Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLand Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9785. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Land Transport Management Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.Dr CAM CALDER (National): There was a long and winding road of a discourse from the previous speaker on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill Andrew Little who was regaling us with stories of State Highway 3 in Taranaki an area commonly known as “Taradise” by those of us born there or those who may have discovered the joys and charms of the area and choose to live there now.This Government is committed to the constant improvement of our arteries of commerce—our roads and highways—and the extensive work on State Highway 3 just north of New Plymouth the Bell Block Bypass is testament to that. The Mount Messenger road which used to strike fear into my aged grandmother when she remembered later on in life incidents of travelling over it when she was a young girl is now being tamed curved and smoothed into docility despite the treacherous substrate of greywacke. Work on the northern outlet has gone on and is due to be completed next summer along with the stretch between Vickers Road and Elliot Street. Work that was ignored by the Labour Government in the times of unparalleled surplus has been undertaken by this Government in stages despite the global financial crisis.This Government believes that the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill will facilitate our aims of simplifying and modernising New Zealand’s transport system nationwide so that it is efficient and cost-effective and able to better serve the needs of growing our economy. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Wow—limited applause for the member Dr Cam Calder who just took his seat. In the regulatory impact statement for this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill one of the first bullet points where they say what the main objectives of this bill are emphasises value for money within each activity class. That is very interesting given that the Kapiti Expressway has a benefit-cost ratio of just 0.2 percent and that it is one of the projects that the Government is crowing about—the roads of national significance. A leaked report last year by the engineering consultants Beca Group showed that the $515 million investment would yield a return of just $118 million over 30 years or as I said a cost-benefit ratio of just 0.2 percent. So I wonder in terms of the Government’s objective of emphasising value for money within each activity class in this bill whether the Kapiti Expressway meets that objective. Because it would seem to me on the face of it that when you are spending $515 million on something and you get a cost-benefit ratio of $118 million over 30 years that is a pretty awful investment.I want to acknowledge the people in the communities of Raumati South Raumati Beach and the Kapiti Coast because this bill proves the fear that they have held since December 2009 that this Government is blinded by its roads of national significance agenda pushing through massive roading projects against economic argument against environmental argument and most of all what is most concerning against the communities and the communities’ transport needs. This bill shows that this Government is hell-bent—come hell or high water—on huge roads of national significance going through and ruining people’s lives people’s communities and they make no economic sense.This bill will allow the Government to do more borrowing for this roads of national significance scheme. We were already told that the cost-benefit ratio of these roads simply does not stack up—simply does not stack up. I just want to again repeat the leaked report from Beca Group last year that a $515 million investment would yield areturn of just $118 million over 30 years. The economic case does not stack up with the Kapiti Expressway and the environmental case does not stack up.I have here with me just in front of me the signatures of 4072 people mostly from the Kapiti Coast who are opposed to the Kapiti Expressway—opposed to the Kapiti Expressway. Let me go through some of the comments that have come through here. I have picked just a random page but I am sure it will be awful for the Government: “To Minister Steven Joyce”—it is quite simple—“Stop the proposed motorway going through the Kapiti Coast.” Another one is from Joe Donovan: “I agree with this petition and hope that the Government will think carefully to do what’s best for this thriving community.”—I agree with this petition and hope the Government will think carefully to do what’s best for this thriving community. But as we know this Government has not done so; it has pushed on with the Kapiti Expressway.I find it very interesting given some of the messages that were sent to the people of the Kapiti Coast by the Government in terms of what the roading solution was going to be for the Kapiti Coast. In December 2009 Steven Joyce dropped the bombshell on the people of Raumati South and Raumati Beach that the expressway was coming but let us look at what Nathan Guy said in February of that year: “I am working hard with Mayor Jenny Rowan to get this project started this year as the funding has already been allocated. The transport Minister”—sorry he says here “Steve Joyce”; they must be friends—“will be briefed on this project when he visits the Ōtaki electorate next month to understand how important it is.”As we all know Nathan Guy got rolled. The last and I think the most important quote here from his press release says: “I see the Western Link Road rail electrification to Waikanae and extending the safety barrier from MacKays Crossing to Paekākāriki as a really important package for our region.” Well in February 2009 Mr Guy thought that but in December 2009 this Government changed its tune and broke its promise to the people of Kāpiti.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I have to say that sitting through the select committee process on this bill was quite discouraging. Similarly to the Government’s asset sales legislation its gutting of the Resource Management Act and its gutting of the Local Government Act it was another example of a charade of democratic process.During the select committee process the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard a large number of really excellent submissions and I have a huge stack of them right here. They were well informed. They were made by people who work on the ground on transport issues—people in regional councils and local councils. We heard submissions from very concerned citizens who are wondering how New Zealand is going to respond to climate change with its transport spend; how New Zealand is going to reduce the burden of chronic disease on the health system which is actually increasing because of our transport system; and how New Zealand is going to deliver a transport system that works for everyone including the elderly the very young those on low incomes and those with disabilities.Despite some very strong consistent themes in the submissions there were very few changes made to the first draft of the bill. I regret to say that some of the very young and earnest submitters—ordinary citizens who care enough about New Zealand to participate in the supposedly democratic process we have for improving legislation—were treated very poorly by some of the Government members on the committee. As with so much else the Government did not listen to stakeholders. It voted on every part of the bill with its one-seat majority on the select committee—it was a 5:4 split on every part of the bill. Like so many other controversial things this Government is doing it hasused its very narrow majority to force changes that do not reflect the views or concerns of most New Zealanders.I will talk in detail about the parts of this bill that are the most problematic during the Committee stage of the bill today. There are quite a few of those parts and I will just touch on a few right now. In my minority report I highlighted my concerns with the lack of response to the submissions about changing the purpose of the Act; changing the make-up of regional transport committees; borrowing to pay for projects in the national land transport programme; going to public-private partnerships which are essentially a more expensive way of borrowing for some very low-value highway projects like Transmission Gully; and removing the regional fuel tax which would have allowed a region like Auckland and perhaps other regions to raise revenue that it desperately needs for its transport priorities.Right now I would like to speak to my concerns about the new Public Transport Operating Model that the Government has spent so much time on with existing bus operators. The purpose of the Public Transport Operating Model is supposedly to improve the competitiveness of public transport operators when in fact we see it does the exact opposite. Much of the detail is not in this legislation. It will be set by Order in Council by the Minister. But what I have learnt through talking to specialists in the area is that the new Public Transport Operating Model entrenches the existing monopolies of existing bus companies. What it does is protect existing bus companies from having to compete in the provision of bus services and this may be true for other providers as well.Essentially what is going to happen if there is not proper competition in the provision of public transport services? For example we are not even going to have tenders; we are going to have negotiated contracts on competitive routes like the Northern Express. At the moment average tenders are only 1.1 so obviously there is no competition in most regions. There is not gross cost contracting in Wellington and Auckland which has led to bus operating costs being 40 percent higher in those two cities than in Christchurch where there was gross cost contracting.The Government has not listened to economists or public transport specialists. It has listened to the bus companies which naturally want to maximise their profits by avoiding competition. So what we have seen is a model tailored to their needs and to their desire to maximise profit. It is going to increase public transport fares for users. It increases the public transport subsidy that must be paid by regional councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Ultimately it is not good for New Zealand’s economy. It is good for the bus operators—the private monopolies that National protects.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take this call. Once again we see inconsistencies in thinking. We have heard from the member who just sat down Julie Anne Genter that we want more competition in the bus market but then of course hers is a party that has been arguing against competition when it comes to the electricity market. It is quite confusing. We also had an idea of democracy that really comes down to it being democratic only if the Green Party agrees with it.The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a good bill. It is ultimately about movement. As sort of an homage if you like to that aspect of movement I would like to move that this bill progress to the Committee stage.