Goudie Sandra: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16908] 
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.