Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16894] 
Transport Legislation Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Transport Legislation Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1Amendments to Transport legislation  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will start with a very generalised call on Part 1 and make it clear— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: One of four speeches. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but all members should be seated or leaving showing courtesy to the speaker on his feet. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: A little delicate flower like me gets offended by that sort of behaviour. I make it clear in my first call—one of four calls as my good colleague Wayne Mapp said—that the Government has made a complete foul-up of this legislation. Had it done most of what was in the bill the Opposition—the National Party for sure—would have supported it. The bill was reasonably technical. It was about realigning some of the transport structures about bringing policy back into the ministry and about saying to people like those at the Land Transport Safety Authority: “You stick to operational things. Places where the Minister has a little bit more direct control over it like the ministry are where we’ll do policy.” However the vast bulk of people who made submissions on this bill—I have a copy of all the submissions that were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and will refer to them as the debate unwinds—had one serious reservation which I would be very keen for the Minister to try to explain. The reason the National Party will oppose this legislation centres simply on that one issue.  
 Let us look at some organisations some of which I think are pretty respectable pretty decent and pretty sensible: the Bus and Coach Association (New Zealand) Inc.; the New Zealand Marine Transport Association; the Rental Vehicle Association of New Zealand just to name some that put together a joint submission; and the Road Transport Forum headed by Tony Friedlander who usually makes sensible and constructive comments about legislation and what it could do. If we look at what those organisations have to say we see that in general they all refer to the nebulous concept “sustainable” which is now being introduced into our transport legislation as being an undefined term that no one knows the meaning of. But the one term in the past that everyone could hang their hat on and feel comfortable about was a measurable term—one where we could actually stick some numbers in. There would often be debate about how money numbers went on to the plus side and on to the minus side when working out a cost-benefit analysis but whenever a proposal was put up either by a Minister or by a Government the one thing we could say on transport legislation was: “This will proceed only if it has got safety at reasonable cost.”  
I cannot understand why any political regime—whether the extreme left the extreme right or anywhere in the middle—would not want that to be the test. If we do not make that the test then safety at any cost would mean we could do anything that is wild and madness beyond belief. The current Minister may not do that and the Minister who follows him may not but who knows about the future? When this legislation is on the books we may have a coalition Government in Parliament that has some sort of lunatic-fringe Minister saying: “I’m going to make everybody walk rather than drive cars because it will increase road safety.”—and it would; it would meet the first test which is safety. 
Hon Annette King 
: And obesity. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes. The Minister of Health has a big smile. If everyone walked it would fix a problem in her portfolio as well. If we put in the second part of the condition “at reasonable cost” it would mean that the entire economy would collapse. The entire nation would not function. However if we remove that test a Minister would be able to go ahead and put in such a ludicrous example. I know I am testing Parliament by taking an extreme example but there could be something that is not quite so extreme where the costs are substantially more than the benefits. So the historical thing we have had in transport legislation has always been that test: safety but at reasonable cost. One measures what it costs to do the particular initiative proposed measures what the benefits from it will be and as long as the benefits are more than the costs one goes ahead with it.  
I simply have not had an answer either through the select committee process or through the first and second reading debates in this House and I will be looking to the Minister to give this Committee a realistic answer as to why the Government has removed that almost multipartisan sensible agreed almost guideline guarantee for the public. If there are things to be done in the future in the area of road safety maritime safety civil aviation safety and so on all of which are important why on earth would we as parliamentarians in passing legislation want to remove that one guideline? So I finish as I started by pointing out that we would have supported nearly everything else in this bill had it not been for that one issue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 ACT is opposed to this legislation. It is a typical example of how misleading this Government has been. When this legislation was being drawn up we were led to believe—which is why we agreed to support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that this amendment to the Civil Aviation Act was concerned only with coordinating search and rescue because of the debacle that occurred down south when people drowned because of the mishandling of the search and rescue operation. But this legislation is a stalking horse for bringing the new filter of sustainability into legislation.  
People out there should ask themselves whether their choice of airline is based on its safety record or its environmental sustainability record. Most people choose on price and safety. That is one of the main reasons why airlines are so vigilant about their safety record. They know that as soon as one of their planes goes down their revenue plummets as well.  
However under this legislation we have downgraded safety to the same level as sustainability. An airline that puts safety first is the one that people choose not an airline or helicopter line that puts the environment first. Under this legislation we will not be able to have it both ways. Safety in the air will no longer be paramount. This legislation uses the vocabulary that came into the New Zealand Transport Strategy. In the Civil Aviation Act the words “maintain aviation safety” have been replaced with “assist aviation safety”.  
I draw members’ attention to clause 7 which deals with the matters to be taken into account by the Minister when he or she is making rules. One of the first matters is the need to assist aviation safety and security. However when we look at paragraph (f)(iv) of section 33(2) of the principal Act we see that the proposed rule must ensure environmental sustainability. “Ensure” is a much stronger word than “assist”. If one ensures something one must make sure it happens. If one assists one just gives it a bit of a shove along or tries to help it to happen. I still believe that it is not too late to change this wording. We tried to get it changed at the select committee. It is vitally important for air safety in this country and for the peace of mind of passengers and not just for big airlines. In fact the Government’s own airline Air New Zealand said in its submission that despite the new legislation that came in which it opposed it would not reduce its focus on operational safety as a result of the proposed law change. 
So the airline that is owned by the Government does not agree with what is happening in this legislation but is nevertheless going its own way and ensuring that people who travel on the airline are safe.  
We will be introducing an amendment to clause 7 to have paragraph (e) of section 33(2) changed to “the need to ensure aviation safety or maintain aviation safety and security including (but not limited to) personal security”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from helicopter operators that that provision in clause 7 puts them in an untenable position. They pointed out to us that they have to ensure aviation safety—it is part of their job to do so. They would not be licensed or in the air if they did not do it. They have to ensure it. To downgrade it to “assist” is I believe a total insult to human beings whose lives are being put in a lesser grade than the importance of the environment.  
The other issue that the submitters brought up is that they are concerned with the environment. They were at pains to tell the committee that they do take environmental sustainability into account in all of their operations. If we look at the history of air transport in this country over the past several decades it is plain to everyone that air transport has become more and more environmentally friendly as the years have gone by. This is as a result of trying to force this Government’s one-size-fits-all philosophy on to all areas of the transport sector.  
The environmental sustainability filter came in because of the Greens. The Greens had a major role in writing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It came in because of their antipathy to road transport; especially to trucks but also to motorways and cars. We cannot put the same standards for environmental sustainability that we have on road transport—on trucks and cars—on to air transport as well. It just does not fit because the standards for air safety are much higher. We require them to be much higher. I believe that dumbing this down and downgrading it is a huge mistake.  
What is sustainability? What does the word “sustainability” mean to helicopter pilots? Usually they are owner-operators. One thing they know for sure is that the future sustainability of their business depends entirely on their safety record. Who climbs into a helicopter after having done an eco-check on the machine and the fuel it uses? I doubt whether anyone does that. What people do before they climb into a helicopter if they are really nervous is make a check that that company’s crafts do not regularly plunge from the sky. That is what people are concerned about. They are far more concerned about safety and personal security than sustainability.  
If the Government wanted to promote sustainable yield it might be a totally different kettle of fish. But that is not what sustainability is defined as. In fact nobody can define sustainability. It is as the member said before a nebulous term. If it is to be codified in legislation like this we should at least have a definition of it just as we had a definition before of “safety at a reasonable cost”. There was absolutely nothing wrong with that. There was no argument over “safety at a reasonable cost” but we have biffed that out and brought in legislation that calls for ensuring environmental sustainability and assisting aviation safety.  
I think that this wording should be changed. It is some of the most important wording in this legislation and it is not too late for the Minister to agree to change it or to at least take a call and explain to people in New Zealand why he thinks that safety is not as important as environmental sustainability. It is not just semantics that we are dealing with here. I do not want a lesson on semantics regarding the difference between “assist” and “ensure”. I want the Minister to take a call and explain why his Government believes that environmental sustainability should be ensured but that aviation safety should only be assisted. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It did not take long—we are only two calls into the Committee stage and the Opposition parties are attacking the bill from precisely the opposite sides of the argument. United they are not. The first speaker Maurice Williamson stood up and said that the legislation is extremely good except for a problem in one area the only one area that caused the National Party concern—that is we will end up with safety at unreasonable cost because the words “safety at reasonable cost” which members seem to know and love and cannot allow themselves to be detached from have been removed. The first speaker was particularly distressed about that. There would be safety at unreasonable cost and all the submissions said that said the first speaker. The second speaker Deborah Coddington stood up and said that her party would not support the bill. She said that the problem was safety and the reason she did not like the bill was that safety had been downgraded. There would not be enough safety according to her. So the first speaker said there will be too much and the second speaker said there will not be enough. As is often the case the National Party and the ACT party did not get their shall we say act together.  
When we come to the submissions we find unsurprisingly that they also are of the view that there is too much or too little safety. But a very significant number of submitters thought that the bill was just fine. The select committee having listened to the submissions decided to make some changes. The changes were as follows: there would be no going away from the fact that the future of transport will be a whole lot more integrated than its past and there would be no going away from the five objectives of the Land Transport Management Act but in case someone was in doubt as to whether the Government had gone soft on safety we decided in the case of the Civil Aviation Authority to put in the words “maintain and improve”. I ask members of this hallowed Chamber whether “maintain and improve” sounds like a reduction in safety. I do not quite get why “maintain and improve” would be a reduction.  
So it would seem that the ACT party probably has had its prayers answered. Probably the Government moved probably the select committee got the words right probably the ACT party got up in mistake—but wait the aforementioned National Party speaker an earlier Minister of Transport is not assuaged. He is anxious that a current or future Minister might get up one morning and say: “Verily everyone will walk to work” and we would end up with safety at unreasonable cost. That is the argument the member is running and I think he has made a mistake. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No the submitters made that point too.  