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a second time.In CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): In this call I would like to specifically address Supplementary Order Paper 235 in my name. It is clear that the divisions across the Chamber on this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill are pretty strong. The Government has just the narrowest of majorities on this bill and the Opposition parties—and in fact even the Government’s support party the Māori Party—are opposed to this bill. I imagine that a lot of the debate this afternoon will be of a fairly political nature but I do ask members to consider this Supplementary Order Paper closely because this is a constructive change to the legislation that has been asked for by regional councils that will need to operate under this legislation. It refers to transitional arrangements moving from the current parameters under the Land Transport Management Act as it currently stands through to the new Public Transport Operating Model that is contained in this amendment bill.Under the new provisions the regional councils will need to have in place a new regional public transport plan before they can contract any new public transport services. However those plans are not due to come into place until 1 July 2015. That is the latest that the legislation allows for them to come into place. Having spoken to the regional councils that is the appropriate time. There is a considerable amount of work required to get those regional public transport plans written up and in place. They will not be in place before then.However for at least seven of our regional councils their current contracts with public transport providers are going to come to an end after the amendment bill is passed but before the regional public transport plans are in place. That means they have some difficulty in determining under what parameters they are contracting those new services. In fact in discussions with the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Government the regional councils have been advised that the best way forward for them is simply to roll over the current contracts.In the first reading debate Julie Anne Genter talked about how the Public Transport Operating Model supports the current operators. It is monopolistic in its tendencies. This transition period is even worse for that because essentially the operators will beable to dictate terms to the regional councils about how those contracts are rolled over. There will be no competition at all if this transitional period is not agreed to and that means that ratepayers are going to be paying far too much for their public transport. It means that the operators will have the regional councils over a barrel. I do not think that is the situation that anybody seriously wants to have happen.In the spirit of constructive bipartisan efforts to try to make what is a bad bill as good as possible I have tabled this amendment to bring exactly that type of transitional period into place whereby the regional councils would be able to contract new services under the current arrangements provided for under the current Act up until the new regional transport plans are brought into place and then those contracts can run through only until 30 June 2017 so by 30 June 2017 everybody will be operating under the new Public Transport Operating Model.I think that reflects the consensus that the operators certainly believe exists out there. The regional councils want to work with the Government. They do not want to be kind of in opposition to the Government. They do not want to be seen to be working against central government; they want to work alongside it. But the only way for regional councils to effectively work alongside central government is for this amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 to be passed. So I do ask that members give it serious consideration particularly Government members. I know there has been a lot of conversation between the regional councils and the New Zealand Transport Agency but this is an opportunity.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I will also speak to Supplementary Order Paper 235 brought to the Committee by Iain Lees-Galloway. I have to commend Mr Lees-Galloway for bringing this Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee. I do hope that the Government will be listening with an open mind because I know that the Government says that one of its priorities is to get good value from the amount of money that taxpayers are putting into public transport and also to get good value for money for those public transport passengers who are paying fares.As Mr Lees-Galloway quite rightly explained the impact of the transitional measures in this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill at the moment will be that many regional councils will have to roll over existing contracts for a period of several years. This could end up costing them millions of dollars. The only people who benefit from the transitional measures are the existing bus operators. They will essentially be in an extremely strong position where they will be able to negotiate what is good for them at the expense of ratepayers and at the expense of taxpayers.It is very perplexing to me that the New Zealand Transport Agency has not listened to the concerns raised by regional councils on this issue as the New Zealand Transport Agency is using some of its own money to pay for public transport services. What we saw earlier this year was that the Otago Regional Council went ahead to tender for contracts for some of its bus services. It was able to negotiate savings in the order of millions of dollars. Then the New Zealand Transport Agency told the Otago Regional Council that it would not be providing the council with a subsidy for its public transport services which normally it has as of right because it did not follow the model that the agency had decided to go with. That would have meant rolling over contracts for the Otago Regional Council until 2016 rather than going to competitive tender.If this Government actually believes in competition and in getting good value for money then I think it must support these absolutely reasonable changes put forward in Supplementary Order Paper 235 because they will enable regional councils to tender for contracts in the interim period until they have gone ahead and established their new public transport plans and are able to contract under those in several years’ time. At stake is millions of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ dollars. It is really an opportunity I thinkfor the Government to show its commitment to value for money and to demonstrate that it is not actually going to simply listen to the demands of profitable bus operators that do not want to have to compete.Speaking to other parts of Part 1 I would like to raise the issue of the purpose of the Land Transport Management Act. A number of submitters on the bill understood the Government’s interest in simplifying the existing purpose but it is important to realise that actually the land transport system has a wide variety of effects on New Zealand’s well-being. The land transport system cannot be considered alone when in fact the land transport system—the roads that we put in place the public transport that we have in place the rail network all of that—contributes to a number of other areas that the Government is directly responsible for. For example in the area of public health there has been an enormous amount of research demonstrating that the transport choices that people have available to them impact directly on their health. This is a ticking time bomb for the New Zealand public health system because in neighbourhoods where children are unable to walk and cycle safely to school and they have to be driven they are much more likely to be overweight and to not get enough activity. Therefore in the future they are much more likely to suffer from chronic diseases and we all know that chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease are on the increase in New Zealand. They are on the increase in most rich countries and a certain portion of that increase is directly due to the lack of activity that happens when you have a transport system that is entirely or overwhelmingly reliant on private vehicles—there are decreasing levels of physical activity. I encourage the Government to listen carefully to the recommendations of doctors nurses and other public health professionals associations that have been speaking out on this issue and saying that actually we do need to take into account the health impacts of our transport system.There are a number of other co-benefits that need to be taken into account when we are deciding what transport projects we invest in and prioritise. One of these is carbon emissions. Our transport sector is the single biggest contributor to our carbon emissions. It has been the fastest-growing area of carbon emissions and the overwhelming majority of our imports of oil goes on transport. This has a wide variety of impacts such as the need we have to reduce our carbon emissions in the future—that is undeniable. We will have to do that. We need to take that into account when we are planning transport projects that are going to last 30 40 50 or 100 years into the future. How are they going to enable New Zealand to reduce its carbon emissions?But there is an added economic benefit to reducing carbon emissions and that is that we reduce our oil imports. New Zealand’s oil bill last year was $8 billion. For the past decade we have not increased much if at all the amount of oil that we have been importing. We are using the same amount of oil that we did in the early part of the last decade but we are spending more than twice as much on it. Our oil imports have gone from under $4 billion to $8 billion last year. All of that contributes to our current account deficit. It is not good for the New Zealand economy to be so reliant on imported oil. If the value of the New Zealand dollar was more realistic than it is at the moment—it is hovering towards 0.9 on the US dollar—petrol prices would be through the roof and we would have significant harm to our economy because households and businesses simply would not be able to get where they need to go without spending a ton of money on petrol. We are already spending a lot of money on petrol—$8 billion. We would be spending even more if the New Zealand dollar was at a more realistic exchange rate.So changing the purpose of the Act to consider only a few narrow transport criteria rather than the broader impacts