Brown Peter: Third Readings 
Brown Peter: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17233] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think that the former Minister of Transport summed it up pretty well and New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. However I think to some degree that the Government will be hoist with its own petard for want of a better statement. 
One of the four bills that this legislation has been split into is the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2). So that members fully understand it I will quote from section 14 “Objectives of Minister” which is proposed to be substituted for the current section 14 of the Civil Aviation Act by clause 5 of the bill. It provides that: “The objectives of the Minister under this Act are—(a) to undertake the Minister’s functions in a way that contributes to the aim of achieving an integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system; …” and so it goes on. The bit that concerns me is the term “responsive”. 
Right now as I speak in this House the Director of Civil Aviation has grounded 10 Wessex helicopters that were brought into the country for logging purposes and there has been no adequate explanation. Only this very afternoon I asked the Minister for Transport Safety some questions and I have to say that the answers were less than satisfactory. The director must give a reason to that company for not allowing those helicopters to fly. It is ridiculous in New Zealand First’s view that the company has had to take out an injunction which will be heard tomorrow against the director and ask the judge to determine a course of action. The Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) will I believe put a greater onus on the Minister to ensure that there is a reasonable response in a timely fashion. 
Another bill embraced by this legislation is the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. This is probably the major concern when it comes to the argument over reasonable cost. I thought that the Hon Maurice Williamson made some very sensible and cogent remarks but the examples he used were somewhat childish. He could have used better examples of the application of reasonable cost. Again I think the Government will be hoist with its own petard on this because the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill refers to assisting economic development. 
One area that needs to be developed in this country is our roading system. It has been starved of funding for many many years. Regrettably although the Government is endeavouring to do something towards addressing the roading problem it has not done enough. It has not adopted what New Zealand First would term a businesslike approach. It is still carrying on the old method of a “pay as you go” type of approach. No area is suffering more from this approach than areas of Auckland in particular and Tauranga. I believe that Wellington is suffering to a lesser degree and that places further south are suffering to an even lesser degree still. 
In terms of Tauranga we need a second harbour bridge and we need it now. It should be funded by Transit. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: There is not enough money. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well if the Minister took a businesslike approach to funding there would be plenty of money. We do not need to increase the petrol tax—as the Government is about to do—and we do not need to implement a tolling regime. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Sounds like Social Credit to me. 
PETER BROWN 
: No it is not Social Credit. It is the exact same way that any major business would fund capital development anywhere in the country. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: You mean borrow? 
PETER BROWN 
: I mean borrow and— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How will you service the loan? 
PETER BROWN 
: We will service the loan by using the money that comes through from road-user charges and petrol tax that is currently— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: It will cost a lot more. 
PETER BROWN 
: It will not cost more and I do not mind entering into a debate on this. It will not cost a lot more. It will cost more but we will have the roads in place more quickly and the economic gains from those roads being in place will be huge. The Automobile Association commissioned a report called the Allen report and I invite members to read it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: We have it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well read it and take it on board because it points out very very clearly the economic gains. 
Getting back to the legislation I believe that inserting the provision “assisting economic development” in the Land Transport Management Act will give greater thrust to taking a businesslike approach to developing roading in this country and to making it safe and practical for all involved. We do not need tolls or to increase the road tax regime. It is deplorable what New Zealanders are forced to pay right now. 
One aspect about this bill that does concern me and which I must mention is the fact that the Government did not make it simpler. The definition of “land transport” to be inserted in section 5 of the Land Transport Management Act by clause 25(2) of the bill embraces “coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries or ferries or barges on rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure”. I understand that provision is talking about funding only. So why does the bill not just simply say that? It could say that for the purposes of this bill coastal shipping ferries and so on can get funding from the appropriate organisation which would be Transfund. I do not see why the bill has to define coastal shipping as a means of land transport. Later on the bill states that transport on land does not include ships ferries and what have you. To me that complicates a fairly simple issue. I think it would be a hard job for many New Zealanders to understand that provision. 
A third area of concern is the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) and a fourth bill the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. The Maritime Transport Amendment Bill effectively changes the name of the Maritime Safety Authority to Maritime New Zealand. We think with its increased responsibilities that is a sensible way to go and it is only right and practical. Most of this legislation is common-sense stuff. Most of it will improve the situation in this country. 
I would like in my final comments to refer to the benefit ratio of reasonable cost. That was an argument that was well put up by some submitters and was of some considerable concern. However hopefully the wording in this legislation that refers to economic gains will overcome those difficulties. 
 I hope that a practical common-sense application will be applied to the various issues that will arise. The one that sticks in my mind as being rather naive is putting seat belts in school buses. The cost of that would be totally impractical and I hope that there is no drive as a result of this legislation to push for what one might call impractical and unreasonable solutions. I believe that would be against the clauses that refer to assisting economic development. So I am hopeful that the Government and all the officials in the various departments who will administer this legislation will take a common-sense approach to it. 
New Zealand First will support this legislation.