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes some of them did. Some of them ran with the opposite point and some of them ran with a third point which is that the bill is just fine. So let us not have it said in this Chamber that all submitters were of one view. They were not. They were all over the place pretty much like the Opposition because they knew what safety at reasonable cost meant—they had had years to get used to it. This is what safety at reasonable cost delivers—if I can go to the same extreme as the National Party contributor did when he opened the debate on the Committee stage: a future whereby traffic jams are just fine because no one will get hurt. If motorways clog up there will be no deaths. There will be no transport or progress but there will be no deaths. That is a logical position to take. That argument is absolutely as extreme as the member’s. I would not have bothered running the argument had the member not run his extreme argument. Or indeed let us get people off their bikes—not withstanding an outbreak of type 2 diabetes or obesity as mentioned by the Minister of Health—in case they get run over by a car. So if we do not have integrated thinking we will end up with some crazy arguments and in our past we have. 
 There has been a decision to straighten the curve there occasioned only by the fact that we have decided to put a higher dollar value on human life. A human life 10 years ago was worth about a quarter of a million dollars. I cannot bring to mind what a human life is worth these days but I think the latest figure ever used was more like $2 million. So a person who was a member of the board of Transit and was going down his or her safety programme to see what engineering should be undertaken would—until the money ran out—simply go down a list of projects that started with the highest cost-benefit ratio and went to the lowest. One needed to leave one’s brain at the door; it was not necessary at the meeting. Of course under National Party funding regimes people did not get very far down the list before running out of money either.  
Now we have a more integrated approach that requires people to think differently. It requires people to take into account a range of factors and to amalgamate them. It moves us away from a safety and efficiency history. It takes us away from fragmentation. It takes us away from: “Let’s do safety here and let’s do economic undertakings there.” and from “Let’s look after human health here and let’s look after the environment somewhere else.” It requires us to integrate our thinking. Now it is pretty clear that some members of the House are not very happy with that. Perhaps they are not able to do that integrated thinking. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We’re supportive of it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh they are supportive of it?  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Of an integrated transport system yes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well that is great. So let us integrate safety which means we cannot have safety at reasonable cost alone; we have to have safety as a matter of balance against the other four objectives. Let us have safety integrated into people’s thinking because when we have that we come up with solutions that are somewhat more innovative than simply going down a listed schedule of “B/C ratios” until we run out of money.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to spend my debating time on two issues the first being safety at reasonable cost. It is quite clear that the Minister has not read or been made aware of the principal industry submissions. If he were aware of those he would know that road transport operators and the aviation industry in particular are very concerned indeed about the removal of the test: safety at reasonable cost. He said there were submitters in support of that. Actually there were. Some cyclists I think came along and said: “Yes yes. We want environmental sustainability.” That is where the Minister draws that “balanced” range of submissions from. Industries that are worth billions of dollars that have billions of dollars of assets thousands of employees and huge research departments understand the difficult financial issues they have to deal with. They know they will get customers only if they are safe. But the Minister weighs all that against a few cyclists. That is essentially the balance the Minister has put on the Table here. I read today that this Labour Party boasts of balance. Well if that is the sort of balance it is going to give New Zealanders then frankly it will fail in due course and we will see that.  
So what Labour substitutes is a clear test: safety at reasonable cost which is well understood and supported by the industry. The Minister and other Government members will know the truth of that but they are substituting un-testable ill-defined propositions that will not guide this Minister or indeed future Ministers. So the proposed rules will have to look at things like: will it assist economic development? I ask how that will be measured—by gross domestic product ratios by interest-rate costs? Will John Key who knows all about economic development in relation to money markets be consulted on the money markets regarding transport roles? Will “improving access and mobility” mean checking airway bridge gates at airports? That is access. Maybe “protecting and promoting public health” means that the ozone layer generated by aircraft will be assessed. Finally the term “ensuring environmental sustainability” has no definition provided for it in the legislation and that has been noted by National New Zealand First and ACT. All three parties were consistent on that matter.  
The failure to define these very open terms these very open concepts that Ministers will now have to look at will lead to uncertain rule making. Surely the powers delegated to Ministers should be clear. There should be a level of predictability so that in future the industry can forecast the kinds of rules it will be subjected to. It will not be able to do that. The Minister and the balance of the Government make great play of the notion that after all this is tested on a balance of the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed. That is supposed to be the substitute for “safety at reasonable cost” which is an open concept compared with a specific definable concept that has worked well and that the industry wants. That is why the industry made those submissions.  
So National is fundamentally opposed to this particular change in the legislation. Frankly it will lead to uncertainty and that uncertainty will lead to increased costs. The talk of $1 air fares from New Zealand to Australia—if anyone would actually believe that—clearly will now disappear because the costs of rule making will become onerous and unpredictable and New Zealand will be a less attractive place economically for our transport industries to be effective and profitable. I will be referring to one other matter in my second call which maybe can be extended through this one concerning clause 30. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 1 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I think it is a bit of a long bow to draw to say that this bill is only about environmental sustainability. It is about— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I didn’t say that. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: No it was not the speaker before me who said that; it was an earlier speaker. This bill is about safety but it is not only about safety; it is also about the restructuring of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund which we will discuss a bit later on. It is certainly about the coordination of our search and rescue operations which I think all of us in this Parliament who spend so much of our time in the air travelling around New Zealand welcome. If something were ever to go wrong in the safety aspects of our civil aviation network we would of course want to know that well-established coordinated search and rescue services would then come to our aid. It is regrettable that in the past those services have not been as coordinated as they could have been so we welcome this amendment to bring about better coordination.  
We certainly want to have as much safety as we can and we welcome the comments the Minister made earlier. Some are saying there is too much safety and others are saying there is not enough but we will take as much as we can get. All of us when we travel around this country want to be as safe as possible. There will always be some debate about the cost of that safety and whether it is money well spent. I guess that the whole purpose of the submission process on this bill was to hear the various opinions. I personally think that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has arrived at a reasonable conclusion and result in respect of those submissions.  
I refer to clause 7 and to the amendment that was mentioned earlier to paragraph (e) of section 33(2) of the principal Act. The words “maintain and improve” in relation to aviation safety and security are an improvement on the previous word “assist” and strengthen the bill. I will be glad to see that change supported in the vote soon to take place on Part 1 and I trust that the words “maintain and improve” will occur throughout the bill. Also the wording in paragraph (f) has been changed to read: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development:”. I think it is fairly clear that that test—that it assists economic development—has to be placed in the proposed rule. The converse of that would of course have to be understood as well. If it did not assist—if it inhibited economic development—then the rule would have to be thrown out. I think that gives some security and assurance to those who have been concerned about the removal of “safety at reasonable cost.”  
Further on we come to paragraph (fa): “the costs of implementing measures for which the rule is being proposed:”. That is another test that has to be passed—that the costs of implementing the measures are not as onerous as the benefits coming from the rule. So although we can understand the concern of some to leave the wording that has perhaps served well in the past I believe that the context of “safety at reasonable cost” is still maintained within the legislation through the wording that has been recommended to us by the select committee. This matter is not only in The Civil Aviation Act; it will also be covered in the Land Transport Act.  
I believe it is important to strengthen safety in land transport. We in New Zealand lose far too many lives through road accidents and far too many people are crippled by the head injuries that occur on our roads—injuries that are avoidable yet so debilitating. So we in United Future certainly welcome the strengthening of the need to consider safety in this part. We accept the amendments that have been proposed by the select committee and will be giving our support to this part of the legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to follow the member who has just resumed his seat. If we wait in this Chamber long enough we finally hear something sensible from United Future. I think by and large United Future covered the issues pretty well. Let me state from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We will never ever vote against safety when it comes to transport. We realise that safety is a very important element in the whole mix of transport so we will be supporting this bill. But that is not to say that what the National Party and indeed ACT said can be dismissed. Without the constraints of reasonableness we get safety at any cost. I take members back to the time a few years ago before we had the provision regarding safety at reasonable cost. I speak from my experience on the waterfront. Anything that was seen to be unsafe somebody stopped something for—stopped a ship from loading or discharging in order to have a look at it examine it and modify it or what have you. It was a totally unreasonable action.  
The submission that sticks in my mind the Air New Zealand submission outlines that pretty darned clearly. I think it implies that if we take the constraint of reasonableness away from the costs of safety then we are unwittingly likely to start a competitive scenario inasmuch as operators will say that they will not get picked up for something that Air New Zealand would be picked up for. Because the other operators think they may get away with something their safety level will go down a bit. Air New Zealand I would say will maintain safety at the appropriate level but there may well be operators who will try to drop the safety net and get away with it. We need only to have one mishap to know that we have paid dearly for having no constraint on safety at reasonable cost.  
I share the concerns Larry Baldock alluded to about roading. I recall a document produced when the Hon Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport. It was called  
Better Transport Better Roads 
 and outlined the fact that 15 percent—I think I am correct on that figure—of road deaths were caused by bad road design poor engineering or something along those lines. 
Larry Baldock 
: You are right. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I am correct. In those days we were talking about 500 to 600 people dying on our roads each year. Fifteen percent of that is close to 90 people—if the total is 600 people it is 90 people; it is somewhat less obviously if the total is 500 people. That is a lot of people. I believe the cost of a life has now been put into legislation as being something like $2.5 million not $2 million as the Minister said. That is a lot of money. Never mind the human cost; that is a lot of money. I think this bill by having safety at—dare I say—whatever cost will compel the Government to look more seriously at the state of our roads. I know that the Minister knows I welcome that. If he does not know this already let me tell him that I believe the state of our roads has been poorly addressed for years now in terms of funding. I believe that this legislation will give the Government an incentive to say it had better start to look at roads if it is to get rid of the provision for safety at reasonable cost.  
I recall the time some years ago when somebody who was in charge of our motorway network came on nationwide TV and stated almost with a smirk on his face that we did not need to have centre barriers on our motorways. If I had agreed with him then the way that he put his point across would have made me disagree with him. Only moments later the Rt Hon David Lange came on the programme and stated that we would have centre barriers on our motorways. I was grateful for that. I do not know how many lives just doing that has saved—probably hundreds if not thousands.  