that transport has on our public health system on New Zealanders’ well-being and on our economy is very short-sighted. Unfortunately it is quite a typical characteristic of this Government to not understand the interrelationshipsbetween the different things that we are doing. It may make decisions now that seem to make sense from a transport point of view but actually they do not because the vast majority of the transport budget is being spent on a few big motorway projects that do not even come out good on the Government’s own narrow assessment of transport benefits. Those projects have very low benefit-cost ratios even when you do not consider the wider impacts. So maybe it is not a problem of the Government not understanding the interrelationships but one of simply not caring about what the economic impacts of our transport spend are going to be and instead wanting to build a few big shiny new projects because it thinks they will make it look good.I was really struck by the submitters who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who all seemed to sing from the same song sheet. Submission after submission after submission said that it is really important to consider the wider impacts of transport in the purpose of the Land Transport Management Act. Amending the purpose of the Land Transport Management Act to reduce it to get rid of words that are really important like those about affordability and about the impact on public health and environmental sustainability and safety is going to very much narrow the considerations that should be and can be taken into consideration when we are prioritising our transport budget for different projects. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Taloha ni Mr Chairperson. Thank you very much for the chance to speak at this Committee stage. Iain Lees-Galloway and Julie Anne Genter started their contributions by speaking to Supplementary Order Paper 235 I believe but I would like to start by addressing Supplementary Order Paper 234 which is still in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. It talks about the amendments that are being made in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill around the purpose.So I am starting at the start—a good place to start. At the moment the bill as reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has the purpose set out as: “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to an effective efficient and safe land transport system in the public interest.” We are not happy with that on this side of the Chamber obviously so that is why Iain Lees-Galloway has put forward this amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 234 where the purpose should read—and we would hope that the Committee would adopt this—“The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the aim of achieving an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system.” It is a very good amendment and we do hope that during this debate—and perhaps a Minister in the chair could comment on whether the Committee could pick this up.I want to look at each one of these aspects that Iain Lees-Galloway has put in his Supplementary Order Paper on changing the purpose to affordability being integrated being safe being responsive and being sustainable and I want to put that into the context of the Kapiti Expressway which the Government is forcing upon the people of the Kapiti Coast.Let us start with the first one and that is affordability. As I said earlier in the previous stage of this bill the Government is spending $515 million on this Kapiti Expressway and a leaked report from Beca Group last year revealed that the benefit-cost ratio for this investment was $118 million over 30 years. The rough maths in my department says that that is a benefit-cost ratio of somewhere around 0.2:1. So in terms of an investment it is a dog. The economics case or the affordability case in terms of Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper does not stack up in that sense.When you put that next to what was proposed before the Kapiti Expressway—when Steven Joyce changed the tack of the National Government—the plan before that was the Western Link Road which was costed at around $300 million I believe and wasfully consulted on with the people of the Kapiti Coast. All the permits and all the official documents were signed off and things were pretty much ready to go and everyone on the Kapiti Coast thought that this Western Link Road would go ahead. But no in December 2009 Steven Joyce rolled Ōtaki MP Nathan Guy and decided to go with an option which we now know as the Kapiti Expressway which is roughly $200 million more than what was planned.When you put that into the context of the Government being quite tight in the fiscal department especially in terms of land transport—and this bill itself allows the Government to borrow more for transport—and when you go from a $300 million project to a $500 million project that makes the project much more unaffordable for the Government. So to help the Government Iain Lees-Galloway has put forward this Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that any project that it undertakes is affordable. So there you have it.In terms of the Kapiti Expressway we could have saved the Government $200 million in one fell swoop by making sure there was a roading solution that was not just a big concrete ribbon through the Kapiti Coast but it was an upgrading of State Highway 1 it was a local road for the locals and it was making sure there was a better focus on public transport through the increased electrification of the rail network on the Kapiti Coast. So in terms of affordability that would have been a much better option for the people of Kāpiti but the Government of the day has chosen to ignore that and go ahead with the Kapiti Expressway. We will not quit in our opposition to—you know there are some people who should be quitting—this expressway because in the affordability stakes it certainly does not match up.The second point that Mr Lees-Galloway makes in Supplementary Order Paper 234 is about an integrated transport system. I have already touched on this ever so slightly earlier—[Bell rung] I am only on point two of five points so I had better get a move on. In terms of integration the solution for the Kapiti Coast would have been what Labour had proposed towards the end of 2008 and that was to upgrade State Highway 1 to build a link road for the Kapiti Coast—so we separated the local traffic from the through traffic who are dead set on heading further north even though they should have stayed and spent some money on the Kapiti Coast—and also to upgrade the rail link and make it much more accessible and I guess affordable for those people who are going to use public transport.The Government has gone against that. It is gone against integration. What it has done is say: “We only really care about the big stuff the big traffic so we are going to build this $515 million road through the Kapiti Coast.” So what you have now instead of integration is the local and the through traffic going on a four-lane motorway that has crashed right through the Kapiti Coast. Anyone who knows the Kapiti Coast well will know that there is a mixture of both young and old. A lot of people head up to the Kapiti Coast to retire. What you are going to get now is unfortunately some people who would probably prefer not to go on a four-lane monstrosity mixing with the big trucks that are heading either north or south through the Kapiti Coast and probably feeling very worried about that. So that is not necessarily the best in terms of safety and not the best in terms of an integrated service.Also the Government is not looking at upgrading the rail network. There is no focus on that and I think that is a real loss given the number of people who are now making their homes on the Kapiti Coast and are commuting to Wellington—which is not a dying city I should add; it is not dying city—heading south to work. More and more people are doing that and more of them would prefer a much more integrated public transport system. Our option the Western Link Road would do that. If the Government did have integrated transport systems at the purpose and at the very heart of this billthen maybe it would have been able to do that with the Western Link Road plan instead of the Kapiti Expressway.No. 3—I think I am a bit behind—is safety. I have already mentioned the fact that this road that the Government wants to build is a four-lane monstrosity. Everything will be travelling on it as opposed to what I said before—you know the local traffic on the local road and State Highway 1 being for a lot of the commercial traffic heading further north or further south. In a safety sense I would prefer if I was a local to be on the local road not mixing with the two-rig trucks that are speeding at 100 kilometres an hour—or maybe a little bit more—down State Highway 1. I think that is awful in terms of a safety sense. The Western Link Road addressed that because the locals did not want to be mixing with that through traffic but the Government has decided to go against that in terms of safety.Now on to responsiveness. With me here I have the signatures of 4072 people from the Kapiti Coast. These are the people who were pretty much opposed to—not pretty much but dead against—the Kapiti Expressway. Instead of being responsive—Mike Sabin: Did the Greens help collect those?KRIS FAAFOI: —the Government ignored these people and is still going through with the Kapiti Expressway. Mr Sabin wanted me to choose a page so I will for his pleasure.Mike Sabin: A random one.KRIS FAAFOI: I will choose a random one. Here we go.Terry Smith from Wellington—a very good man Terry Smith; could be a lady—said: “Bad idea. High impact on local community. Already have transport corridor.” Good on you Terry. That is a very good representation of what the situation is. OK let us go over here. Susan Ansell from Kāpiti in New Zealand said: “You can serve the needs of the local community and provide an efficient sustainable transport solution improve rail two-lane Western Link Road improvements to make...the community has not been fully informed on the effect of a four-lane highway. Many are unaware of the negative impact it will have on their community at all.”So in terms of responsiveness this Government has absolutely and utterly ignored the people of theKapiti Coast. Sure they want a transport solution but what this Government has put in front of them and will force on them is not what they wanted. What they wanted was the Western Link Road route the one that would have had a local road an upgrade of State Highway 1 for safety and also for capacity and also an upgrading of the public transport route. This Government—Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. There are two issues that I wish to cover and in the course of addressing those two issues I want to refer to the situation in Nelson. I trust Mr