Sowry Roger: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9731] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked through Part 3—which is quite a substantial part of the bill—the submitters raised a couple of issues that I would like the Minister of Transport to consider. 
One relates to clause 70 “Objective of Transfund”. It is quite important that the Minister notes in the Committee today that the select committee heard a near-unanimous view from submitters that they wanted Transfund to have the objective of considering the economic benefit of its spending decisions. I know that the Minister is prone to say that that is all about benefit-cost ratios which depend on how many people have been killed on a piece of road and that the Government is not going to do that because it means a new road is built only if someone has been killed on the old one. Well that actually was the case; if someone was killed on a dangerous corner that meant that corner might be more dangerous than one down the road and Transfund might spend some money on fixing it. That makes common sense. What the Minister is careful not to tell New Zealanders is that Transfund still takes that into account even though it does not use a benefit-cost ratio—that where a road is dangerous it will fix it. The Minister nods. I do not think for one moment he would stand and say that just because someone was killed there we will ignore it. 
I say to him that given that the Government does not want to go back to the benefit-cost ratio he should at least include in clause 70 words to the effect that Transfund should have regard to the economic benefits of any spending decision. Otherwise we will get into the situation whereby Governments will be accused of pork-barrelling. Already Labour has appointed its campaign organiser and president to Transfund. Already Mr Mike Williams the person who sits down and decides how Labour will hold the Otago seat is deciding how Transfund will allocate its money. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis of the marginal Whanganui seat says: “Don’t you wish that National had thought of that?”. I say to Jill Pettis that I do not believe that Transfund should be using its petrol tax money as some sort of large Labour Party re-election slush fund. That will now be able to happen because Transfund does not have to have regard to any economic impact at all. It can just decide that the seats that are marginal will get the bridges and the new money. I for one believe that is exactly what Labour will do. That is exactly what Mike Williams will do. 
That is exactly why the Minister will not put economic benefits into this clause. It has nothing at all to do with his going on about someone having to be killed in order to get a piece of road done. The Minister wants to ensure that Transfund has the ability to make political decisions. That is absolutely outrageous. I tell the Committee and that Minister that we will undo that. Roading decisions should be based on the economic benefit not on the political benefit for the Labour Party. That is why we will be strongly opposing Part 3. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why he will not support an amendment that stops political decisions from being made by the board of Transfund; that stops the Labour Party president and campaign manager from making decisions about where large amounts of Government funding for roading are allocated. I say to the Minister that it is outrageous that he has allowed that to happen. Never before has a party political president and campaign manager sat on a board dishing out funds like Mike Williams is doing with Transfund. The Minister could put a clause in here to stop it. 
Jill Pettis 
: I bet that’s a first. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is a first. I know that Jill Pettis supports it. She thinks it is the best way to get roading projects done in Whanganui. She tells the people in Whanganui not to worry about that bridge because she can get it done. It is a marginal seat and she can ring the Labour Party president and get it done. [ 
Interruption 
] Well she asks about the “Road to Nowhere” or whatever it was—the road that Sandra Lee had money spent on even though it was not a public road. Taxpayer money went on that road because of a political decision that the Minister made in order to keep the Alliance in the tent. He spent taxpayers’ money for political purposes on that road and he will do it again to try to buy David Parker the Otago seat. He will try to do it again to buy Jill Pettis the Whanganui seat. 
We will be watching where that money goes. I suspect the money will not be going to areas that are of economic benefit for this country; it will be going to areas that are of political benefit. That is outrageous. That is why the system was made transparent. The one sneaky underhand thing that this bill does is to take his political appointments one step further. It says to the Labour Party president and campaign manager that not only is he appointed—and paid—to sit on the board of Transfund but he is able to make decisions about where the money goes without being accountable on any economic criteria at all. He just has to have his eyes on the politics of it and that will keep this Minister satisfied. 
I would like the Minister to take a call. I bet he will not take a call and deny it. I bet the Minister will not take a call and defend the Labour Party president’s appointment to Transfund. I bet the Minister will not take a call and defend the Labour Party president’s allocation of money to projects all over New Zealand based on political patronage—not based on the economic benefit of roading. That Minister will not do that and that tells us a lot. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is already saying she wants a new road. We will see whether she gets it. 
I also want to raise the issues in Supplementary Order Paper 165. There is a large Supplementary Order Paper with a range of clauses to be read into this part. Once again this Government behaves in this sneaky sort of way: it has submissions listens to everybody makes decisions and reports back then races off and does some sort of deal with the Greens and throws that in without anybody having an opportunity to have a say on it. That is what this Minister has done with this Supplementary Order Paper. 
I want the Minister to get up and explain why on Part 3 we have five pages of amendments about largely the transitional provisions. The committee went through those transitional provisions very carefully. The officials agreed. So why do we have an amount of backsliding from this Minister on those transitional provisions? Why have these amendments been written? Is it so that Labour can have a quick review of some of the funding decisions just to make sure? Do Mr Williams and the Minister want to have a look just to make sure that the money is going to their pet political projects? Is that why these transitional provisions are being rewritten in this way? That is what it looks like to me. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain those issues to us as well. He has not taken the chance to do that. 
Finally I note the provision that says a board member may well be on both Transfund and Transit at the Minister’s discretion. I predict that the Labour Party president and campaign manager will be dishing the money out and deciding the projects. He will be on Transfund and Transit deciding which project gets the money. That is political patronage at its worst.