Another area I think the Government will be compelled to look at very seriously is the state of our rail-track. A chap called me the other day and asked me to come out and look at a section of rail-track. It was in Tauranga on the line that goes from Auckland to Tauranga which is heavily used by port traffic. The section I looked at runs through the residential area—it has houses on the high side and houses on the low side—in a gentle curve. The guy who asked that I come out there had a few colleagues with him. He bent down and as I did shortly afterwards literally plucked out bolts all over the place. That is not good enough. In fairness I was so worried about the situation that I rang the Hon Harry Duynhoven there and then and he got straight on to it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member may laugh but Harry Duynhoven got straight on to it and addressed the issue. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s like rust; he never sleeps. 
PETER BROWN 
: I can tell the member he was certainly on to it that day. Within a few days there was a team of people working on that rail-track.  
I have seen something else on the same rail-track that concerns me enormously. I will not go into the details now because I would put the whole Committee to sleep. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s a good story. We want to hear it. It’s about safety. 
PETER BROWN 
: The National Party is interested which is very good. The track is actually near the foreshore and runs across the seabed. Does that lift the interest of the National Party even more? I am referring to the old rail bridge that crosses Tauranga Harbour. 
John Key 
: I know it well. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member knows it well; perhaps he has dived off it. I can tell him that bridge looks as though it needs some tender loving care and attention. I have raised that with the people involved including Harry Duynhoven and I have had a very positive response. I understand that the bridge will be inspected very shortly if not now. My view of the situation is that I would expect some work to be done on that bridge but I will let some expert tell me whether I am right or wrong. This legislation will I believe put the Government in a difficult position from time to time in looking at things like that. The legislation combines the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and New Zealand First welcomes that. We believe we should get a more professional businesslike approach as a result of that and I believe there will be a closer look at roading and the rail-track. 
 But one little area that I must refer to because I feel that I am running out of time is the issue of when a ship is not a ship. It is raised under clause 25 and it is a little thing that really bugs me. Clause 25 provides that: “land transport—(a) means—(i) transport on land by any means: …” and it then goes on to state: “and (b) includes—(i) coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries or ferries or barges on rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure:”. However the bill then goes on—and I know that members are very anxious to hear this—to refer to transport on land although I cannot remember the exact clause. I say to the Minister that that will confuse a few simple sailors out there. They will say they are aground and ask whether they are land transport—transport on land. They will ask what they are and whether they should look up the Land Transport Safety Authority regulations now that they have gone aground. We were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that a coastal ship should be a form of land transport for funding purposes only. Well why does the bill not just state that?  
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good point—that’s why we’re voting against it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says that is why he is voting against the bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But the member is going to vote for it. 
PETER BROWN 
: We will vote for it I say to Mr Williamson. I tell the member that quite categorically. New Zealand First will never ever vote against safety in transport.  
We think that a little tidying-up could be done in this bill which would make for a bit of clarity here and there. But we will support the bill because overall it will put more onus on the Government to address the problems in roading and on our rail-track and we will ignore that little glitch in terms of shipping and what have you and take it for what it is. We will just have to educate all the sailors out there who may understand that they come under the Land Transport Safety Authority for something that they really are not meant to come under it for and tell them that that is not the case. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always interesting to follow New Zealand First whose members say for 1 minute that they will support the bill and then say for 10 minutes why they should not support the bill and talk about the rail tracks in Tauranga. I know the bridge that the member referred to very well and the Hon Maurice Williamson knows very well about the parking area under it. It is a great parking area and there is a lovely restaurant there. I know that bridge. This bill has a very important subject because it deals with safety. We should never compromise on safety. Although some of the principal elements of the bill are areas that National can support overall we cannot support anything that compromises safety and removes the factor of safety at reasonable cost that previous National speakers have spoken about.  
We support the merger of Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That concept concerns the operational role and we have no problem with allowing that to happen. That body will then become Land Transport New Zealand which is fine. National supports the concept of one body being able to handle those areas. The policy area however moves from the Land Transport Safety Authority back to the Ministry of Transport. That is where the Minister will have control over the outcomes and objectives and that is clearly identified. We support that. We have no difficulty with that at all. There have been major concerns with regard to the way the Land Transport Safety Authority has operated over the years especially from the trucking firms and from the big earth-moving operators in my area that have done much of the work on the roads throughout the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty and on the highways around Tauranga. They have had major concerns with regard to some of the requirements that the Land Transport Safety Authority has imposed on them.  
However moving to the area of safety at reasonable cost that is an area that we have great difficulty with because in our view the bill does downgrade the whole area of safety. If we look at clause 7 which amends sections 33(2)(e) and (f) of the Civil Aviation Act we see it provides that one of the requirements is: “(e) the need to maintain and improve aviation safety and security …”. But the word “assist” which was previously in the bill has now been taken out. The proposed section 33(2)(f) states: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development: (ii) improves access and mobility: (iii) protects and promotes public health: (vi) ensures environmental sustainability:”. The difficulty that we have concerns the difference between the words “assist” and “ensure” because there is a major difference. When I look at what the word “assist” means in the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which is paramount in terms of being an authority on these matters I see it means to help persons or the process of helping and to take part in or be present at something. That is what “assist” means. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What’s the derivation? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I will not go into that because it goes a little bit further than that. However when we look at what the word “ensure” means—and this is a really important area because in my view the word “ensure” carries far more weight—we see it means to make safe. That is what it states in the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
. It states that the word “ensure” is to make a person or thing safe and in brackets it states that is against risks—to make certain that the thing is secure. When I look at the difference in wording between the words “assist” and “ensure” I would note—and this is my view and National’s view—that it is far more powerful to use the word “ensure” than “assist”.  
However in the bill with regard to clause 7 which I have just mentioned and clause 16A which proposes to amend section 152 in the Land Transport Act concerning the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules the point that I make is that nothing should compromise safety—absolutely nothing. Reading out those definitions from the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which is the foremost authority on these matters makes it very clear that the word “ensure” carries far more weight than the word “assist” does.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Have you checked Webster’s? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I do not have Webster’s 
with me but I know that it would certainly state something similar. The amendment to section 152(c) in clause 16A the new majority amendment provides that the Minister may make ordinary rules to assist economic development and the amended section 152(f) provides that the Minister may also make rules for the purpose of “ensuring environmental sustainability:”. The point that National has concerns about is that greater emphasis is going to environmental sustainability than to the safety aspects that we would consider to be important.  
I want to move to a practical example of that. In my electorate the big dairy company is Fonterra. Fonterra will be moving its products from the Waitoa dairy factory through to Morrinsville where other products will be coming in. They will then move to Te Rapa before they are railed through the Kaimai Ranges to the Port of Tauranga. That is a very sensible move which will get transport and trucks off the road. However the very point that I make about safety is that there is a major highway State Highway 27 that runs through the area at a place called Tatanui. It is a major highway with traffic coming from Auckland and going south and vice versa and there is a rail crossing with no barrier arms on it. In fact I have written about that because I think it is a major safety issue that Transit will need to look at as will the New Zealand Railways Corporation. I am not quite sure who is responsible; maybe the Minister can help me with regard to that. But the situation is that a major highway State Highway 27 comes through and crosses State Highway 26 which runs between Morrinsville in the west and Te Aroha in the east. There are major highways and a rail crossing with no barrier arms there. In recent times the compulsory stop sign at the railway line at Tatanui at which one had to stop when coming from Auckland on State Highway 27 has been taken away and there is now a give-way sign as one comes through on to highway 26.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Under this bill there won’t be a sign at all. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No and the point I make which this Committee needs to realise is that we cannot compromise on safety. I have written to Transit—in fact while waiting to get on the plane at Hamilton Airport this morning I was talking to Transit members specifically about this point—and I have written to Railcorp about it as well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What did they say? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They are going to look into it and that is good. We do not want people to die because things like barrier arms are not there in terms of the safety that one would expect. Certainly we do not want to see deaths occurring on a major highway. We should salute what Toll Rail is doing in moving Fonterra’s products on that section of rail-track. I think that is good because it gets heavy trucks off the road. But it is an example of a situation where safety can be compromised and National will have no part of that whatsoever.  
I come back to the point I made earlier that this bill downgrades the safety factor. The bill talks about “ensuring environmental sustainability” and that is fine but the word “ensure” is far more definite than the word “assist”. In the public’s mind assisting and promoting and “assisting land transport safety and security” are not as great as ensuring that those things will happen. That is the reason why National will not be supporting this legislation. It is fine in parts. We have no difficulty with what will happen to Transfund and no difficulty with what will happen to the policy area of the Land Transport Safety Authority which is to go back to the ministry—we have no trouble at all with that. But where safety at reasonable cost will be a factor then there are issues that we cannot support.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to turn to a specific issue contained in clause 30 “Who must be consulted about land transport programme”. As has become the habit with this Government once again we see separatism creeping into legislation where it has no place at all. Yes that is extraordinary. New subsection (4A) of section 15 inserted by clause 30 states that the following entities and people must be consulted when a land transport programme is being prepared: Transit regional councils; territorial authorities; every affected approved organisation—as opposed to unapproved organisations—the Ministry of Health the Accident Compensation Corporation the Commissioner of Police the Secretary for Transport the Ministry of Justice land transport users affected communities Maori and the public. 
I have to ask the Government—it is a serious question—why Maori have been put in there specifically separate from the public. I thought Maori were part of the public. When we talk about all New Zealanders being treated equally under the law we are talking about the public of New Zealand. That seems a reasonable proposition. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: The legal counsel did a very good job. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I guess that the Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia would admit that yes he is a member of the public of New Zealand. He would be consulted in that capacity. He is also a member of his local community up on the East Coast in Ruatoria I guess and he would be consulted as such. If there is a land transport programme that proposes a new road bridge or something of that nature in his area he will be consulted firstly as a member of the public from that area secondly as a member of the affected community and thirdly as a Maori person with a different interest I guess from either his interest as a member of the public or his interest as a member of an affected community. 
