Baldock Larry: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9328] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It has been a long process since the draft legislation was presented to us last year and it is satisfying to see the changes that have been made to the bill being debated in the House. United Future made the provision of alternative funding options for land transport a priority in our confidence and supply agreement which stated that we would ensure that new transport legislation is introduced and passed that includes provision for alternative funding options to facilitate the accelerated development of new roading infrastructure. We did this because we are painfully aware as all motorists in New Zealand are that the roading network in this country has suffered from a lack of investment over the past two decades at least and that the traditional methods of funding are not going to be sufficient to allow New Zealand to catch up with what the Minister of Transport himself has called a major infrastructural deficit. 
At this point I want to express my appreciation to the officials who have worked long and hard to support the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its consideration of the bill and the submissions made to it. Throughout the process I have appreciated the Minister’s commitment to the legislation and his genuine concern to see the bill enacted as an enabling tool for the development of New Zealand’s transport system. I thank the chair of the committee Helen Duncan and pray for her health at this stage and wish her well. I thank also the submitters who took the time to put forward many excellent proposals for change within the rather limited original bill. 
In fact so many new ideas and concepts for funding have been raised that it has become apparent to the Government that a second bill will be needed to address further funding strategies to assist the Government to reach its goals by 2010 and United Future is looking forward to working with the Minister of Transport on that legislation. United Future is committed to the goal of achieving an integrated safe responsive sustainable and efficient land transport system for New Zealand. Our families our businesses our tourist visitors and all our road users in general deserve Parliament giving its full attention to this priority of making our entire transport system and particularly our road network worthy of a developed nation in the 21st century. The bill that has returned to the House from the select committee is very different from that which was sent to the select committee after its first reading. It has been the subject of much discussion and negotiation and although United Future has endeavoured to recommend improvements to the entire bill in response to submitter concerns we have particularly concentrated on the parts that involve alternative funding. 
Submitters raised concerns about the complicated and possible duplication of consultation and I am satisfied that this issue has been improved considerably. Some are still critical and complain that there is still too much consultation but I think it is time they discovered the reality of business and community life in this new rapidly developing age in which we live. Although consultation can be costly and time consuming when it is done properly it can also contribute to major savings in both time and money as appeals and stalling tactics can be avoided if people feel that their opinions are respected and they are listened to at the beginning of a process. Aligning the consultation to local government processes has made very good sense. 
I believe that the concerns expressed regarding the need for the Minister’s prior approval of concession and tolling agreements have been satisfactorily addressed. The removal of the prohibition on the transfer of risk and the opportunity for an extension for an additional 10 years are welcome improvements. It is important to note that one of the greatest impediments to the development of private involvement in roading in New Zealand is our small population and relatively low traffic volumes which do not make some projects as economically viable as they would be in Melbourne Japan or Singapore. However despite this limitation we believe there are projects that can attract meaningful partnerships between the public and private sectors and this bill provides a workable framework for those agreements. 
Much has been said by the Government and the Green Party about a multimodal approach to our transport system. We accept this and support it. It makes good sense to be promoting all forms of transportation even walking and cycling which can help reduce car dependency and improve public health. We support the need to develop public transport via rail and bus services and we welcome the investigation into how coastal shipping can make a contribution to the movement of some freight in some locations. We acknowledge the work done by Green members on the bill and we thank them for their hard work. 
The problem we have is that suggestions that can make some improvements are sometimes hailed as being the only solution—that somehow we do not need more roads. It is at this point that we beg to differ in our approach. United Future does not accept that the New Zealand transport infrastructure deficit can be fixed by buses trains bikes and barges alone. It needs massive investment over the next 10 years in building new roads and improving old roads all over this country. We know that Auckland has needs and that so do Tauranga Southland and Wellington. In fact there is not a region in this country that would not benefit from more investment in roads and the roading infrastructure. We have State highways with inadequate passing lanes. We have one-lane bridges that are embarrassingly unsafe and antiquated in the 21st century. We have level crossings that still claim lives all too regularly as well as corners humps and hollows that should have been fixed a long time ago. 
For this reason we are concerned that in the attempt to address the problems facing us Transfund should not use finance raised from road users to assist disproportionately the other modes of transport. I do not think that road users both private and commercial are too concerned if a few million dollars are spent on cycleways or even on subsidising public transport where they can see real tangible results in the reduction of congestion. But we believe they have every right to be angry about further plundering of the National Land Transport Fund for projects that are driven more by ideology than practicality. Subsidy of alternative modes of transport for environmental or social reasons must be balanced by a requirement to consider efficiency before the cost of those subsidies are taken from the pockets of New Zealand motorists. This year Transfund announced that already 12 percent of its revenue was being spent on non – roading-related expenditure and we have some concerns about that trend developing even further. 
We welcome the amendment already adopted in clause 20(3)(c) that establishes that Transfund may approve funding if the activity contributes to Transfund’s objective in an “efficient and effective manner”. However we do not believe that this is strong enough and that is why I have tabled amendments to clause 3 “Purpose” and clauses 70 and 79 which we will be debating in the Committee stage. Efficiency does not have to mean waiting for people to die on a particular road before that road gets fixed as has been the practice in the past 20 years. It does not have to mean a return to the old cost-benefit ratio” of the National Government. We can use common sense and find a balance between efficiency environmental sustainability and social responsibility. 
United Future’s role in this legislation has two major objectives: firstly that motorists—both private and commercial—cyclists pedestrians and passengers including our 2 million visitors each year would be able to move about this great country of ours as safely as possible and with the minimum of delays caused by congestion; secondly that all freight the produce of our economy would be able to travel from supply to market in the most efficient manner possible. This would make a huge contribution to the goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD and providing our families with a better income upon which to live. United Future does not have a problem with subsidising one mode over another if it can be clearly shown to result in greater efficiency for everyone concerned. That is why we ask members of this House to support the Supplementary Order Papers I have lodged for consideration in the Committee stage. 
Some members have made reference to the clauses relating to Tauranga and its proposal to build a second bridge. I am very proud to have been able to contribute to giving Tauranga people the choice to solve their traffic problems. Have we listened to submitters? Yes we have. We had a steady stream of submitters from Tauranga—the Tauranga District Council the Western Bay of Plenty Council Priority One Western Bay of Plenty the chamber of commerce—who all came and asked us to give them the tools so that they could fix the problem themselves. That is what this bill does and I am happy to support it. United Future will support the second reading of this bill and we look forward to the debate in the Committee stage.