Chair that you will bear with me as I explain it a little bit for the benefit of members so that they can see why this applies and why this particular bill causes members on this side of the Chamber such anxiety.It certainly causes me anxiety on two counts. One is about environmental provisions and the other is to do with the curtailing of local community input. So it is those two points that I wish to make in particular.I see this bill as a Trojan Horse. It is a Trojan Horse because there are provisions in it that although they may not apply to examples such as those my colleagues have already given they are absolutely critical for proposals that may be considered in the future.The example I am thinking of in particular is a southern motorway through the Victory community in Nelson. The Hon Nick Smith the member for Nelson has been defeated three times in his desire to get a southern motorway through this Victory community centre. On two occasions he has been defeated by the council which hasgone out and done its homework consulted with the communities measured traffic flows and decided that such a motorway is not required. The trouble is that the main road State Highway 6 which goes through Nelson goes round the beautiful waterfront. Who owns the houses on the beautiful waterfront? Well squillionaires own the houses on the beautiful waterfront. Many of them are very strong contributors to Nick Smith’s campaign funds and they vote National. But I have to say that not all of them vote National. Not all of them vote National but they will not tell Nick that. They will not tell Nick that because—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member’s full name.Hon MARYAN STREET: I am sorry. They will not tell the Hon Nick Smith that because they know that they are surrounded by his supporters in that area. So their push and it is renewed time and time again—in fact as recently as just a week ago or 10 days ago now there was another front page article in theNelson Mail about how they want to get the logging trucks off State Highway 6 and in fact resurrect the idea of a motorway through the southern link road.This bill does two things that make the Hon Nick Smith’s desire to please the wealthy funders of his campaign possible. The first and the most dangerous is the limitations to community input. The bill gets rid of the obligation to consult communities on regional transport plans arguing that consultation is done anyway under the Local Government Act. It removes from regional transport committees representatives of the social environmental and safety criteria leaving just elected representatives from the councils.There is a vibrant community called Victory in Nelson—and you can join the dots easily enough to see why it is called that but that is an aside—which comprises people who are in lower socio-economic areas which houses most of our refugee and migrant population in Nelson and which really deserves to be consulted and to have a proper and adequate say in whether or not a roading project of the future should go through the middle of its community. This bill is just what Nick Smith needs in order to ensure that there is no input or minimal input from local communities and that there is every chance that central government could nominate that as a road of national significance change the designation of State Highway 6 from Rocks Road to this new project and drive a motorway through the Victory community.Hon Trevor Mallard: Better not.Hon MARYAN STREET: It had better not as my colleague Trevor Mallard says. That is absolutely right.Hon Trevor Mallard: There should have been a railway there.Hon MARYAN STREET: Indeed. What I am concerned about in addition to this impact on community input is the environmental impact and this goes to the point in the bill that takes out the original purpose of the Land Transport Management Act which had as its purpose statement the requirement for an integrated approach to the transport system including environmental responsibility and rail and coastal shipping. That disappears.Rail coastal shipping and care for the environment are things that would impinge directly on the development of Rocks Road. Rocks Road is a shabby little road. It does get logging trucks up and down it but it could be beautiful. What is beautiful about it is its view. It keeps getting torn up by logging trucks that is true but things could be done if we were to have an integrated transport system and not a Land Transport Management Act whose purpose is “to contribute to an effective efficient and safe land transport system in the public interest.” Gone are environmental responsibilities. Gone is the imperative to integrate transport options. Coastal shipping in Nelson is absolutelya possibility. It is entirely possible to shift logs by sea. It is possible to reinstate a railway.This bill is a Trojan Horse. Although my colleagues have outlined particular current proposals that are on the drawing board such as theKapitiExpressway which Kris Faafoi mentioned a moment ago there are proposals that are not on the drawing board yet but are a twinkle in the eye of the Hon Nick Smith and his supporters in Rocks Road who fund his campaign. His campaign would struggle for funds if it were not for these people in Rocks Road. He depends on them. This is exactly the kind of legislation he requires in order to push through something that is hugely unpopular. If he can limit and restrict the input of community groups through the provisions of this legislation then he will—he will.I can see the Hon Nick Smith’s fingerprints all over this as well. He will just be biding his time and waiting for the next opportunity when he cannot put additional funding into beautifying the Nelson waterfront which is entirely possible now with half the contribution from the Nelson City Council and half from central funding because it is a State highway. No he would like the State highway to go through the middle of a community that in large measure does not vote for him. That should not be allowed.This bill can be used for destructive purposes and I would ask the members opposite to consider that and consider whether what they are setting down here for the future is going to be constructive or destructive. Take away community input take away environmental responsibility and we are left with a roading programme that detracts from our environment that ruins our environment and that does not advance alternative and integrated systems of transport. We are left with an impoverished future as a result. Thank you.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill particularly right now on clause 9 which amends section 10 of the principle Act to allow the Government to borrow for the National Land Transport Fund. I would like to talk about my concerns about allowing the Government to borrow to pay for projects in the National Land Transport Fund.Firstly at the moment the Government has a very unbalanced transport spend. Over $1 billion is being spent on new State highways. That is over a third of the total transport budget and very small amounts of money are being allocated to all the other areas that we need to attend to as part of our transport network. That includes the maintenance of our existing local roads the maintenance and renewals of our existing State highways and there is a tiny tiny proportion of money going into walking and cycling.If you look at the National Land Transport Plan for the next 3 years there is actually almost no money being put into new public transport infrastructure. At the moment we have a Government that does not understand that the transport system is a network and the best way to get a good outcome from a network is to make sure that it is balanced. The best way to free up our existing roads for those who need to drive is to allow a small number of people to be able to walk and cycle safely—like children walking and cycling safely to schools so their parents do not have to congest the roads at peak time because they have to drop them off—and to allow a small number of people in our congested urban areas to switch to public transport. Not everybody needs to use public transport walk or cycle to benefit from the investment in having that alternative. Unfortunately there is no evidence anywhere in the world that expanding road capacity or building new roads will improve economic productivity or reduce congestion. In fact there was a letter written to the secretary of transportation in the UK just a few months ago by 32 leading transport professionals and academics people who have worked in this industry for 40 years saying actually “We are concerned that our current methodsof planning for transport infrastructure and evaluating the economic impacts do not take into account the reality that has been observed everywhere that building new inter-urban roads worsens congestion and does nothing to improve economic productivity.”So essentially by allowing this Government to borrow to pay for its unbalanced and backwards transport priorities what is going to happen is future New Zealanders and future Governments will have less money available to spend on the transport projects we actually need. That is because none of the projects the Government is proposing and is going to spend billions of dollars on will actually generate new revenue. Although in theory it may make sense for example to borrow to pay for some of Auckland’s transport infrastructure because we are expecting huge growth in Auckland and therefore there will be future ratepayers and taxpayers who will benefit from that infrastructure investment and we need to plan ahead of that growth what the Government is planning to do is to borrow to pay for Transmission Gully. It is going to borrow through the private sector through a private-public partnership which actually is essentially just taking out a loan from the private sector. So instead of paying 4 percent—and the Government could realistically borrow at 4 percent—it will be paying 12 percent to 14 percent or 10 percent to 12 percent so that the private investors have a guaranteed return for the 25 years of the life of the project.What National is doing is spending future taxpayers’ money now. It wants to expand the amount of money available to them to throw away at senseless transport projects that will not benefit the economy unfortunately and yet future taxpayers will have to pay these back with interest—with excessive interest in the case of the public-private partnerships—and they will not have the money available to maintain our existing road network. They will not have the money available to invest in the very vital alternatives that people in urban areas are crying out for. Everywhere we have invested in congestion-free public transport alternatives it has been wildly successful. We can see that with the northern busway and we can see that with the investments that have been made in the Auckland rail network so far. We have had huge growth in both of those areas much higher than what was modelled. That has led to declining traffic volumes on State highways which means there are fewer problems with congestion.