Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9656] 
Land Transport Management Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Land Transport Management Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Land Transport Management Bill so-called and I want to make the point that the title of this bill is a travesty of the truth. Far from dealing with the serious land transport problems we have in this country it dumps massive roadblocks in the path of progress for our motorists for our communities and indeed for the economy generally. It is a bill that does nothing at all to deal with the serious congestion problems we have on our roads. It is more than a year since the Prime Minister herself suggested that road transport congestion in Auckland was costing the economy in excess of $1 billion a year. Well last week the estimate was increased. It is no longer $1 billion a year. The estimate of the cost of congestion in Auckland alone is $1.4 billion a year equivalent— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When I was a third-former in this House I was instructed by many Speakers and Chairs that the title debate was a very very narrow debate. There is plenty of opportunity in the debate on the rest of the bill to have a formal discussion about what should or should not be in the bill. This is a narrow debate and I would appreciate some instruction from you around this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that the bill has been considered by a select committee. In such circumstances the debate on the title clause is limited strictly to the elements of the clause 
and any amendments proposed thereto. The debate on the clause is a very narrow one. Members must address whether the title in the form in which it is expressed properly represents describes or reflects the purpose and contents of the bill as agreed at the second reading. I would certainly say that Dr Brash addressed the issues of the title in his introduction but he went on to move away from that. I would draw the member’s attention to the fact he is speaking to the title. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes you have but I have a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this matter. It is a new point of order—is that correct? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes it is. There is no question that your ruling is right. A member must contain himself or herself strictly to the title. Therefore I would ask you Madam Chairperson to explain to the Committee the parameters of the word “Management” when it relates to a bill and whether it is impossible for a member to tease out the issue of why “Management” is an inappropriate word in the title of a bill. Frankly no word in any title of a bill could ever be discussed if a word like “Management” cannot be extrapolated explained and extended as Dr Brash was doing. We know that the Labour Party is absolutely petrified that the National Party has a new leader in Don Brash and that Helen Clark is counting the days until her premiership ends. His elevation to the leadership of the National Party was the beginning of the end for the current Labour Government and it will fall because of it. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. There was far too much noise going on. I will give members one warning that there will be silence during points of order. That is the final warning to all members. Mr Brownlee was speaking to the point of order quite correctly. I will now rule on Mr Brownlee’s point of order. In the point that I made I covered the title; it was covered in that. I do not intend to debate the Land Transport Management Bill title. It was covered in the ruling I gave. 
Dr DON BRASH 
: I was pointing out that the title of the bill the “Land Transport Management Bill” is totally inappropriate because the bill does not deal with what it purports to do. The title is so far off the rails that it must be amended to reflect what the bill really does. I suggest that the bill should be called the “Land Transport Mismanagement Bill”. As currently drafted its purpose fails to address economic efficiency in any shape or form. An outdated dilapidated roading system is costing New Zealand billions of dollars yet what does Labour do? It throws economic efficiency on the scrap heap because it thinks it knows best. Well it does not and just about everyone who wants to fix transport problems knows that. Perhaps the bill should be called the “Red Light to Road Users Bill”. That is how Business New Zealand describes the bill. That title might be more appropriate because the bill is steeped in old-fashioned dogma and is backed with so much opportunity for ministerial meddling that it guarantees no private sector involvement in new roads. Labour knows best? Yeah right! 
But maybe Aucklanders have the best idea for the title. Perhaps the bill would be best named the “Tool-box Without the Tools Bill” reflecting Auckland Mayor John Banks’ comment that “We have the tool-box but still not enough tools to urgently fix Auckland’s incomplete transport network.” Thousands of Aucklanders are despairing that after 4 years of a Government with a Prime Minister from Auckland Labour cannot do the job that is needed. If Aucklanders want a Prime Minister from Auckland who will do the job then I will make it a priority for the next National Government to fix things and to fix them properly. 
Part of the reason the title is wrong lies of course with the Greens. We could call the bill the “Greens Before Growth Bill” because the Greens have done a deal to put the priority on skateboarders not motorists in favour of a “Nandor corridor”. 
I am surprised that Michael Cullen the “stealth tax bomber” has not sought to change the title to the “Petrol Tax Diversion Bill”. That is because the bill allows the Land Transport Fund to be used for any approved activity. Indeed there is no cap on the amount of money that can be siphoned off to non-roading purposes at all. It could cover just about anything. Indeed the bill opens the floodgates of a disaster. The title includes the words “Land Transport” but that definition includes coastal shipping—water transport in a Land Transport Management Bill! The only ships I know that run on the land are those that have foundered on the rocks and that is precisely what this bill will do for land transport solutions. So we could call the bill the “Ship Bike Train Cycleway Footpath and Skateboard Bill” to reflect the Mickey Mouse coalition that put it together. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am happy to take part in this debate on the title. I shall read clause 1 in its entirety: “This Act is the Land Transport Management Act 2002.” How could anybody be confused about that? How could anybody advise a new Leader of the Opposition showing off his wares in Parliament to make that speech? Mr Brownlee the new National spokesperson on transport is sitting next to Mr Brash. Mr McCully is advising him on how to behave in the House and he gets him to do a filibuster on the title clause. Oh my goodness! Dr Brash should get a new adviser quickly. He needs to know that it is not very statesmanlike when showing his wares as a future Prime Minister to make a filibuster speech on the title of a bill. Oh dear that is not a very good start on his first day. Clause 1 “Title” states: “This Act is the Land Transport Management Act 2002.” Who could have advised him to do a filibuster on that? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I deliberately waited until the member had gone past 2 minutes of his speaking time. The time he has spent straying from a discussion on the title is greater than that spent by Dr Brash even though in my opinion Dr Brash was speaking to the title—he was pulled up by the Chair and the Committee for supposedly straying from the title. Mr Gosche has simply used the word “title” on a number of occasions throughout his speech but he has not at all addressed the failings of the title nor has he been able to mention one single thing that justifies it. We know that this debate is very very tight—we do not doubt that at all—but if Government members take the call they should defend the title. It is just not defensible for them to say that members on the other side have not been advised properly or some other thing like that. We know that it is all rubbish. We know how terrified they are of the huge overwhelming public acceptance of Don Brash’s elevation in the National Party. We know that Judith Tizard is living in fear that her seat is now likely to disappear from under her. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will come to the point of order tersely. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am coming to my point. I am saying that the Standing Orders are being abused by members like Mark Peck who is in trouble in his seat and David Benson-Pope the member for Dunedin South—in fact most people in Dunedin do not know he is a member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You get my point though Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just remind members again about silence during points of order. It is usual to allow members to respond to the previous speaker. They should be brief; it is not a licence to stray. The member did mention the title. I remind members again that this is the title debate. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: That is why I read it out twice. I could find nothing in the title about skateboards nothing about ships nothing about any of the things the previous speaker mentioned. That is why this bill is aptly titled. It is about the management of land transport in this country—something that this Government and this Minister of Transport know about and something that this bill actually delivers on. 
I would be terribly embarrassed if I were a new Leader of the Opposition to get up and filibuster on a title. The Leader of the Opposition said last week that he would not engage in that sort of silly behaviour. That is promise No. 4 that he has broken already. How embarrassing is that? I tell Mr McCully to look after his new man. He should have let Mr Brownlee make that stupid speech because he is good at it. Mr Brownlee will make a fine speech on the title in the next couple of minutes. He will raise all that stupid stuff too. The members on that side of the Chamber do not have any good ideas about land transport management. Over here we know all about it. Land transport management is what this bill is all about and that is why the title is a very good one. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was interested to hear that member’s speech but he did not mention the title once in terms of what it is about. I suggest that if we are going to carry on like this let us have a wide-ranging debate and talk about the facts in the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member can seek leave for a wide-ranging debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to have a wide-ranging debate on the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Madam Chair in terms of your ruling we are allowed to respond to the previous speaker so I make the comment that the whole point of Dr Brash’s initial speech was that this bill is called the “Land Transport Management Bill” but does not deal just with land transport. I ask the Minister of Transport to take a call and defend his title of the bill because how can we have a Land Transport Management Bill that deals with water transport? It would be more appropriate to call this bill the “Land and Water Transport Bill” because it includes barges ferries lake ferries and the like. This Government might think it can walk on water but I have news for it: it cannot drive on water. A more appropriate title might be the “Anti-Motorists Bill” because this legislation will suck even more money out of motorists in terms of road-user charges and spend it on water transport on propping up wharfies and on satisfying the trade union pressure. “Stifle Economic Growth Bill” would be a better title than “Land Transport Management Bill’. There is nothing purely “Land” about this bill in terms of what the title says. 
There is nothing “Management’ about this bill either. There is no management in this bill. This bill will not give New Zealand one more kilometre of motorway or roads. This bill is not about management. It is as Dr Brash said about mismanagement. When Dr Brash is the Prime Minister of New Zealand in 2005 we will see some legislation that deals with progressing the management of roads and road transport and getting this country up into the top half of the OECD. That is what this so-called Land Transport Management Bill is meant to be all about. 
Why do we not just call it the “Wasting Your Life in Traffic Bill” or the “On Yer Bike Bill”? It was drafted by the Greens. It was written by a researcher in the Greens’ office and it panders to the Greens. A better title as Dr Brash said would be the “Greens Before Growth Bill” or as I said the “On Yer Bike Bill” or the “Social Engineering Bill”. It is social engineering because money taken from motorists in road-user charges is to be spent on environmental issues—on cycleways. How about the “Road Cycleways and Walkways Sustainable Development”—whatever that means—“Bill”? But as I said the title “Land Transport Management Bill” is a total misnomer. 
Also just while I am on the point of the title what about calling it the “Land Transport (Mismanagement of How to Draw Up Legislation) Bill”? We have seen today the Minister dump a whole raft of changes in a Supplementary Order Paper on to the Table. If he is so proud of this legislation I ask him to take a call and tell us exactly why he thinks it should be called the “Land Transport Management Bill”. There is nothing in this bill but mismanagement by socking cars and by socking motorists and it will do nothing at all to increase the building of roads the efficiency of road-user charges and the efficiency of spending money on roads in New Zealand and getting New Zealand up into the top half of the OECD. 
It is a totally wasted piece of legislation. It is a waste of submitters’ time. We have been through the whole process. We have taken the legislation right through the select committee and we have brought it back to the House. We have taken out things like coastal barging and lake ferries and we have reduced the water transport aspect down to coastal shipping but what happens when we come back today? The Minister has put all of that back in again. Talk about ministerial directive! We took that out of the bill too. I see that it is creeping back in as well under the Supplementary Order Paper. 
I say to the Minister that if he is so proud of this bill being termed the “Land Transport Management Bill” why does he not take a call and explain exactly to us what there is about it that is management and not mismanagement? What is there about it that makes it just a land transport bill? Or is he just trying to sneak through the fact that road-user charges will be spent on water transport on cycleways on walkways? If he were honest about it he would put that in the title. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak to the title of the Land Transport Management Bill. This bill moves us from a 1950s approach to transport into the 21st century like most other modern OECD nations. The things in this bill are absolutely mainstream in modern transport planning. The title makes it very clear why this is so. 
First of all this bill is not what some members of the Committee would like to see. This is not a “Build More Roads Anywhere and Everywhere Bill”; this is a Land Transport Management Bill because it recognises that only when we take a holistic approach to all forms of land transport will we solve the serious congestion problems in Auckland our serious dependence on fossil fuels which are not going to be there for ever and the serious air pollution time wasting and crashes that go with our particular brand of transport at the moment. It is a Land Transport Management Bill because it is multimodal. 
In fact Infrastructure Auckland has shown that if we were to follow the wishes of some people in this Chamber and try to solve Auckland’s problems by just building roads not providing land transport we would end up at the end of 10 years after building all the roads on anybody in Auckland’s wish list with congestion 50 percent worse in the isthmus and 10 to 20 percent worse on the other motorways. Only an intermodal approach that says we have to match the mode to the purpose will solve the problems and that is why we are talking about transport management. It is about managing the demand; it is about managing the way we match supply to demand. Heavy freight that goes long distances from Auckland to Wellington should travel by road. People who commute the same distance to work every day should have adequate public transport so that they can use that means of transport. People who do very short trips and who are fit enough should have facilities available so that they have the options of walking or cycling. And we need to find alternatives to transport like teleworking so that people have choices. It is about managing those things. 
It may seem illogical to include water transport in a land transport bill but that is also sensible. The title underlines that funding goes to water transport only when that water transport takes traffic off roads and makes the roading dollar go further. That is the logic behind coastal shipping and ferries being in this bill. They can ease up road congestion because the funding can more efficiently be spent on an alternative route for freight. 
I commend this bill to the Committee and look forward to taking part in the debate that will ensue. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call in the title debate because being an Aucklander and hearing some of the things that have been said I sometimes wonder whether the National Party’s Auckland MPs have actually looked out of their windows when travelling on our Auckland roads and seen the work that has already begun. Maybe we should have called it the “I Only Travel in Taxis Bill” because they have been asleep in the back seat not looking at the progress already starting on Auckland roads. Perhaps we could call it the “Auckland is Thankful for the United Future MPs Bill” because at least we have become involved and begun to start something that is beginning to make progress in Auckland. 
We are concerned with roads in Auckland so we are not going to be a party that will stand back solely to criticise because criticism never gets anything done. Maybe we should call it the “Don’t Criticise All the Time but Get Constructive Bill” for Auckland. Auckland is an important part of the country but we also understand that it is not the only part of the country. United Future is pleased to support this bill because progress is happening. 
How does one eat an elephant? One eats it one bite at a time. So we could perhaps call it the “One Bite at a Time Bill” because we have got together with parties that are prepared to take one bite at a time in order to get on with the roads in Auckland. The people listening to this debate will know that business communities in Auckland are very pleased to see this bill come about. They are rejoicing about it as is United Future because we like to move ahead. We could call it the “Everybody Likes it Done Today Bill” if members like because everybody would like the roads done today. Of course that is not possible because it does take one day at a time. But there are some parties in this House—United Future is one of them—that will stick up for and stand and move ahead with progress. I am glad I am not in a senseless party. United Future is making a difference in this great nation of ours. People out there can be thankful that some parties in this House are making progress so that our road problems will get fixed—and United Future is one of them. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The title of this bill deserves debate because it misnames a large piece of legislation. The bill is not just about managing the land transport system; it includes allowing taxpayer money to be spent subsidising barging operations. Perhaps this bill should have reference to that in the title. If somebody thinks that coastal shipping comes under the Land Transport Management Bill that would be stretching the English language in the definition somewhat—but it does and coastal shipping will be entitled to subsidies under this new legislation. That is why this title is so wrong. 
