Sowry Roger: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9739] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister might have tried to get away with that little stunt but it just will not work. The schedules are huge. The Minister knows very well as do the submitters who opposed a lot of this bill that large parts of the bill are on consultation and the way that local government will have to consult on roading issues. All those provisions on consultation which were opposed during the process of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s hearing of submissions have been taken out of the main part of the bill and put in the schedules. The schedules now run to some 70 pages in length and that tells members the amount of detail that is contained in them. 
Perhaps the Minister may indulge the Committee and explain why the Government felt it necessary to have all the consultation principles which were opposed and to require regional councils local councils and the private sector involved with roading projects not just to consult and go through the Resource Management Act process and the local government legislation but now to go through a special consultative process laid out in new schedule 1AAB. There are so many new schedules. The Minister may think it was smart to remove the consultation provisions from the bill and put them in the schedules but they are onerous and will add a considerable amount of delay and cost to any project and particularly to any public-private partnership if somebody was to get such a project under way in that environment. In fact people from the private sector said that they just would not get involved in any project. They said they would not risk capital to get involved in roading partnerships with local and regional authorities with those consultative provisions. So lo and behold the provisions have gone from the main body of the bill and appear back in the schedules. Perhaps the Minister should explain why those people’s concerns were so wrong. 
The schedules also provide for the method of appointment of board members to a board. Appointments used to be made by the Governor-General but the Minister has now removed that provision. He wants to appoint board members directly. He is a Minister who wants a very hands-on political appointment process. There will be no going through the Governor-General now and no worrying about any minor problems that that might cause. This Minister wants to recommend his political mates and he does not want anyone to question them. He wants to make direct appointments and interestingly enough direct sackings as well. So someone who is appointed to the board of Transit or Transfund and who does not make a decision on one of those boards that is to this Minister’s liking will be gone. 
Perhaps the Minister who has been very keen to have that provision put in the bill could explain to the Committee where that method of appointment occurs in other legislation and explain what other legislation provides a Minister with so much power. Why does he want all the power with regard to this legislation? What was wrong with the old system? What was the problem with a process whereby Ministers had to recommend appointees to the Governor-General and had to go through a proper process in order to sack people? What was so wrong with that? Why do we now have to have such a ministerially dominated position if it is not because it is the only way I think that this Minister can make sure the people who politically support him are on the board and making the decisions that back up this Government in the marginal seats around the country? That is what people see this bill as doing. 
This would also have been a good time for the Minister to stand up and explain to us why he has allowed people to be appointed to both boards. That is in this part of the bill. I hope he will take a call.