Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18776] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Let me start from the very outset by assuring the Minister that the National Party does care about passengers and about a public transport system that works. That is why we made the offer we continued to make the offer and we would still be making the offer today if it were an option on the Table to vote for what the Government had originally decided to do. That is why. If we were opposed to it if we did not care about passengers or if we did not think anything needed to be done then we would not have been prepared even to support the option B that was canvassed consulted on and agreed to in the Cabinet minute of February 2007. 
Let us make that clear to the Minister straight away: National thinks that some improvements to the public transport regime were needed. We think that the consultation was a meaningful process we think that the original decisions the Cabinet of this Government came to were the right ones and we tried as hard as we could through the process not to make “mindless” and “meaningless” amendments to the legislation. 
The Minister never once took up my challenge—never once took up my challenge—during the Committee stage to show where any one of the amendments I had proposed was not in line with the originally agreed option B. If the amendments had not been in line with that option and if they had been just frivolous or vexatious then the Minister could have said that National was just time-wasting. But every one of those amendments was intended to try to bring this bill back into line. However we were attacked and accused. I think the Minister said that we did not care about integrated fares and integrated ticketing. Well my typewritten amendments are quite clear. There is a whole range of amendments about how important integrated fares and integrated ticketing are and because they were to be a complete mirror-mapping of option B they would have allowed for that process to occur. 
Actually I am interested to know why the Minister thinks we need legislation; integrated fares and integrated ticketing are happening around the country already in some jurisdictions. If we go to Christchurch we see that a phenomenal operating system is going on down there already. But I think that says more about the local authorities in Christchurch and their bus companies and their cooperative spirit than it does about those in Auckland which do not seem even to agree on which side of the road buses should drive on. I have seen them drive on both the left and the right. So for that reason I do agree that legislation was required. 
When the bill first reached the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I sat down and had a quick read of it. I read the explanatory note. I was delighted to read in the explanatory note after the bill’s introduction to find that the Minister had completely ruled out option C. She stated in the explanatory note: “For this reason the Government rejects it.” and I thought that that was good because it went too far. Option C will give unbelievably unfettered powers to the contracting authority on an almost “take it or leave it” basis—“Do what we say or you do not get.” 
I say that in any contract negotiation he who pays the piper calls the tune. When it comes to contract negotiations the regional council will have the money so it will be able to be very forceful in terms of what it lays out as its specification for its contract. When it does a request for a proposal for contracting for services it will be able to be very specific about what it is seeking. The bus companies will have to say either that it is too tough or that they do not think it is fair but in the end if they want the council’s money—because that is how the contract works—they will have to comply with what it is putting out in a contract. I think that is an absolutely fair basis for it and that is what option B would have been. 
But now the regional council will have the power to drag all the commercial services in here as well and maybe even take away an property right that a private sector operator may have built up over decades. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Only one decade—this one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well Howick and Eastern Buses is a company in my electorate that was started by the Dalbeth family. They built up a phenomenally good and well-patronised local bus company. It is just not fair to say to those people: “Yes you have spent years putting your sweat and toil into building a bus company but we will now not only come in with a contract but also we feel we have absolutely every right to demand what you want.” 
Again if a person was contracting for someone to build his or her house that person would lay out the specifications tell the architect and the builder what he or she wanted and negotiate what that price would be. But that person would not have the right to say: “Well I will also have a say over somebody else’s house down the road and tell that person what colour it will be and how big the bathroom will be.” One would not have the right to do that but option C will give regional councils that total power to come in across the top of the contracted services quite properly and to bring in the commercial operators which is not quite proper and say: “Take it or leave it. We do not care how much sweat and toil you have put in and how much property right you have built up in your business. We will do it.” 
If I am wrong then the Government would not have gone with option B at Cabinet it would not have gone with option B-plus when the legislation was brought in and it would not have put in an explanatory note stating: “For these reasons we reject ‘Option C’.” So when the next Labour speaker gets up and says that Maurice Williamson is wrong I want the listening audience—which I have been informed is quite small; in fact it could be named so I will say to John Peter and Mary the three of them who are listening— 
Hon Annette King 
: Peter Paul and Mary. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think Peter Paul and Mary are the three people listening out there. I say to those three listeners that if the Government was serious about what it was saying at the beginning then the legislation would have reflected the consultation and reflected the agreed position. In that case we would have been debating this third reading 2 or 3 days ago because National would have given this bill its full support and we would not have taken as much time as we have done. We would have agreed to put option B through in the legislation and everybody could have lived with it. The regional councils would have had some real power but they would not have had absolute power and they would not have been able to abuse the power that would allow them to be in a position where they could say “take it or leave it.” 
This is driven by an ideology. The chairman of the Auckland Regional Council Mike Lee is clearly of a mind that it would be far better if the regional council actually owned the buses again. He is from the left he openly admits to being from the left and that is where he comes from. He thinks that Auckland would have a way better bus service if the regional council could own the buses again. 
I did a survey in this House and I need to report it to you Madam Assistant Speaker because I am not sure that you were present. It was a very very good survey. I asked the House—a number of members were present on that night including the Greens; I think Metiria Turei was here to witness it—how many people thought that Auckland had a good bus service when the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned and operated it. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Lots of people. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mark Gosche has just changed the vote. We had nobody saying that the other night but now I think he has said that lots of people did. This is excellent! When the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned it it was the most despicable dreadful operation going. That is what there was and Mike Lee would love to go back. He was unable to convince the Government this time although now that it has bought back Air New Zealand and KiwiRail who knows? Maybe the bus companies are next on the agenda to be bought back and nationalised. 
Pansy Wong 
: And supermarkets. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes we will be having the Labour Government supermarket chain next. 
Mike Lee was not able to convince the Government to buy back the buses this time but he got the very next best option. He has now got the total and absolute control through this bill to say: “Not only do we have the right to negotiate for the bits that we want to buy from you”—and quite properly so—“but also we will take total control of your operation and we will actually force you into obeying our rules to the point of even taking away from you some commercial services that you may have built up.” 
I think the Minister’s words in the explanatory note of the bill were absolutely right. Annette King got it absolutely spot on: “For these reasons the Government rejects ‘Option C’.” What have we gone and done now? We have gone in through a grubby little set of arrangements around the traps whereby the select committee did not even get to have all the evidence considered and brought into the bill and then some Supplementary Order Papers were drafted and put in at the last minute by Labour to outflank its coalition partner New Zealand First. 
New Zealand First did the right thing. Peter Brown sat and listened to the evidence. He listened clearly and decided he would not support option C. I understand from everything I have heard that Peter Brown went out and talked to lots and lots of people in the industry—to lots of the players including the Bus and Coach Association—and came to right position. That cannot have been an easy thing for Peter Brown to decide especially at this time with all of the other bits and pieces that are going on with his party. But he did the right thing. 
Peter Brown must feel a bit gutted about this. He did the right thing. The select committee would not vote for option C—it was voted down. I found it interesting that the Labour members on the select committee put in a minority report in the select committee’s report. 
For those reasons I say that National does care about public transport. We do care about passengers. We would have supported option B and I say today that we would still support it. If members want to put forward option B now then we will vote sit down and shut up and it will be all over.