Lees-Galloway Iain: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9756. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Labour opposes this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill because it sets in permanent bitumen the National Government’s fossilised approach to transport infrastructure and its determination to waste taxpayers’ money on monster motorways that serve no real purpose other than to be a monument to this Government’s profligate spending on outmoded transport infrastructure that harks back to the 1950s era of sprawl and motorways. The central way in which this bill achieves that is by changing the purpose of the current Act. The current Act says that its purpose is “to contribute to the aim of achieving an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system.” What could possibly be wrong with that purpose and that aim for our land transport? But this is what the Government wants to do away with.Let us have a look at the reasons why. Well the question of affordability comes up first. Is our land transport system affordable and are the Government’s plans affordable? Well clearly they are not. That is why this Government is having to raise fuel excise taxes by 9c a litre increasing the cost of living for hard-working New Zealanders right at the time when they can least afford to face new costs. This Government is not prepared to bring down the cost of electricity and it is prepared to increase the cost of fuel so that it can pay for its unaffordable monster motorways—its roads of national significance.Is the land transport infrastructure integrated? Integrated of course means making sure that different modes of transport can work well together. Well again this Government does not believe in different modes of transport; it believes there is only one way to move people and freight around New Zealand and that is with cars and trucks. It does not believe in rail and it does not believe in coastal shipping so of courseit does not want the purpose of this Act to be that land transport should be integrated because it simply does not believe in that.Does it want to be safe? Well the Government has already withdrawn funding from local councils for their safety promotion programmes so it is making it harder for councils to make their roads and their pedestrians and cycleways safer. But in fact the Government has also indicated that it is prepared to sacrifice the lives of people travelling on local roads the lives of cyclists and the lives of motorcyclists so that it can pay for its roads of national significance. So of course this Government does not want to have safety included in the purpose of this Act.Is it responsive? Well it certainly will not be responsive to New Zealand’s needs. It will be responsive to this Government’s fixation with roads but nothing else. And is it sustainable? Well we know that the least sustainable form of transport is the car especially the car carrying a single occupant.So this Government has no commitment to a sustainable land transport system. That is why the National Government is gutting the Land Transport Management Act by doing away with all of that and simply narrowing it down to “effective efficient and safe.” Well I do not believe the safe bit because the Government has not demonstrated its commitment to safety and “effective and efficient” basically just means “Does it implement National’s fixation on roads?”. That is all this bill is about and that is all the Act will be able to achieve once this bill is passed.The other thing that this bill does is it removes the ability for local councils to implement a regional fuel tax if they choose—if they choose. The current Act does not commit anybody to a regional fuel tax but what this does is take away that option. We know that the Government’s programme is unaffordable and that is why it has had to increase fuel taxes to pay for its monster motorways. It says that that is what it is all about—it is about paying for the roads of national significance.Even if we believe that it is about building roads—and most people do not; most people think that the increase to the fuel excise tax has a lot more to do with helping this Government reach its surplus because it has failed to actually get the economy moving so it had got to reach its surplus somehow else and that is by increasing taxes on ordinary New Zealanders. But even if we believe that it is about building roads we know that actually only CPI increases are required for the Government to meet its roading programme. If the Government would just take a sustainable approach to transport infrastructure if it would not stick to its politically motivated programme that ensures that a group of projects is started before the next election and another group of projects is started before the election after that if it would abandon that political motivation and focus on a sustainable approach to land transport then those excessive increases to fuel taxes would not have been required and New Zealanders would have just a little bit more left in their back pocket.But we know that sense and planning have nothing to do with this Government’s approach to land transport infrastructure. It is all about ideological madness. The next example of the ideological madness is using a public-private partnership to build Transmission Gully. This bill allows for greater use of borrowing to build the Government’s unaffordable transport infrastructure. It cannot afford to pay for it even with its excessive tax increases so it needs to open up the opportunity for borrowing. Well a public-private partnership is the worst possible form of borrowing that it could undertake. There is no evidence that a public-private partnership is more efficient or more effective than simply using the public sector model.In fact this Government was not prepared to release the public sector comparator for Transmission Gully. It is not prepared to tell the public how much it thinks it would cost to build Transmission Gully under the traditional model. I think the reason for that isthat it knows that the public-private partnership will not stack up against the traditional model. The Government has not been able to demonstrate that it will cost less to build it by a public-private partnership. It relies solely on intangible supposed benefits and simply relies on the theory that the private sector can do it better. The evidence says that that is just wrong. If you look around the world all you have to do is look across the Tasman at Australia. We know that public-private partnerships for roading infrastructure have often been a dismal failure there.So we need to get the Government actually looking at the real options not adhering itself to ideological madness. We know why the Government is doing this. We know why the Government is doing this because look at the enthusiasm from the private sector to provide this money. The enthusiasm was enormous because the private sector saw an opportunity for a low-risk high-return investment—a low-risk high-return investment. The Government has taken all the risk out of Transmission Gully. It does not matter how many people use it. It does not matter whether it is the right road or whether people end up using it or not. The private investors will get their money. It is going to cost New Zealanders $2 billion more than it ought to. It is going to cost New Zealand taxpayers $2 billion more than it needs to. Why? So that the National Party can provide a low-risk high-return investment for its mates. That is who it is about not New Zealanders not road users and not public transport users. This is all about the National Party’s mates. That is what it is about.Over on this side of the House we believe in an integrated system. We believe that roads are important we believe that rail is important and we believe that coastal shipping is important. We do need an integrated system. That is why the purpose of this bill should be about building an affordable safe and integrated system that is sustainable. That is what this Government is taking away with this bill. It is going to ruin our transport infrastructure and it locks us in to a 1950s vision of transport. This is a fossilised Government that is stuck in the past. The bill is going to be detrimental to the economy up and down New Zealand as New Zealanders are forced to pay for this madness and for monster motorways.