Court Simon; Parker David; Salesa JennySIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Look it's wonderful to have a new Minister in the chair a new Minister of Transport with an almost unblemished record when it comes to transport. But Minister perhaps you'd like to enlighten the House and those at home watching or listening or maybe those who might click on Parliament TV at some point in the future to understand how we got to this point. Minister how is it that when consulting on apparent improvements to the delivery of public transport services in New Zealand—those services which help you know workers get to work students get to school and uni and so on how is it that even though the current model requires a competitive and efficient procurement of public transport services so that ratepayers and the taxpayer through the National Land Transport Fund get value for money and so that public transport users get an efficient service—I mean we wouldn't want buses just running around the place empty all day would we? I mean no one's ever seen that or with one forlorn person sitting in the back of a $100000 or $200000 vehicle on some rarely trafficked urban route. What we would want to see is efficient public transport.So Minister perhaps given that you're a relatively new Minister to the role the previous Minister wore a number of different hats and I'm wondering if maybe you could explain how in clause 14 of this Land Transport Management (Regulation of Public Transport) Amendment Bill and the Supplementary Order Paper which has made some changes to what we saw at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—how is it in clause 14(1)A) that this amendment proposes to delete having regard to the desirability of encouraging a competitive and efficient market for public transport services" and to replace it with "the views of the territorial authorities in the region". For those laypeople listening at home that means councils. So delete "encouraging a competitive and efficient market for public transport"; add in "the views of territorial authorities in the region". Minister forgive me but I assumed that territorial authorities were actually procuring the public transport services so we would assume their views are taken for granted. I mean if you're procuring something like a bus service from the private sector you would assume that you've taken your own views into account when writing the request for tender or the scope of services. But maybe you can't assume anything in 2023 after six years of a Labour-led Government. Isn't that right Simeon Brown? Can't assume anything.Then "After section 124(c)(v) insert: (vi) the views of the public transport workforce and its representative unions". Now imagine trying to deliver public transport services for people trying to get to school or uni or get to work across the city—or as some of my friends and family do catch a bus on the Northern Express busway from the northern suburbs of Auckland into the city—and it turned out that instead of an efficient and competitive public transport service what's going to happen is after this bill's passed somebody's going to go and ask the union whether they would like to keep working as bus drivers and whether they think the route is the right route because when adopting a regional public transport plan it's the unions that are going to have the final say as to what the bus services and routes look like. Not the customer; not the ratepayer who's paying a significant proportion of the operating cost; not the taxpayer who's paying an also significant proportion of the cost through the National Land Transport Fund subsidies; not the customer—the union.Minister thinking back to a time when there was a former transport Minister who was also the Minister of workplace relations and pushed through the Fair Pay Agreements Act and often talked about himself being a champion of the wakas—perhaps Minister this is a mistake. This is a legacy. Maybe this should go on the bonfire of policies that the current temporary Prime Minister Chris Hipkins may have wished to put on the bonfire but missed. Minister would you care to explain how on earth the views of the unions take precedence even over public transport suppliers those private sector operators who supply the quarter-million-dollar buses or the customers? How on earth do unions have precedence Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): The member's wrong if he asserts that the public transport workforce has the final say on these matters. It is one of the matters that's taken into account. Why is that sensible? The member may have recalled some industrial disputes which was one of the underlying reasons why it was very difficult to recruit bus drivers because routes were being run in a way that they couldn't go to the toilet or have morning tea during their shifts because the way in which the schedules were being run didn't even allow them to go to the toilet periodically. So I have no problem with those viewpoints being taken into account.In terms of the higher standard that is accorded to principles which are high-level principles that sit over those taken into account in matters later in the Act those higher-level principles include at amended section 115 inserted by clause 9 as I already mentioned to Simeon Brown that "public transport services should be provided in a way that assists—(i) public transport investment to be efficient; and (ii) public transport investment to give value for money."CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the member again I would warn him to be respectful. One of the things he said earlier on was that the Prime Minister is a temporary Prime Minister. He's not—he is the Prime Minister. You will be respectful."