Wong Pansy: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18669] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Part 2 is a substantial part of this legislation. I encourage the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven who very kindly took a short call last time to give us an assurance. The officials advising the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had problems coming up with drafting requirement recommendations for the last-minute push for option C. When the officials had problems changing the bill from option B+ to option C within the time frame we suddenly saw that a Supplementary Order Paper with three double-sided pages was introduced by the Green Party. How do we know there is no technical problem? Who wrote this Supplementary Order Paper? We know that the officials advising the select committee said that in no way could they provide the drafting or the changes to get the bill from option B+ to option C. So we want the Minister to assure us that Parliament has not been misled into passing a bill—another like the Electoral Finance Act—that will lead every lawyer in town to line up smiling at the bank after charging $500 an hour because every operator will challenge this legislation. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They could drive a bus through it. 
PANSY WONG 
: Absolutely! And I tell the Hon Maurice Williamson that all the buses will be painted in certain colours; all the buses will be lined up to drive through this Supplementary Order Paper. I want to share with listeners the fact that operators are now seeing their good faith being broken because they thought the select committee had adopted option B+ but they now suddenly realise it is option C. 
Let us look at one of the new clauses included in the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper new clause 15A which is to be inserted after clause 15: “Exclusion of regional councils from liability to pay compensation for contracting requirements”. I think North Korean leaders and Chairman Mao would be very pleased with a provision like that. Subclause (1) states: “Nothing makes a regional council liable to pay compensation”— 
Hon Member 
: Might be listening! 
PANSY WONG 
: —yes Chairman Mao will still be listening turning in his grave; he would be very proud of this Labour communist Government—“to any person for—(a) including a contracting requirement in a regional public transport plan;”. Here we go; this is serious. 
Under this legislation a regional council could decide to eliminate a bus service a commercially viable one that did not require ratepayers’ or anybody’s subsidies and the bus operator would lose a property right—the operator would not be compensated. Boy—I think that even Zimbabwe North Korea etc. and some of the governing bodies in those countries would be very proud of this Labour Government and the Green Party. 
This legislation is ridiculous it is incredible. In the Committee stage in this Parliament option C is being imposed and we are including a requirement that where bus operators lose their right to run their services on a commercial basis they will not be entitled to compensation. But the fact that this amendment has been introduced in such a hurry means that nobody can guarantee—unless the Minister is prepared to take a call and guarantee—that those bus operators will let themselves be bound by legislation like that. Once again we are seeing a Government handing out millions of dollars because litigation cases will be taken by all those operators. How can a democracy like New Zealand pass legislation that says that people’s property rights can be removed without compensation? That is an outrage. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to.