It is also wrong because everybody who has read the bill knows that it will do nothing to advance the management of land transport in this country. In fact this bill’s purpose—and therefore it’s title—is best summed up by a comment from a Green member at the select committee: Mike Ward who said he hoped that the passing of the bill would ensure there would be no extra traffic growth on our roads. So if this bill is about zero growth in traffic then we should say— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Does he even own a car? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He does not. He does not have his licence—and is quite proud of it—and that is why he is the expert on land transport in the Green Party! We would be better off calling this bill by the title the Greens had—the “Road Traffic Reduction Bill”. At least that title reflected exactly what the bill is all about which is reducing the amount of traffic on the roads. This bill says that it is about managing traffic on land when in fact it includes subsidisation of coastal shipping subsidisation of barging the enabling of regional councils to own a whole new raft of infrastructural assets and the subsidisation of the construction of those assets. None of that is reflected in the present title. 
If that is not enough I want to agree with colleagues who have raised the issue of the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put on the Table today. It does not change the title but includes in relation to debating the title a whole new definition of transport. Transport now includes harbour ferries and ferries or barges on rivers or lakes. The title should reflect exactly what people want. If people are out there looking to set up a barging operation or some sort of boating operation with transportation across a lake they would not go to the Land Transport Management Bill to see what the regulations were that covered their operations. They would go to maritime legislation to look at those regulations. 
The least the Government can do is be honest with the title because this title is simply not honest in terms of what the bill does—and more important what the bill does not do. This bill will not deliver the solutions that Labour has promised Auckland for so long. The land transport problems in Auckland will not be solved by this bill which is titled the Land Transport Management Bill because nothing in its clauses goes any way at all to solving those problems. 
I hope members take the opportunity to vote against the title clause of the bill because it is so out of touch with the bill’s contents and I hope members also take the opportunity to chuck the bill out in its entirety as we move through its Committee stage. 
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 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of brief comments about Part 1 as we start to get into the guts of the bill. I am extremely proud of this landmark legislation which suddenly now transforms the way in which we deal with and manage transport across New Zealand. I also want to pay a quick tribute to my former transport Minister colleague Mark Gosche who did a lot of the work on the bill. 
I think there will be a lot of talk in this part and other parts about what the bill does or does not do. I do not like to be uncharitable but I want to remind the Committee just how many bills the National Government introduced in its 9 years in Government to try to improve land transport in New Zealand. It was zero zippo zilch not a sausage and not a single bill. It is important therefore as we work our way through the bill to realise that during that time not one single piece of land transport legislation came forward from the National Government. 
Of course the National Government started to think a little bit about land transport. Do members remember the Better Transport Better Roads strategy whereby National was going to corporatise and then privatise all the roads? There were howls of derisive laughter from local authorities which was one of the reasons why National got chucked out. 
I do not like to be uncharitable so I want to move on and note that this part includes the purpose clause. As my colleague the co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons said it is about a multimodal approach to transport. There are not many people in New Zealand—in fact only a very few narrow-minded people—who want to go back to the tired old days of the benefit-cost ratio. That thing was pilloried up and down the country by territorial local authorities that said nothing could be built in New Zealand unless there was a benefit-cost ratio of around four or so. It was heavily predicated on road accidents and fatalities which meant very little could be done anywhere—for example in Auckland. We have been able to make some progress in Auckland only because of the multimodal broader approach taken in the legislation. 
I also want to point out Supplementary Order Paper 165 in my name which in the immortal words of the Hon Stan Rodger contains “mainly minor technical amendments”. There are a couple of things in there. I am particularly pleased now about the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the word “efficient” into the purpose clause. Given that there has been a lot of comment in the media about that I think it is really important that the select committee thought about and worked on it. There has been a lot of consultation with the parties who have been involved in supporting the bill and I welcome that particular inclusion. 
This is a good bill. This part starts to define how we will shift transport in New Zealand and how we will solve some of the problems. I commend it to the Committee. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 Part 1 of this bill is a shambles—an absolute shambles. The Minister knows it is because if he did not know that he would not be coming into the Committee with Supplementary Order Paper 165 which is some 12 pages long to change the bill. The Minister has had the bill back from the select committee for 2 weeks and he has come back with another 12 pages of amendments because in the last 2 weeks he has been done over again by the Greens. When those amendments are put into Part 1 it becomes a shambles. 
I want to speak to a couple of amendments to Part 1 for which we seek support. The first amendment is to clause 3(1). We believe that the purpose clause should be amended so that we start to make economically efficient land transport decisions. At the moment the purpose of the bill is to make decisions about funding and when making those decisions we have to have regard for a whole range of Green ideas around everything to do with the road. The objectives of environmental sustainability and social responsibility are included but there is nothing about economic efficiency or the creation of a safe responsive and economic land transport system. We seek to amend clause 3(1) to put that in. 
We also want to amend clause 3(2) to ensure that when Transfund New Zealand makes any decision on funding it has to have regard to whether the funding decision improves economic efficiency in land transport. At the moment under this legislation Transfund New Zealand—which has all the money—will have to make decisions but it will have to make decisions based on whether roads will be environmentally sustainable. The Greens have put all that in there. So if a road runs through let us say three rare ferns and a couple of old trees that will be it—it will not be environmentally sustainable. Every single argument will be around that issue. 
Phil Heatley 
: What about the taniwha? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is before we even get to the taniwha argument which is in there as well. There is nothing in the bill about economic sustainability and there is nothing that says: “This road should go here because it makes sense for the economy.” To achieve 5 or 6 percent growth a good roading infrastructure is needed and this bill simply will not deliver it. 
Under Part 1 we also want to remove that silly stupid nonsense that puts coastal shipping into the Land Transport Management Bill. Those of us who pay our petrol tax will find the money being used to subsidise foreign shipping vessels trundling around our coastlines. What sort of nonsense is it to have tax collected at the petrol pump being used to fund a coastal shipping operation and to subsidise a foreign vessel to pick up empty containers and ship them around the coastline? We think that that is nonsense and I say to the Minister we believe that those who pay their petrol tax money will also think that that is nonsense. We can understand why the Minister never talks about that; he is always very quiet about it. We want to see that part removed from this bill because we think it is a shambles. 
In fact this was the Minister who said when he was in Opposition that he was going to stop foreign vessels from going around the country from port to port and carrying domestic cargo. He has backed down and broken that promise. He has forgotten those speeches. Not only is he not going to stop it but he is also going to subsidise it. He will use taxpayer money to subsidise foreign vessels. Not only has he broken his word to the Seafarers Union that he was going to stop it—Mark Gosche made the same promise; he sat there for 3 years and could not deliver on it—but now his Government is going to subsidise it. Harry Duynhoven made the same promise as well and he knows he did. He backed down on it but now the Government is going to subsidise foreign shippers out of petrol tax money. New Zealanders will not get roads built out of their tax money because the money will be going into foreign shipping. 
Is there a cap in this part on how much is spent on subsidisation for foreign shipping? No there is not; there is no cap at all. Later in the proceedings we will move amendments to try to put a cap on to that as well. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 If we go back to the genesis of this bill we see that it followed on from the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 which was released in December 2002. One of the objectives of that strategy was to assist economic development but if we look at the bill we can see that it has totally removed any reference to economic development—any reference at all. That reflects how this Minister has been shoved out of this bill. 
I know that this Minister’s heart is in the right place. Of all members in this Labour Government this Minister is probably one of the few who does understand economic development and what we have to do to grow this economy. Unfortunately this bill was drafted when Mr Gosche was the Minister of Transport. It was drafted as we know in conjunction with the Greens and it was a trade-off with the Greens. 
When we came to the Committee today we received Supplementary Order Paper 165 which will change clause 3(2)(e) by omitting the words “cost-effective” and substituting the words: “allocated in an efficient and effective manner”. Well what does that mean? I ask by whose standards? What is meant by “efficient and effective”? That is just semantics. It is just a little bit of a crumb that has been tossed to United Future so that that party can boast it is the Larry Baldock clause. It is a meaningless piece of verbiage that adds nothing at all in terms of economic efficiency. 
Just the other day on 30 October it was reported in the paper that higher road-user charges and increased fuel taxes contributed to the Government’s road funding agency Transfund New Zealand holding $225 million in its accounts. That is money that has been taken from New Zealanders who are trying to get from one place to another. If those New Zealanders live in Auckland they are penalised even further because they are spending on average $50 a week to fill a petrol tank. Of that sum $27.25 goes into Government taxes and fees but—members should listen to this—only $6.95 of that $27.25 is spent on roads at the moment and when this bill is passed even less of that $6.95 will be spent on roads. 
This bill has no cap on how much of that money can be taken out and used for other purposes. Part 1 is extremely loose in its definition of what an “approved activity” is so we have no idea of how much of that money will be spent on roads. The Government did not put a cap on what will be sucked out of road-user charges and spent on other approved activities. 
The bill also tries to deal with the protection of the environment and sustainable development. One of the worst things for the environment in Auckland is that cars are idling on the massive car-parks we call motorways. Cars stuck in traffic contribute to bad emissions. The worst thing is for cars just to sit there. What will this bill do to expedite that problem? Nothing. 
I have a suggestion for the Government. In 1989 the America’s Cup (Planning) Act was passed. It aimed to expedite planning consent in order to get the America’s Cup village and other facilities built quickly and efficiently so that Auckland and the rest of New Zealand could benefit from the economic growth that that would bring. A planning authority was set up— 
Mark Peck 
: What did Bluff ever get out of the America’s Cup? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I say to the member that his Government passed the legislation. If he did not like it then why did his Government pass the legislation in 1989? The Act set up a planning authority to fast track consents so that the America’s Cup village could be built. Who would deny that that has brought enormous benefit to this country? 
I have a member’s bill—the Auckland Roads Network (Planning) Bill. Even though I hate the word “planning” I could not get around it because there was not another word that fitted. “Planning” is a word that has been hijacked by socialists. However I had to use it. We will be able to set up a planning authority to fast track consent for Auckland’s roading network. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is interesting to listen to the Opposition debate this part which is really the guts of the bill. This is where National should have had Don Brash speak because he could have talked about the real guts of the bill instead of wasting his time on the title. But I suppose he will learn sooner or later. 
The two previous speakers from National and ACT should check their in-trays every now and then for documents from the organisation that funds transport—it is called Transfund. The previous speaker talked about economic development. We can look at the latest edition October 2003 and consider the people of Northland and that very good group of mayors up in Northland. I send my greetings to them particularly to the Mayor of the Kaipara District Council who took me in a helicopter with the Mayor of the Whangarei District Council over Northland’s roading problems. He said there were a lot of forests growing there but no roads to handle them; that tourism was now burgeoning but that people had to drive on gravel roads. What did those people get from the previous National Government to fix that problem? Zilch zero zip nothing! Yet National Party MPs up there just take them for granted. 
There are eight more regional development projects for Northland dealing with the problems of tourism and forestry—the industries that are sharing old broken-down dangerous gravel roads. They looked at trains and did not reject them out of sight but said it could not be done in that part of Northland and everybody agreed. Transfund is funding it. Then I turn the page of this document and see that the Napier-Gisborne rail link is to be funded with $164000. The very poor road between Napier and Gisborne which cannot handle very big heavy trucks will get some relief. Local people are so keen on this link that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Gisborne District Council are putting up $100000 of ratepayers’ money. Will we get any complaints from motorists about that terrible use of their funds which will put heavy road traffic on to rail where it belongs and not through that windy dangerous piece of road? Will the motorists who travel that road complain that that is a misuse of their funds? 
Mark Peck 
: I don’t think so. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Absolutely not! They do not want to get stuck on those narrow dangerous windy roads behind big trucks. They would rather see heavy freight on rail. They would say that that was a good sensible common-sense use of their money. The National Party says no it is not cost-effective and efficient to do that. That is why in its 9 long years in Government it built nothing to solve the problem up in Auckland. Why? Because it had a cost-benefit system that equated a death to $2 million and lots of people were dying elsewhere. The time delay and its cost-benefit measurement did not measure up against road deaths so Auckland just got nothing. The record of the National Party with its love of efficiency was 22 percent 23 percent and 21 percent spending. It let Auckland go; it did not bother. There was nothing sensible about it. 
I will give members one example and they will be very interested in it. The Auckland Harbour Bridge could have had high-occupancy vehicle lanes to relieve a lot of the pressure but nobody would do it. Why not? Because it would have interfered with the cost-benefit ratio on the North Shore busway. They wanted the busway because it was absolutely sensible to have it but if in the meantime they put a high-occupancy vehicle lane on the Auckland Harbour Bridge then they would never have been able to build the busway. That was the madness that National oversaw for 9 years. That was the economic efficiency that Dr Brash is so proud of and that Mr Key and Mr Sowry will speak about. What a shambles! National did not use the opportunities when it was in Government for 9 years and that is why voters rejected it and chucked it out. 
Members on this side of the Chamber will use the money in the best possible way and that is why we are putting these words in the bill—because we want to see decent roads to deal with logging traffic and tourism in Northland. We have to spend money on that. The Government put in 100 percent of the funding of roads in Northland. It did not have to get a cent from the ratepayers that Dr Lockwood Smith is supposed to represent. Did his ratepayers have to spend any money on that? Not a cent! He says that building decent roads in his electorate to deal with tourist and logging traffic—which should not be mixing together on gravel roads—is a terrible waste of money. He also says that we should not dare to take heavy traffic off a skinny little dangerous road between Gisborne and Napier because that is not a sensible thing to do with taxpayers’ money. People will be laughing at the National Party in those parts of New Zealand. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I listened with great interest to the last speaker and I concur with everything he said. Yesterday at a mayoral forum in Whangarei the mayors of Northland told us to go easy on the Government on the issue of transport because of the goodies that we have just heard about. I willingly acknowledge the work that the Government has done in the last 3 years and the extensive changes that have taken place and are about to take place. If the Government can find a few more dollars for the railway all the better. The issue is that the work has been done and accomplished and more visible evidence is yet to be seen. 