I wonder what particular thing the Minister of Maori Affairs would say he would be consulted on as a Maori. Would it be his concerns about taniwha? As a member of the Maori community would he have major concerns about the new bridge to be built in Ruatoria? The Minister seems to be acknowledging that he has serious concerns about taniwha in Ruatoria. Well maybe he does. Would he be consulted on his spiritual needs on the wairua of this land transport programme? Would he as a Maori person also be consulted on the basis of tikanga Maori? On the issues of land transport programmes there is simply no case for Maori to be consulted separately and apart from their capacity—the Minister included—to be consulted as members of the affected community. They have the same interests in land transport as everyone else in the community. Similarly they have the same interests as members of the public. 
One of the things that National is very committed to is ensuring that our laws apply equally to all New Zealanders. That is a fundamental platform laid down by our party. It was set out in the Orewa speech as clearly as anything could be. New Zealanders in their hundreds of thousands have responded to it and the Government seems to have listened to that response in some respects. There is huge public yearning that we all be treated equally. Is that not what last week was all about—the whole issue of the Unknown Warrior of all of us recognising that sacrifice? Despite all of that today yet again we see in general legislation— 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am quite sure that Mrs Wayne Mapp will be very interested in that contribution from “Mr DeneseHenare”. Rather than prolong the debate I will just read a section from the Transit New Zealand Amendment Act of 1995. Section 42L “Maori interests to be considered reads: “No output or capital project which affects or is likely to affect Maori land or Maori historical cultural or spiritual interests shall be included in a national roading programme … unless the Board the Land Transport Safety Authority … regional council or territorial authority preparing the programme—(a) Has consulted every iwi or hapu that in its opinion will or may be affected by the output or capital project;”. I wonder whether that legislation draws this tacky part of the debate to a close. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not wonderful to see that the National Party is influenced by the ACT party? We are so pleased that the National Party is returning to its constitutional roots and recognising the freedom of the individual. The ACT party is quite happy for the National Party to adopt its policies. The Minister of Transport forgot to mention the 1992 amendment to the Maori Land Court legislation which also brought us into the situation we now have with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It gave the Maori Land Court the ability to consider vesting title of the foreshore and seabed under customary rights. But we are very pleased that the National Party has now come back to its senses and is following the ACT party’s lead on this—one law for all.  
 I want to comment on the issue—coming back to this legislation—of downgrading safety in terms of land transport. We got a hint at question time today why this Government is doing this. It is actually a good way for this Government we found at question time to reduce hospital waiting lists. The Prime Minister herself said that waiting lists are reduced because people suffering from cataracts are being knocked down by cars and killed. I would say that the reason people suffering from cataracts and who are on waiting lists for operations are being knocked down and killed by cars is that they cannot see the cars because they have cataracts. 
I want to follow on from what Peter Brown brought up. He said New Zealand First would never vote against legislation that promoted safety. But this legislation pits safety against environmental sustainability. That is the issue. One cannot have the two things. The Minister of Transport says one can. I disagree with that and the ACT party disagrees with that. They are two issues that will be in constant conflict with each other. 
But there was a good point that Peter Brown brought up; people laughed at him but he is absolutely right. If members look at clause 25 “Interpretation” they will see that “land transport” now also means coastal shipping. But “land transport” does not mean only coastal shipping; it also means the infrastructure goods and services facilitating land transport by any means and also in terms of coastal shipping ferries and barges. The reason that that is important to debate is that if we look at the infrastructure goods and services facilitating that transport—that is transport on land by any means—and take that clause in conjunction with clause 30 “Who must be consulted about land transport programme” which provides that the authority in preparing a land transport programme has to consult with Maori we find we will never ever get any infrastructure relating to land transport. I am leaving roads out of the equation at the moment. I am talking bus shelters. 
More important what will happen with jetties and ports when the foreshore and seabed legislation goes through? What will happen with reclaimed land. Every time the authority prepares a land transport programme and whenever local authorities prepare land transport programmes they have to consult Maori. What will happen when those programmes are drawn up and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill goes through? I have to guess because that legislation is being rushed through without our even seeing it properly but we are informed that reclaimed land will be under the guardianship—the kaitiakitanga which is the current politically correct word—of the Department of Conservation and it will be impossible for any form of commercial development in terms of coastal shipping to go ahead at all unless of course as we saw when taniwha popped up around every bend in the roadway— 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this Transport Legislation Bill and pick up on a few points I have been listening to with regard to airline safety. We are concerned about the safety of airlines—everybody is—but airlines are controlled by international safety rules and regulations and we deal with only the landing side of things. Airlines have to be controlled internationally because they are expected to fly internationally. Therefore the whole legislation around airlines is quite a separate issue. 
As far as the search and rescue side of things goes that is controlled here in New Zealand. We do our own search and rescue operations. This legislation is designed to give a much better process for our search and rescue organisations. It will make it a lot easier for them to operate under the regulations we have in place. 
I will now move on to the safety of roads and the state of our roads. We have heard that a large percentage of the deaths on our roads can be directly attributed to the condition of the roads. That is correct. One has only to drive on some of our roads to find that Transit the funding organisation—Transfund—and the local regional authorities have not provided the funding to upgrade certain sections of the road. They keep putting it off hoping that perhaps new legislation will come in that will allow the improvements to be funded from elsewhere. Each organisation keeps passing the buck. Transfund keeps shuffling the money backwards and forwards between projects and not getting on with them. Therefore a lot of projects are sitting on the drawing board and have not been completed. The need for funding has been put aside. A large chunk of funding goes into the consolidated account from our petrol tax; New Zealand First believes that it should be put towards roading. That is what it is collected for. 
What is happening around the local communities now is that speed limits are being reduced rather than roads being upgraded. I have come across reduced speed limits as of 1 November from 100 kilometres an hour to 80 kilometres an hour simply because those particular roads are not suitable for a driving speed of 100 kilometres an hour. Although that reduction is a fine thing why are those roads not being upgraded? Perhaps it is because the communities around that area are expanding at such a rate that the authorities are holding off putting funding in place until they know exactly how large the volume of traffic will be. 
A third thing we mentioned was the state of the rail-tracks. The rail-tracks in New Zealand are in an abysmal state because money has not been spent on upgrading them. My colleague Peter Brown mentioned an area around Tauranga but I am well aware that areas around Papakura in south Auckland have problems with subsidence under tracks. That subsidence has been reported and has been marked off by the authorities that look after the tracks but the tracks have not been repaired. Everybody is silent; members are shocked. Sooner or later further subsidence under those tracks will end up in a train dropping from the tracks into somebody’s backyard; it could well be a member’s backyard if his or her property backs on to those tracks—[ 
Interruption 
] Maurice Williamson is calling out; he may well have been pinching stones from underneath the tracks to build his stone wall out the front of his house! The rail-track and the roading are not getting the funding that they should. 
I would like to pick up on Lindsay Tisch’s comments assist and assure him those words have been struck out. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from the question that was raised about the phrase “ensuring environmental sustainability”. The fact that there is not a definition of “sustainability” has been referred to in a number of the key submissions but my concern relates to what this does for land transport and the costs associated with land transport when applying for resource consent. It will mean now that because we have “ensuring environmental sustainability” in the bill and with the importance and precedence in the legislation that the Government has now given it it will have an effect upon resource consent applications and the ability for objectors to place emphasis on environmental protection. 
 Environmental sustainability is in the legislation in 11 different situations. A huge amount of emphasis has been put on environmental sustainability and I suggest that it is taking precedence over the safety factor. There are situations whereby while parts of the environment are valued and have some degree of real value there are considerable safety issues and environmental value will be compromised as a result of trying to meet some safety issues. The Coromandel Peninsula has a lot of very windy roads and in order to make those roads extra safe some of the corners will need to be taken off. I am sure there are a number of other roads throughout the country in other members’ electorates that are like that. However when there is an application for resource consent for that work to be done there will be objections from people who want the roads to remain windy and who will claim that there is an environmental reason for that. There will then be an argument between the safety aspect and the environmental aspect. Both aspects are written into the legislation but I would suggest that because of the particular purposes of the Resource Management Act objectors will pick up on the environmental sustainability aspect and compromise the importance of the safety aspect of this legislation. That for me would be an overriding concern and I know that it has been raised by other speakers.  
Another matter I would like to raise which was also put forward by the Automobile Association and Roading New Zealand is that new clause 16A looks at the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules. New section 152 inserted by clause 16A states: “(g) any matter related or reasonably incidental to any of the following:” and the first subparagraph states: “(i) the Minister’s objectives under section 169:”. Submitters said—and I concur with their concerns—that it was not appropriate that that be in the bill. I also do not consider it appropriate that that is in the bill. One reason put forward by the Road Transport Forum was that the Minister’s objectives do not comply with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. I do not think that many Ministers are aware that those legislative guidelines actually exist. Perhaps Mr Fairbrother should refer to those guidelines so as to have a greater understanding of what they say with regard to this matter. It is a de facto fetter on the Minister’s freedom to formulate policy in Government and the electorate’s right to vote for parties espousing particular policies. It is impractical inconsistent cumbersome and a surprise that it is there.  
The other matter that submitters were particularly concerned about was the inclusion of the land transport strategy because it makes it much more difficult to change those objectives within the strategy and the Minister’s objectives as well. Does there need to be a legislative change to do that? That matter was raised by submitters and I doubt whether the Minister will be able to answer that readily. Perhaps he would like to take a call and give us an explanation. However there was some concern particularly if the land transport strategy is like some of the other strategies I have seen which are based largely on ideology and does not have the thinking and the grunt behind it to be referred to in the bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
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. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 My honourable colleague Mr Williamson just gave us a very extensive list of organisations that are worried about the removal of “safety at reasonable cost”. I was surprised that the Minister of Transport did not leap to his feet because he has a long list. Air New Zealand and the Aviation Association of New Zealand are not on that list; nor are Orion Origin Pacific Airways or any of those airlines. They are not on that list. The Automobile Association of New Zealand is not on that list. All the motorists of New Zealand—1.5 million; a great many motorists of New Zealand—are not on that list. The port companies are not on the list; nor are the farmers who Michael Cullen was trying to woo the other day by cutting their rates. Every business is not on the list. This is like a game. If it is not farmers or business people and it is not pilots or plane drivers and it is not Federated Farmers then who is it? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I can answer that. 
JOHN KEY 
: Who is it? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Two cyclists. 
