Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17211] 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. It seemed an uncanny coincidence that as this bill entered the Committee stage the deprivation map hit the news-stands this week. This is the map that describes scales of deprivation across Aotearoa as determined by variables like income family support employment and transport. The map demonstrates that there is still a massive gulf between the rich and the poor with a high degree of inequality spread across cities. In Porirua for example a large number of people live in the most deprived areas a large number in the least deprived and very few in the middle. Whole regions are red—the most deprived—and they are areas where coincidentally there are large numbers of Maori such as my electorate of Waiariki—the Bay of Plenty—as well as the East Coast and Northland. The rolling out of the map certainly underscored our serious concerns about this bill. 
It is a difficult tightrope to walk—balancing out the development of public transport as a key response to the dual challenges of peak oil and climate change with the inevitable impact that will occur for taxpayers. But it is a journey that we cannot avoid. We need to go with it and of course public transport is the most sensible way to go. Our concern has been primarily about what measures might be put in place to assist poor people to pay for petrol price rises in the short term. It was in that context that we welcomed Supplementary Order Paper 209 during the Committee stage. We believe that that change is positive in that it phases in the regional fuel tax from a maximum of 2c per litre in the first year 2009 to a maximum of 5c per litre in the second year 2010. This type of sensible and equitable yearly staggering of costs could be introduced into the emissions trading scheme rather than it giving blanket exemptions and corporate welfare subsidies to those responsible for the greatest level of pollution. We believe that staggering the costs in this way will help to alleviate the increased costs for low-income earners. 
The other positive development from this amendment is the assurance that any roading projects in Auckland will need to be consistent with the Auckland regional land transport strategy. This is a positive and constructive change which we hope will ensure that all projects are both economically and environmentally sustainable. The last thing we want to do is to end up with an open cheque to allow cost-intensive projects in the future. The inevitable trend of rising oil costs means that the building of major new highways will be extremely costly in the future and we were pleased to support that change to ensure that certain boundaries are in place. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended I believe the inclusion of the new clause requiring the New Zealand Transport Agency to take account of existing regional land transport programmes in preparing the National Land Transport Programme. 
Our fundamental interest in this bill comes from our longstanding commitment to ensuring that immediate action is taken to address the peak oil phenomenon. We did some research. We drew on the analysis of the Science Applications International Corporation report to the United States Government which tells it like it is; it talks about the urgent need to address an ailing global economy. In that report the corporation’s analysis reveals that waiting until world oil production peaks before taking action would leave the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades. We are trapped in a time that is full of uncertainty and we must make an intense effort to put in place now strategies that act on many fronts. We know that petrol prices will continue to rise as the demand for oil continues to increase. We know also that the availability of oil on the international market will continue to decline in the face of this demand which new oil production does not offset. It would appear that for every new barrel of oil being discovered five barrels are being used. So every step that we can take towards preparing for a pending energy crisis must be taken seriously. 
The Maori Party is of the view that the priorities of members across the House must be to significantly reduce oil dependency and to plan for the utilisation and development of sustainable energy resources while also ensuring that all New Zealanders are able to access affordable transport options in a world where oil shortages will mean ever-increasing petrol prices. We have therefore voted in support of this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill as an act of faith that the Government’s high-level priorities for transport must make significant investment in public transport as a means of reducing our reliance on oil. 
But in the context of a genuine progress index we return again to the important issue of striking a balance between expenditure to reduce oil dependence and expenditure that our low-income people cannot afford. We cannot leave this debate without continuing to raise the concept of poverty injustices—the correlation between low levels of income and the reduced likelihood of being able to afford healthy food warm and uncrowded housing and primary health care. We must also be concerned about the trends in the number of children being admitted to hospital with serious infectious diseases—a trend that is closely linked to the rising level of poverty. I remind the House of the case currently being heard by the Human Rights Review Tribunal that exclusion from the in-work tax credit component of Working for Families leaves our poorest children vulnerable. 
On behalf of the Maori Party I bring to this debate a recent report from the Auditor-General Kevin Brady. It stated that his investigation had been abandoned because the ministry’s financial reporting systems were very poor. I am talking about the Ministry of Defence and the investigation into why its $2.2 billion programme for buying new ships and helicopters and upgrading planes had blown out by a massive $392.6 million. Mr Brady’s report stated: “My staff were unable to complete the audit as originally intended. A lot of the detailed information that I expected the defence agencies to have was not readily available. Although the defence agencies’ guidance states that cost estimates should be robust when they are submitted to Cabinet for approval to commence acquisition in practice they are not. 
In our view this information is not enough for the defence agencies to demonstrate how well they are managing the projects or for Parliament or other stakeholders to reach a view on this.” 
I have taken time out to quote from that report because I believe that it is a matter of such significance that it must affect every area of Government expenditure. Here we are expecting ordinary New Zealanders to dig deep into their pockets again for this brand new regional fuel tax yet the military’s cost estimate of a whopping $2.2 billion for new weapons is described as “not robust enough at this point”. It is all about credibility. Big-ticket items like helicopters planes and ships must be managed effectively responsibly and with great concern for accountability. How can this Labour-led Government expect to have any credibility if the state of mismanagement is so apparent? I guess the answer to the question is already well known as recent poll results continue to show. 
Although we make public these criticisms about the area of defence we do not move from our responsibilities to make a difference in terms of addressing the ongoing crisis of peak oil and the complex web of issues attached to the provision of public transport. The Maori Party will support this bill at its third and final reading. 
As an add-on to the discussion and the debate this afternoon I want to say that I was interested in Mr Brown’s reflection on issues about the Treaty of Waitangi and I thought that for his assistance I might tell him that the issues around the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are noted in the Waitangi Tribunal in the courts and in Government statements. In fact a Government statement of 1989 states that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are the principle of kawanatanga or Government; the principle of self-management or rangatiratanga; the principle of equality; the principle of reasonable cooperation; and the principle of redress. If the member is looking around for an interpretation of or an understanding about those principles that statement will hopefully be a start. He might like to try googling it. 
The second issue he talked about was what is and what is not the view of Maori. It would be a good idea for him to ask Maori about how they feel about those principles. At the end of the day without anything else in place I think that Maori are quite happy for the principles to stay as they are for now their knowing full well that down the line there needs to be a debate about Te Tiriti o Waitangi across the board in all legislation. Kia ora tatou.