It was our good luck perhaps that we—being from a region in Northland that has foresight and knows how these things work—took up the challenge of an integrated transport study gave a regional face to Northland transport issues had the agreement of territorial bodies and put together a regional plan that gained Government acceptance. But that was not accomplished under this bill—it was accomplished under the cost-benefit situation that the member spoke about plus additional Government funding. The big problem with this bill is the very issue that the last member spoke about which is funding. 
I say to my National Party friends who sit to my right that I have heard some of the debate so far. I concur that between 1993 and 1999 we in Northland awaited developments—with a white paper a green paper and I think a pink paper and any other paper—but nothing took place before the election of 1999. Nothing happened. As a New Zealand First member my position is that the old party did not do it. In this city we spent numerous hours discussing it—paper after paper—with an optimistic Minister and nothing happened. The Hon Maurice Williamson the man who now sits behind me was in that very position in 1999. I say to my National Party friends that he appeared 2 weeks before the election in 1999 and assured us that things would happen. So New Zealand First members do not come to this issue with any great optimism about what our friends on the right might do. They did nothing in this regard. 
But I also say to the party across the House which says that this transport bill is the best it has ever seen that one thing we have to thank the Government for is its understanding for a time that the transport issues in Northland came about under the present regime. So when we look at the issues we will be debating in Part 2 we see that at the end of the exercise they will all come back not to all the fine speeches we made in this House in defence of this bill or to those that will be made opposing the points in the bill but to one simple issue: after all the talk have the objectives set out in Part 2 the ability to be achieved in funding terms? The answer will be no. We have already heard that from the Minister of Finance and we have heard it in various ways from the other side. 
So on behalf of New Zealand First I point out that there is an alternative. It is presented in the minority report and as we go through each of those sections we ought to think very carefully about it. The funding answer in this bill which is espoused by some parties in this House is not fair and reasonable when motorists are paying an unused share of the road levy at the present time. To that end we do not support this bill. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of this bill I want to address the question of efficiency which has dogged the argument about the Land Transport Management Bill since it was first introduced and has I must say generated a great deal more heat than light. Efficiency used to be the objective of transport legislation but nobody could figure out what “efficient” actually meant. It seemed to mean that we had to meet a cost-benefit ratio and the way that cost-benefit ratio was calculated was a black box that nobody else could get inside. It gave huge weight to the saving by very large numbers of people of fractions of a second but no weight at all to what was happening on rural roads. So I came to this bill with a very jaundiced idea of what “efficient” had actually led to in the past under the previous Government and under the previous legislation. 
The Greens of course wanted to ensure from the beginning that the funding for transport was allocated in a cost-effective way and that I think is a word everybody can understand. So in the bill as introduced the purpose clause states that it “ensures that land transport funding is cost-effective;”. That seemed to us to say what needed to be said. However we have agreed readily to the change in Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain which states that instead of the funding being cost-effective it should be “allocated in an efficient and effective manner”. That is absolutely fine. We want to see the funding allocated efficiently. Nobody wants to see transport money wasted or used inefficiently or ineffectively. I personally do not see that the amendment makes a lot of difference to the outcome but I am perfectly happy to support that change. 
Another thing in the Supplementary Order Paper that I want to draw attention to is the definition of land transport options and alternatives. Land transport options and alternatives have to be considered now at all levels before funding is allocated. This is a piece of legislation that states we should not just rush in and build something until we have looked at the need we are addressing at the various options for addressing that need and at which of those options will address that need most effectively and most efficiently for the least amount of money. It goes on to state that then having looked at those options we should go and build the best one or otherwise we will end up with a lot of white elephants because we did not do our homework properly. So options and alternatives are a key part of the decision making in this bill. 
What the change in the Supplementary Order Paper has done is to clarify that land transport options and alternatives include demand management options and alternatives. Only if we start looking at the demand side of the equation can we prevent the constant increase in demand for transport jamming up whatever roads we build. It is now well understood internationally that if all that people ever do to deal with transport demand is to build more road space they actually induce more demand the road space fills up as fast as they build it and things continue to get worse. So we have to look at some more creative alternatives. There is a whole raft of things that some councils are already doing and they are things that regional land transport strategies will have to look at in order to provide different ways of meeting the demand. 
My favourite example—I know the Minister likes it too but it is only one of many examples—is the walking school bus. We all know that on weekdays when schools are open traffic congestion on the Auckland motorways is much much worse than it is during school holidays and it is that way simply because so many parents drive one child to school. We also know that the safety situation and the congestion outside school gates at half past 8 in the morning is so extreme with vehicles milling around and parents letting children on and off that it has made it unsafe for other children to walk and cycle to school when they would otherwise have liked to do so. We can have the Auckland roads as uncongested on school days as they are during school holidays if we promote all the other safe effective ways of getting children to school rather than each of them being delivered by a parent in a separate car. The walking school buses which provide supervision for large groups of children to walk to school safely have a whole lot of other benefits as well. They are supported by the people who are into health and exercise. They mean fresh air for children rather than keeping them cooped in cars all the time. Walking school buses are better for children’s development than going to school by car. They experience the world around them rather than just sitting in a motor vehicle. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to address some comments to Part 1 particularly the purpose clause and to make some reference to the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 153 and 158 which I have on the Table. The first amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 153 does address the issue of efficiency in subclause (1) of the purpose clause. Based on the comments made in the speech given by the Hon Roger Sowry I look forward to National’s support for that amendment. I can tell Mr Sowry that he need not bother writing his own amendment as he is recommending exactly the same things that I have put in my amendment. We do need to see efficiency mentioned in the bill and I welcome the Minister’s reference in his speech earlier to what he has adopted in Supplementary Order Paper 165 in his name. That is the second Supplementary Order Paper on the Table and it omits the word “cost-effective” and substitutes the words “allocated in an efficient and effective manner”. 
When we went through the submissions—and I admit I did not get to hear them all because the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee meets at the same time as the Local Government and Environment Committee—we heard that many many people were crying out for efficiency to be put into this bill and we have taken that very very seriously. We will be glad for the amendments that are passed during the Committee stage. Even though the ACT member has called them crumbs we in United Future are happy to make any amendments we can to the legislation in order to improve it. If we were to look at the crumbs that ACT may have we would see of course that ACT would be very very hungry for some time—very few amendments are ever made through its efforts. 
This bill does take a multimodal approach to transport and as I said in my second reading speech we do support that multimodal approach. But as I also said then the reason we want to see efficiency mentioned in the purpose clause—and also in connection with clause 20(3)(c) which Jeanette Fitzsimons referred to earlier so that it further strengthens the need for efficiency—is that the multimodal approach must be balanced by the requirement for efficiency. We welcome some of the common-sense approaches that are incorporated in this bill and the things that will come out of it. Certainly the walking buses are a great idea. They do help to improve some things but in no way can they solve Auckland’s problems or Tauranga’s problems and that is the problem with the ideology that lies behind the multimodal approach. 
I am astounded to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons say she does not understand what efficiency is and that she cannot define it. I will help her out this afternoon by giving her a definition of what United Future understands efficiency to be and telling her why we want efficiency to be included in this bill. We are not talking about the old cost-benefit ratio where we had to have a person die on a corner of a road in order to get that road fixed. Efficiency relates to the efficient movement of people and goods around a transport system. That is the definition of “efficiency” that United Future has adopted. It means that when people move around this country they can do so in an efficient manner without spending hours and hours sitting in traffic. It means that when producers—the people who work hard to produce the goods that keep our economy going—want to move their products to the market they can also do so in an efficient manner. 
The issue is not about spending money efficiently. After all every Government department should be spending its money wisely and efficiently. But land transport is about having an efficient system— 
Peter Brown 
: What are you talking about? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: That member obviously has not caught on because I have said before that an efficient system is one that moves goods and people around this country in a manner that does not waste time. I will not use the word “efficient” again so he cannot come back at me with that argument but I refer to a system that moves people around without having them waste time. Delays are inefficient. Surely we all understand that. What we want to see in this bill is that if we are to allow for a subsidy for rail or for walking and cycling in order to get people off the roads that subsidy is balanced by the requirement to prove that it will contribute to the overall efficient system that we are developing. The land transport system that we want in this country is one that will be efficient for everybody not just for cyclists or for those who want to walk. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Mark Peck. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is a tradition in this Parliament that you go from side to side of the Chamber. The person on his feet was sitting on the Government side of the Chamber and in fact earlier in the debate when I went to take a call you went from the Opposition side over to the United Future side and then came back. You cannot classify United Future as being part of the Government for some calls and then as part of the Opposition side for others. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member is not correct. It is not a Government party. I call Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You had called me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Mr Mark Peck. 
MARK PECK 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of this Land Transport Management Bill I can understand why Mark Peck wants to close down the debate. The Government ought to be ashamed of this bill and of the pathetic weak Minister in the chair Paul Swain who is being pushed around by Jeanette Fitzsimons for God’s sake! Members should read clause 3 “Purpose”. Subclause (2) provides that this legislation will improve social and environmental responsibility in land transport. But our people around Auckland want some roads to be built. That Minister and his Government closed down the debate on the Penlink toll road legislation last year. They would not allow that to go ahead because Jeanette Fitzsimons did not want it to go ahead. This weak Minister kowtows to Jeanette Fitzsimons! That is pathetic. Meanwhile the other day as I tried to get to Auckland the traffic jam was right back to the end of Windy Ridge just past Warkworth. 
I say to the Minister in the chair that this legislation will not solve that problem. As may be seen in Part 1 this pathetic legislation has more to do with the Greens doing deals with Labour than with solving the problem—and the purpose clause reveals that totally; it shows there are backroom deals. Jeanette Fitzsimons has told us today this is not a bill for roads. The Greens do not want to see more traffic on our roads—the Greens have already told us that—so we know that this bill is not a bill for roads. Why does this Minister think all those business organisations in New Zealand who know something about financing and construction say that this legislation will not work? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Not all of them. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Almost invariably they all say it will not work. The Minister can probably find one obscure business group somewhere that may say it is possible this legislation will work but almost without exception they all say it will not work. When we read the purpose clause we find it is obvious why the legislation will not work: because the focus is on social and environmental issues and on long-term planning. Again we have heard from Jeanette Fitzsimons what that means: long-term planning so that nothing ever happens. Then we turn to clause 4 and find that is all about the Treaty of Waitangi—more roads around the country being held up by taniwha. 
This Minister has got to get his act together. He is being pushed around by Jeanette Fitzsimons on this legislation and that is clear in Part 1. He is being pushed around by officials when it comes to road safety issues. He is not prepared to take a stand himself based on research. He lets the officials push him around. The death of New Zealanders will be on this Minister’s head because this legislation will not result in building better roads in order to save lives. The changes to transport enforcement that the Minister is proposing will result in more accidents and more deaths. Research is starting to show us that fact. 
As we debate Part 1 I am angry about this legislation because it so clearly makes it— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: There are great roads up there. The member knows absolutely nothing about this. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I say to the Government that the Environment Court has just ruled that this Government is so useless at making progress on roading that the court wants the Government to be back in court next year. The court has extended the use of the link road at the end of the northern motorway for only 10 months and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) has a build time of 3 years. The Environment Court does not trust this Minister; it knows that this legislation will do nothing. So the Environment Court wants the Government to be back in court in 10 months’ time because it knows there will be no progress and it wants to keep the heat on this Minister and this Government. The Environment Court does not trust the Government. That is the only explanation as to why when the court knows the build time for the road is 3 years it wants the Government to be back in court in just 10 months. 
In conclusion I emphasise that when we look at Part 1 which contains principally the purpose of the bill and the definitions we see clearly that this bill will not result in more roads for New Zealand. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Minister well knows that this bill is not going to do the job on a nationwide basis and it most certainly is not going to do the job for Auckland. He knows that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: It’s a start. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is hardly going to be a start. Little or nothing will occur before he has to bring in more legislation to address the Auckland problem. This is just farcical. The Government has bought into the Greens—lock stock and barrel. I think someone said earlier that this bill should be called the “Traffic Reduction Bill” that the Greens had. It would have been more honest to use the title of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ member’s bill. 
This bill produces a framework for road tolling. I do not know where Paul Swain the Minister in the chair is on this. He looks as if he is all at sea and is quite clearly out of his depth when it comes to road traffic management. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PETER BROWN 
: Just before the dinner break I was endeavouring to emphasise the huge importance of roading in this country. We need more roads and we need better roads. There can be no argument on that. The influence the Greens have had on this bill is dramatic unnecessary and will be to the detriment of New Zealand as a whole for quite some time. The key to developing our roading is funding. New Zealand First will not support a generic tolling regime. I want to make that quite clear. That is not necessarily saying that we are against tolling per se but we will not accept a generic tolling regime. That is what this bill does. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: No it doesn’t. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes it does. I invite the member to read the commentary and then she will understand a little bit more about it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Read the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would be curious to know what that member knows about this bill. 
John Carter 
: Or any bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Or probably any bill but I could write in block capitals on the back of a postage stamp what that member knows about this bill. 
We believe that the motorist in this country has been paying unnecessarily for other things when the funding should have gone into roading. First and foremost we would like to see that 18.5c back into roading—not on a one-hit basis but on a gradual basis. 
Larry Baldock 
: How gradual? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think we could do it over 5 years. That is my opinion but I am not talking about one-hit stuff. I am aware that some time ago the Minister of Finance—I think it was mid-September—told this Chamber that an economic report was being compiled presumably by the Treasury that would say why this 18.5c was essential to the Government’s coffers. In answer to a question he made reference to the Minister of Transport saying that he would consult with the Minister. 
Larry Baldock 
: I asked the question. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think Mr Baldock asked the supplementary question and I followed up with a point of order. As I recall he was going to consult the Minister of Transport about releasing this report to all MPs. That was my point of order and he assured the Chamber that he would. I have not seen it. Has Mr Baldock seen it? 
Larry Baldock 
: It’s still coming. 
PETER BROWN 
: I know that the officials have not seen it. When I asked the officials at the select committee they were not aware of this economic report about the 18.5c. But on the basis that there is some substance to that—I want to make this quite clear because the Prime Minister was confused in an answer to the Rt Hon Winston Peters earlier on this afternoon—New Zealand First would look at a different regime of funding. We would look at funding based on a regional fuel tax. It is far better than tolling. Look at the latest toll road in Tauranga. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is not true that the Land Transport Management Bill is good for nothing. In my opinion it has two very fine uses: the first could be as a doorstop. If doused in petrol its second use could be as a Little Lucifer fire-starter. What it will not do is fix New Zealand’s roads or Auckland’s roads. 