JOHN KEY 
: Two cyclists do not mind about “safety at reasonable cost”! This is from a Government that listens to the people of New Zealand! I wonder whether the Government has ever heard the expression: “If it’s not broken don’t bother to try to fix it.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Unless you are a consultant. 
JOHN KEY 
: Unless one is a consultant! It is not broken. Thousands of people were not marching in giving submissions saying that if only the “safety at reasonable cost” aspect had not been in the previous legislation everything would have been fixed up; everything would have been OK. That never presented at all.  
I want to refer in particular to the rail industry. Some months ago the Government injected quite a lot of cash into an entity called TrackCo. In fact it was so much cash that the Minister of Finance is not quite sure how much went in but the initial amount was in the order of around $200 million. The indications are that it was considerably more than that. That money will be going into upgrading the rail track that is in need of repair in many parts of the country. There is a risk I might add that some politicisation of the process will take place.  
But putting that to one side one of the issues interestingly that came up at the time was about bridges and fixing rail bridges across New Zealand in particular on the West Coast of New Zealand. The issue here was that Solid Energy had done some work with people in the South Island to indicate how much needed to be spent on bridges in the South Island. Originally the consultants came up with an amount of $50 million-odd. It then increased to about $71 million. In fact the real cost of fixing those bridges on the West Coast because there are hundreds of them is literally hundreds of millions of dollars.  
The Minister of Finance has the busy role these days of chaperoning the Foreshore and Seabed Bill through whatever political party of the week is willing to support it. It is most interesting. The Foreshore and Seabed Bill is like a chameleon. It changes by whatever political party of the particular week is prepared to support it. But putting that to one side I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has had an opportunity to see what is happening in the transport legislation today. He might be interested to know that with the removal of “safety at reasonable cost” and the implication that that could have on bridges in the South Island I suggest that may change the capital requirement of TrackCo. This is not just a few million dollars that we are talking about. We are not talking about the loose change in the pockets of one or two Ministers. We are talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars to comply with the removal of “safety at reasonable cost”.  
Interestingly enough I am not surprised that the Automobile Association so keenly rejected this legislation. I say that because we have had a few incidents recently where the public has become increasingly frustrated when going out to clip their front bushes only to find a traffic officer hiding under them with his radar gun. People are out there on a Saturday morning with their clippers trimming the fences to make them nice. Someone will ask: “What’s your name sir?”. “It is the Hon George Hawkins and I am here with my radar gun to catch a speeding motorist.” It is quite an interesting scenario that happens on Saturday mornings. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.  
Part 2Miscellaneous provisions  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I think it would be fair to say that Part 2 is reasonably brief in its clauses. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Mapp that I think a fair person seeing this and realising that it goes only to just less than one page would say it is quite brief. However Dr Mapp makes a very good contribution as he normally does about the technicality of that because it does refer to enormous schedules that are to do with which Acts are affected and which come into the new regime and which ones go out. I have to say that this is where I think the Minister owes the Committee an explanation about some of the legislation. I look at a particular provision in Part 2 which is clause 53. I apologise in advance to my adoring drive-time audience that I will be really boring by doing this but I am going to read clause 53 and then ask the Minister what it means.  
Clause 53 is headed “General savings provision”. We could say that this is something to do with superannuation or long-term nationhood building. No we should look at the wording: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing or the bringing or completion of proceedings that relates to an existing right interest title immunity or duty.” What on earth does that mean? I will read it out again: “Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act nothing in this Act affects the completion of a matter or thing”—what is a “matter or thing”?—“or the bringing or completion of proceedings that relates to an existing right interest title immunity or duty.” Clause 54 which is lovely stuff states: “Transitional regulations—The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations—(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to or in place of the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:”. How bad does it have to get before someone calls an end to this sort of nonsense where we are allowing for transitional and savings provisions concerning the coming into force of this Act whereby those provisions may be in addition to or replacing those that are already in the current Act? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Labour lunacy. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My colleague is right. I think clause 54 deserves another reading because I do not know what it means and I am asking the Minister to get up and tell us what it means. I will read it out again: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council make regulations—” I am happy with that. I know about the Governor-General and about making regulations by Order in Council so that is great. The regulations are: “(a) prescribing transitional and savings provisions”—remember this is transport legislation not superannuation or anything—“concerning the coming into force of this Act that may be in addition to or in place of the transitional and savings provisions in this Act:”.  
What does that mean? I think it means that if we have got it wrong if we have messed it up then we have an ability to come back at any time and make some savings and some transitional provisions to cover the ones that we got wrong in the first place. How pre-emptive is that! The Minister is basically saying that because he does not know what he is doing he will put in a clause that allows him to keep changing the legislation as we go along so he can keep fixing up the mess-up he made along the way.  
This bill could have been done more simply. There are a lot of provisions that the National Party is supportive of and a lot of provisions for which we would have been happy to come to the party and save this time on a lengthy debate that will have to be gone through. It would have been all simply handled in Part 1 when the Minister had dealt with that “safety at reasonable cost” provision. He has refused to answer who is on his big list. We will be delving into that later in the debate on the title.  
I am going to leave it to my colleagues to get into some of the details of some of the specific schedules—like technical amendments to the principal Act amendments to various Acts such as the Local Government Act and the Health and Safety in Employment Act and so on. It is quite complicated. We have an absolute right to hear and the Minister has an obligation to get up and explain a few of these bits and pieces. They are quite technical they will involve the lawyers and we have that right.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will take up the invitation of my colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson and refer to the schedules. I guess that most people would reasonably think that a Transport Legislation Bill deals with various items of transport— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Cars and trucks. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Some people would even say cars and trucks and so on. I have been carefully looking at schedule 5 and it refers to the Transport Services Licensing Act—fair enough. It refers to the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act—fair enough. However there are also references to the Immigration Act the Electoral Act and the Health Act. There is even reference to the Oaths and Declarations Act. There are references to the Privacy Act and indeed the Ombudsmen Act itself.  
So Part 2—innocent though it might seem on the face of it—amends a whole swathe of legislation. In fact it amends 26 separate Acts and that is not speaking of the regulations which have already been pointed out.  
I wish to refer to another serious matter in clause 54 “Transitional regulations”. These are normally quite innocent but what it actually says here is that rather than the Act coming into force on 1 December 2004—we will return to that matter in the next debate—the Minister under these transitional powers is given the power to bring various parts clauses provisions sections and subsections of the Act into force when and as he pleases. So here we are passing legislation virtually under urgency because the bill has to be passed in the next few days yet the Minister is giving himself these extraordinary executive powers to in effect thwart the will of Parliament.  
In the weekend the Government announced a constitutional inquiry. Do members think it will refer these sorts of executive powers to that inquiry? Of course not! When we get serious issues like this with the executive bound to decide when where and if it is going to introduce legislation into effect these sorts of things are expected to go unremarked. I guarantee that the Minister will not take a call on this matter. But maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe he is actually reading up on these issues right now so he can make a proper response. Because he ought to because we need to know that the executive will not abuse the authority of this Parliament.  
The people here are elected are accountable to their constituents and to parties who are part of this Parliament for the legislation we pass. These debates are recorded. Do we think the Minister will be issuing press releases as to when he introduces particular clauses regulations and so forth? No the Government will just do it. It will be a  
Gazette 
 order I guess. How many people read the  
New Zealand Gazette  
these days? How many lawyers even read it? The answer is “very few”. So this Parliament is empowering the Government to pass into law this legislation by stealth.  
I am surprised actually that New Zealand First would want to be part of that. New Zealand First is voting for this bill. It had particular concerns but it is voting for these kinds of clauses. I would like to think that it has properly considered the way this works because it actually flies in the face of the opening clause. No wonder this provision is buried at the very end of the bill! No wonder it is buried in this kind of clause! Because although the Government intended to delude the public that they would get new transport legislation on 1 December 2004—the very first clause says that—in reality we are empowering a Minister of Transport to do this. My colleague has referred to maybe future reckless Ministers doing this. I suggest this Minister will be the reckless Minister who will introduce it whenever and however he wants.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to address clause 51 “Dissolution of Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund”. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a submission and then a follow-up clarification from the Automobile Association. That organisation represents more than 1 million people in New Zealand a quarter of the population many of whom will be listening to this debate. The Automobile Association raised a very important concern—that is the bill dissolves the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and instead forms Land Transport New Zealand but it does not address the end of the funder/provider split. That is the really important issue the association brought up. 
The Automobile Association acknowledged that it is not a complete return to the bad old days when the Minister of Transport who lived out the back of Waipukurau had the road from the corner to his house tar-sealed. The association acknowledges that it is not a return to that but it did specify that in its view not enough was done in the bill to safeguard special interests to provide checks and balances and in its words to ensure that special interests whether local in nature or otherwise were prevented from influencing the transport funding allocation process. 
At the moment as I understand it in terms of current funding arrangements the Minister approves the output classes of funding but when this bill comes into existence he will approve the funding for the national land transport programme. Admittedly under the new situation he will not approve the funding for specific projects project by project so that will provide some independence from political pressures. However when the Minister approves the national land transport programme he will include in that programme specific projects within each funding category. 
Yet the Automobile Association—an organisation that represents so many people and an organisation I might say that supported the overall philosophy of this legislation and the tidying up of Crown entities—has raised concerns about that. This is an important issue and I would like the Minister to take a call and reassure New Zealand that the Automobile Association’s concerns are not valid and that there was no need to address them in the bill. 
We at the select committee asked the Automobile Association to follow up its concern with an example and it gave us the funding of the road safety education programme. Under the present situation the Land Transport Safety Authority has a road safety education programme but under the new legislation other agencies will be competing against Land Transport New Zealand for that funding. I do not have time to go into that example in detail but I would be interested to know the views of other parties in Parliament. I know that New Zealand First always supports the Automobile Association and its submissions and I wonder how that party feels about this concern. 
