Dunne Peter: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Dunne Peter: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:16993] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future strongly supports the second reading and subsequent stages of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill as providing a new way for the planning development and funding of land transport - related issues in this country. 
I will use two local examples this afternoon to demonstrate the impact of this legislation on the people whom I am privileged to represent in this House. In a few days’ time we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of New Zealand’s first urban electric rail passenger service—the Johnsonville line. For about 25 of the last 70 years I have been fighting a battle to keep the Johnsonville line and it has come and gone as various councils have come and gone and as various people with their bright ideas have come and gone. But the really good news is that the decision made last year to commit $227 million to the upgrading of Wellington’s urban rail services has finally given that line a security it has lacked from probably the very early years of its foundation. We will soon start to see work developing to upgrade the tunnels and the platforms so that new units can come on to that line as part of the bigger Wellington urban transport package from 2010. 
I say that today because the framework this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill ushers in in terms of the funding and the responses given to the various modes of transport is what makes it possible. I can recall in the late 1980s that a very prominent report the McCutcheon report on public passenger transport was supposed to be definitive in terms of assigning a value to the various modes of passenger transport alongside roading and ensuring that we got a fair and equitable funding regime for public passenger transport services be they bus train ferry or whatever in comparison with the funding that was dedicated to roading. The presumption at that time was that our system was biased in favour of roading and against public transport. Frankly 20 years later it has not really worked out that way. This bill is the latest effort to put in place a much better coordinated strategy that will deliver benefits to the people we represent. 
The second example that I will quote to the House is almost as old as the first one—that is the struggle to get some finality on the best way in and out of this city to the north. It is called Transmission Gully. It has had a variety of names over the years. There was an ill-fated plan a few years ago to cantilever a highway out around the rugged Cook Strait coast to the north and somehow go through a whole lot of local communities and provide that security and safety for the people of Wellington. Well that was utterly rejected—90-something percent of the submissions made were against that proposal. 
One of the things United Future was able to do in negotiation with the current Government after the last election was to get a commitment that the funding that had been hitherto set aside for resolving Wellington’s western corridor transport issues could be transferred to Transmission Gully if that proved to be the most popular and viable outcome from the region’s point of view. So that has come to pass. Now we have the decision this week on a new route which will be announced shortly and a clear commitment from the Government—which we welcome—that the next stage can proceed thus making possible the construction of this highway which has been posited as a highway since 1939. The area was first identified in 1906 as being a viable option for the main trunk railway line north so the idea has been around for over 100 years. We are now finally at the point where decisions can be made that give some certainty that this project will proceed. 
That is where the other part of this bill becomes important—the provisions relating to how the funding will be delivered through the regional fuel tax. We support the notion of having a regional fuel tax for projects of this type. We welcome the cap being put at 5c for roading projects. The other criteria contained within this bill are to ensure that that tax will be applied only under very specific and tight conditions and they are these. Firstly the project has to be identified as being the primary priority of the region and of regional significance. Clearly that would apply in the case of Transmission Gully. Secondly the funding has to be for a specific project—for example the development of a road. It cannot just go into the general pool. Assuming that the time comes when the funding for the project has been exhausted then the tax itself is exhausted. 
The regime that the bill introduces is critically important for the delivery of good transport services for the people of my electorate and for the people of the Wellington region in general. Right across New Zealand we have had the debate for a very long time—the previous speaker Dr Pita Sharples alluded to it in respect of Auckland—as to how we fund necessary transport infrastructure. We can all hark back to a golden era which is ill-defined when all these things were provided for perfectly but the reality is that over the postwar period in particular at the urban level at the State highway level and at the national level funding for our transport infrastructure has been on a steady decline. It reached its apogee in the early years of this century when in short order the Government had to rescue the airline and the railway it had to acknowledge that roads were chronically underfunded and it also had to rescue the national power system. We can never let that situation occur again and that is why a bill of this type is so critical. 
I am aware that there will be a whole variety of issues and interests about some of the bill’s provisions. I noted yesterday for instance at the Federated Farmers national conference that some concern was expressed about the composition of regional land transport committees. People were asking why it was that some of the major user groups were apparently excluded from at least some of these committees at a specific regional council level. That is a matter that the House can explore as the bill proceeds through its remaining stages. But it is important that we have in place framework legislation that enables us to start to make real progress on some of the big transport issues the resolution of which have eluded us for so long. 
The relevance of this to our national economy should not be underestimated. We are a small isolated trading country. We rely on our ability to get products to market quickly and efficiently. If our roading systems or our rail systems are not up to the mark then a couple of things will happen. Firstly we will simply be bypassed by a number of the shipping companies—that is happening already. The outlets for our products will be reduced. Secondly at a provincial and regional level we will see competition taking away goods from our area to other areas not necessarily because the prices are better but simply because the transport networks make that more possible. If we are really serious about good infrastructural development to assist the growth of our regions then the package of measures that this legislation introduces needs to be proceeded with. 
I am very supportive of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I welcome the fact that it means we can address significant local transport priorities particularly those relating to rail and to road. When we talk about peak oil and everything else there are people who ask why we are building more roads at a time when petrol prices are rising. Those people fail to acknowledge that the motive power for vehicles will change. It may be that some of the hybrid systems now being developed will become more sophisticated. Other alternative forms of energy will be developed. There will always be cars. There will always be people wanting to go from A to B by motor vehicle. We need to ensure that our roading network is capable of serving their needs. 
I am very happy to support the bill. I see it as a hugely positive step forward. I acknowledge that the climate that it has brought about—which has seen issues like urban rail in Wellington given some certainty for the long term—will see the development of Transmission Gully which will give certainty not just to current generations but also to future generations of Wellingtonians. These are immensely positive and beneficial steps for our region. This bill is certainly part of making that happen.