I want to put this in perspective: if this legislation were used to construct the Flemington track where the Melbourne Cup was run today we would not need gallopers we would need hurdlers. They would have to be good hurdlers. They would have to jump over hurdles so high that they would be unbelievable. This legislation is drafted by the Greens for the Greens. It is all about coalition arrangements and all about walking buses around the Coromandel. It has nothing to do with the $1.4 billion of economic activity that is just not happening in Auckland. 
We have sat through this debate and heard some self-congratulatory speeches from the Labour Party. What a load of nonsense! What a load of waffle! If the Minister’s own officials cannot provide him with the information I will do so myself. Never let the facts get involved with a good story! That has a helluva lot to do with Part 1 which is meant to fix the problem outlined by the Government. We have been told that Auckland roads are being fixed because the Labour Government is spending more money. Let me just point this little fact out: in the 2002-03 period $151 million was spent on Auckland’s roads. It was up from $89 million. That is quite correct. That is an increase of about $80 million—$80 million out of the $256 million that was raised on the 4.7c petrol tax. 
Just before the Government goes round congratulating itself on what a wonderful job it has done fixing New Zealand’s roads I want to say that it has failed miserably and is a disgrace. This legislation is so bad that the Minister went up and down the country begging people to oppose it. He said he wanted people to write the strongest submissions they could because this was the biggest load of rubbish they had ever seen in their lives and had nothing to do with fixing roads. What he said was: “Look very quietly this is about a coalition agreement with the Greens. I have not drafted it. It has not come from my officials. It has not come out of my office. It has come out of some woofter in the Greens—and Heather Simpson.” That is what has happened. 
I want to tell members how much worse it has become. Not only has this legislation now come out of the Greens but I sat on that select committee—day after day hour after hour—and begged the Labour members to put efficiency into the clause. I was on my hands and knees begging them for efficiency. Do members know what they told me? They gave me the old “deer in the headlights” look. There was no response from Paul Swain’s office. He did not want to know because he was too busy booming up the coalition arrangement and being Helen Clark’s lapdog. That is what this bill is all about. That is what was happening. 
Lo and behold what do we see? Efficiency has now been introduced. Why? Because United Future wandered over and said it might not be good for much or contributed much but if the Government did not put efficiency in United Future would not like it either. Mr Swain said: “What the hell when we are forming legislation that is good for a coalition negotiation who cares whether it fixes roads! That is not our objective.” 
This legislation has failed so miserably that I do not know why I am going on to discuss the individual bits of it. It is so bad that after asking people to campaign against his bill Mr Swain gave up and set up the joint officials group. We all know that at a date between 15 and 17 December it will come back and say that this hopeless legislation is a waste of space but do not worry about it because we have our coalition agreement tied up and here is the real deal we will present to the people of Auckland. That is now called blatant vote buying. We have tied up the old coalition arrangements so now we will get out there and try and hoodwink the good people of Auckland. Well it will not work because they are good in the Labour Party at babysitting the settlers. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I did not have the opportunity to be on the select committee that considered this bill. But as an ordinary New Zealander who has a car who pays petrol tax and who in the past has had vehicles that incurred road-user charges I like most other New Zealanders thought that the money collected from road users actually was spent on improving roads. We thought this Land Transport Management Bill would solve the traffic problems around New Zealand—Auckland’s traffic problems in particular and the big problems here in Wellington—and what do we find? This is a piece of politically correct rubbish. I tell you what you know here we are talking about a bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring me into the debate. You used the word “you”. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Oh! I apologise Mr Chairman. I meant the Minister of Transport—the Minister sitting next to you in the chair who was falling asleep until you did what you did and woke him up. 
 When we look at this bill to see what its objective is we see that it is to protect and to promote public health. When we talk about transport petrol tax and road-user chargers most New Zealanders think we are actually talking about roads. I would like the Minister to stand up to take a call to explain to New Zealanders who see this bill as the answer to New Zealand’s traffic problems what protecting and promoting public health have to do with transport. The question is whether we need improved roads in New Zealand and the answer is a huge “Yes” as we all know because poor roading holds back progress and productivity. All those poor people sitting in traffic jams every day end up wasting their lives; they are not able to get on and drive their own productivity and the productivity of the country. 
Nowhere is worse off than Northland with the Orewa to Puhoi link road for the northern motorway sitting incomplete because this Minister does not have the courage to do something about it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will withdraw and apologise for challenging the Minister’s courage. That is not permitted in the Chamber. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I did not know that “courage” was a word we were not allowed to use in this House. However— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that when a member has had a point of order drawn to his or her attention in respect of a matter there can be no reference to it. It is very clear in the Standing Orders that questions of courage cannot be raised in this House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A lack of courage. The member will continue. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The point is that the Minister being Minister has had the opportunity to try to help to push forward the completion of the northern motorway. He has completely and utterly failed in that regard. We have our major State Highway 1 weaving through a residential area and stopping dead in the middle of a paddock. It is costing the region $1 million a week—that is Transit New Zealand’s figure—in lost productivity. The Minister is busy telling everybody this bill will be the answer. That is an absolute load of rubbish and the Minister knows it. By the time the Government goes through this process—if anybody will go into a partnership with the Government to help to build a toll road—that bit of road will be about 10 to 15 years away. By then all the consents for it will have lapsed and we will have to go through the whole process again. The Minister is looking at a delay of probably up to 20 years before the northern motorway is completed and does not stop bang-slap in the middle of a paddock. 
The Minister just shook his head. I challenge him to get to his feet to take a call and to explain to the people of Auckland and Northland—that is millions of people who feel that this Government is stupid for not completing a major piece of roading infrastructure—exactly how this bill will help them. They know they are losing $1 million a week in lost productivity for this nation because this Labour Government is too stupid to prioritise that roading which clearly should be prioritised. What other country has a major State highway stopping in the middle of a paddock for goodness’ sake! Honest to goodness me! The point about that piece of highway is it was stuck before the Environment Court for 6 long years but all the consents are now through and the Minister has the opportunity and the ability to do something about that project and to have it fast-tracked forward. Under this bill he is condemning that project to remain stalled for probably another 10 or 20 years because this bill does not have the provisions in it actually to do what he has told people it will do. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I do not know much about this bill at all I must confess. I am pleased as the newly appointed spokesperson on transport for the National Party to announce that I have done no work on this bill whatsoever. I am delighted to find today that I need not have bothered and that I have been quite insightful in not finding out anything about this bill. When the Prime Minister was asked in the House today about this particular piece of legislation she said it is a good piece of legislation but one cannot expect a Labour Government to put anything right. If it is so good and if the Government cannot fix anything with this bill why would one bother to put any time into it? 
That Minister can wave his hands in absolute disgust as a member of the Labour Party caucus that the Prime Minister should be so honest with the House as she was today but I ask why we are discussing this bill when the Prime Minister has conceded that it will not put right the problem. That is what the House heard today. Members can talk all they like about the money going to Auckland; my colleague John Key outlined how many hundreds of millions of dollars are being sucked out of the South Island and other parts of New Zealand and sent to Auckland. What for? To fix the roads which the Prime Minister has told us today will not happen under a Labour Government. 
I noticed earlier in the day that the Government put out a release stating that it had put an extra $21 million into Auckland roads. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: When? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister sitting in the chair is saying “When? What? Where? Why?”. He is scratching his head; he does not know. He should talk to the Hon Judith Tizard. She announced today that an extra $21 million would be spent in Auckland on the roading system to fix up the drains the gutters and the walking tracks. Not one car will move faster more smoothly or more quickly to its destination because of that spend. The Government collects $256 million out of the taxpayers’ pockets gives out a lousy $21 million and brings a bill into the House that the Prime Minister says will not fix the problem. 
I ask the Minister why we are discussing this bill. The Minister went up and down the country saying to the major groups that have an interest in roading that they should not worry about this bill. He told them that the Government had to put the bill through the House because it had stitched up a deal with the Greens but that it wanted those groups to oppose the bill as much as they could. He said that the Government had to put it through that that was the price of it being in coalition but that it would bring in another bill in the New Year by which time it would have convinced United Future that it was now so hopelessly dependent upon the success of the Labour Government for its own future that it would have to support that bill no matter what. That is what the Minister has done. This is the way the Government is putting out the spin. 
I have always said sadly that people understand small numbers more than they do the bigger ones. When one talks about $256 million or in the case of the Auckland roading system now it seems a blowout to about $3 billion New Zealanders understand that as just a big number. When one talks about $21 million New Zealanders think it is just 6 months of good luck on a Saturday night; they understand that figure. This Government cynically manipulates that sort of understanding to make out that it is doing something about the transport problems in the big city of this country Auckland. 
As the Minister seems keen to talk to the Committee I want to know why after all these years we suddenly find that a new bridge is going up in the Waimakariri electorate. Is it not fantastic! The ACT party talks about a club of the right getting together to unseat Clayton Cosgrove and suddenly a bridge that has not been needed for over 25 years comes out of the bag and the pork-barrel Government goes on its way spending taxpayer money all over the place. I am very pleased about it. I am delighted that that bridge is going there. It is a very important access way to our city. I am pleased that the Minister has done it. But there is nothing like a little bit of vested interest and the fear that Government is slipping away to get those members moving. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following subclause: 
(1)The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the aim of achieving an integrated safe responsive and economically efficient land transport system. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 3(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (2)(a) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)improves economic efficiency in land transport funding planning and management; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to clause 3(2)(e) in the name of Larry Baldock on Supplementary Order Paper 158 is out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision on the Minister’s amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend the definition of  
land transport 
 by omitting the words “coastal shipping”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Funding of land transport system 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Part 2 contains quite a lot of meat. It deals with a number of substantive issues and involves a lot to do with tolling and public-private partnerships. I know that members want to talk about a number of other clauses but I suspect that there will be some outrageous outlandish and hurtful criticisms particularly from the National Party about these provisions. 
Never before in my life have I seen something as unbelievable as the National Party’s minority report which states that National is concerned the Minister has to ensure that a feasible untolled alternative road is available to road users when there is a tolling arrangement. This concern is unheard of internationally. In fact virtually every tolling arrangement in any country requires a feasible alternative. Anyone going to Europe knows that. This minority report was done by the old demoted spokesperson on transport. I know that the new modern spokesperson will probably want to take a careful look at it and possibly rethink his views. 
This part is about tolling new infrastructure not existing infrastructure. There are lots of conditions around it and decisions that have to be made after comments from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that there should be some ability for the Minister to give some initial indication a project will proceed. That has now been built into the bill. 
Public-private partnerships are very important for New Zealand. They have been very very successfully operated in other parts of the world. Before I hear all the comments that they will not work the particular clauses in this legislation are based on the Melbourne link where lease arrangements are used to attract public-private finance in order to get a project built. 
There are some very very good clauses in this part. It is the meat of the bill and I commend it to the Committee. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 The Minister as he said just touched on the guts of the bill which will allow generic tolling in this country. Well that is the spin and that is all that will be spinning. Mark my words: no tyres will be spinning on toll roads in New Zealand as a result of this legislation. 
The Minister predicted that we would be opposed to this part because of the need to have a free alternative route. He needs to do his research properly. Every financier who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and there were many—said to us time and time again that they had had huge experience in funding such operations overseas. We had people from Australia who had funded the Sydney tunnel and the Victoria ring route people from the United Kingdom and financiers from all over the world who told us time and time again that if there was a free alternative the toll road would be used only at periods of heavy traffic and that there would not be enough money generated to fund the road. Those are the simple facts of life. 
I might add that Standard and Poor’s released a report some months ago that looked at all the problems with funding toll roads. The report found that in 90 percent of all cases people who were putting up toll roads over-predicted the income they would get—and that was when there was not a free alternative. The banks themselves had to write down that kind of funding because they could not rely on it. 
The Land Transport Management Bill will not be the solution to Auckland’s problems. I was absolutely stunned that the day after this bill came back to the House for its second reading I read in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that Transit was telling the country it was releasing its 1-year study into an alternative harbour crossing for Auckland. First it told us that it would take 16 years to build—5 years for planning and 11 years for construction. What a joke it is to take 16 years to build a bridge that would be about a quarter of the size of a bridge built very recently from Copenhagen to Sweden which is 16 kilometres long. That bridge was built in 7 years and we are talking about 16 years. Will that work out under this Land Transport Management Bill? I think not. The predicted cost of the Auckland bridge is $3 billion. The reality is that if that bridge were ever built it would take longer than 16 years and would cost $5 billion. 
Members should think about these figures. New-road spending in Auckland is roughly $151 million a year on State highways—and that is calculated on the new revamped numbers. That bridge alone would cost $5 billion dollars and take roughly 33 years of the entire spending in Auckland so it would not happen without some alternative forms of funding. That is why Auckland mayors want the full tool-box—regional petrol taxes and borrowing—and I know that the Minister will deliver it to them in a sneaky piece of legislation. He will whip it in between 15 and 17 December—but I cannot tell members because if I tell them I will have to kill them. 
That is what will happen but it will not happen as a result of this legislation. Why will it not work? Because this bill states that there has to be a free alternative the new bridge would have to be built 500 metres away from the existing bridge. What would people do? Option A would be to take the non-paying alternative and option B to pay four bucks to go over the bridge. It will not happen. That is why I tell the Minister in Sydney they tolled both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the tunnel. They are not just brighter than we are in Australia but they can do the maths. They can work out that they need all those funding sources and that is what is required if we are seriously to fix Auckland’s road problems. We do not need some woolly-woofter document that is there to shore up the relationship with the Greens. We want serious stuff that will actually fix the roads. 
I now want to discuss consultation. When people came to the select committee time and time again—rightly so—they said that consultation was a nightmare when trying to build anything. Beca Carter those wonderful engineers told us that they allocate up to 7 years to build a road that can take 2 or 3 years to construct. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I start off by saying that the Prime Minister said— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Welcome back. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Let me tell the member that it is hard to make a comeback when one has not been anywhere. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am keen to hear this member speak and I apologise for interrupting. However I draw your attention to the fact that you have gone from a National Opposition member to a National Opposition member—if he is still a member—and that seems to me to be an unusual practice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No not so. The reality is that I look at the proportionality of the House and National has twice as many members as any other party in Opposition. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I want to pick up on two things the Prime Minister said at question time today as a start to this speech. First of all she said not to rely on the Labour Party to get roading initiatives right. I think she got that in one. Secondly she said not to listen to the National Party because it never did anything. I tell the Prime Minister that that is wrong. 