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I note that no National Party member contested the call with me. I note that no National Party member is prepared to defend Gerry Brownlee. I note that no member with any responsibility for the transport area has bothered to sit in the chair or to defend the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. That is probably because it is more or less indefensible and they are waving the white flag on it.I do note the comments that my colleague Maryan Street made with regard to the Victory area. As the successor to the member for Pencarrow I note that my predecessor Sonja Davies cut her political teeth on the ripping of the railway line out of the Victory area. Now I understand Nick Smith wants to put a motorway through there. I think we might be past putting a railway back into that part of Nelson but I think this is the sort of bill that would allow a motorway to go through that community and that would be something that would be absolutely wrong.In making that comment my colleague was referring to the importance of integrated transport planning and spending. I do want to commend the Greens speaker who made the last speech Julie Anne Genter because I think she has got her head around the importance of having integrated planning as far as transport is concerned. I think all of us in our electorates have areas where if things were done more logically we would have less spending on roads and more on the alternative to roads.In my electorate Hutt South clearly an increase in public transport is warranted. An increase in alternatives to our roads would include in my area the Wainuiōmata Hillbridge—a bridge across the top of the hill that would mean that people could walk over the hill take the bridge over the top of the road and then walk down the other side. At the moment people have to dodge their way across the road slightly blind to transport coming from both directions and it is quite dangerous for people to either bike or walk on the paths and to cross at the top. A bridge was going to be available and was heading for the top of that hill—I think a bridge actually used to be proposed at Pētone before they made the changes at Pētone—and the National Government changed the rules as to the alternatives to roads. It meant that the money that would otherwise have been available was no longer available. I just think that that is wrong. It creates danger for individuals and it means that a lot of people who would bike do not bike because it is seen by them to be dangerous.In a similar way the focus on having more and more motorways means that some of the logical things such as the improvement of the railway links around the Wellington wharves have not happened. I think for a long time now probably for at least a decade there has been a focus on getting grade separation—that means bridges and overpasses—around the ferry terminal in Wellington in order to be able to bring in much more freight into the Wellington waterfront by way of train rather than truck thereby freeing up the motorways and freeing up the road from the Wairarapa so that things can come down—logs in particular—on the train and be there immediately in time for the ships. There is a lot of logic to it but the problem at the moment is that the trains and the road traffic conflict and when a train comes in you have a massive traffic jam. What is needed obviously—[Interruption] Sorry?Simon O’Connor: A log jam.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The logs are jammed up in both senses. Both the ones on the trucks and the ones on the trains end up getting jammed up and as a result of that there is clearly a much more logical way of using the money.The changes in the ratios mean that the Cross Valley Link which would take a lot of traffic off The Esplanade which is again another jammed-up point in the Hutt Valley and would feed across Whites Line East off the Wainui Hill out of Naenae and across a new bridge and into the Dowse Interchange—$40 million spent on the Dowse Interchange—Brendan Horan: How much?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Forty million dollars was spent on the Dowse Interchange and what is it? It is an interchange to nowhere because the road that was meant to come off it has been cancelled by the National Government—cancelled by the National Government. You know it is just a silly approach.The last point that I want to make I make more with my sports spokesperson hat on. I refer to the definition of “event” here and the change in policy with regard to sports events which has been very recently drawn to my attention. Previously what used to happen—and I think this was probably under the leadership of the Hon Annette King although it possibly happened earlier—was that there was some funding going out of the land transport budget and into the police budget for the police to do safety work which included work around sports. I as members know have an interest in cycling. But that funding has been changed by the National Government from I understand only about 1 March this year or it might have been 1 April this year so that the police are no longer contracted—they are no longer funded—in order to do their police work around sporting events.I have got an example of this. It is one of the long-term examples just north of Mr Faafoi’s electorate Mana. For years during a local cycle race that goes round Akatarawa and up the Paekākāriki Hill the local policeman has come out for about an hour and overridden the traffic lights to let the cyclists through as they come through inbunches in order to not have 400 or 500 people together in a group on the road as a result of the lights turning red and the cyclists having to stop. This was a logical safety measure that allowed the traffic and the cyclists to flow and not to end up being many abreast and becoming a massive safety factor.The ruling of the Government means that that work is no longer done. At the first instance of that race happening after that ruling about 5 kilometres down the road afterwards because of a massive bunch of cyclists and the pressure from cars and trucks there was an accident that involved I think about 37 cyclists—37 cyclists—being knocked out of the race and two of them being hospitalised. Four ambulances were required and two of the cyclists were hospitalised all because the National Government in order to try to save a wee bit of money in this area said that the local policeman was not allowed to go there for an hour to do the safety work for which the police had previously been contracted.These people opposite know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I am not even going to say that they were conscious of the effects that they were making when they changed their rules because I am not sure that they actually read the papers that are put in front of them that make this sort of change. I appealed to Hekia Parata. I would have thought that Mr Brownlee the current Minister of Transport would have been across it—although it might have happened in the time of Steven Joyce and we knew that he did not read his papers properly. That was certainly the case with him. But we have got to know that safety is important to this Government. We have got to know that we have integrated transport planning and this bill gives us no hope whatsoever that the Government knows what it is doing.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I moveThat the question be now put.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Speaking to Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill I must say that I absolutely agree with all of the speakers on this side of the Chamber and—Iain Lees-Galloway: We’re the only ones who’ve spoken.BRENDAN HORAN: Absolutely but I think they would still be the only ones whom I agreed with. However as did the honourable Mr Faafoi I would like to speak about the change from an affordable integrated safe responsible and sustainable land transport system to—and this is where they just play on those words over on that side—“an effective efficient and safe transport system in the public interest.” What is the public interest? Well the public interest is certainly not the danger of having this collapsed funding for sustainable transport and sustainable transport programmes. In the city that I dwell in Tauranga that would wipe out walking school buses for children programmes kids on feet programmes kids on bikes bikeways and everything that is associated with getting rid of the congestion around schools and with making it safer around schools and making our children safer. This bill has the potential to completely collapse that funding.The Government does however talk about exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility but again it is just talk and it is not in the objectives statement. The new Government policy statement also removes affordability which may enable the Government to justify building new roads that do not have a cost-benefit ratio factor outcome like the Auckland “Holiday Highway”.I think I will touch on some of the roads around Wellington because it is obvious that members on that side of the Chamber know very little about Wellington and I will say that the only thing dying in Wellington is support for the National Party. But let us talk about Transmission Gully and the Porirua bypass. When we talk about Transmission Gully the only way that fits into the cost-benefit ratio is when you extend it through Ōtaki and all the way to Taupō and then it fits and then you can have it. If welook at the Porirua bypass what about the people from Porirua and some of those areas who may not be able to afford the road toll that is inevitably going to be thrust upon unsuspecting motorists there? They are going to have to do this massive dog-leg to get into the city. I mean it is absolutely ridiculous.I would also just like to touch on the undemocratic way in which this Government seems to be operating. I would like to ask some of our Labour members who are far more experienced than me whether they have ever heard of a Minister preventing a local MP from getting a traffic briefing from the New Zealand Transport Agency on the future of roading in their area because that is what happened to me. The Minister of Transport stopped the officials from briefing me on the plans for roading in the Bay of Plenty and the Western Bay of Plenty. I think that is just another indication of what this Government is all about. It is just trying to railroad through bills with very little scrutiny. At the end of the day it is New Zealanders who pay the cost and it is a massive cost. I would say please do not play with the safety of our children and the future of New Zealand.