and I think it had a crack at it but Dail Jones fixed it really well—what new clause 12(6) states which is that “No control may be adopted under subsection (3)(d) to subsection 3(l): (a) that would prevent inhibit or deter any operator of a commercial public transport bus or ferry service from offering customers its services under a separate ticket … and a discount for one …; and (b) requires the operator to incur costs or a reduction in revenues for which it will not receive adequate compensation …”. It says that if one is going to force integrated ticketing on a person who has already built up a business has some skin in the game and has created some intellectual property around it then—just like if someone had started a supermarket of his or her own volition and the Government decided to come along and nationalise supermarkets—there has to be a property right and yes it may be able to negotiate it out. A good negotiator will negotiate it out and say: “We don’t think that property right should stand but we want something in return for it.” That is what this amendment does. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we look at this legislation I think Maurice Williamson raised a very good point in regard to what the Government is actually doing. It came into this House and proposed option C and is now going all out to make sure that this Parliament votes for option C when in its written document the commentary on the legislation it said it had thought about that option and decided against it because it had an agreement with the parties involved. Now the Government is changing its mind going against its pre-agreed process and coming down and saying it wants an option C for political expediency. Why would the Government do that? Why would it come into this House and change its mind and go blatantly against what it had gone out and said publicly it had agreed upon? There can be only one reason and Maurice Williamson has an explanation. The Government in its general policy note in the explanatory note stated: “Option C: Empowers regions to prohibit commercial services. … Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” Let us say it again: the Government would not favour option C because it would reduce the control operators have over their business. OK I know it is hard to believe that the Labour Party would say that but that is what it said. It also said that it would potentially undermine business confidence. That is an even more unbelievable thing for the Labour Party to say because it has killed business confidence in this country over the last 9 years. But at least it said “business confidence” in one document that came out. 
Why would the Government now go against those very reasons in this Committee? Well there is a simple reason and it is that this Government cannot be trusted. It never says what it thinks. It never says what it believes; it just uses the smokescreen of this Parliament to go about its business. This is just one big game for those members. The Labour Party knows what it wants from day one and it just uses legislation and uses this House to put a slant on it so that the public out there can feel that it can be happy with it. The Parliament is used as a means of getting parliamentary and public support so that people are compliant and then just at the last minute the Labour Party does what it had planned all the way through. It goes against public opinion. It goes against what is right what is just and what is fair. 
Labour just does what it has to do to pay back its supporters and we see that is part of this bill when we are debating Part 2. The clauses in Part 2 are being used by the Government to try to appease the public to say that it has thought about it and gone through a consultation phase. But the real guts is what it will pass on the day and that is in option C. That is underhand politics. That is the use of the political process for personal gain. That is the Labour Party through and through. That is what the public is coming to expect in the last 2 weeks of a dying regime. It will try to pass a legacy of legislation. It can see the horses coming through the gates. What is it doing? It is a scorched earth policy. It is trying to take this country down as it goes down. Well there are only two things that will go down in the next couple of months and that is New Zealand First and Labour. They are both going down together because the public has seen through them. The public has seen through the little shenanigans that this Parliament has been put up to by Labour and it is having no more. 
I will come back to Part 2. I tell the Minister to not put up another option C and some Supplementary Order Paper. I say she should stick to the bill. She should stick to what the Government agreed on. She should not come in here and put through some legislation that she always wanted to put through but did not have the guts to put up in the first place and then not let the Parliament debate it. This is just an attempt to use what is sensible legislation dealing with the sensible issue of public transport for political gain so the Labour Party can pay back its supporters. It is a shame when Parliament is used in that process. The public sees right through Labour.