Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18644] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we are looking at Part 1 I think there has been a lot of talk about what actually happened in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by members involved in that select committee process. One of the things that one looks for in a select committee is a transparent and accountable process in that people know what is going on and can submit in the genuine faith that their submissions will actually make a difference. The last thing one would want in a select committee is for the decisions to be made through a process that does not avail the public of that ability to make constructive criticism and provide solutions. What is the point of a select committee if there cannot be consultation? We cannot just have select committee processes that are sped up for the last 2 weeks of the Parliamentary term and then feel that we endear ourselves to the public and achieve the purpose of the process. 
A lot of people in the industry will naturally be aggrieved at the process taken by the Minister in this case and by the chair of the select committee under her instructions. I am sure that reflects the view mainly of passengers of public transport because they are the real losers in this case. It is not the bus companies or the regional council; it is the passengers that lose because the passengers do not get the opportunity to have put in front of them the best possible solution to this problem—a solution that would avail itself of a conjoint approach from Government local government regional government bus companies and also passenger representative bodies as well. I guess what the National Party finds so distressing in what has happened in the process leading up to this Committee stage is that we have actually missed out on some fundamental processes within a select committee. That means we will not have the legislation going forward that we should have had and that the public of New Zealand have been let down by this Parliament once again during the term of this Government. 
If we look at what has happened to some of the conceptual ideas that went behind the options that were portrayed throughout the discussion on this bill we see that it had been a long enough process but the reality of what people wanted to see happen in the legislation was not made clear. I think there were many agendas that were hidden and the Government of the day was not prepared to come out and say what it actually wanted to achieve. It went into an agreement with other parties through a Cabinet process and then did not hold itself to its word. It made an agreement with commercial operators that would expect a degree of commercial sensitivity and also a degree of respect for the agreement. This Government has shown itself not to be willing to fulfil its agreements with the commercial sector and we are seeing that publicly played out on the TV at the moment with the inability of the commercial sector and the Government to see eye to eye on how to do business deals. We are seeing that in regard to the funding of political parties. 
The commercial world operates on a different basis from this Government. It operates on the basis of accountability and honesty. What it says it does and it sticks by it. In this case we have a perfect example of a Government changing its mind—saying one thing and doing another. It will do this again in this process of the Committee stage. It will put up Supplementary Order Papers to bring option C back. It will do that again and it will do something different from what it agreed upon. There will be other parties in this House that for some unknown reason may stick with some other options. But the reality is that there was an option that was decided upon. It was a constructive decision that would have been for the benefit of passengers but it was not fulfilled. The political parties in this House need to look at that and look at the way they deal with the consumer and also the corporate sector and stick to their word. If parties agree on something they should do it. 
Hon Annette King 
: No word was given to it. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Well if there was no word how come Cabinet agreed upon it? 
Hon Annette King 
: No word was given to them. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: So there was no agreement? 
Hon Annette King 
: There was a process of Parliament to go through. The public are allowed a say. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: But did the Minister not agree on something with it? 
Hon Annette King 
: The public have a say and this House decides. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: So what actually happened was that there was no agreement? We just had a meeting with them?