I finish by summing up the Automobile Association’s concern. It said that there would be a potential conflict of interest for Land Transport New Zealand—that is the new entity—in making allocation decisions regarding road safety advertising education and information provided by itself vis-à-vis road safety engineering and enforcement activities provided by outside agencies. However that issue was not addressed satisfactorily by the current legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I certainly share the concerns of my colleagues. I too was alarmed when I saw clause 53 “General savings provision”. I understand that a considerable amount of that $250 million is still in the pot so the concern would be that that money is spent on actual road construction and is not frittered away on a lot of airy-fairy policies with regard maybe to additional road signage or the whims of Land Transport Safety Authority policy. 
I am also concerned about what that means. If the Minister can do what he likes in terms of the effect of the bill and can undertake different aspects of this bill at any time before it comes into effect what does that really mean? Perhaps he will take a call and explain that. 
There are a number of things in the offing and one of them of course is the implementation of the vehicle emission policy. My understanding is that the policy does not exempt pre-1980 cars and that will have a significant impact. There are questions about whether the policy is being implemented for environmental purposes safety purposes or whatever but what will the Minister’s position be in relation to that? How soon will he move to incorporate the Land Transport Safety Authority with Transfund and what will happen to the policy recommendations of the Land Transport Safety Authority at that point? Will he take them over and have some sense brought into that argument? After all when it comes to vehicle emissions there were no cars pre-1980 that were actually designed with a catalytic converter which is now what may be required to be installed. Pre-1980 cars were not designed to have catalytic converters. Of course when cars with catalytic converters were coming in— 
John Key 
: Does your car have one? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: No my car does not have one and it was not built to have one.  
John Key 
: I’ve got a Commodore. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: What year is it? 
John Key 
: 2001. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: 2001? Actually I do not know. But I think it will be interesting— 
Darren Hughes 
: That member drives a Rolls Royce.  
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Really? I am enjoying this. It is just wonderful how we all take great interest in vehicles and in our cars! 
Obviously there is some considerable concern and debate about this particular policy coming through from the Land Transport Safety Authority so it will be interesting to see whether the Minister exercises the largesse provided by the transitional regulations under clause 54. Will the Minister exercise his largesse and actually bring a bit of sensibility to the policy for vehicle emission testing and have an exemption for pre-1980 vehicles because there is some concern about the legitimacy of the basis for that policy. 
The Minister could exercise his rights under clause 54 because pre-1980 cars do not have the ability to have catalytic converters attached to them without some serious difficulty. Perhaps that would compromise safety and given that this bill is meant to be all about safety—however with the emphasis on environmental sustainability—the Minister will hopefully put some rationality into the policies being floated with regard to vehicle emission testing—and I might add into the policies about speed limit reductions that are also taking place. 
Those are two policy areas and that is what this bill is meant to be all about—bringing policy back into the ministry. So perhaps the Minister will use the transitional regulations and actually put a bit more control and sense around the speed limit policy being put forward too by the Land Transport Safety Authority. After all in our area where the average speed limit is about 89 kilometres an hour instead of 100 kilometres an hour the proposal is to drop the limit to 80 kilometres an hour which is absolutely nonsensical particularly as a speed problem cannot be proven with regard to the one or maybe two fatalities on that particular stretch of road. 
So the general savings provision is a concern and we would hope for transparency in any sort of funding that will be affected by this legislation. We want to make sure that that is handled appropriately and of course we are very concerned about this Government’s fiscal capability. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I think that the member who just resumed her seat has raised some interesting issues. They are not entirely within the scope of Part 2 but if she is entitled to raise them it may not be a bad idea for me to respond to them.  
Part 2 is quite simple. Apart from the various schedules that some members seem to have read—which is always encouraging—it is primarily the part that dissolves Transfund New Zealand and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That means that both of those organisations move into a new organisation called Land Transport New Zealand although the policy functions revert to the Ministry of Transport. [ 
Interruption 
] The member wants to know when and the answer is 1 December. I hope that is helpful. 
The member also raised matters about vehicle emissions testing. That piece of work is being ably managed by my colleague the Associate Minister of Transport the Hon Judith Tizard and it is not for me to speak at great length about it. But I do just say that the status of emissions management in New Zealand through cars is probably the worst in the Western World. It is a matter of disgrace that it has not been addressed by successive Governments. 
One interesting little factoid that comes out of taking an integrated approach to transport is that if one looks at human health and safety instead of just safety one finds that a number of people are killed on our roads. I am afraid that the figure looks as if it will just exceed 400 this year—lower than last year and the second lowest figure for decades. So we have managed to take the blip out of the rise we saw a year ago. 
But interestingly about 400 people also die prematurely from air emissions—pollution—arising from transport. Those are not people with names and addresses. 
Deborah Coddington 
: That’s nonsense. Those are nonsense statistics. Are those scientifically based statistics? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed they are. The member has decided to interject. Let me just jump down her throat a little and say that the difference between the two groups of figures is that one group has people’s names and addresses—and indeed those of their relatives and loved ones—and the other group is an epidemiological statistical derivation. But the statistics are still people. 
The fact of the matter is that we have paid careful attention to reducing the road toll—and good on us! It is now time for us to start to get on top of the damage that is caused to human health by emissions from motorcars. That is why we have begun the emissions— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Some of the speed policy is nuts. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That may be but the fact of the matter—because the member raised the issue—is that this is the first Government through the good work of the Hon Judith Tizard to get on top of vehicle emissions. We are at the stage where just a couple of months ago in various parts of the country we have begun piloting so that we can get a look at what is coming out of the pipe now. 
A discussion paper will go out on Monday that will then get the public’s viewpoint on where we might set these standards and how often we might require cars to be tested and on whether for example pre-1980 vehicles should be counted. Those are things the member is welcome to offer her opinion on; we would look forward to it. 
Then progressively the Government’s vehicle emissions policy will be rolled out and we will start to pay attention to the statistical deaths of 400 people per annum in the same way that we pay careful attention to the actual deaths each year of people killed in accidents on the roads.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I will follow on from the Minister of Transport Pete Hodgson and address Part 2 of the Transport Legislation Bill. I note that there are five clauses in Part 2. It is a relatively simple part of the bill which is followed by the schedules. 
In particular I will traverse the ground of what Part 2 does. It essentially recognises the three independent bodies as they are today—the Ministry of Transport the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund—and the fact that each has a part that is policy and a part that is operational. The effect if we like of Part 2 is to strip out operational activities and to put them into one entity. The Ministry of Transport pretty much has a policy element today the Land Transport Safety Authority has both operational and some policy people involved and Transfund also has operational and some policy people. Under this part we will draw those people out and put them collectively in a group of staff at the Ministry of Transport that look at policy. 
Broadly speaking National is supportive of that. I think there is a strong case for saying that across the Ministry of Transport the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund various policy people need to be thinking in the right direction. 
Probably a year or so ago before I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Simon Power 
: Those were the days. 
JOHN KEY 
: They were happy times. In that 12 months on the select committee I learnt much about ships from Peter Brown’s many stories he regaled me with as he sat next to me and I made him coffees. With his general swagger as we had a Tim Tam biscuit together he would put his arm around me and share with me some quite interesting stories. It was touching stuff. 
As I reflect back on that time I recall something interesting about the policy work from the Ministry of Transport the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund. On one particular day someone came along to the select committee and said that there should be a policy differentiation for Maori New Zealanders due to the impact of emissions on them. I asked the obvious question about why Maori New Zealanders—people of the ethnic grouping of Maori—would be any more affected by emissions than any other New Zealanders. It was a pretty fair question. The answer came back that it was because of some of the places where Maori tended to live and because of all sorts of completely rubbishy reasons. Of course that probably would not happen today post-Orewa.  
But I am at least a little bit concerned to make sure that the policy work that comes out of this new body—because it will be pretty important—as combined and with a cadre of individuals involved in it will be a lot stronger than what we have previously seen. Quite frankly some of the policy has been absolutely complete and utter rubbish. 
I want to talk a little about the schedules—in particular the provision under schedule 2 relating to schedule 4 to repeal clause 27(3) and substitute new clause 3. I would term that the “Mike Williams provision” which states: “To avoid doubt—(a) a person who is a member of the board of one entity may also be a member of the board of the other entity:”. Mike Williams being the Labour Party president is on the board of Transfund— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Transit not Transfund. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. He decides which roads are built. My apologies to Mr Williams who is on the board of Transit. He is also on the board of TrackCo—obviously he knows a lot about trains. He is actually on quite a number of Government-appointed boards. That provision is put in this bill to remove any doubt whatsoever for Mr Williams. As he looks at his future appointments under a Labour Government—and he no doubt hopes there will be quite a few of them—and as he looks around the “jobs for the boys” schemes rolled out by the Labour Party he will be able to see that under schedule 4 there is no concern for him. He will be able to have many appointments. He will be able to take on a diverse range of Government appointments under that schedule.  
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I was not going to bother to speak because I think the good sense of this legislation is very evident. However I rise to speak to Part 2. 
The Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will be dissolved. Those organisations have been primarily concerned with providing a land transport system that caters very well to those who drive cars. It is very clear that the future of the car will be different from its past. Peak oil is a reality. I have heard the Minister speak about it. It is likely to hit us; it probably has already hit us. The prices we are paying for oil right now may go up and down a little but they are trending upwards. The demand is likely to exceed supply—if it has not already done so—sometime this decade. 
Transport policy needs to be concerned about health safety and sustainability—they are all linked. Probably the most threatened groups in the community are children cyclists and the elderly who have been poorly catered for by our transport system. Those who cannot drive those who choose not to drive those who are too young to drive and those who cannot afford to drive have been poorly served. Those people’s transport methods are probably the most sustainable. They travel shorter distances they travel only when they need to they do not climb into their motorcars at the drop of a hat and they tend to be healthier as well—except when it comes to the safety angle. When it comes to safety they are the most vulnerable. 
The Minister of Transport mentioned respiratory diseases. He might also have mentioned type 2 diabetes which is a disease the cost of which is likely to blow out to something like a billion dollars per year in this decade and in the next decade from a figure of about $20 million. That disease is largely brought about by a sedentary lifestyle which is the consequence of people spending much too much time in motorcars. 