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): First I would like to say that in my first contribution on this Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill in the first 5 minutes that I got I spoke to my Supplementary Order Paper 235. That is a very serious Supplementary Order Paper. It is a serious amendment that regional councils want to see happen and I think that the Government members owe it to regional councils to get up and say what their position is. So whether you are for it or against it please let us know and please let local government know what your position is what the position of the Government is and why. I think that is the very least that Government members could actually undertake. But no what we have had is Mr O’Connor taking a closure motion and it looked like Mr Sabin was quite keen to take one as well without a single member of the Government benches taking a single call on this bill. That I think tells you exactly how ashamed they are of this legislation in the fact that they do not even want to get up and tell us about it.I want to talk about my other Supplementary Order Paper 234 which would restore the original purpose of the Act. Basically what National is doing by changing the purpose of this Act is giving central government absolute control over what roading projects—sorry a slip of the tongue there but it really does reflect what this Government wants which is roads roads roads and mega-roads. Actually it is not about roads; it is about mega-highways and that is it. That is what the purpose is.The word in particular that I think is really missing from the new purpose which would be restored if my amendment was adopted by the Committee is that word “integrated”. Probably the most important word that is going to be missing from the Act now is having an “integrated” transport system. I thought that some of the contributions from the National Party members in the second reading of this bill were a bit thick to be honest—a bit thick. I know what they are trying to do. They are trying to position Opposition parties and trying to play politics here. But let us have a sensible serious conversation about our transport needs because what David Bennett tried to say is that the Opposition parties hate roads. Well guess what Mr Bennett? Under that Government under the National Government local roads up and down this country are being completely overlooked. There are roads in my electorate that need to be built and need to be maintained and they will not be. The New Zealand Transport Agency has turned down the funding it has said no to the local councils because all the money—all the money—is going to the roads of national significance.So I do not accept it when National Party members get up and say they are interested in roads and they are interested in economic development and they are interested in supporting the regions when regional roads and local roads up and down New Zealandare falling apart and not being supported. This Government does not care about an integrated transport system. It does not care about an integrated transport system and it refuses to have a law that says that when funding decisions are made about transport the economic viability the environmental viability and the social sustainability of infrastructure need to be taken into account—not even economic viability. Of course we know that the only projects that this Government supports—its monster motorways—are not even economically viable let alone considering their impact on the environment or their impact on local communities. That is why this Government does not want to support the idea of having an integrated transport system.Any transport system needs roads. If you look at a transport need and you look at the variety of solutions available sometimes it will be a highway. Sometimes that will be the right response. Sometimes it will be a road. I think of the Western Link Road which Mr Faafoi’s electorate is not going to get—the Western Link Road which Mr Faafoi’s electorate is not going to get. There are the roads in Palmerston North that would support the central distribution transport hub which we are not going to get. There is the road that Andrew Little wants in Taranaki which Taranaki is not going to get under this Government. All the Government is interested in are the roads of national significance not local roads not regional roads and certainly not rail or coastal shipping—certainly not rail or coastal shipping. Sometimes those will be the answers as well. Sometimes if we think about the economic benefits or we think about the social benefits or we think about the safety of getting freight off roads and on to rail or on to coastal shipping that will be the right answer.But what this bill does is it creates a situation where that will never be the answer. The analysis that the New Zealand Transport Agency has to undertake will never come up with the answer that a railroad is the right answer or that greater use of coastal shipping is the right answer. That is because the National Party wants to control the National Land Transport Fund so that it can look after its mates—its mates in the trucking industry and its mates who want to make money out of public-private partnerships.The other thing that this bill does is it supports greater borrowing to pay for those unaffordable roads and it supports uneconomic ludicrous economically mad public-private partnerships like the one at Transmission Gully. Let us look at Transmission Gully as an example of the foolishness of this Government. Labour actually supports building Transmission Gully. Labour supports building Transmission Gully; it is something that we would do. But we think it should cost $1 billion not $3 billion. The National Party wants it to cost $3 billion. It wants to charge New Zealanders $2 billion more than is necessary to build Transmission Gully. Why? So it can do it by public-private partnership. There is no evidence. The Government has not been able to produce a shred of evidence that building Transmission Gully by public-private partnership will be safer more efficient more effective or most important cheaper. It cannot demonstrate that. In fact Government members are so nervous about this that when the Labour Party requested information under the Official Information Act they gave us information but they removed the public sector comparator. They removed the bit that says how much it would cost to build under the traditional procurement model. I wonder why that is. I wonder why they are not prepared to tell us that number. I bet—I bet anything you like—that the reason is that the public sector comparator comes out much much better than the public-private partnership. You do not even need to guess at this. You have just to look at the New Zealand Transport Agency’s predictions for transport costs over the next 30 years. It put in a special line that accounted for building Transmission Gully by public-private partnership and that line showed that it was going to cost $2 billion more than building it under the traditional model.So the New Zealand Transport Agency knows it. Government members know it. Why on earth are they doing it New Zealanders can only guess but I would like to offer one possibility and that is that they like providing low-risk high-return investment opportunities to their mates in the banking sector. That is what they have done with Mighty River Power and that is what they are doing with the Transmission Gully public-private partnership. This bill is all about National tightening its control over the land transport system so that it can look after its mates and cherry-pick projects for itself not run a sensible analysis of each project and choose them on their merits.David Bennett was going on about the Waikato Expressway and my position on that. I came to Hamilton I spoke to people and do you know what I said? I said: “We have to take a look at this Mr Bennett. We have to take a look at this and we have to run a sensible economic analysis of the project.”David Bennett: You’re not going to do it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: If you do not like that Mr Bennett if you do not like the idea of a sensible economic analysis being run on a transport project that simply reveals that this Government just wants to cherry-pick projects whether or not they make sense whether or not they are good for the taxpayer whether or not they are good for local ratepayers whether or not they are good for the environment whether or not they are socially acceptable and whether or not they are the socially right thing to do. This National Government just does not believe in evidence and proper analysis; it just picks ideas out of the air and picks and chooses its own ideas. That is what this bill is all about. We had a system whereby the New Zealand Transport Agency had to sit down and do a rigorous analysis of what projects should be supported. That is what Labour had to bring in after 10 years of National building road after road after road after road. Labour came in and said we needed an integrated transport system and that is what we set up. But all this does is go back to the old days the fossilised view of the National Party of the 1950s—MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I moveThat the question be now put.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I appreciate the ability to take a call on this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill particularly given that I have Supplementary Order Paper 238 which I would like to share with the Committee and which relates specifically to the notion of exempt services. I have not heard too much discussion in the time that I have been in the Chamber around the debate that I am sure was had amongst Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members on exempt services but it is an area that has the potential to derail our ability to create integrated public transport in critical areas like Auckland. New Subpart 2 in clause 69 of the bill contains the detail around exempt services. They are essentially those services that will not be able to be required by councils to be privy to all of the things that they have in their transport plans.Previously before the bill went to the select committee the criteria for an exempt service were contained in new section 129(2)(a) through to (e) in new Subpart 2 in clause 69. They have been struck out. Previously an exempt service included “a ferry service registered with the regional council as a commercial public transport service under the Public Transport Management Act”. It then included certain types of bus services and so on. They have been struck out. Now the criterion for an exempt service is a public transport service that for instance operates without a subsidy for the provision of the service. That is a key little indicator in there that no longer are we being explicit about exemptions being specific to ferry services. Now we are saying that one of the main criteria is that you do not receive