Back in the early 1990s when Auckland’s roading was starting to become a problem we began a very long process of trying to engage various stakeholders through what was called the Land Transport Pricing Study which tried to find out what the Road Transport Forum the Taxi Proprietors Federation the Automobile Association local authorities regional authorities and so on thought should happen. We got through to a document by the end of the decade in 1999 called  
Better Transport Better Roads 
. 
Before Labour members start to rip into me about what a hopeless document it was I tell them that I have some wonderful quotes on file from Labour members about me such as “He’s going to privatise our roads with tolls. That’s what this Minister Williamson will do.” and “Don’t you let the National Government get back.” If the Minister tries to deny it I will start with some of the quotes because some of his senior colleagues gave some absolute beauties—for example: “Toll roads are an outrage.”; “The roads should be free.”; “They should be for the public to use at their will.”; “They’re the Queen’s highways.”; and “If you let this Williamson and the National Government back in that’s the outrage you’ll get.” And what do we see in this bill? Toll roads. The Minister had better get the Labour research unit quickly on to the search engines of their computers and start to dig up some of the juicy quotes from his colleagues about how dreadful the privatising of roads by having toll roads would be. 
I have gone through this legislation carefully and I have to say that it really does miss the bus. In fact although it probably has the bus in it it misses the road. That is what it does. The legislation in order to curry favour with the Greens—who seriously believe we can get people out of their motorcars—states that we will not build any more roads or finish all those partly broken arterials in Auckland that simply do not function until they are joined up. Instead we will fund walkways and cycle tracks. That is the Greens’ view of it. 
I tell this Committee and this Minister that every other jurisdiction in the world that has poured huge sums of public money into shifting people into public passenger transport openly acknowledges that the money was wasted because people are wedded to the motorcar. Modern lifestyles demand that if we are to drop the kids here go to the supermarket there pick up something and go to the gym after work public transport that used to work—the old “get up go to work go home go to bed” mentality that some Labour Ministers still employ; in fact they go home to bed in the afternoons—simply does not work now for modern lifestyles. This bill does not recognise that. 
I tell the Minister the one key ingredient that can fix the transport issues is to start pricing roads based on what they truly cost. That is what should be in the bill and I intend to take a number of calls on that issue because it is central to the legislation. If we did not pay for the electricity that we used but just paid a flat rate of $20 a month or something we would leave the lights and everything on all the time. I tell the Minister that on some central arterial routes in downtown metropolitan Auckland it costs a fortune to have traffic moving at peak times. In other places in the country like on a back road at Opotiki on a Sunday afternoon it costs very little yet the same petrol tax is used for the same number of kilometres. 
The legislation will not work unless we do two things. First of all we must free up some private investment. I can tell members that I have not met one private investment company that will have a bar of investing in new roads. If the Minister knows about any I want to hear what they are because I have not heard of any with the restrictions that are in this bill. Why does the Government not say to a private company: “If you want to buy the land if you want to spend the money and if you want to build the road then that’s all right but there will be some restrictions.”? But that is not what it says in this bill. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 In summarising what I have just heard it seems to me as if we had a Government that was in power for 9 years and that took 9 years to produce a document. Then we had the Labour Party that was formerly opposed to tolls and the Greens who are opposed to roads. It is a jolly good thing United Future arrived on the scene so that we could have this bill come into the Chamber today—a bill that will provide some alternative methods of funding for New Zealand’s roads. 
We do need alternative funding. Since coming to this House I have made frequent points about the diversion of funds from the petrol excise tax and I take Peter Brown’s point. Some people think that I have gone quiet on that issue but I have given the Government a chance according to its word to give an explanation about what the money is used for. I believe there will be some good reasons why some of that money is spent on things other than roads. 
Most New Zealanders are not so much concerned about the money not being spent on roads as about lack of accountability and lack of transparency. If Treasury can make a good account of why that money is spent on health or other aspects of the Budget then most New Zealanders will be prepared to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the roads that we desperately need. If we do not see that explanation coming forward very soon I will again join my voice with others in this Chamber who want that accountability and transparency. 
But the facts are that we do need alternative funding to get our roading network built. We need it in Tauranga which needs $500 million worth of roads built within the next 10 years. If we consider that Tauranga’s population is 100000 we have as big a challenge if not bigger than the one Auckland faces with a population of 1 million and a need for $5 billion worth of roads. We have the same challenge in Tauranga. I am pleased to hear the member from Auckland John Key say that he would toll almost anything in order to get the roads built. That is very different from the view of the member for Tauranga who is now campaigning against tolls in order to try to shore up his support in the city and appeal to a small minority of Tauranga residents. 
Most residents in Tauranga want our roads fixed. They see this bill as providing something very practical in order to get our roading infrastructure moved forward. I love going to Germany and driving on the Autobahns but the reality is that the German people pay heavily for that facility. We in New Zealand will have to face up to the facts of what it will cost us to build a 21st century roading infrastructure. 
This bill through tolling provides one of the mechanisms for that alternative funding and it will invite some public-private partnerships. Unlike the member who spoke before me I do know of some companies—some investors—who are very enthusiastic about this bill. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Name them. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I will be happy to do that after this speech. I invite the member to come and see me privately and I will be happy to tell him about them. They have not listened to all the hype that has been coming out of the Opposition about how useless this bill is. They have read it for themselves and they have seen the changes that were made during the select committee process. They are very satisfied that this bill now provides a mechanism for them to get involved and invest in New Zealand’s roading. I look forward to that developing in the years ahead. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Make a profit? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: They will not enter into it unless they make a profit; the member can be assured of that. 
Many people said at the beginning of this bill that it was useless and I have to agree with them in terms of many of its complicated parts but I believe that the select committee has done an excellent job in listening to submitters. The bill has been changed particularly the parts that relate to alternative funding which is the part that United Future has taken most interest in because of our agreement with the Government. It is now a workable bill but it is not the total answer. It is not a silver bullet. 
We need further alternative methods of funding. As I have said before I look forward to working with the Minister to see those provided so that Auckland Tauranga Wellington and even Southland can have the kinds of roads that we should have in this country as a developed nation in the 21st century. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to respond to that member. He sat there yesterday with the mayors of the local district and other dignitaries and agreed with the member for Tauranga’s assertion that the first call for funding for roading should be on the petrol tax that goes into the Crown account. Now he is saying that the member for Tauranga is doing this for popularity reasons. I tell you that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring me into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I tell the Chairman and the Committee that the member for Tauranga had a public meeting on Friday— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You’re supposed to tell him. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is what I thought. Members are keen to know what the member for Tauranga did. He called a public meeting. Every seat was taken. It was full and brimming at the sides. There were business people small-business people large-business people and members of the general public. They were not necessarily New Zealand First people. Many of them probably voted for United Future. I think they might change their mind now after hearing that member. They said unanimously that they do not want tolls. 
Tolling is not fair. If one wants to look at how tolling is being applied and how unfair it is from time to time look at Route K in Tauranga right now. It was estimated it was going to take between 6000 and 10000 vehicles a day. It is averaging 2000 vehicles a day. It is barely getting sufficient funds to man the toll bridge. It is not paying for the debt of building the road because people use the alternative route. That member Mr Baldock will support clause 53(2) which the Minister has put in. It was not in the bill as introduced. It will allow the Minister to toll an existing road. We know that is set up for Tauranga. We know that that is— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister is laughing. He knows that it is a set-up for Tauranga. He knows that we are so darn efficient in Tauranga we want to use our roads to the maximum and he thinks that the people of Tauranga are silly enough to pay a toll on a bridge that was tolled a year ago but the toll has been taken off. I tell the Minister that they are not that silly. Mr Baldock might think they are but I can tell members that they are not that silly. They do not want the bridge to be tolled again to pay for future developments in Tauranga. 
I might add that the harbour bridge project clarifies and fits all the criteria of a State highway. It should be declared a State highway and it should be funded by Transit/Transfund. This is nothing but a con trick to keep it as a local road and force the local people to deal with the problem. There is money in Transfund to pay for that project right now. It does not need any further income at all. Mr Baldock knows that. I say to Mr Baldock that if he puts his name and United Future puts its name to signing up to this bill as apparently they are going to they will be doing a disservice to the people of this country. New Zealanders do not want generic road tolling across the board at the whim of the Minister. I think the Minister will find that out in due course. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They don’t want taxation for that matter. 
PETER BROWN 
: No they do not want taxation. I think the member behind me made some very good comments. The average person wants the cost load spread as far as possible in proportion to road usage. Mr Williamson would like swipe cards transponders and what have you. I do not think New Zealanders will go that far but they would be prepared to pay for roading through their fuel tax if it was across the board. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s the difference between that and road tolls? 
PETER BROWN 
: I tried to illustrate— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why should my grandma pay for your roads in Tauranga? 
PETER BROWN 
: She does not have to pay for our roads in Tauranga. The member is quite confused. How long has he had the transport portfolio? I will have to talk to him privately. He has no idea how this system works. 
I make it quite clear that we should be sitting down working out the total cost to this country of bringing the roading up to par and then working out a formula that is fair to everybody. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 This is Part 2 which deals with the funding of the land transport system and the land transport programmes. The member for United Future made a very good speech in favour of pork-barrel politics because with this legislation we are seeing a return to having money dished out in election year or close to election year to favour certain electorates. We will see tolling only in Tauranga just to satisfy that member. We have heard that a bridge will be built in Waimakariri which will keep Clayton Cosgrove safe because he listened to the speech given at the ACT conference and knew that he might be in danger of losing his seat. We have seen the Associate Minister of Transport signal what will happen in the eastern part of Auckland. She said that she did not agree with the eastern corridor and that it was not the right solution just so that the people of Howick could have an extra half an hour in bed. She says that she was misquoted but everybody says that do they not when it comes back to bite them? 
People have said tonight that they do not understand what the old system of cost-benefit ratio was about or that it was something to do with having someone die on a road before anything got done. That is impugning the reputation and expertise of all the officials at Transfund who did a very good job of setting a cost-benefit ratio. This bill sacrifices cost-efficiency to social and environmental factors. The efficiency goal in terms of the cost-benefit ratio does not accommodate those considerations at all. Members opposite obviously do not have a clue what the cost-benefit ratio meant. [ 
Interruption 
] It is obviously market day again because the fishwives are out in force—to quote the member for Tauranga. 
Safety considerations are incorporated via the estimates of the benefits of a project in reducing road accidents. They already are taken into consideration. That is part of the cost-benefit ratio. United Future members talked about efficiency but they cannot actually define what that means. They had some nebulous definition that efficiency meant moving around without wasting time. It is interesting that they support the Transmission Gully project—or their leader has supported it—but Transfund has repeatedly reported that that project is not cost-efficient. All projects seeking money from Transfund should be evaluated on economic criteria and be expected to provide a positive net benefit for the required investment. That is what it means. 
The previous Minister of Transport said earlier that this legislation would get the trucks off the road. That is absolutely not true. That is Government spin because this Government has done a sweet deal with Toll Holdings and given that company exclusive use of the soon-to-be-formed Track Co. Under this bill road-user charges will be used to maintain and prop up Track Co the rail track— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s outrageous. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is outrageous. The people who use the track should pay for it. Toll Holdings an Australian company should pay for it. It only has to get freight up to a certain tonnage—the Minister knows what I am talking about—which is not very high before it stops paying any rent on that. So New Zealand road users will be subsidising Toll Holdings which has come in here and is going to take over the New Zealand trucking industry. Why would it want to invest money in a trucking industry when it wants to put all the freight on to rail? It would not. If this Government wants to get freight on to rail it will have to return to the bad old days of the 40-mile or 150-kilometre limit because that is the only way freight will be forced on to rail. Trucking is more efficient. 
This Government should be getting rid of all the nonsensical consultation that is in Part 2 of this legislation—consultation that goes on and on. Consultation has to be with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust with affected communities and with Maori of the region. We will have more and more taniwha nonsense and consideration of wahi tapu holding up the construction of important roads. Members should look at what has happened about the highway between Auckland and Hamilton. The people in this Government talk about roads being safe and saving people’s lives— 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Part 2 provides for the first time in New Zealand law for public-private partnerships for the building of new roads. This provision has exercised more excitement than any of the other measures in the bill both from those who are extremely wary of public-private partnerships as the first step towards the privatisation of roads for private profit and from those who see public-private partnerships as a wonderful free lunch that will fund roads we otherwise could not have funded. 
The way they are set out in this bill neither of those views is true and perhaps would not be true under any circumstances. But I want to point out that public-private partnerships are not a free lunch a panacea or a source of funding for roads that we would not otherwise have had. Regardless of whether the public sector or the private sector builds a road the money for that road will be borrowed or will come from road-user charges and petrol tax or from tolls. There are only three possible sources of funding for that road in order to pay off the initial capital and running costs. Whether the public or the private sector provides that capital the funding stream still has to come out of the same pockets so it is not really a panacea at all. 
However with a design-build - fund-operate road such as is provided for in the bill there is the possibility of efficiencies in having the contract with the same concession partner who works through all stages of that operation. So the Greens have agreed to support the public-private partnerships provision provided that there are measures in the bill—which are there now—to make sure that the agreements cannot be rigged so that the public purse carries all the risk and the private purse gets all the profit. I think we have achieved that quite well. 
When working through the Rodney District Council (Penlink Toll Road) Empowering Bill that came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee a while ago it was interesting to find that the main way that that project was to be profitable for the private partner was through a tax rort. The private partner was double-dipping on tax savings and once the Inland Revenue Department had pointed that out to the select committee it became quite unlikely that the road would have gone ahead—even if the bill had been passed. When these agreements are set up it is very easy to disguise the fact that the public purse is being made to pay twice for the road. I think we have managed to avoid that kind of rort in this bill. 
Another way that the public purse can subsidise private profits inadvertently is if deals are set up where the return on capital is predicated on a certain traffic volume and if that traffic volume does not eventuate—and we have just heard from Mr Brown about what has happened with Tauranga’s Route K where the traffic volumes are— 
Peter Brown 
: You are not challenging me? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: No I am not challenging you. I myself virtually predicted that the traffic volumes would not quite measure up and therefore that the revenue would not be there. There are some overseas agreements where the public purse then has to compensate the private partner if those traffic volumes do not come up to scratch. This bill initially tried to prevent that with clause 61(2)(j): “The public sector will not be liable to compensate any party because traffic numbers fall below forecast levels …”. That has been replaced with the rather broader and more general provision in clause 61(3B) which I think is an improvement: “A concession agreement must not include any provision that provides a disincentive for a party to pursue other sustainable transport options …”. In order to keep up traffic volumes on a road we do not want public transport authorities avoiding expanding a rail link or putting public transport into place because they might reduce the profits of the private partner that owns a public-private partnership concession road. 
