Tisch Lindsay: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16903] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always interesting to follow New Zealand First whose members say for 1 minute that they will support the bill and then say for 10 minutes why they should not support the bill and talk about the rail tracks in Tauranga. I know the bridge that the member referred to very well and the Hon Maurice Williamson knows very well about the parking area under it. It is a great parking area and there is a lovely restaurant there. I know that bridge. This bill has a very important subject because it deals with safety. We should never compromise on safety. Although some of the principal elements of the bill are areas that National can support overall we cannot support anything that compromises safety and removes the factor of safety at reasonable cost that previous National speakers have spoken about.  
We support the merger of Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. That concept concerns the operational role and we have no problem with allowing that to happen. That body will then become Land Transport New Zealand which is fine. National supports the concept of one body being able to handle those areas. The policy area however moves from the Land Transport Safety Authority back to the Ministry of Transport. That is where the Minister will have control over the outcomes and objectives and that is clearly identified. We support that. We have no difficulty with that at all. There have been major concerns with regard to the way the Land Transport Safety Authority has operated over the years especially from the trucking firms and from the big earth-moving operators in my area that have done much of the work on the roads throughout the Waikato and the Bay of Plenty and on the highways around Tauranga. They have had major concerns with regard to some of the requirements that the Land Transport Safety Authority has imposed on them.  
However moving to the area of safety at reasonable cost that is an area that we have great difficulty with because in our view the bill does downgrade the whole area of safety. If we look at clause 7 which amends sections 33(2)(e) and (f) of the Civil Aviation Act we see it provides that one of the requirements is: “(e) the need to maintain and improve aviation safety and security …”. But the word “assist” which was previously in the bill has now been taken out. The proposed section 33(2)(f) states: “whether the proposed rule—(i) assists economic development: (ii) improves access and mobility: (iii) protects and promotes public health: (vi) ensures environmental sustainability:”. The difficulty that we have concerns the difference between the words “assist” and “ensure” because there is a major difference. When I look at what the word “assist” means in the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which is paramount in terms of being an authority on these matters I see it means to help persons or the process of helping and to take part in or be present at something. That is what “assist” means. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What’s the derivation? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I will not go into that because it goes a little bit further than that. However when we look at what the word “ensure” means—and this is a really important area because in my view the word “ensure” carries far more weight—we see it means to make safe. That is what it states in the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
. It states that the word “ensure” is to make a person or thing safe and in brackets it states that is against risks—to make certain that the thing is secure. When I look at the difference in wording between the words “assist” and “ensure” I would note—and this is my view and National’s view—that it is far more powerful to use the word “ensure” than “assist”.  
However in the bill with regard to clause 7 which I have just mentioned and clause 16A which proposes to amend section 152 in the Land Transport Act concerning the power of the Minister to make ordinary rules the point that I make is that nothing should compromise safety—absolutely nothing. Reading out those definitions from the  
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 which is the foremost authority on these matters makes it very clear that the word “ensure” carries far more weight than the word “assist” does.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Have you checked Webster’s? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I do not have Webster’s 
with me but I know that it would certainly state something similar. The amendment to section 152(c) in clause 16A the new majority amendment provides that the Minister may make ordinary rules to assist economic development and the amended section 152(f) provides that the Minister may also make rules for the purpose of “ensuring environmental sustainability:”. The point that National has concerns about is that greater emphasis is going to environmental sustainability than to the safety aspects that we would consider to be important.  
I want to move to a practical example of that. In my electorate the big dairy company is Fonterra. Fonterra will be moving its products from the Waitoa dairy factory through to Morrinsville where other products will be coming in. They will then move to Te Rapa before they are railed through the Kaimai Ranges to the Port of Tauranga. That is a very sensible move which will get transport and trucks off the road. However the very point that I make about safety is that there is a major highway State Highway 27 that runs through the area at a place called Tatanui. It is a major highway with traffic coming from Auckland and going south and vice versa and there is a rail crossing with no barrier arms on it. In fact I have written about that because I think it is a major safety issue that Transit will need to look at as will the New Zealand Railways Corporation. I am not quite sure who is responsible; maybe the Minister can help me with regard to that. But the situation is that a major highway State Highway 27 comes through and crosses State Highway 26 which runs between Morrinsville in the west and Te Aroha in the east. There are major highways and a rail crossing with no barrier arms there. In recent times the compulsory stop sign at the railway line at Tatanui at which one had to stop when coming from Auckland on State Highway 27 has been taken away and there is now a give-way sign as one comes through on to highway 26.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Under this bill there won’t be a sign at all. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No and the point I make which this Committee needs to realise is that we cannot compromise on safety. I have written to Transit—in fact while waiting to get on the plane at Hamilton Airport this morning I was talking to Transit members specifically about this point—and I have written to Railcorp about it as well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What did they say? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They are going to look into it and that is good. We do not want people to die because things like barrier arms are not there in terms of the safety that one would expect. Certainly we do not want to see deaths occurring on a major highway. We should salute what Toll Rail is doing in moving Fonterra’s products on that section of rail-track. I think that is good because it gets heavy trucks off the road. But it is an example of a situation where safety can be compromised and National will have no part of that whatsoever.  
I come back to the point I made earlier that this bill downgrades the safety factor. The bill talks about “ensuring environmental sustainability” and that is fine but the word “ensure” is far more definite than the word “assist”. In the public’s mind assisting and promoting and “assisting land transport safety and security” are not as great as ensuring that those things will happen. That is the reason why National will not be supporting this legislation. It is fine in parts. We have no difficulty with what will happen to Transfund and no difficulty with what will happen to the policy area of the Land Transport Safety Authority which is to go back to the ministry—we have no trouble at all with that. But where safety at reasonable cost will be a factor then there are issues that we cannot support.