Fenton Darien: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFenton Darien: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10695. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and to reiterate that Labour continues to oppose this bill. Despite putting up some excellent Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage that would have improved this bill the Government kept its head down. It remains stuck in the tarmac dedicated to building roads roads and more roads to the detriment of everything else.The truth is that this Government wants this bill to pass so that it can borrow more and charge more on toll roads. The bill clearly shows that the Government’s direction inland transport is to build more and more unsustainable roads and spend more on motorways to nowhere. It seems that the Government woke up one day and realised that the roads of national significance projects are too expensive and that it is going to have to borrow to fund them or make them all toll roads. That is the truth of why it needs this bill. That is what is at the heart of this bill. Without increasing petrol tax beyond CPI adjustments the New Zealand Transport Agency would need to borrow $930 million over the next 5 years to keep the roads of national significance on track. That is $930 million over the next 5 years that would need to be borrowed.Meanwhile this Government continues to underfund local roading. I am sure we will hear about more local roads in this debate. We will hear more about local roads in this debate and I know my colleagues have many a story to tell on that. The current level of subsidy sees State highways receiving $142509 per kilometre compared with just $7573 per kilometre for local roads. How unbalanced is that? That just shows you that what this Government is up to—Hon Maryan Street: More and more highways.DARIEN FENTON: Yes—more and more highways. It is addicted to tarmac and does not care about the local people.When you look at the purpose of this bill it says it all. The Government has removed references to words like “affordable” “integrated” “safe” “sustainable” “accessible” and “one that promotes public health environment and social responsibility.” During the Committee stage we sought to understand why the Government thought it could remove those criteria and reduce them down to three which is what it describes as streamlined project-level decision-making criteria—three criteria—to give effect to the Government policy statement and to be effective and efficient.What is being cut out? Let us remember what is being cut out. “Affordable”—what is wrong with “affordable”? I thought this was a Government that prided itself on being fiscally responsible but it does not want to have that as a criterion in this bill. It does not want to have the word “integrated”. It has removed “integrated” which is about incorporating not only roads but also rail and coastal shipping. Coastal shipping has died a death under this Government. We were making progress under the last Government and it has died a death under this Government which is so committed to roads. It is not committed to rail in real terms; it just wants to make sure that we have no other way of getting around except by roads.The Government wants to remove the word “safe”. Surely we want a land transport management system that is safe. What is wrong with “safe”?David Bennett: Look at the road toll.DARIEN FENTON: Well roads have not—[Interruption] No he does not. Maybe as that member was saying the roads of national significance should not be safe. Is that what the member is saying? Is that what he is saying? Look we just had a fantastic weekend when nobody was killed on the road. Nobody was killed on the road and that is down to the hard work of many many people over many years. Certainly I am sure that the people who were responsible for the wonderful road safety we had over the weekend will be very concerned to hear that this Government does not think “safe” is a decision criterion.The Government has also removed the words “responsive” and “sustainable”. “Sustainable” is a dirty word for this Government. This is a word that this Government does not like to use. It does not understand it but I thought it might understand assisting “economic development”. Would you not think that a National Government that again prides itself on being fiscally responsible and that boasts all the time about its wonderful economic management would want to have a criterion that requires land transport management systems to assist economic development?And “improving access and mobility” has gone. I think we saw during urgency the disgraceful performance of this Government and the lack of regard it has for people with disabilities and that is what this means—that is what this means. Removing accessibility and mobility not having those as criteria is a slap in the face to the people throughout New Zealand who have disabilities and who rely on the Government to actually recognise that for them to get around we have to take special care and provide special access.And then there are other things like social responsibility. Of course they are dirty words for this Government. I do not think it would understand what social responsibility meant. Here is another one: “environmental responsibility”.Hon Maryan Street: No idea.DARIEN FENTON: There you go. We had the Hon Maryan Street speaking this afternoon about the Budget and about the fact that nothing about the environment was mentioned in the Budget speeches—no new initiatives no new money. So I guess those are our concerns about the bill. This is why we are very concerned about it and why we continue to be opposed to it.There are other things about the bill. It abolishes the ability to have a regional fuel tax. That is just another cynical attempt by the National Government to prevent the Auckland Council’s plans for its transport system. The Minister of Transport already has complete control of whether a fuel tax is created. We know that Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee do not get along with Auckland but some of us live there. Some of us are just very very keen to see the plans that have been laid out by our properly elected mayor and council to ensure that we have a future transport system throughout Auckland that is fit for purpose that will cope with growing populations that does not rely on building more roads when we do not have any more room and that actually extends public transport. But abolishing the ability to have regional fuel tax takes that opportunity away.And of course local communities under this bill have less say in supporting transport projects that benefit them. The bill reduces opportunities for community input into the transport systems. We in Labour strongly believe that every community should have the ability to have its say about its transport systems but this Government is taking that away just like it is taking away other things that underpin our land transport system. It is taking away the right of communities to have a say on their local transport systems.So this bill will do nothing to fix the shambles the transport portfolio has been in since this Government took over with years of wasteful mismanagement. The sad thing about it is that future generations will pay the price for the very very stunted and short-term thinking that this bill demonstrates. It is a missed opportunity and it undoes much of the good work that Labour did when it was in Government around progressing and upgrading land transport management systems. It is a real shame and that is why Labour is opposed to this bill.