With those provisions in place plus the fact that there must be an alternative route before a toll can be charged I believe we have put sufficient conditions around public-private partnerships so that where they are in the public interest they will happen and where they are not in the public interest they will not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think a number of speakers have traversed the inadequacies of this bill and have come to understand why the Prime Minister told the House today that Labour is unable to fix the problem not only of roading throughout New Zealand but more specifically the difficulties of Auckland City. I am flabbergasted to read clause 15 in Part 2 which talks about consultation. We know that up and down the country now local authorities that had their new bill passed just before Christmas last year are beginning to struggle under the weight of the consultation they are required to participate in and their ratepayers are beginning to feel the cost of that consultation process. 
Interestingly it probably will not hit them fully until the election year 2005 but I note that in order for any of the parties involved to get a roading project up and running there is an extraordinary requirement for consultation. Clause 15(1) lists that when it is preparing a land transport programme Transit must consult Transfund New Zealand the Land Transport Safety Authority every affected local authority—that would be the regional councils—and every affected approved public organisation. What sort of a list is that? What public organisation does not have an interest in transport on behalf of its members on behalf of its employees or on behalf of the group that it works in? Is there a public organisation that does not have an interest in transport? One could go to the phone book find the public organisations in a certain area that must be consulted and come up with a huge list of those I am sure. 
Clause 15(1) provides that Transit must consult the Accident Compensation Corporation the Commissioner of Police the Ministry of Health the New Zealand Historic Places Trust and the land transport users and providers. [ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps the Green member could tell the Committee who the users and providers are who have to be consulted in this particular clause because once again I would have thought that it was a matter of going to the phone book to find out who the users are. 
Clause 15 goes on to list affected communities Maori and the public. In the case of Auckland there are seven territorial local authorities plus the Auckland Regional Council plus the infrastructure-owning Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd plus the Infrastructure Auckland organisation. So Transfund New Zealand has an interest Transit has an interest and Track Co. has an interest. In this case it is easy to list seven groupings that have to consult anything up to 11 other categories of interested parties before anything moves. In the case of Auckland there are seven territorial authorities and it is inconceivable that a roading project would not go across more than two or three of those authorities. It is not hard to build a picture of a massive consultation process that will just bind everything up so much that nothing will happen. 
I know that the select committee heard from the respected Auckland engineering firm Beca Group. It said that even without this bill a roading project that might take 2 years to construct can take 5 years to gain consent. 
John Key 
: Seven. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member behind me says 7 years. A 2-year project takes 7 years to get off the ground. That firm came to the select committee and said: “Make it easier.” Well the Labour Government being the Labour Government thought that was code for “make it harder”—it must have. The brilliant Minister Mr Swain got all those cloth-cap friends of his into his office in the Beehive sat them around a table and as they sipped their water they came up with this amazing clause that makes it harder. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Earlier on in this debate there was much made of the words “efficiency” and “cost-effectiveness”. I think Jeanette Fitzsimons said she did not understand what efficiency meant in terms of this bill. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I said nobody could define it for me. 
PETER BROWN 
: Larry Baldock from United Future had a go. He tried and got four out of 10. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness should apply to every dollar the motorist puts in. If we go for road tolls as this bill does the motorist has to build toll plazas man them 24 hours a day be responsible for their administration pay back the interest on the capital borrowed and make a profit for the private component. If we talk of fuel tax there are none of those capital costs or outlays. It is relatively very easy to collect. It can all or very very largely all of it go into roading—the whole darn lot. I would like to see a measurement of what amount of a dollar collected through fuel tax could go into roading as against a dollar collected at a toll plaza. I would say it would be significant. 
Larry Baldock 
: Are you going to support a 50c increase? 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Baldock has asked me a question and I will endeavour to answer it. I would say that fuel tax wins hands down in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We are arguing therefore whether the motorist pays enough now or in lieu of paying a road toll should pay a bit more. If the Government is to collect so many millions—or so many billions as Mr Baldock obviously thinks he is going to—through road tolls from the whole of the country what would that amount to in terms of adding on to the fuel tax or taking a bit out of the 18.5c or whatever? With fuel tax we do not have to worry about alternative routes. We do not have to worry as they are worrying right now in Tauranga about putting restrictions on those alternative routes in order to compel people to use the toll road. Fuel tax or to put it better another way the motorist paying on a common user basis is a much fairer system it is a much more easily understood system and it is a much more acceptable system to the average New Zealander. 
I say to the Committee is the motorist paying enough now? Is there an economic report? Has the Minister of Transport seen the economic report that the Deputy Prime Minister indicated he was having compiled some months ago? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s a secret. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is it a secret? Or is it worse still a con trick? Is it something that the Minister told us about in this House but does not exist? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: No it was about the cost and charges study and it is due to come out at some stage. 
PETER BROWN 
: Why not bring it out before this bill is passed so that we the people who are genuinely questioning this bill can have a fuller understanding of what it is about? 
 I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain to ask his officials whether they are aware of such a report because the last time I spoke to them they were not. I find that most unusual. I tell the Minister honestly that I would not run a corner diary with that sort of philosophy. If we are straight-up in addressing roading problems in this country then we have to be straight-up. We have to divulge what we know what the problems are and what the recommendations are for fixing them. If there is a report on the economic evaluation—call it what one likes—of roading in this country in terms of the 18.5c that goes into the Crown account then we should see it before we pass this bill. I believe that the Minister has a duty. The Minister of Finance referred to this in the middle of September in answer to a supplementary question from Mr Baldock. I gather that Mr Baldock has not followed that up. He is nodding that he has not followed it up. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Bill is a hopeless piece of legislation and everyone knows it except for the Prime Minister who came to the Chamber and said: “I think it is a good piece of legislation”. We cannot expect the Labour Government to get it right. “Trafgaffe”—that is what this will be known as. She will regret the day that she took on the warrior for the National Party the future Prime Minister of New Zealand Don Brash. She will regret the day that she rolled out “Trafgaffe” and she will be eating her words for months to come. As she sees the polls slip lower and lower her fear will rise and all of a sudden she will rue the day that she did not do something to fix Auckland’s roads. Mark my words “Trafgaffe” is here to stay. [ 
Interruption 
] The senior Government whip needs to listen because this legislation will not work. 
I want to discuss a couple of specific clauses—in particular the clauses that state that we cannot toll existing highways in New Zealand. I think this is a poorly constructed piece of legislation and I will explain why. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: That’s not what you said in the select committee. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is what I said. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I argued vehemently that existing roads should be tolled. Imagine this clear example: we are on a three-lane highway in New Zealand and one lane could be tolled. Under that model we could have traffic demand management we could raise funds to put into new roading and we could take a step toward fixing Auckland’s roads. What did the Government say when adviser after adviser told it to do that? It said no it would rather deliver a hopeless piece of legislation. 
Mr Brown has said that the answer lies in fuel tax. He is right in part because a great deal of money will be required to fix New Zealand’s roads. But fuel tax is not the answer in totality because it does very little for demand management. 
Peter Brown 
: Don’t tell me the Greens have got at you. 
JOHN KEY 
: No no it does very little indeed. It cannot be specific to a single lane. It cannot be specific to some clip-ons that could be put on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. 
Brent Catchpole 
: You can’t put any more on it. 
JOHN KEY 
: Well one can actually. I do not believe that fuel tax is the single answer. I think it is part of the problem but not the complete answer. 
I also refer to why the inability to toll existing roads is so important. Auckland has had an uncompleted network of roads since 1963. That is the fact of the situation. Those pieces of road need to be put together. That has to be the priority for Auckland. I do not believe that any single individual road in Auckland will be self-sustaining from a tolling point of view. I think that if we look at building the eastern corridor for $2.9 billion or $3 billion we will not be able to toll it and pay for it in totality. But we can toll the network in Auckland which can be paid to fund not one specific road but all roads. We are talking about a large amount of money. My prediction is that we are talking about a minimum of $10 billion to fix Auckland’s roads. That will not happen without some substantial efforts to toll. 
I also make reference to clause 62(2) and the provision that requires the Minister under the concession agreement to be satisfied that the activities have a high degree of support from the affected community. When the officials came before the select committee I asked them what a high degree of community support was. They were unable to give an answer. They thought that two-thirds of a community had to agree before it was OK. Two-thirds is a ridiculous number. Seventy-one percent of all New Zealanders turn out for a general election and about 29 percent vote in local government elections. How on earth will we get two-thirds of a community to agree to sign up for a toll road? What is an “affected community”? If I have a beach house that is at the end of an area where a road could go through am I part of the affected community? Not according to the definition in the bill. 
I will also talk about the limitations of the concession agreement which was limited to 35 years. I want to give the Minister some credit because he changed it from 30 years to 35 years and that is good. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I have listened with huge interest to this debate and I will make a few comments first of all about the Green Party’s contribution. I have always believed that the Greens are a party of principle and its principle is simply that no sacrifice is too great for the people of this country to make on its behalf. It is a party prepared to die in the ditch on its principles. Jeanette Fitzsimons very nearly did according to I think the  
Independent  
just recently. Ignoring the green strip on the road that is supposedly for buses or cyclists or somebody or other the Green Party—this party of principle this party of the law—instructed a taxi to pull in outside Bowen House which held up the traffic and contributed to an outrageous situation in this very town just outside this very building. I am shocked. It is not the sort of thing that an ACT party member would do. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s resignation stuff. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It is resignation stuff. I am talking about principle: getting things right doing things right and sticking to what one believes in. I hope that Jeanette Fitzsimons will take a call and explain to the Committee why she ignored the very important paint on the road which enables cyclists and the buses to travel in safety except when the Greens are in a taxi. 
I listened with great interest to a new economic policy that I heard from some members tonight—I think United Future has one and I think Peter Brown has one as well. It is that roads should be free. One can only assume that United Future prays to God and the next morning there is a free road somewhere. I have a little surprise for them—it does not happen that way. Nothing is free. Somebody pays somewhere. If this principle about roads being free really did work why do we not apply it to electricity? Why not make electricity free? We have a shortage of electricity right now so imagine what would happen if we made electricity free. It would make the roads in Auckland on a Friday morning at 9 o’clock look absolutely ridiculous by comparison. Why do we not have free food? There is a thought for us. What would happen if food became free? I have heard these dumb concepts in the Chamber about this new economic principle. 
If we really want to look about and fix the roading problems then two things stand out in my mind. First of all you have—I say “you” Madam Chairperson but I am speaking in the “ewe” concept being an agrarian-type person—to make decisions. This might be a difficult concept for the Government to understand but we have to decide that we will fix this problem make a decision and stand or fall on the merits of that decision. 
 It is not difficult but what we have here are huge impediments to decision making. At last count clause 15 listed something like 11 organisations. There was Transfund the Commissioner of Police affected local authorities—God only knows how many of them; representatives of land transport users affected communities the Ministry of Health and approved organisations. I suppose “approved organisations” means groups like the Environmental Defence Society and Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand and those sorts of organisations. Then there are affected Maori. That is an interesting one. I see later on in the bill somewhere that there are such things as Maori roads. I wonder whether anybody could tell me exactly what a Maori road is. Is it a road that is privately owned by Maori or is it the “Road to Nowhere” up near Tame Iti’s spot? Some of the stuff that I find in this bill is quite extraordinary—absolutely amazing. 
If the Government is going to have this level of consultation then we should not be surprised to find that no decision will ever be made because there are vested interests. It will be a case of territorial authorities versus everybody else. Then we have Infrastructure Auckland which is desperately wanting to hang on to however many dollars it has. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior 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 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I put it to you that this is a very significant piece of legislation and this part has 60 clauses in it. There has never been transport legislation with as many clauses and in a short period of time the National Party has I think taken three calls. To take the closure motion as quickly as this is an outrage. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member—[ 
Interruption 
] That member can leave the Chamber because a warning has been given that during points of order there will be silence. 
Dianne Yates withdrew from the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The chairperson is the sole judge of when to accept the closure. 
A party vote was called for on the question 
that the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the point of order relevant to the vote? 
PETER BROWN 
: Earlier on—I think you were in the Chair at the time—I picked up on the chairperson going from National Party member to National Party member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no— 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me finish. My point of order is serious. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Will the member please be seated. It is not a point of order about the vote. I thought the member had a point of order— 
PETER BROWN 
: Well I am challenging the vote because New Zealand First has had only calls that I have taken. My colleagues here sought the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that is not a correct point of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by inserting after the words “The national land transport account may be used to provide funds as follows” the words “ with available non-roading funding capped at 10% of the total fund”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to the amendment to clause 61 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit new subclause (5) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 165 and substitute the following: 
(5)The term of a concession agreement is open to negotiation between the parties involved. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 53 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(e). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am challenging whether you are administering the speaking slots in proportion to the party size. I believe that New Zealand First got two calls on Part 2. I got both of them but my colleague did not get a call. I believe that other parties are getting a bigger slice of the cake so to speak than we are. I am asking you to administer the calls proportionately and I wonder whether you would confirm whether I am correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That was carried out. 
PETER BROWN 
: Can you tell me how we stacked up compared with the other parties? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the closure was given correctly in terms of the Standing Orders. The member can have a look if he wants to. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not challenge your ruling at the time but I would now like to point out that the Green Party had one call on Part 2 National had four and two other members of the House had two calls each. My colleague came down to the Chamber to seek the call and did not get one. I feel that we have been rather under-represented in the last debate as well which is why I abstained on the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As I indicated the proportionality in terms of the Standing Orders was correct. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I am seeking clarification Madam Chairperson because I think this is an important matter. Peter Brown has asked whether the number of speaking slots for each party could be indicated. You have said we cannot— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I did not say that; I said they were available to members. What I said was they were given proportionally and the member’s proportion was correct. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It would be useful perhaps if we could be told the number of speaking slots we got so that each of the parties could know. Given that the Greens have also expressed an interest it might move this along if the Clerk could give us an indication of the number of speaking slots that each party got and then we can judge for ourselves. I am unsure. I think the National Party got four slots—Gerry Brownlee got one John Key got two and Maurice Williamson got one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: To clarify the proportionality was correct in terms of the numbers in the Chamber. The National Party received four calls New Zealand First two United Future one ACT two and the Greens one. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry the matter of the closure motion cannot be debated. It is not a matter of further debate. I have ruled on the point of order. Is this is a new point of order? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. My point of order is that what you have just said is incorrect. It would be impossible for there to be proportionality when we got two calls and the others got only one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not the only factor that is taken into account. In terms of the proportionality issue that Mr Brown raised I refer members to Standing Order 103. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You said to the Committee that the speaking slots were allocated in terms of proportionality. The entire Committee heard you say that and it was not correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was correct. 
