Jones Dail: Public Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Public Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18244. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 My ears were smarting and I was almost embarrassed as the deputy leader of the National Party started his speech. Did I hear correctly that he was saying “Thank you New Zealand First.”? 
Pansy Wong 
: Yes. 
DAIL JONES 
: I appreciate those comments and I hope all the people who— 
Rodney Hide 
: Tell us about the money! 
DAIL JONES 
: I ask Mr Hide to tell us about all his secret trusts and to open his books. New Zealand First is the most open political party in New Zealand. We would never get Mr Hide to make a true statement outside this House. He hides in this House. He is very well named—“Hide”—he is a hider.  
As far as the Public Transport Management Bill is concerned New Zealand First has a consistent attitude of supporting land transport management. We supported it in 2004 and we supported it a few weeks ago. Of course the National Party has a consistent attitude of opposing land transport management. It opposed it in 2004 and it opposed it a little while ago. Let us bear that in mind. The speech we heard from the deputy leader of the National Party although I appreciate his compliment to New Zealand First is consistent with his party’s failure to support a proper land transport or public transport management system.  
New Zealand First went to a considerable amount of trouble with regard to this legislation. Peter Brown who is busy at the moment on other public business was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I met with Peter Brown and other interested people and another member of our team also met with Peter Brown and interested people and we have taken a close interest in this legislation. What appears to have been the case is that we had the original option A then we had in fact two option Bs—what I have been calling option B1 which was a compromise situation that was agreed and then option B2 which was a variation of the compromise. 
Now I always take the view that if people sat down and had a meeting and everyone has agreed they should stick to that agreement. They should not later on try to use the power and weight from a certain section to bully another party. Some people are just bullies inside this House and they are puppy dogs outside. We take the view that when people have a meeting and have come to an arrangement they should stick with that. If they are going to change the arrangement they should have another good meeting and go through the exercise once more; they should not go around the corner and use a cudgel to try to browbeat someone.  
We ended up with option B2 which was set away from the compromise and then we had this option C. I read the explanatory note of the bill during the first reading—I do not have it here—and it totally condemned option C. In the explanatory note the people who brought this bill to Parliament were highly condemnatory of option C. I cannot see how they could stand up in Parliament to support option C when they had totally condemned option C when they introduced the bill. New Zealand First will not be supporting option C in any shape or form. If any amendments are brought in the Committee I say we will not be supporting a bill that has option C in it. Let us make that absolutely clear.  
Many changes have been made to the bill. As an Auckland member of Parliament I say that once again sadly this is virtually an Auckland-type of bill. There are no problems as I understand it around the rest of the country but once again we are stuck with trying to sort out something in Auckland. Auckland of course has a particular geographical nature. It is an isthmus very widely spread out and it is uneconomic to run a proper transport system on a population of just about 1.3 million. As far as that is concerned it is very difficult. Again we are on an area of volcanic rock and that makes it very hard to go underground. I am not an engineer but I know that Auckland has peculiar topographical difficulties.  
To make it clear New Zealand First recognises that in the majority of regions public transport operates under a fully regulated model and it can be said that it often operates very well. There are other areas where it operates under a less regulated regime but it can also be said to operate well.  
In Auckland there are problems particularly around integrating ticketing and bundling of services to some extent. I am familiar with the integrated ticketing system. I was speaking with someone on the plane the other day and asked him where he was going and how he travelled to work and such like. He used the busway on the North Shore and then he caught another bus or train to go to Mount Eden and he used the same ticket. I regard that as integrated ticketing. I understand integrated ticketing already exists in a form in Auckland. I also understand that we do not need to change the law even in Auckland to have integrated ticketing if we want it.  
It seems to be the case in Wellington—and I have just heard for the first time that there is integrated ticketing there. I have seen the Snapper card and I was very interested in it. In England there is another fish—there is the Oyster card. When my daughter greets us at Heathrow she gives my wife and me an Oyster card each. We get off the plane and we get on to the train and we use the bus. We use whatever we like; the system is totally integrated. That is a wonderful way of doing things and I am wholeheartedly in favour of an integrated system whether it is called a Snapper card or an Oyster card or whatever fishy name it is given. 
Rodney Hide 
: Talking about fish how about scampi? 
DAIL JONES 
: I do not eat fish so I have no idea what people talk about when they go on to fishy things. I am saving the fish population of the world; that is my contribution to the environment. I do not eat fish and stocks will not run out in 2047 because of me.  
There are some who believe option C is a solution to Auckland’s public transport woes. New Zealand First disagrees and will oppose any Supplementary Order Paper that attempts to introduce option C. Let us explain why. In essence we believe Auckland needs an administrative structure that encourages investment innovation and efficiency. At the same time it should hold transport operators to account to ensure that services provided are reliable convenient comfortable and affordable. To achieve these attributes it is essential there is regular consultation between regional administrators and the transport operators. We believe that the bill as returned from the select committee achieves that balance so we will support it at the second reading.  
A comment was made about buses and the regulations surrounding the administration of the system and when I first saw this bill I was very concerned about clause 10 and clause 12 which seem to have a considerable regulatory impact on what could be done including even painting the buses in a particular colour. The question was raised by a Labour member as to who is paying for it. The Labour member seems to have forgotten that the buses are paid for by the private operators who own the buses. If someone owns the bus surely that person has the right as to how the bus should be painted. That person wants in many respects to distinguish his or her company from a competitor’s so will paint the bus however they choose. Stagecoach as opposed to Ritchie’s Transport Holdings in Auckland might want to paint a bus in a particular colour and others might have their own style. They can say to the public: “We—X company—run our company and our business better than you and in commercial areas you should be using our operation because we are good and we are willing to say that we are good and we want our bus painted our way.” 
In respect of that aspect of insisting that buses be painted in a particular way although we can understand it all we really need from the point of view of someone like me who uses a bus now and then is a sign that tells us where the thing is going. We can stand at a bus stop see the sign know where the bus is going and hop on that bus. None of us is that deficient that we cannot work out where a bus is going. We should not insist a bus be painted in a particular colour when we do not even own the bus. When bus owners want to put on say a hundred new buses at a cost of God knows what a bus costs—about $400000—surely they should have the right to paint their own buses in the way they want to.  
I note that some work was done by the Regulations Review Committee. I could see very well having been a member of that select committee in the last session—and having been in Parliament when that concept was first established many many years ago—why we would be concerned about clauses 10 and 12. I must say that I congratulate the select committee on the work it did. Many amendments have been made to this bill. Clauses 10 and 12 have been changed in some respects quite drastically and dramatically and I am very pleased with the efforts made by Peter Brown to try with the select committee to produce a bill that goes some way down the middle.  
New Zealand First wants to make sure that all New Zealand has a good public transport system. We appreciate that the solution in this legislation is mainly directed at Auckland because once again Auckland is the problem. We believe that this legislation as it stands is a workable solution to the problems that exist at the present time and we will be supporting this bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.