Goudie Sandra: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goudie Sandra: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12476] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I feel very sorry for the Auckland people. I really really do. I look at this bill and I find it staggering that the Government thinks it is going to get anywhere near the time frames that it thinks it will have. We listened to Judith Tizard and she gave an incredible performance. I have never seen a performance from Judith Tizard like it—and I have seen one or two. Normally she has been knitting but this time not only did she give a performance but I am sure she must have been feeling guilty and ashamed about it because she disappeared from the House straight afterwards. What does that say about how Judith Tizard really feels about Auckland’s roads? She has not stayed here to listen to any of the comments being made about the significant contribution— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: You should not refer to a member’s absence from the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: My apologies. I will move on to talk about the Greens their planning processes and their promotion of walkways cycleways carless days and of the Road Traffic Reduction Bill. The Greens are a significant part of the reason why we do not have any progress on our transport and roading systems. 
I think Auckland faces the danger of being fobbed off with a new body that is responsible for delivering an integrated network but where is Transit in all of that? One of the major things missing from the new integrated body is representation from Transit in terms of the major corridors. The Government is actually excluding the major corridors from the whole process. Establishing one transport agency with responsibility for roading should not be difficult but I think in this bill it has certainly become convoluted with a great deal of bureaucratic process. And for what? For $1.6 billion dollars which is to be drip-fed over a 10-year period. Just what on earth does the Government think it will achieve with $1.6 billion drip-fed over 10 years when Auckland actually needs an extra $5 billion? How much progress will actually be achieved with that amount of money when clearly a lot more money is needed? 
The Auckland Regional Council will have more influence over public transport than it does now and it will control the assets of Infrastructure Auckland. It will influence but not control the regional funding priorities for public transport and local roads through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The only difference will be that Infrastructure Auckland will become an Auckland Regional Council - controlled agency called Auckland Regional Holdings. So we are starting to grow all those bureaucracies. We have the Auckland Regional Council Auckland Regional Holdings the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Transit Transfund and also about seven local authorities. The process will become incredibly bogged down and I refer members to a part of the bill that sets out what the local authorities will be required to do. 
Under clause 31 there is an obligation by all the local authorities to publicly notify the proposed changes to all their planning documents. They have to do that by 26 February 2005. That is great! So they are to go through a whole public process as required by the Resource Management Act—and we all know how long those processes take. Of course there is bound to be objection by the Greens. Why will that be? The public have been under quite incredible pressure from a completely inadequate transport system and I know that because I have been there. I go there every week and get bogged down in traffic just as my colleague John Key has referred to. So we will have people desperately trying to put planning documents in place so as to improve that situation and people like the Greens will come along and say they are sorry but the documents do not adequately provide for cycleways or walkways or maybe do not actually take into account carbon dioxide—all the sorts of things that the Greens cling to in their attempts to slow everything down. That is exemplified by the Road Traffic Reduction Bill and the Greens’ proposals for a carless day. I would like to reiterate the comments made by my learned colleague John Key about one of the Greens’ representatives on the Local Government and Environment Committee not even liking roads. 
 All the local authorities are to be involved in that area. That is about seven of them who will by 26 February 2005 actually have go through a complete public notification process under the Resource Management Act—right through the whole gamut including appeals to the Environment Court. So if all the local authorities’ planning documents are appealed against to the Environment Court how on earth do we expect that the review of the Auckland regional land transport strategy by 31 December 2005 can possibly take place with any degree of competence if the local authorities have not got their act together? Here we have another example of the Resource Management Act having the ability to slow down the whole process and that does not even begin to take into account the ability of that Act to slow down all the projects that are to be undertaken. 
I reiterate my concern about Transit not being involved in the construction of the new authorities: Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I really feel sorry for the Auckland people having to struggle with all of that. It will be a planning nightmare for them as they try to come to terms with the situation make submissions and try to get the best they can for their areas. With the exclusion of the roading corridors how can we get the sorts of roading efficiencies that we seek? 
I completely concur with my colleagues and I cannot understate in any way the serious concerns and reservations we have about the efficiency of this particular bill—about it being able to actually deliver the outcomes sought for the people of Auckland. As members have heard my colleague say there is $1 billion of economic loss a year because of the poor traffic and roading systems we have in Auckland alone. That figure does not take into account some of the traffic congestion in other parts of the country which is also real. But Auckland’s congestion is by far and away the worst—although having travelled in Tauranga a lot I would say that it is not far behind Auckland. 
We have all contributed a huge amount of funding and we are looking at about a 5c increase coming on stream in petrol costs. How much of that will actually go into roading projects and achieving an asset outcome that will make a difference? I put to members that it will not be a great deal. How much is being siphoned off for cycleways walkways planning and the like while we are not getting actual roading projects being done? I would like to refer to some comments made by my learned colleague Dr Nick Smith. By the time a person actually ever does— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: He’s not learned. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Absolutely he is! He is one of the best members in the House. As we even get anywhere near to trying to put in some of the roading projects we will struggle to find the contractors engineers and suchlike to undertake the work. It is getting harder and harder to find people able to take on works of such scale. 
I would like to reiterate our concerns. We do oppose this bill. We are concerned about the bureaucratic bog-down that this legislation will create. We are concerned about the lack of real action with regard to the Resource Management Act and about the effect that some of the requirements of this bill will have by adhering to that Act’s processes. I really do have a great deal of sympathy for the Auckland people but I do not see this bill as being the way forward for them.