Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 After that very inspirational and entertaining speech the first thing we need to look at is what the options actually were. Option C was the Government’s preferred option which basically gave regional councils the greater share of control. There were two versions of option B as New Zealand First has explained; there was B1 and B2. This is probably not the best analogy to describe the options but B2 was the option that was followed in the legislation and B1 was the option that was agreed upon between the parties. That agreement happened when the bus companies the regional councils and the Government got together had a bit of a talk and decided they could live with option B1. Although it was not quite the perfect scenario it was the one they believed would make some change to assist in public transport especially in the Auckland region.  
But at some point the Government changed its mind and felt it could not live with the agreement it had made with all the parties involved so it decided at Cabinet level that it would go out on its own. The Government then promoted option C which basically gave the regional councils the greater share of control. The Minister came into the Chamber earlier and indicated that she will be putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper on this matter which will essentially change the legislation to option C. It will be very interesting to see how the parties in this House vote on that and the indication we heard from New Zealand First today is that it will vote against that Supplementary Order Paper. I do not expect to see that happen because from our experience in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to actually see New Zealand First carry through on its word and vote in that manner will be something that National will look forward to. The day I see it will be the day I believe it I guess. But the ball is in New Zealand First’s court and it may go against the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper and vote for option B2 not for option C. Mr Hide has raised some issues about how and why that may happen but that discussion is for another day I am sure. 
Public transport is at the heart of the legislation and I do not think anybody has a problem with supporting the need for a strong public transport network in New Zealand. That is especially so in Auckland which has the largest population density in the country. The region needs to be serviced by an effective and efficient public transport system which will be a combination of buses and trains and ferries for a city that has a harbour as Auckland has. Many options can be taken and things done to assist in that process. One option may be integrated ticketing and another may be to keep the private sector involved in the competitive aspect of keeping public transport an effective and efficient tool in our biggest city. 
The Auckland Regional Transport Authority is the body that has the primary role for organising and managing the public transport of Auckland City and it does a very good job. It is a well-known body that has worked well within the community to achieve its aspirations. We look forward to seeing its preparedness to do that in the future and maybe even the development of its ability to do so as we see potential change in the structure of Auckland governance. There may be an extended role perhaps for the transport authority under such a change. 
However the authority is not the only body that can play an important role in this process; we need the private sector to also be successful if we want to have a public transport system in Auckland that is effective. The private sector role in public transport is very apparent at the moment. The private sector is probably providing the vast bulk of bus services in the city and it does that through a number of operators with one large operator having a very high percentage of the market. That operator has done an exceptional job as well. It has worked with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority in the past and both parties have come to some very fruitful agreements and provided a lot of good services for the public of Auckland City. 
We need to see that process continue. There is no way in which we can take both of those parties and then choose one to have the upper hand over the other. We need both the private sector and the regional council in order to be effective. That was the whole reason why they both came to the Government and reached an agreement. Option B1 was proposed and agreed upon. That is what we need to see happen in the future but at this stage we are seeing a breakdown between the players. We essentially have a situation where the Government of the day is aligning itself with one of the players and that is not good for Auckland’s public transport. What is needed in this case is for those parties to get around the table and to work out a viable solution that involves the private sector gives the Auckland Regional Transport Authority the powers that it needs in order to do its job and also gives the Government the confidence that public transport service operations will be delivered in Auckland City. That is the goal we should attempt to achieve in this House through this legislation. 
But that goal is not being achieved through this legislation and it will not be achieved if this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper the Labour Government wishes to put through are passed. That will seriously damage any chance of that kind of tripartite working arrangement becoming a reality for the benefit of Auckland public transport users. So I would encourage the Government to pull this bill—to actually go back to the parties and work out a viable solution that achieves its goals. The Government has got itself in a predicament now where it has a solution that is favouring one of the parties and that is not acceptable for Auckland transport users long term because it will not give the best gains for users as they go forward. That is a true test of governance and a Government showing leadership in this area will be recognised if people can work out that they have made a mistake or have not actually reached a proper agreement and then work towards a solution in the area. That is something we have seen lacking in this Government in its dealing with transport issues. We constantly see legislation put forward that is a quick-fix solution but does not take into account the parties and the roles they can play in reaching viable and successful solutions. 
It has been an interesting environment in which to see how the options were progressed through the select committee how they were progressed through the Government mechanism and how we are now getting to a result that is not in the best interests of all the players involved. That shows a poor understanding of the issue by the Government members involved. It shows an unwillingness by the Government to work with all the people who can be involved in solving these issues for Aucklanders. 
The National Party has opposed this bill because we see that this solution has gone too far to one side of the argument. It has not taken into account all the parties involved and what their potential arrangements and contributions could have been towards reaching a greater solution. So the National Party is very disappointed in the result of this legislation. We believe that if the Government had stuck to the original agreement made by the parties then the House could well have been passing legislation that was not what everyone wanted but was what everybody could have worked on together and achieved.  
If this legislation passes and if the Supplementary Order Paper passes I think we will see that the private sector involvement in Auckland’s public transport will be very much limited and that will be to the detriment of the users of the services. I do not think that that is in anyone’s interests when we need to encourage people on to public transport especially in a major city such as Auckland. Equally we need to take into account the role of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the need for that body to have some control and provide some solutions it sees as important as it works on long-term planning in the city of Auckland.  
There is the prospect of getting that solution but it will not come about through this bill. The process by which this bill has arrived at the option that has been voted on today is something that we have all found quite interesting and an eye-opener into the way politics can work. This bill certainly does not represent the interests of Auckland’s transport users. It does not represent the public good of promoting public transport and it does not represent the potential contribution that the private sector can make in solving those issues. Therefore we oppose this bill.