Coddington Deborah: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Transport Legislation Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16739] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we supported the referral of the Transport Legislation Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but as it is still bad legislation we are voting against it. The bill was meant to focus on the reorganisation of the Crown entities involved with transport but it has gone far too far and it actually codifies the New Zealand Transport Strategy. People may remember that strategy was written by the Greens and Heather Simpson—that is the worst-kept secret in New Zealand—and it completely refocuses transport. People will be listening to Parliament and thinking: “Goody—more transport legislation. We are going to get across Auckland and get to our appointments on time. We will be able to pick up our children on time. We are going to be able to have a life instead of sitting in monstrous parking lots.” With every piece of transport legislation that goes through this House the ending of the gridlock in Auckland and Wellington—Wellington is getting just as bad as Auckland—gets further and further away because of all the increased consultation and because of the magic words that were brought into the New Zealand Transport Strategy and that are now being codified in this legislation: that we will have an affordable an integrated a safe a responsible and a sustainable transport system. 
The issue is the use of the word “sustainability”. There is a sustainability filter through which all legislation must now pass. We are seeing the problems out there now because this House passed legislation that had to go through the Treaty of Waitangi filter. We are paying the price for that now and in 5 10 or 15 years’ time people will still be sitting on the motorways in Auckland and they will still be trying to get busways on the North Shore. The Greens talk about buses but there is no busway in sight for the North Shore. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Rubbish! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That member over there says “Rubbish!”. That member is the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and she told a suburban newspaper on 4 September 2002: “I am not convinced that the eastern corridor is the best solution just so all the people in Howick can have an extra half-hour in bed.” Now the good people of Howick will be very interested to know that they do not count as Aucklanders; they are of very little concern to the Minister who is paid to represent them. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No concern. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: No concern at all. This legislation—and we will see more transport legislation come back to the House because legislation that amends the legislation passed only last year is to come back in the next few weeks—will not build one new road. We heard submitter after submitter at the select committee who did support as ACT supports the reorganisation of the Crown entities but the submitters had huge concerns about some of the issues in this bill the main one being that the bill gets rid of safety at reasonable cost and replaces that term with sustainability. Sustainability is totally undefined. We had the officials come back to the select committee and I asked them to define sustainability. I asked them what that term meant—whether it was a sustainable yield or a benefit-cost ratio. The answer was: “No no.” 
If we go back to the New Zealand Transport Strategy which brings in the magic word “sustainability” we see it is not defined at all. Reasonable cost is defined—there is a definition of that. A cost is a reasonable cost when the value of the cost to the nation is exceeded by the value of the resulting benefit to the nation. Let me put the concept of reasonable cost in the words of the submitter to the select committee from I think the Bus and Coach Association. He was a very rational and intelligent man and he said that every year at the beginning of the school year the issue arises of putting seat belts in buses. People argue that all seats in buses should have seatbelts. Now that is a good safety measure. It is a good thing to think of—it sounds good. But he said that when one actually goes into it one finds it would cost something like $30 million to put seatbelts in buses and that does not include the cost of putting on extra buses to carry all the people who can no longer stand in buses. So that is what we mean by safety at a reasonable cost. We need to have an objective basis for arguing as to which changes can be made and that is the cost-benefit ratio. That is in the current law. It is an objective basis on which the Minister and the officials can work out whether or not we should take a safety measure. If we take that out of the law then it becomes a situation of jokers wild and such decisions are just based on someone’s belief or opinion. 
The transport industry is already very highly regulated. It is an industry that more than any other I would say needs any increase in compliance costs that are forced upon it to be done on an objective basis and that is absolutely not happening with regard to this legislation. That has just gone out the window. The fact that the Government would not take any notice of the submitters who came in to see the select committee is appalling. We heard submissions from the maritime industry. The maritime industry told us that the New Zealand Transport Strategy—and we are talking about ships here that move cargo and people around and thinking of ships barges and ferries as transport; but no this Government does not think in that way—mentions the maritime industry only twice and the fishing industry only once. It does not acknowledge the huge advances that have been made by the maritime industry and the fishing industry in terms of reducing deaths and accidents. Whenever there is a terrible accident at sea like the one we read about recently where a man was caught in a crusher the industry goes to extreme measures to protect its staff and workers. There are 1750 fishing vessels in New Zealand and they were mentioned only once in relation to the New Zealand Transport Strategy. The Government does not care about fishers motorists truck drivers or small businesses. Most businesses in the transport industry in New Zealand are small to medium businesses and they will have extra compliance costs forced upon them. 
I finish by saying that the other appalling provision in this legislation that we have to consider is that there will be more consultation now with Maori when it comes to drawing up a land transport strategy. I would like to know why this Government thinks that Maori are not included in the public. Under the individuals authorities or entities that an authority must consult with when it is preparing a land transport programme the Ministry of Transport the Accident Compensation Corporation the Minister of Justice affected communities the public and Maori are mentioned. I am sure that it is a surprise to Maori to know that they are first not members of the public and second not affected communities. This bill is politically correct social engineering at its worst and the ACT party does not support it.