subsidies.The reason I raise this is that there is a somewhat controversial provider of transport in Auckland that provides ferry services to Waiheke Island. Waiheke Island ispredominantly serviced by a sole provider. Some will argue that there are other options. Those who take that service daily will argue that they have very few options other than those provided by Fullers ferry services. Fullers ferry services very early on in the discussion around this bill directly approached Steven Joyce and asked Mr Joyce whether it could be exempt from the provisions of this bill and be considered an exempt service. Clearly it was given an indication by Mr Joyce that that was going to be acceptable because when Fullers then went to the select committee it included in its submission that it had already been given assurances that it would be an exempt service to the degree that it had purchased additional infrastructure which it implied it otherwise may not have invested in.Why is this interesting? Well for one thing some people would think that Fullers actually does receive a subsidy from the Government. It receives a hefty amount through the SuperGold Card. Many SuperGold Card holders use Fullers ferry services. Secondly by being exempt from this bill we will continue to have an operator—with Auckland Council having very little ability to ensure that the operator provides the kind of service that commuters require. If Fullers was not in the game of providing that service the council argues that in some form it would have to step in.The council argued on that basis that Fullers should not be an exempt service but unfortunately that was an argument that given Fullers had gone directly to the Minister clearly was lost. Why? Why should it not be an exempt service? It would argue that it is a private operator and there is no reason why it should be included.Well when you look at what the content of a regional public transport plan includes it includes the ability to provide an outline of the routes the frequency and the hours of operation. It would give for instance Auckland Council the ability—if for any reason the service dropped below what it would consider necessary for a fully integrated public transport network to be sufficient it would at least have some grounds for engagement around that. Secondly for those that are included and covered which an exempt service would not be it allows the council some ability and say over accessibility quality and performance—an issue that is of major concern for commuters from Waiheke Island who do not always believe that they get that level of service.It also allows transparency around fare setting the method or formula and around the reviewing of fares. This is not to say that you suddenly have the council coming in and being able to set the service’s fares but it at least adds a layer of transparency around that. That is certainly something that has been demanded for some time.I think Auckland Council was right to say Fullers should not be an exempt service. My Supplementary Order Paper would remove it from being an exempt service. It would allow for integrated fare structures and that is what I think we need.Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. I am going to hear from Dr Megan Woods.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am very happy to take my first call on this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill because I think it is really important and I think it is important for us to get on record why it is that all over the country Labour has a problem with this bill. My main two problems actually are covered by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Papers 234 and 235. I want to focus particularly on this: the constraints within the purpose of the bill and the limits of local input—so Supplementary Order Papers 234 and 235—and to talk about these particularly in relation to transport planning which is integral to the rebuild of Christchurch and the transport planning that is happening there at the moment.If we have a look at the first of these the bill as it currently stands removes the purpose statement of the Land Transport Management Act which sets out the integratedapproach to the transport system. Many of my colleagues have talked about this and what it will mean at a local level and the problems that this puts in place. We have specifically touched on how removing the integrated approach to transport—including the environmental responsibility that goes with that along with rail and coastal shipping—is a backward step and I want to show how this will be the case in Christchurch. The other thing that I want to touch on is the changes to the make-up of the regional transport committees and talk about the importance of local community input into planning effective transport systems that will operate well in certain localities. After all Labour does believe very strongly that local communities need to have a strong say in their local futures and transport is very much one of those areas where we would like to see this happening.In Christchurch as we plan our recovery we see transport as absolutely central to this recovery. One of the key things that we are grappling with and that the Government opposite is grappling with as well is how the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority the New Zealand Transport Agency Environment Canterbury and the Christchurch City Council are all going to fund different elements of the transport recovery strategy and the transport recovery plan—different agencies have different responsibilities for different parts of this—and how all this is going to fit together. I think the case of Christchurch shows very clearly the need to have this very integrated approach to transport because we cannot think of just one mode of transport as we think about transport recovery.So the Christchurch Central Development Unit has just drafted a transport chapter as part of its plan for the recovery of the central city of Christchurch but within this—I mean in many ways there are some very positive steps about what transport in a recovered Christchurch is going to look like. But one of the things that we in Labour have signalled as a really strong concern that we have with this chapter is that there is no detail about how it connects up with other elements of planning within transport. So how does it connect with Christchurch City’s transport strategy? How does it link with theCanterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy? How do all these things go together?Going back to my colleague’s second Supplementary Order Paper in terms of the make-up of the regional transport committees and the need to have this local input into them we have real concerns. One of the things we know is that the majority of submitters who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee including representatives from the regional transport committees really wanted to maintain the status quo of requiring specialist experts including the police disability experts—and I would like to come back to that about the need to have a city with very accessible transport in the 21st century—and representatives from walking and cycling groups on regional transport committees as they have valuable input to make. Having this wide variety of experts and perspectives in the transport planning and funding process at the outset ensures that far more robust discussions are had about priorities and about projects. But the concern is that if the funding is not there it is not actually going to have this diversity of views that will lead to the integrated approach to transport.So what is it that we are hearing from Christchurch residents on what they want in their recovered transport plan? Well one of the things that we are hearing very loud and clear and that the Christchurch City Council heard really loud and clear and also the Christchurch Central Development Unit when it put its transport chapter out for consultation is that Christchurch citizens very much want—ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. What this bill seeks to do is very important particularly when it comes to local input into roading priorities. That is a system thathas been very important in the last few years as regional councils and district councils have come together with their roading committees and with local interested groups—the Road Transport Forum I know in Taranaki plays a big role—and other interested parties to discuss what should happen in our roading priorities in the area of Taranaki. This bill will take that away.This bill will take away the stake that those people—the major users of roads whether they are commercial or non-commercial users—have; their right to have a say on what those priorities should be. That in my submission is what damns this bill. For all the good parts in it—the public transport operating mechanism that is provided for in the bill which is not a bad thing—it is the failure to allow local and regional input into roading priorities that is fatal along with the much narrower brief drive and purpose of the bill that is provided for there. It is for that reason that I support Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Papers 234 and 235 which seek to change those provisions of it.Maintaining the quality and the standard of roading whether it is new roads—and the Green Party certainly has a view about whether or not we need to break into new roads—or existing roads and above all the safety of them still remains a crucial responsibility of the Government and because the funding comes through central government it is the responsibility of central government. This bill takes away the opportunity for local solutions even for roading upgrades and roading improvements by abolishing the regional fuel taxes. That is not an option that has been widely taken up since it has been on the statute book but it has always remained a possibility as something that is there.I know that over the last 3 or 4 years the regional councils have been grappling with roading issues and roading priorities have had to use the regional funding that they have had access to effectively to work on State highway roading that is properly the responsibility of the New Zealand Transport Agency. So they had less to put into what are truly regional roads.I come back to the issue I raised about State Highway 3—certainly that section north of New Plymouth. That is becoming an issue that is demanding great priority. It is screaming out for attention and yet of all the Government MPs who live in and around that area not one has seen fit to address this House and give some reassurance to this House and the people of Taranaki / New Plymouth that they are taking that issue seriously—not one MP from that area except me. I am the only MP in this House connected with Taranaki who is prepared to stand up and argue that State Highway 3 north of New Plymouth must be a priority for the New Zealand Transport Agency and for this Government.Dr Cam Calder stood up earlier today to apologise for the failure of the Government to give it proper attention. He is an apologist. He has become an apologist for doing nothing as indeed has Jonathan Young as indeed has Shane Ardern as indeed has Chester Borrows—apologists for doing nothing. David Bennett who lives in Waikato is an apologist for doing nothing for Taranaki because he knows that if he can suck up as much money as possible for the Waikato Expressway that is all good for him. Well it is not good for the people of Taranaki and frankly the people of Taranaki deserve better. They deserve better. They deserve a better bill. They deserve a bill that allows for much greater local input leaves the opportunity and the options for genuine local solutions in place and provides in its purpose a provision that will allow a broad range of solutions—roading and integrated transport—to be considered at a local level. This bill does not do that and that is why we remain opposed to it. It is a bad bill and it should be opposed.