O'Rourke Denis: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The aim of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is to change the funding framework for land transport activities including roading public transport and road safety; repeal regional fuel tax provisions; change the framework for assessing road toll schemes; establish a policy framework for the relationship between regional councils and public transport operators; and bring the existing road toll at Tauranga under the Act’s road toll regime.The changes made to the planning and funding provisions of the Act that I wish to mention include the funding framework being focused on the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure; the decision-making criteria being changed to emphasise the effectiveness efficiency and safety of the system; the replacement of the national land transport strategy with a statement on land transport used to set central government’s outcomes objectives and impacts; the removal of non-voting representatives from regional land transport committees; and the repeal of regional fuel tax provisions.Starting with the objective and functions of the agency I note that the changes to the objectives of the agency from the achievement of “an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system.” to the achievement of “an effectiveefficient and safe land transport system” will be a huge mistake for New Zealand. Essentially it means that the Government is interested only in saving money as the first priority but much more is at stake. The agency must seek much better integration of transport modes. As the era of the dominance of fossil fuel transport comes to an end mostly because of the increasing costs and risks of production and the increased competitiveness of alternative energy sources; as the dominance of the use of cars for peak-time travel is increasingly non-viable in the big cities especially at peak times; and as the competitiveness of other modes and the huge increases in road network expansion and maintenance increasingly favour those other modes it will be increasingly necessary to ensure a properly integrated system so that the best use can be made of all modes and of the alternatives to more cars and more and bigger expensive motorways.Similarly it will be essential for New Zealand to design a transport system—especially for freight from one end of New Zealand to the other and especially for personal transport at peak times in the larger cities—that is sustainable and that means economically socially and environmentally sustainable. If that ceases to be an objective then the vast effects of the transport system will not be adequately controlled and mitigated. As a result the viability and usefulness of the system will be so seriously compromised that the Government’s own stated objectives in relation to efficiency and effectiveness will actually become unachievable. But most of all the very environment on which we rely for healthy lives and a good quality of life will also be degraded and that is not the “100% Pure New Zealand” any of us want.The bill will also entrench the current situation with us for decades under successive National and Labour Governments—a situation in which we will continue not to have a genuine and comprehensive New Zealand transport strategy. The intent of the bill under which the Government will issue aGovernment Policy Statement on Land Transport will not be a sufficient basis upon which the planning and funding of our future land transport needs and options can be based. Land transport will continue to be a political football kicked about in different directions by whichever political flavour is in power at any particular time. It will ensure that there is no coherent long-term strategy that we can work towards. It will mean the wasting of huge amounts of public funds on doing what we have always done: failing to provide for fundamental future changes that will be imposed on us.We need an entirely new approach that converts our system to one that over time makes much better use of our vast renewable energy opportunities reduces dependence on imported liquid fuels and replaces more clogged motorways with attractive safe comfortable and affordable public transport systems as well as facilitating more cycling especially at peak times. In my work on the city council I accepted the need for a better road network and indeed led the project for the completion of the ring road there and supported the completion of the southern motorway. But I also introduced however a living streets concept so that roads would be designed to enhance neighbourhoods and safety while making good provision for both road traffic and the prioritisation of public transport. I think Fendalton Road is an exemplar of this.I went and studied examples of advanced modern integrated systems such as those I found in Portland Oregon where I saw a cut-off motorway ramp. The city had simply said: “This is enough. These motorways stop here.” Instead they replaced them with a new light rail system and much better bus services. That city is now one that we should look at as an example to follow. We must learn the lessons from other countries where the headlong race to build more road capacity has resulted only in more demand especially at peak times; Los Angeles is the exemplar for that.The effect is a vicious circle that costs vast sums in capital expenditure and increased maintenance costs and in addition it causes very large increases in externalities such as the costs of accidents health care and deaths and the increased costs in relation to pollution waste delays community severance business dislocation and so on and so on.I note also that some of the best aspects of regional transport administration will be removed by this bill. The non-voting representatives of a prescribed list of interests as members of regional land transport committees are removed. This reinforces the Government’s disregard for the integration of land transport modes and its determination to favour road transport over all other modes through planning and funding mechanisms. From my experience the quality of input of volunteer experts in public transport transport safety cycling walking business operations and so on is too valuable to lose. It is just another way in which this Government is intent on the minimisation of local democracy.The removal of these people is just silly but worse still is the intention to remove the option of regional fuel taxes. Although issues in relation to these are significant they are certainly not insurmountable. If a regional council can persuade its population in favour of such a tax it offers an inexpensive effective and fair way of funding important regional transport initiatives that might otherwise not be achievable. The removal of this option is a great shame and is entirely unjustifiable. We need to try to broaden the funding base not narrow it.New Zealand First is focused on a sustainable transport system. We want more from the system than just roads. We want a modern rail system integrated with good roading shipping and air transport systems. We want to develop these with Kiwi expertise rather than buying this from overseas and the same applies to transport equipment especially railway wagons and electric locomotives. That creates more jobs and more economically and environmentally sustainable transport facilities for this country.The Government’s direction in this bill is entirely misconceived. It will damage New Zealand’s economy social well-being and environment for decades to come. We will therefore certainly vote against it.