Little Andrew: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.