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I am very pleased to have another opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill as there are so many different changes happening in Part 1 of this bill. I have already spoken about my concerns with the changes to the purpose of the principal Act and the lack of the Government’s willingness to listen to the many submissions that were opposed to that. I have talked about our concerns with the transitional measures and other elements of the Public Transport Operating Model that are going to entrench existing bus monopolies. I have talked about the problems with borrowing or going to public-private partnerships to fund transport priorities when those new projects do not generate new revenue.Further concerns that I have are to do with clause 14 and clauses 66 and 67. These are related to the core requirements of the regional land transport programmes prepared by regional transport committees and the make-up of the regional transport committees. During the select committee process we heard from a number of regional councils people who have sat on regional land transport committees and in almost every single case perhaps every single case they said that they benefited greatly from the additional members such as representation from the police representation from the disability community and representation from cyclists and walking advocacy groups because all of those different perspectives were able to provide the regional transport committee with solutions to problems before projects were implemented. So even though it may have taken a little bit more time having that broad perspective from a number of different areas resulted in more robust decisions being made. When we see the sort of horrific accident that happened at the KiwiRail level crossing in Morningside where there was not adequate disabled access and a woman in a wheelchair was trapped and hit by a train that sort of problem with the design of transport projects is exactly what can be avoided if you have robust input into the projects and into the prioritisation of projects.Although I expected regional land transport representatives to tell me that there was some problem with having these additional representatives on their regional and transport committees in fact every single one of them when I asked them about it said that no they really valued it and they did not want the change that the Government was proposing. So it does not seem like there was actually any problem with having that broad representation or requirement for broad representation in the principal Act. The problem or perception of a problem came from the Government which simply wants to streamline everywhere. The results of streamlining and making this change despite the fact that the individuals directly involved said that it was beneficial will be that we will see more of these problems where regional land transport committees will not have the diverse interests of end-users put into the planning and programming of the regional land transport priorities.A further problem that was raised by my colleague Andrew Little just a moment ago was the fact that there is actually a downgrading of the ability of regional councils to set their own priorities. We see this in clause 14 with the changes to the core requirements of regional land transport plans. They are going to be required to be consistent with the Government’sPolicy Statement on Land Transport Funding. So what the Government is essentially doing with this bill is concentrating more and more decision-making power at the central level as to which transport projects will get funding.There are a couple of different problems with this. Firstly regional and local ratepayers are major contributors to the money that is going into transport projects. They really should have some say as to what their priorities are. But secondly it is actually taxpayers all over the regions who are paying the road-user charge and the fuel taxes that are going into the central government’s transport budget. Ironically when the previous Minister of Transport Steven Joyce asked the Ministry of Transport foradvice on the amount of vehicle trips that were being taken on local roads which are half-funded by ratepayers not by road users and how many were being taken on State highways which are 100 percent funded by the Government but are basically funded by road users everywhere asking whether they are driving on local roads or on State highways what it showed was that the number—SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill as a new member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which considered the bill. I am sad to say though that I rise to reiterate Labour’s opposition to this bill because of the narrowness for which this Government has now become famous in terms of how it deals with many issues locally. We know that it narrowed the local government bill down so that social well-being and people’s wellness were not part of what was taken care of and here it goes again with land transport management.I want to speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and support this Supplementary Order Paper being voted through. This would actually fix up the very problem I have just highlighted. What Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Paper 234 does is restate what the purpose of land transport management legislation should be. It would bring back the purpose of the Land Transport Management Act to being “to contribute to the aim of achieving an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system.” Why would any Government not vote for a purpose statement like that for land transport management legislation? Why would it not vote to make sure that our land transport management system achieved affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport?If we think about sustainable land transport systems in the Waikato area where I come from it reminds me of a push that has come locally to have a commuter passenger train between Hamilton and Auckland. This is so popular that 13800 people signed a petition asking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to look at the issue of establishing such a service. That member opposite the chair of the select committee David Bennett who is from the area actually made sure that the select committee did not hear that petition. He as a local Hamilton member made sure that those 13800 people did not have their views heard in front of the select committee. I think that was a sham in terms of democracy. I have never seen a select committee that has turned down and stopped so many petitions from being heard as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under David Bennett’s chairpersonship. It has been quite shocking. Those 13800 people were after a sustainable land transport management system.David Bennett likes to go on about the billions of dollars spent on the Waikato Expressway which actually by his own Government’s admission would save only 10 minutes’ drive time between Hamilton and Auckland in 10 years’ time—in 10 years’ time. That is the thing that we are spending billions of dollars on: saving 10 minutes’ drive time between Hamilton and Auckland in 10 years’ time. Well if we spent a tiny tiny proportion of that actually supporting a commuter passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland we could save 10 minutes right now. We would not have to wait 10 years for it. We could save 10 minutes’ drive time right here right now with much less taxpayer money being spent on it and have a sustainable transport system with road and rail working together to complement each other.When people get on the Waikato Expressway and in 10 years’ time save their 10 minutes’ drive time only to sit in that southern motorway car-park—the great car-park at the end of the southern motorway; it is clogged up because they have not got public transport working well in Auckland—there will be no benefit whatsoever. They aregoing to spend 10 minutes more sitting in traffic on the southern motorway to get to work in Auckland in the morning even though billions of dollars will have been spent on the Waikato Expressway. It just is not the best spend of money that could be happening—it is not the best spend of money. We could have already fixed it in the time that it took David Bennett to stop those 13800 people from having their voice heard over getting a passenger train service in place.LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 234 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 238 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 69 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 235 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 69 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 MiscellaneousA party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Schedule as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The next typescript amendment is in the name of Brendan Horan. It replaces clause 2(1). The:tion is that the amendment be agreed to—Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like to clarify whether I can speak to this amendment.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No you cannot. The reason you cannot speak to it is that I moved at the beginning that clauses 1 to 3 stand part. At that stage you had the opportunity to debate clauses 1 2 or 3. No one did and that is why we are now going through the votes. So you have actually lost that opportunity and I am now going to put the question on your amendment.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendan Horan to clause 2 be agreed to:replace subclause (1) with:(1)Sections 42 and 70(2) come into force on the earlier of—(a)a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council:(b)31 December 2013.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.