The Minister could perhaps set my mind at rest however that the new organisation that will replace the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund New Zealand will in fact have the expertise to make sure that the regional land transport strategies documents that set out the roading and transport needs of communities up and down this country do provide for the transport disadvantaged and do ensure that those who drive are aware that they have legs and those legs can be used—that they can catch buses they can walk they can cycle and they can choose other methods to get around. Perhaps the new organisation could look at some land-use measures that would avoid the need to move people around by persuading them to live closer to where they need to be and by persuading town planners to site industries in locations where people can get to them without travelling from one side of their communities to the other at great cost. 
We will be supporting the legislation. It is good legislation. It will ensure that we have a healthier New Zealand that we have a sustainable transport system and that the most vulnerable and most transport disadvantaged can actually get around when they want to. Those who use motorcars will be able to use them efficiently and effectively if this bill goes ahead. We will support it.  
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was actually not going to take a call but then I heard the honourable member Mike Ward make a contribution. For the first time I have to say I am a bit worried about whether we should be supporting this legislation—after listening to his contribution. Clearly he wants to tear up the roads and remove motorists from them but the actual truth in this country is that we need more roads which need to be wider and safer. 
New Zealand First is hopeful that with the dissolution of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and their amalgamation into Land Transport New Zealand a much more proactive attitude will prevail through that organisation. We are hopeful that organisation will have a much more professional attitude a much more caring attitude and a much more businesslike attitude than the current organisations. I am referring more specifically to Transfund than to the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
Roading in this country has not kept pace with vehicle numbers and traffic demand. It is a long way short of those. It is actually shameful that Government after Government and Minister after Minister have just taken dollars from the petrol motorist—thousands even millions of dollars—used them in all sorts of frivolous areas and not spent an adequate amount of funding on roading. If we are silly enough—and I say that with sincerity—to think the motorcar will not play a prominent role in our society then I suggest that we should think again. If there are any members here who believe that we can get rid of the motorcar then I tell them that they are living on the wrong planet. That is not going to happen. [ 
Interruption 
] I am getting a little worried; United Future members are agreeing with everything I am saying this afternoon and that is a problem in itself. 
The motorcar is here to stay. It might become more fuel-efficient. We looked at hybrid cars out on the forecourt only the other day and they are very impressive vehicles. I am told by those who know a little more about them than I do that they can do 65 kilometres to the gallon or thereabouts and they go on to battery power automatically—there is no switch over. It is modern technology. But the motorcar is here to stay. Hopefully more and more people will use public transport where and when they can but it will never take over from the car. It will never take over completely from the car. If we want to get rid of congestion sure we should cater for the travelling public who want to use public transport—and maybe encourage people to use it—but we must improve our roading. That is very very important. 
I am hopeful and New Zealand First is hopeful that by getting rid of the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund by bringing them together in recognition of their common goals we will get a far more professional organisation that will look at roading much more objectively that will look at funding and that will have the courage of its convictions to say that we cannot fund roads on a drip-feed basis. I hope it will have the courage of its convictions to go to the Minister of Transport and say: “Look! The average New Zealander doesn’t want tolls. Please think again.” I am very very hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will take such a positive attitude and that when the Minister asks what the best way is to fund our roads—I know he will ask that; he is a very objective Minister—the new organisation will tell him to read the Allen report in detail and see the advantage of borrowing to invest in our roads. The return is thousands of dollars per year in excess of what is invested. Indeed I believe that the return estimated by the Allen report in terms of Tauranga with its strategic roading network is something like $7.60 for every dollar invested. That is a huge return and dare I say—because I know that the Minister is listening—there would not be a greater or better investment of Government dollars than an investment in roading at this particular time in our history. We need to do something positive about our roading and I am hopeful that Land Transport New Zealand will do just that.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to the heading before clause 51 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 301 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to schedule 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 33 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Tonight I want to re-emphasise to the Committee that the National Party has been very very clear on this bill. A lot of it is something we support and we would have been very happy to give our vote to the legislation if not for a few little things—which we probably would have lived with as one always does when another party is putting legislation through—but also for one big thing. That one big thing which is central to this whole legislation is the removal of the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. 
I simply do not understand it. I see Michael Cullen sitting in the House. He is always guarding the purse strings and is careful to make sure that money is not spent in a foolish way. I ask him why he would not want to have a transport regime that stated that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. I bet his officials said—I had better put in an Official Information Act request for his Treasury advisory papers—“Minister you need to go to Cabinet and fight to keep in legislation that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost.” I know how it works and I bet that was what he was in there fighting for on behalf of Treasury. 
But the most important thing I think that this Committee and the people listening need to know is that after I had run this matter in the first speech on Part 1 the Minister of Transport got up belittled me and said: “Oh well that’s just National; its members are all over the place—just like the submissions. Some thought that was an issue and others didn’t.” And he is right. Let us go through the list. Who thought it was a serious omission and needed to be fixed?  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Everyone. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well Mr Mapp is not quite right. He said “everyone”; I think that one could say “near as damn everyone” because someone who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said the opposite. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry there were two—two cyclists. That is whom the Minister is using as his weight of evidence. I have been able to show the Committee today that the Automobile Association Business New Zealand the Road Transport Forum the Bus and Coach Association the ports companies through a joint submission the Aviation Industry Association and Federated Farmers opposed it. In fact it is very hard if one goes through my list of submissions to the committee to find anybody in New Zealand other than those two cyclists who is for it—and I need to make sure they are kept in this debate because they are what the Minister is hanging his entire issue on. Every other organisation involved in transport—with some of them like the Automobile Association representing a million or more people—made it very clear that this legislation was deficient because it removed the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost. 
I understand why in politics when there is a very strong ideological difference between left and right Government members would want to do that and why they would want to say: “Look we’re taking the proviso that the provision of safety be at a reasonable cost out of this legislation because …” but we have not heard that. There has been not a mutter not a murmur not a nothing other than the Minister saying; “Oh you’re confused and there were just as many submitting the other way.” Well I tell the Minister that there were not. There was hardly anybody representing anybody saying anything other than: “Why are you removing provision of safety being at a reasonable cost?” because that is the test that will stop some fruit loop in the future from doing some idiotic thing in transport with bizarre costs and almost no benefits. Even right now I simply do not understand why this issue does not transcend all political colours and all persuasions in the entire spectrum or why the Government is not prepared to say: “Yes we accept it.” 
That change was requested by all those organisations. I will not go through the list again but one will not find a major organisation representing transport—or even a minor organisation representing quite a number of affected people—that did not want provision of safety being at a reasonable cost put back in and did not make it the cornerstone of its submission. Let me tell members—[ 
Interruption 
] No Business New Zealand is not a good example because its submission was lots and lots of pages. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Ha ha! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I was just saying—I say to Judith Tizard who is cackling up the back there—that some submissions were only a page long. There was one page from the port companies and that issue is all they submitted on. Federated Farmers’ submission was two pages long; again it was nearly all about the provision of safety being at a reasonable cost. Yet the Government will not even take a call to explain its removal. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to respond to some of the comments made by Maurice Williamson. He was going on and on in his speech about safety at reasonable cost. I think that the problem with the reality we face on the roads today is that every excuse in the book has been used by authorities local bodies and people in charge of transport to avoid having our roads safe. Mr Williamson talked about cyclists. I am a cyclist myself in Auckland. Cyclists have been getting a raw deal for years and years. There are just not the proper provisions throughout most of Auckland for safe cycling. If one cycles down many of the inner city streets—for example Symonds Street is a nightmare—there just are not the provisions there for cyclists. There are some off-road cycleways in Auckland and hopefully Auckland City under its new council will expand off-road cycleways and improve conditions for cycles. I think that this legislation will help the council because it will enable it to work hand in hand with the various authorities in this bill to promote proper safe cycling.  
I have recently visited Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia where a much higher proportion of the population cycles because their Governments make serious provision for cycling. Sometimes they take a parking lane off and put a two-way cycle lane along it instead. It is not only a question of safety but also a question of health if people are to cycle for short journeys. Most of the transport journeys in urban settings including in Auckland are for relatively short distances of a kilometre 2 kilometres or 3 kilometres. These journeys could be done by cycle if there were the cycle lanes and cycleways to encourage that.  
So I very much support the safety emphasis in this legislation which was worked out in very close collaboration between Labour and the Greens. I think it would do people like Mr Williamson and his National colleagues credit if they took up cycling themselves to try to encourage people to use cycles and therefore reduce car congestion. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The Chair will not allow a speaker to be drowned out. I can hardly hear the member. I say to members that chaos may be the parent of creation but in this Committee we will have order. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I will not talk just about cycling but also about facilities for pedestrians. Again in Auckland half the time there are not proper footpaths around the city and there are difficulties at traffic lights particularly for disabled people. Important improvements are needed. There are still a lot of pedestrian accidents including accidents at traffic lights. The turning lanes at intersections are not adequate and often create difficulty for pedestrians and particularly for older citizens. There are still projects going ahead without proper cycling and pedestrian facilities. There was a big debate in Auckland recently in relation to an overbridge over the Grafton Gully motorway extension because it did not have cycle facilities and proper pedestrian facilities. Under the cycling and walking strategy being developed by the Government in collaboration with the Greens on which initial draft discussion papers have been presented hopefully in every road and transport project that goes ahead consideration will be given to proper facilities for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. This is not only in relation to road projects. Each rail development project can have cycling and walking facilities in it. One of the advantages—particularly in a place like Auckland which is rather hilly—is that the railways are relatively level and are good for also providing walking and cycling facilities. So that is one issue that the Greens including the Greens in Parliament will be promoting. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the interesting points about that last contribution was the one that Mr Locke made very early on when he talked about Labour and the Green Party getting together to make sensible legislation. He was very enthusiastic about that point too. Interestingly the Minister of Finance nodded in affirmation because he knows that is what lies in the future for him. He is looking forward to that new coalition. We saw that last week because legislation was passed and—get this—the Labour - Green - Maori Party— 
Keith Locke 
: Isn’t that good?  
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is what Mr Locke said. That is the real choice that will confront New Zealand at the next election—the Labour - Green - Maori Party coalition. That is what the constitutional select committee is all about—the Labour - Green - Maori Party facilitation of debate on that issue. That is the sort of thing those parties are doing. I just wanted to draw that point to the attention of members.  