Part 3Administrative provisions relating to Transfund and Transit and miscellaneous provisions  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Right at the start of Part 3 we find the reason the Prime Minister so confidently said in the House today that Labour could not fix the problems of Auckland transport and could not put right the difficulties that New Zealand communities are faced with when it comes to their need for roading. The reason for that can be found in clause 70 “Objective of Transfund” where subclause (2) states that “Transfund must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility which includes—(a) avoiding to the extent reasonable in the circumstances adverse effects on the environment;”. That is a very broad and most definitely contestable circumstance put upon Transit when it comes to considering any project at all—adverse effects on the environment. 
Some people in this country believe that every time a key is turned in a car there is an adverse effect on the environment; that every time the wheel of a car turns full circle on a road there is an adverse effect on the environment; that every time a bit of shingle is quarried to build a road there is an adverse effect on the environment; and every time some new tarmac is laid down somewhere there is an adverse effect on the environment. 
Under subclause (2) Transfund must take into account the need for the views of affected communities to be taken into account by persons and organisations preparing land transport programmes. I spoke before about the incredible list of affected parties that clause 15 picks up. So we have not only the all-catching subclause (2) enabling every environmental enthusiast in the country to hold up a roading project anywhere but also the obligations on Transfund to go out and find the objectors and consult them. 
Subclause (2) also states that Transfund must provide for the need for persons and organisations when preparing land transport programmes to give early and full consideration to land transport options and alternatives in a way that contributes to the objectives referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b). This means effectively that if there is a big group out there that thinks bicycles are the answer then the roading is out. If there is a big group out there that thinks walking is the answer then the roading is out. If there are a lot of people in the whole phone book of organisations that must be consulted then we see a complete slowing down of these projects. 
I repeat for the Minister’s benefit that one of the most respected engineering organisations in this country Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner—the Minister nods his head because he knows—asked the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee whether it could have some way of speeding up these projects. People might have thought: “No hang on. There should be a reasonable amount of process when these projects are put together.” But Beca Carter said that under the current arrangements a road that takes perhaps 2 years to build—therefore many many kilometres long—can take 7 years in the consent process. 
 I ask the Minister to explain how clause 70 of Part 3 will in any way mitigate against the extensive resource consent process that is there now. It will not make a blind bit of difference. All it will do is ensure that the Government has a huge fund of money being collected from petrol tax—from the 4c that my constituents pay on every litre of petrol in Christchurch—accumulating for its use. We have seen in other parts of the bill the legislation allowing it to put its hands in that pot. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 This afternoon we heard the Prime Minister state that this Government could not fix the roading problems in Auckland—it could not put it right. [ 
Interruption 
] She clearly stated in question time in answer to a question from this side of the House that the Government could not put it right. The planning for the motorway system in Auckland has been in place since 1963—40 years ago. Successive Governments have failed to provide the funding and in this case it would be for Transfund to fund this roading network. Instead Governments have failed to put the planning in place for that funding. The network and the corridors are in place—they have been there for 40 years—but the funding has been done piecemeal. The Government has swapped it from one project to another and it has continued to do that and it has just done it again around Auckland because it wanted to shuffle the figures and it tried to bring in tolling. Tolling will not work. The Government has continued to tax the motorist but it has failed to put that money towards roading. All tolling will do will mean that the Government will put less of the petrol tax towards roading and will continue to siphon it off and put it elsewhere. Therefore Transfund will never have sufficient funds to fund the Auckland network. When will this Government put the 4.7c of tax that it put on in February last year into roading? It put the tax on motorists throughout the whole country to pay for the roads in Auckland. That money has never gone towards the roads in Auckland. The taxes were siphoned off elsewhere yet it was stated that it was definitely to be for the solving of Auckland’s roading problems. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Has the member been to Auckland? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I wonder whether the Minister has been to Auckland. I live in Auckland and I have to travel through Auckland on a regular basis. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: There are roads under construction and bridges being built there. Auckland has never seen so much activity. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister is bleating saying that there are bridges being put in here and everywhere. I ask the Minister why the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT) in North Auckland has not gone ahead. It has now gone back to the consultation process because this Government wants to toll it. So once again the funding that was already set aside for this piece of road has been transferred elsewhere. The Government has shown that it is not to be trusted with the taxes that it collects from petrol taxes. The Government wants to siphon it off and transfer it elsewhere and it does so. It transferred the funding from the ALPURT project because now this bill has brought in that that particular road can be tolled. All tolling will do is slow it down and put it back. When the courts were asked whether they would extend the resource consent at Orewa for this particular project they said that yes they would extend it but for only 10 months—not the 7 years that was requested to extend this motorway. They limited it to 10 months because they know that this Government cannot be trusted to put this funding towards the roading in Auckland which it had promised in the long term. It was promised to Auckland as a means of funding Auckland’s roads as an election sop. What happened? The moment the election came around the Government shifted it away from Transfund to elsewhere. This Government cannot be trusted to fund the Auckland network. It is estimated that it will take $10 billion to get Auckland back on the road. This Government has proved that it is not willing to do that. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Part 3 is the essential part that changes the statutory objectives of Transfund and Transit to broaden the focus of each entity—the administrative provisions relating to Transfund. Let us look at what this means. Clause 70(1) states: “The objective of Transfund is to allocate resources in a way that contributes to an integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system.” What is a land transport system? Land transport according to clause 5 means: “(i) transport on land by any means:” plus “(ii) the infrastructure goods and services facilitating that transport:”. Under this bill there are road-user charges of which as we have already heard only $7 of every $50 that is spent on petrol goes into the roads. The rest goes into Government taxes. Even more of this will be spent on other things. This legislation is so loosely defined. 
I ride my horse every weekend around the Rodney electorate and I could argue that under this legislation this Government should hand out road-user charges to me for my horse—and not just for the horse but for the blacksmith as well because it provides money to infrastructure goods and services facilitating that transport. Why on earth should the people who use the roads have that money sucked off and put into the fact that I ride a horse? I choose to ride a horse because I think it is environmentally sound. I do not see many Greens out there around that electorate riding horses. Does that member see them? [ 
Interruption 
] I do not see them riding bicycles for that matter. But under this legislation the Government could put money into the blacksmith the stables and the vet and take from me all the responsibility for paying for my own form of transport that I choose to use in the weekends. It could take all the responsibility for that from me and load it on to the poor old motorist who gets whacked every time. 
Do members know why this legislation is anti-car? Because that is what it is; it is anti-car. Why is it anti-car? It is because cars represent freedom. Cars represent freedom of choice for people who choose to get around— 
Opposition Members 
: Oh! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: “Oh!” those members say laughing away. What does that Government know about mothers who have to get across Auckland and pick up children from four different places? This party knows about bringing up children. This party knows about having children. The three women ACT members have 11 children between them. What does that Prime Minister know about bringing up children? What does that Prime Minister know about picking up one’s kids from soccer and music picking up someone else’s kids from school and running all around town? That is what using a car means. That is what freedom of choice means. 
This Government would not have a clue what it is like for an average family to get around Auckland—or Tauranga for that matter—or any other city where there are problems with the roads. It is not just in the cities but out in the rural areas too where the roads are in an appalling state. This legislation because of the changes to the provisions for Transfund and Transit will do nothing. In fact it will do even less for the roads. Under this legislation especially Part 3 that money can be used for anything—any land transport; any means of transport on the road. This is an absolute disgrace for New Zealanders for New Zealand working families who are having even more choice taken off them. 
 I have no problem with people using public transport but it is always the same—whenever one goes to a public meeting people say: “We need more public transport. We need more money for public transport.” but when one says at the end of that meeting: “Who came to this meeting using public transport?” they all shake their heads; not a single person. Well public transport will not be there if they do not use it. If people do not use it they lose it. The reason people do not use public transport in New Zealand is that we are wedded to the car because it affords us much greater mobility. We are a nation of people who actually like freedom of choice. We do not like central planning or central control which this legislation brings back in terms of shifting the focus of Transfund and Transit which were operating very well. It was not so much the lack of funding that stopped roads getting built; it was the Resource Management Act. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Part 3 introduces the radical idea that Transfund and Transit should exercise their functions with a reasonable degree of social and environmental responsibility. There is a change! 
We have already heard from Lockwood Smith tonight that he is totally opposed to social and environmental responsibility. He said that he just wants roads so therefore he does not want responsible roads; he wants irresponsible roads. It seems to be that what the National Party is mainly arguing tonight is let us have irresponsible roads. Lockwood Smith and the National Party should eat their hearts out! We are to have roads built with a reasonable degree of social and environmental responsibility. The clause that provides for that is clause 70 which sets out the objectives of Transfund. In meeting its very reasonable objective of allocating funds to contribute to an integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system Transfund has to avoid to the extent reasonable in the circumstances adverse effects on the environment. 
Members may not know that the biggest single cause of water pollution of local streams in rural areas is rural roadworks. It is greater than agricultural run-off even. The silt running from rural roadworks through carelessness where proper silt traps and bunding around the works are not put in creates more problems for the life in those streams than any other rural activity. All this legislation is saying is that when Transit is building a road it needs to take a reasonable amount of care to protect the environment. It means that when roads are planned through fragile ecosystems like wetlands Transit must not just barge through without any thought as to how the ecosystem will be disrupted or where the water drainage will go. It means that the old cut and fill approach to putting roads through fragile landscapes sometimes needs where it is reasonable and affordable to be replaced by a certain amount of bridging and tunnelling which is what every other civilised country that has some care for its environment would do. I am proud of the fact that this legislation moves us forward to a time where we meet our economic needs with a certain amount of responsibility towards our social and environmental needs as well. 
Clause 70 also requires that Transfund takes into the account the views of people who are affected and there seems to be a lot of opposition in the Committee to that as well. There seems to be huge opposition to the idea that anyone should be consulted that people should have a chance to express a view and that options should be considered at an early stage when it is still possible to choose the best one. Surely we are past the old Industrial Revolution stage where we simply bulldoze something we call progress through anything that is in the way without taking any account of people or the environment on the way through. I cannot believe that New Zealand wants to be stuck back in the Dark Ages and I am proud that we now have legislation that provides for proper consultation of the people whose lives will be affected by the road and proper environmental responsibility. 
I want to ask those people who think that consultation will delay things whether they have ever thought how long it takes to build a road when people do not consult. How long does it take to go through appeal after appeal when everybody is up in arms at the project because they never had a say? What about all the cases we never hear about where people get it right in the first place where people are consulted and where the problems are ironed out at the beginning when there are still options and that simply go through without opposition? It is faster in the end to do it right at the start than to keep on trying to deal with public opposition once it gets up a head of steam. That is why we have consultation principles in this bill that provide for the consultation to be early rather than right at the end which is what Resource Management Act consultation does. They also provide for options to be properly considered and provide for the appropriate bodies that have advice to give for example health organisations and the people who are affected such as the communities through which roads are built to be consulted. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to cover this part that relates to the administrative provisions for Transfund and Transit. Firstly I want to claim credit in this Committee for being the Minister who created the beasts Transfund and Transit and separated them. When I became the Minister of Transport there was what I think was a grubby conflict of interest within Transit. Because it was both the funder and the provider of roads there were some quite perverse incentives for it to fund its own little operation at the expense of others. 
However I say to the Minister how disappointed I am that this legislation has not moved us forward and given Transfund a whole tool-box full of the funding tools that are so desperately needed and that are just taken for granted elsewhere. I was staggered to hear Peter Brown the New Zealand First member say how opposed to tolls he was. I ask that member to just reflect. Can he tell me a civilised Western World jurisdiction that we would like to be comparable with that does not have toll roads? That is the question. Some of the most left-leaning Governments in Europe have toll roads. Schroeder has toll roads in Germany and he is from the left. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Denmark. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes that is right. I know that right-wing countries like say the United States—which we obviously like to compare ourselves with in some way—has toll roads and Canada has toll roads. Tony Blair that Labour Prime Minister in Britain—I was going to say ever-popular but that is not quite the case any more—has toll roads. 
John Key 
: China. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: My colleague John Key interjects with the best interjection of all. The People’s Republic of China—the communists the reds under the bed—probably has more toll roads as a percentage of its network than anywhere else. I ask Mr Brown how he thinks the old blunt instrument of the flat petrol tax can continue when things like demand management will be an essential part of any formula in the future. How would he try to stem peak demand at peak times? 
I say to the Minister that I hope he looked at an example that I looked at in California—in fact it was present in more states than just California; it was also in some of the other west coast states—where some of the trucking companies were being allowed to have global positioning systems on their trucks and to pay time of day day of week and location rates. That would mean that if the trucking companies stayed away from the “Spaghetti Junction” that we have in Auckland during the peak time they would get a discount and if they did their goods delivery at 3 a.m. in Penrose rather than at 3 p.m. they would get a discount. I think the flat universal hubodometer-type charging that we have for the big trucks is a nonsense. 
When I first saw this bill come to Parliament I thought that it was weak and now that the Greens have nobbled it further it is even weaker. It is actually puerile. If the Minister wanted to get the roading system working he should have taken up the offer that the National Party made that we would make up the numbers needed to provide the Government with the tool-box that Mayor Banks the employers and manufacturers and so many other sectors have said is desperately needed. I see that Simon Carlaw quotes from Business New Zealand. There is a whole range of others also saying that. It is just not possible to go into the future using some sort of a communist socialist flat-earth thinking whereby we will all pay the same no matter what. I think one of the most bizarre proxies for our road use and charging—and it has not been addressed in this part—is rates. What on earth does the value of one’s property have to do with what one should pay for the roads? 
I would have loved to see something in this bill that moved us out of that flat-earth thinking moved us out of rates and moved us out of the petrol tax to some extent—although I understand that petrol tax will always be a reasonably flat proxy—and put in place some proper systems whereby Transfund could start some electronic road pricing. Maybe it would not be for ordinary cars to start with; I do not think most New Zealanders are quite ready for their car to have electronic road pricing. Yet they only have to flick over to Melbourne or to New South Wales and they think it is great there. So it is not that far away. We are not talking of nations that are so bizarre. Electronic road pricing is just across the pond and it will come to New Zealand. But what about electronic road pricing for our commercial vehicles? There is none of that in this part. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome following the member because if he had listened to me carefully he might have understood a little more of what I said. New Zealand First never ever said that we are totally opposed to toll roads—never ever. I did not say that. What I said—I will make this quite clear and I think the Minister will understand it—was that we are against the framework of generic toll roading that this bill provides for. We would be supportive of the individual toll road but we are not prepared to give a blanket across-the-country support for toll roads that just leaves the Minister or some such person to sign off on them. I tried to point out and I went to some pains to do so that there is better use of a dollar when it goes through the petrol tax system. The member just acknowledged that there is a use for that. 
We are saying that if we provide a framework for generic toll roading then motorists will get taken to the cleaners time and time again and they are sick of that. The average motorist is sick of being used as a cash cow. So just to recap for the benefit of anybody who is in doubt we would not necessarily oppose a toll road in a specific area for a specific reason but we are not prepared to support a bill that gives toll roading carte blanche here there and everywhere. Nor are we prepared to support a bill that has been amended to give the Minister the right to toll a road that is already in existence which we know is targeted at the harbour bridge project in Tauranga. We know the Government has United Future under the thumb. The United Future members will put their little hands up and say yes they will go along with that. We know that clause 53(2) although not in this part has been specially inserted in order to accomplish that project by means of tolling. I tell the Minister that if he pursues that then there will be quite some outbursts in Tauranga. The people there do not want a toll to be put back on the harbour bridge. There is no reason— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Yes they do! 
PETER BROWN 
: That member is so out of touch he does not know what the price of petrol is. He just gets in his Crown car and drives around the country at the taxpayers’ expense and he gleefully enjoys it. For a young man who does not know what he is doing he is doing very well at the taxpayers’ expense. 
Brent Catchpole 
: He certainly won’t be walking home tonight. 
PETER BROWN 
: No he will not be walking home tonight. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What is that member’s salary—unearned? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member over there on the Government side of the Chamber is very confused. I would invite Mr Benson-Pope to stand up take a call—he has plenty to say in terms of interjections—and let us hear what he actually feels about this bill. Generic toll roading is not required in this country; it is neither required nor is it desirable. I think the Labour Party will find to its detriment that New Zealanders do not agree with it. 
We believe that in the first instance and I want to make this quite clear there should be fairer use of the 18.5c tax that goes into the Crown account. The Minister shakes his head— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Why didn’t you change it when you were in Government? 
PETER BROWN 
: We did. I welcome the opportunity to say we did exactly that. We took money from the Crown account and put it into roading—and the 2.1c was going to carry on. Is that right? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: It would have been more. 
PETER BROWN 
: It would have continued and by now the Crown’s portion would have been reduced significantly. 
But I want to know from the Minister where the economic report is. I do not want to stand up here harping on about the evils of that 18.5c being used in the Crown account if in fact that can be justified. On the information available to me I do not believe there is justification for that money to go into the Crown account but when the Minister of Finance says that he has compiled an economic report I want to see it. I will be asking the Minister about that report time and time again. I will not be like a United Future person who rolls over because the Government smiles nicely or does whatever it takes for the United Future members to do that. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support Part 3 which provides objectives and functions for Transfund and Transit. The objective for instance that Transfund allocate resources to achieve an integrated and a safe responsive and sustainable land transport system is very laudable. Clause 70(2) outlines some of the aspects of creating such a system which dovetails into the objectives in the land transport strategy. For instance in that clause Transit and Transfund have to minimise any adverse effects on the environment. 
I want to give as an example the eastern highway in Auckland because I think that if one applied the objectives set out in that clause and dovetailed them into the objectives in the land transport strategy one could not go ahead with that eastern highway. Clause 70(2)(c) states that there has to be a full consideration of land transport options before any project is entered into. If one fully considers what should be done about that corridor from the east of Auckland in through Remuera and into the city then one would not go for an eastern highway. Instead one would go for upgrading the railway because that option would reduce the impact on the environment and provide many other benefits. 
For example one of the objectives in the land transport strategy is assisting economic development. We know that to push a highway into central Auckland will just clog up central Auckland by putting more cars into that area. It will encourage more people out in Howick Panmure and places like that to hop into their cars to come into town. It will have a worsening effect on Auckland’s economy and cause more gridlock. Also encouraging more people to get into their cars and use petrol will subtract from the resources available for the Auckland economy because there is a huge burden on the Auckland economy from the overuse of cars and the petrol costs and maintenance costs involved. Adding an extra highway will actually make that burden worse for the Auckland economy whereas a railway would allow people to go from the eastern area much more smoothly and efficiently in economic terms. 
Another objective in the land transport strategy is assisting personal security and safety. We know that building another motorway—the eastern highway—will only put more cars on the road with more accidents. Travelling by rail is clearly much safer than travelling by road so a railway would fit that objective if Transfund were to consider the range of land transport options for that particular corridor. 
The third objective in the land transport strategy is to take into account access and mobility. There are a lot of elderly people children and beneficiaries who either cannot drive cars or do not have the money to run a car long distances. Under this legislation they would be better served by a railway that went through that eastern corridor rather than by a motorway. 
The fourth objective is to protect and promote public health. It is much healthier to have more trains running. Particularly if the rail system was electrified it would not put the same degree of fumes into the air as motor vehicles do. Fumes from transport are killing 300 or 400 people in Auckland each year and are reducing the health status of us all. Also it is much less stressful for a person to hop on a train in Panmure and go in by rail than to hop into a motorcar with the stress of going along a clogged roadway—either the highway itself or once one gets to Auckland if the new highway is built along streets with traffic jams everywhere. 
The fifth objective in the land transport strategy is to ensure environmental sustainability. If one looks at that eastern highway one sees it will have a number of detrimental effects in that respect. One of those is in terms of the green space that such a highway will destroy. If one looks at any of the options that have been proposed for the eastern highway one sees they all go through parks and green space and have a detrimental effect on the environment. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to address this part of the bill and particularly a couple of my amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 153 to clauses 70(1) and 79(1) in which I want to see the word “efficient” inserted into the objectives. I believe it would be best if clause 70(1) read: “The objective of Transfund is to allocate its resources in a way that contributes to an integrated safe responsive efficient and sustainable land transport system.” That is the kind of system that I believe New Zealanders want and it is the one this Government ought to be committed to delivering. 
We have had a great deal of discussion this evening about “efficient” and what it would mean. Members have talked about us wanting to get our money’s worth from the system whether it is put in by way of road-user charges petrol excise or tolls. However we may contribute not only do we want that the money be spent efficiently but also we want to get a good outcome from our expense. I believe that the outcome New Zealanders want is greater mobility—as I said earlier “efficient mobility” but we will take out the word “efficient”. We want to be able to get around without being stuck in traffic. If we choose to travel by train as the speaker before me said—riding on public transport and getting there quickly and cheaply—that is a choice New Zealanders have but most want to be able to travel in their automobile. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh no! Who told you that? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is a stunning comment I know but it is true. Most of us want to move around in our automobile because we consider it to be the most efficient way to get around this country given that we do not have huge populations that will sustain the kind of train network we see in other countries particularly in Europe. 
The member who spoke somewhat earlier is still committed to the fact that all the money for Transfund and Transit should come by means of a fuel excise tax. He considers that to be an efficient way of collecting the money and he completely rejects the user-pays principle. I am astounded by that. I still do not understand how he considers that this bill will provide for what he calls generic tolling—that somehow tolling schemes will spring up all over the country—when most people have commented on how difficult it will be to get a tolling scheme under way. There is a huge contradiction in that. 
The whole point of the bill is about giving communities choice about the way they meet their roading needs and I support that principle. I particularly support it for Tauranga where people will be able choose the way they solve their roading network. I have some sad news for the member who spoke earlier: his party leader may well be finished as the member for Tauranga. Although right now he is running around telling Tauranga people that tolling is a terrible rip-off he will have to turn round to explain to his supporters in retirement villages around Tauranga—people who do not even go across the bridge more than once a week—that they will have to pay another 30c per litre on their fuel. They have plenty of time to be able to avoid the bridge and go by the alternative route that will be provided. He might find that some of the support base he has relied on for a long long time may begin to dwindle away. I think he should wake up and realise as also should the other member of his party who lives in Tauranga that in meeting the problems of the city there needs to be many different tools in the tool bag. Not all of them are delivered in this bill as we said earlier but they are coming. They will be delivered so that communities can choose which particular tool to pick up to meet their needs. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: Far short of Route K’s expected numbers. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: It is doing just fine. Once the bridge is built Route K will be a marvellous way of getting across the city and to the other side of the harbour. 
Clause 79 discusses Transit and its objectives. Again I believe that the word “efficient” should be inserted in subclause (1) so that it reads: “integrated safe responsive sustainable and efficient land transport system.” I fully support that Transit should be the lead builder of highways in New Zealand. I believe that Transit does an excellent job. Also I believe that the requirement now for Transit to give a 10-year programme for its new State highways is an excellent move forward. It will mean that people have more certainty. However it is becoming painfully obvious to everybody that the funds that will be available to Transit to build the land transport system will be limited. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Some months ago  
Trans-Tasman 
 wrote a review of the Land Transport Management Bill and in the column on the right under “Comments” it wrote: “Could be the pinnacle of this Minister’s career.” It must be a very low mountain. 
I feel sorry for that Minister because sometimes life is not fair. He has been delivered the ultimate pup by the Greens. I say that because Keith Locke got up and waxed lyrical about trains in Auckland. Let me avail Mr Locke of the facts. There were 925 million trips taken in Auckland last year—875 million in cars 48 million on buses and 2 million on trains. Every time someone got on a train the New Zealand taxpayer gave that passenger a $10 subsidy. It would have been quicker to give him or her a taxi chit. 
Hon Member 
: What! 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right $10—a $20 million subsidy. Boston Consulting Group wrote a report which Mr Locke obviously has not read. It said that if $1.5 billion was spent on all the things to fix the rail network in Auckland including electrification double tracking of the western line signature stations and so on we would do really well—we would really knock it out of the park. Those 2.5 million trips taken on a train will increase maybe to 15 million or at very best 25 million. If the number goes to 25 million the operating subsidy required for those trips will be $4 per trip—$100 million. So if Mr Locke thinks that spending $1.5 billion and then paying an operating subsidy of $100 million is a great way to get 25 million people around Auckland when at the same time car trips will be up at 1.1 billion then all I can say is: “Goodness help New Zealand if Keith Locke is ever in the finance portfolio in bed with the Labour Party.” because it will not work. I feel sorry for this Minister of Transport because he has been delivered a pup. 
I want to refer to one other thing. The Minister has gone around the country and said: “We’ll be able to borrow and that will fix some of the roads.” He is absolutely right. The borrowing level in Auckland in my opinion is somewhere in the order of $5 billion to $6 billion. That is the amount that will be required. That is the kind of borrowing involved. That is not new. Transit has had the ability to borrow with the Minister of Finance’s approval for decades. That is not new. If that is the best the Land Transport Management Bill can deliver then it is a hopeless piece of legislation as well. 
 I want to refer in part to Transfund and to some additions that were made such as the construction of the Transfund board because I thought in part that those looked pretty good. The old board could have on it no more than five people. The select committee wisely said that the number of people on the board could go from six to eight. I initially thought that that was pretty good but the last Transfund board was dominated by none other than Mike Williams President of the Labour Party. When he got control of the funding schedule lo and behold a whole lot of projects that were ranked 94th 87th and 42nd and happened to be in Labour Party electorates were rammed up the list. 
I ask members what happened to Auckland’s projects. Miraculously they were dropped off the list. So on the one hand I look at the provision and say that if Mike Williams had a lesser voice on Transfund’s board it would be a good thing for Transfund. On the other hand I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance will appoint another two or three Labour Party lackeys to push through its socialist agenda and pork-barrel politics that seem to be dominating Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. What a sad day it is. 
I want to refer to one other point which is last year’s performance by Transfund. Last year’s performance showed that at the end of the year Transfund had failed to spend $155 million. That is right—it had $155 million left over despite the fact that the Auckland Chamber of Commerce could point to a couple of billion dollars-worth of projects that were ready to go. Why was that? The reason was that it had approval for projects it did not have funding for. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 3 which spells out the administrative provisions of Transfund New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I seek some clarification about this part of the bill from the Minister because following on from the contribution made by John Key the previous speaker one has to realise that more and more New Zealanders are now saying that the boards of Transfund and Transit are stacked with Labour Party cronies and that the decisions that are made are no longer about the good of New Zealand but about what will help buy Labour votes in Labour Party seats. 
I see no other example that highlights that as much as what happened with the completion of the northern motorway. It was always known to be a No. 1 priority as soon as the consents were through in the Environment Court. But what happened under this Government? The project got dumped right to the bottom and the money was put into other areas. The real reason is that basically the whole of the north is held by the National Party. Those seats are all National Party seats so Labour does not care a stuff about that project. All the money has now gone into Labour Party electorates. 
I ask the Minister to take a call and explain how he reconciles clause 71—which talks about the statutory independent functions of Transfund New Zealand—with clause 74 which says that the board will be appointed by the Minister. The problem is that the National Government when it had to appoint members to the board had a focus on growth and productivity and on trying to lift the prosperity of this country. Labour has one focus and one focus only—that is winning power by buying votes. 
I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us how he can explain that to New Zealanders who at the present time are very worried about the Labour cronies on those boards. The people are getting sick of the Labour Party trying to buy votes. I can say that a lot of us as members of Parliament yesterday visited mayoral forums around the country and heard that local authorities are sick to the teeth of the hundreds of millions of dollars they are paying in compliance costs and consultations imposed on them by the Labour Government. It is all money that has to come out of their ratepayer-funding base following the passing of the Local Government Bill the Responsible Gambling Bill and the Prostitution Reform Bill. Local authorities are terrified of the Land Transport Management Bill and what it will cost them. 
Progress reported.