The only credible support for this legislation—actually it is incredible support—is one submission made by two cyclists. All the other groups as my colleague Mr Williamson referred to representing literally millions of people in this country said no to this legislation. It has been pointed out quite carefully that at least in those circumstances we would expect the Government to defend the abandonment of a principle that millions of people want to retain: safety at reasonable cost. No we do not get that. Instead we get the flimflam of the weasel words that are scattered through this legislation about environmental sustainability and economic benefits. Those are things that we cannot quantify. That is the danger of this legislation: on the one hand we have the certainty and security which is surely a cardinal principle of legislation of safety at reasonable cost and on the other hand we have conjecture hypotheses and uncertainty which are the very enemies of good legislation.  
There is one further thing and we are not just opposed to this. The Government made much play that a former Minister of Transport was in the Chamber and indeed had been the Minister of Transport in 1995 and Government members boasted about their inclusions. I say to the Government that we have listened to the people of New Zealand. We have been listening over a period of time and yes there has been a fundamental change in the way we should develop public policy. Concepts like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not elicit great concern 15 years ago but today they do. Surely the lesson from that and surely the lesson for legislators and for those aspiring to represent the public is to listen to the public. The public has made it very clear I suggest that the election will be fought on the principle that the law applies to us equally. That will be one of the great cardinal issues in the coming election. So that is why National has said it might have done certain things in the 1990s but it has listened to the people who have said that it went too far. National has listened to the real concerns about the future viability of this nation and the way that people interrelate together. In the law itself there should be one principle. People should not be sectioned out according to ethnicity and then get special rights and obligations. 
Darren Hughes 
: How’s the polling going? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is exactly what the junior whip wants. He wants to be able to divide people by their ethnicity and to say that some get special rights that others do not simply on the basis of ethnicity. We are opposed to this legislation on that fundamental ground itself.  
Yes I am focusing on the issues contained in clause 30 which are inherent in this bill—in its title and its conception. If we as a nation continue to go down that path and in all general legislation always seek to identify Maori people as a special class with special rights and special privileges then this country will falter. I have listened to many many New Zealanders on the North Shore and they do say they are worried about that trend. That is why there was such an outpouring about it. Even National did not understand the sense and depth of outpouring on that issue from the general public. Addressing that does call for some simple rules that are the foundation of every modern democracy: that the law applies to us equally and that in democratic States we look first to the individual. We put the individual at the apex of our system and rights are connected to individuals not provided on the basis of people’s race and ethnicity. That is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.  
This bill could have been made right and National could have ended up supporting it. All that was required was for the Government to listen to two things. First the Government should have listened to all the submitters who said they wanted to have reference in the legislation to safety at reasonable cost because that was predictable certain and known and people could plan on that basis. Organisations and companies with literally billions of dollars of investments need to be given predictability and they asked for predictability in their submissions. In fact they did more. They subsequently wrote letters to me and to Mr Williamson and I guarantee that they wrote those same letters to the Minister of Transport as well to ask him to reconsider the issue because they could see the danger of shifting away from a tried and true principle. Yet the Minister simply ignored them. So ignorant was the Minister on this issue that he came along to the Chamber earlier today and said there was of course a range of submissions with some people saying yes some saying no and others saying maybe. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A balance. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Labour talks about balance. Its balance I guess is that about 98 percent here and 2 percent there looks like fifty-fifty to it. That is the kind of balance the Government believes in. If the Minister who is after all said to be the responsible Minister on this issue had taken note of the submissions he would have understood that particular issue. So we are opposed to this legislation on that basic issue in its own right.  
The second point is one that I have mentioned but I just want to restate my concern at what I find buried in this legislation—and this is a point of issue around general legislation. We should not be identifying people by race or by ethnicity and then giving them special rights in general legislation. We acknowledge on the Opposition side of the Chamber that there is Maori land law Maori language—all those things—and treaty settlements. In those things obviously we expect to find specific reference to Maori ethnicity and particular references to Maori because we do understand our history. But we are into the 21st century. This Minister no doubt spoke to Shane Jones in the weekend. Shane Jones gave a very interesting interview earlier this week in which he said: “Settling historic grievances was last century’s problem. That should not be the issue that we look toward in the 21st century. In the 21st century we should be looking at people achieving in their own right.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 A great deal of legislation that we pass sets out to sustain the unsustainable and to perpetuate behaviour that has no future. That has been true of most of the transport legislation that has come before this House and of most of the transport initiatives that have been followed in this country for a very long time. This bill I suggest is culture-changing legislation in that it sets out to persuade people to behave in ways that give my children a future and to change the behaviour of waste. It sets out in fact to look at the underlying problems and to address them.  
I have never driven. I have managed to live a reasonable life in spite of not having driven. Part of the reasonableness of my life has been that I have not had to run a car. I have worked fewer hours spent less time in going to places and spent less time in travelling than most people. I find it rather bizarre that in a time when we have never had so many cars and so many roads we have never spent so much time in travelling. One has to say that maybe we have been getting it wrong. I would suggest that this piece of legislation in fact addresses that—getting it wrong—and tries to get it right.  
What sort of a future are we looking for? A future where the streets are safe enough to send our kids out on to a future where we actually have choices about how we get to places and a future where in fact we will be able to climb into our motor cars when we need to because I suggest they are going to be around for a while. This bill does that. This legislation is good culture-shifting legislation. As I said before not much of our legislation is culture-shifting legislation. Most of it sets out to perpetuate unsustainable behaviour. We probably do not have a lot of time to get more of this kind of legislation in front of the House. I think we have an aimlessness and a pointlessness out there that this legislation addresses as well. One cannot have two cars in every garage. May I say that in the Tasman District—a district adjacent to my city of Nelson—67 percent of households last year had two or more cars. I tell members that the cost of those cars is that people are working to earn two or more incomes per family. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is their choice. 
MIKE WARD 
: This bill does not take away choice; it gives choice—genuine choice. Having umpteen different models of motorcar is not choice. Having a choice between safe cycling safe walkways safe buses regular buses frequent buses and one’s car is choice and this bill sets out to give that kind of choice.  
I mentioned earlier and I have mentioned at times to the Minister that I hope we will have the expertise to make sure that local authorities in providing that choice genuinely consider the needs of the transport disadvantaged in such a way as the rest of us those of us who do climb into cars—and I am one of those these days; it is somebody else’s car and I pay for it but I do climb into cars—but who actually have other choices. May I say I actually still catch the bus from the airport from time to time and it is probably quicker than getting a cab. One might have to wait a little longer for the bus but it gets one here to Parliament just about as quickly as a cab. It goes through the tunnel and misses out on the queues of traffic. That is the kind of future that I think this bill will provide for all New Zealanders. Wellington does that well. In Auckland one sits in queues of traffic that is going nowhere extraordinarily slowly. I fail to understand the good sense of that; I do not see any good sense in it. But Aucklanders do sit there forever in their cars going nowhere.  
So the Greens have much pleasure in supporting this legislation. We believe it is good legislation. We are proud to have been part of forming this legislation and we look forward to seeing it passed. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party has not been given a call on the title. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I seek leave for the ACT party to take one call and for us then to proceed to the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to respond to that absolute nonsense from the Green Party. The title of this legislation—the Transport Legislation Bill—is very misleading. This legislation will do nothing to improve transport in New Zealand. In fact it will set transport back two decades. The Green Party says that it increases choices. How can the Greens say it increases choices and at the same time be so opposed to cars? Cars give New Zealanders freedom of choice. They give old people mothers and families freedom of choice. Why does the Green Party think that bus transport is more sustainable environmentally than car transport? The Green Party members have obviously never been stuck behind a diesel bus that is grinding its way up a hill and belching out black diesel smoke. Cars have become more efficient and more environmentally pure than buses have in the last two decades.  
The main objection that we heard from all the submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was that this legislation codifies for the first time the Government’s specific land transport strategy. We heard from Business New Zealand the Automobile Association the Road Transport Forum the Cycling Advocates Network Federated Farmers Queenstown Lakes District Council and numerous other submitters whose concerns were ignored. They said that legislation should be flexible and robust enough to actually just accommodate a Government’s range of policies rather than spell out in word for word detail the four objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy which was written by Roland Sapsford from the Greens office in conjunction with Heather Simpson in the Prime Minister’s office. A deal was done whereby that strategy would be allowed to go through in return for the Greens’ support on the Supreme Court Bill. That was MMP at its worst.  
Even though we are talking about land transport which includes all the motorists in New Zealand who use the roads let us not forget that this bill actually defines coastal shipping barges and ferries as land transport as well. So this bill includes the users of all those services. New Zealand’s future economic viability is put at stake by this legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: Nagger nagger! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: When that member’s voice breaks he may be able to get up take a call and contribute something sensible to the debate. Meanwhile he just sits there chirping away—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member please continue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Overwhelmingly the submissions on the bill requested that the sustainability filter which has now taken the place of safety at a reasonable cost be changed. It has not really been changed; it has been tweaked and tinkered with. We now have more weasel words such as “maintain” and “improve” but the only thing that is to be ensured under this legislation is environmental sustainability. How can one have transport legislation for which the main objective— 
Darren Hughes 
: What a nagger. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That member obviously does not care about safety. He does not care that airlines and the helicopter industry will have to be more concerned about how they pollute the atmosphere than about the safety of their passengers. That is what this bill does in stating that environmental sustainability will be ensured but safety will be assisted. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the Minister of Fisheries is under the influence. I think he was calling out “A party of crooks.” or something similar to that. He is nodding his head. The Minister Mr Benson-Pope is completely out of order and he should be required to withdraw and apologise for those remarks. He should sober up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Prebble. I actually thought that I had heard that myself. If that was the case I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I would have thought that it was a case of pots and kettles. To get back to the title this bill amends already the legislation that we passed just last year. The Government could not get the legislation right last year. How do we know whether next year its transport policy may not change again? The Government itself may change. If that happens we will have to go through this whole process again because this Government will have specifically written into the book its transport strategy. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill 
 divided into Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and Maritime Transport Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 300 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.