Brown Peter: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:18783] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 During the term of this Parliament New Zealand First when it comes to transport has had a very good working relationship with the Minister of Transport and the two Associate Ministers. I would say that it has been a first-class relationship when it has related to our working together but on this issue we disagree. On this issue New Zealand First takes a different view from the Government. I will explain why. The Public Transport Management Bill is really attempting to address an Auckland issue. Everywhere else in the country public transport when it comes to buses is working if not very well— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Adequately. 
PETER BROWN 
: —adequately well. It does not need a great deal of legislation to improve it. It is true that in many places public transport is operating under a full contract model and the Minister acknowledged that that is the case in Tauranga. In Wellington public transport is largely contracted but it is still working very well. In Christchurch and I think in Queenstown it is a mix of contract and commercial operations and it is working very well. 
When this bill came before the House in its initial instance it looked a very simple straightforward bill. There were three options. Option A was the status quo and I think that most people although we recognise the issue principally as an Auckland issue or almost totally an Auckland issue recognise that the status quo was not working in Auckland. Option B seemed to be the favoured option because option C was ruled out in the explanatory note of the initial bill—and quite firmly. It was not just that it would not be considered by the Government; there were good reasons why it had not been considered. So it came down to a bill that I at least thought revolved around just option B as proposed in the bill. But when the submitters particularly the bus company submitters came to us they told us a different story. They told us that another option B had been agreed to between officials and bus companies and that it had gone to Cabinet and been signed off. That was the understanding I at least had and I believed that the option B in the bill was a modified version of the option B that had been agreed on. 
New Zealand First understands the concerns of the bus companies. We believe that bus companies have a role to play. They look after the passengers they carry the passengers and it is up to them to provide the services. So we believe they have a positive role to play and it should not be a role that puts them into some sort of subservient position where they are told: “You will do this or else.” New Zealand First does not agree with that attitude. Although some of the bus companies—the minor companies I have to say—agreed with option C the big players which carry thousands of people were committed to the option B version that had been agreed to before the bill came into being. 
I have to say that when those bus companies’ representatives came before the select committee I had never seen such enthusiasm such determination and such desire to provide a service. It sort of sprang out at us; they were passionate about their cause. They were not doing it just for the money. I cannot believe for one moment they want to run empty buses around the town just to collect the subsidy; they want to provide a service. They told us that in Wellington they had taken chances by putting on services at a financial loss and over a period of time they had built up the services they referred to and made them profitable—but only just. Enthusiasm determination and competence are needed to run a bus company and people who know how it all works and ticks together are needed. Equally innovation and investment are needed. But we all know that this regime—even though the Minister has said “Oh well it will be optional as to whether Auckland people introduce it or not.”—will come to pass and that is why the lobbying has been so extensive. If we bring in a regime that says: “You will do exactly what I want because I know better even though you are running the bus company.” there is a real chance of dampening that enthusiasm and of dampening that investment and innovation. In other words there is a good chance that a second-rate service will be imposed on the Auckland public whereas if we encourage people to do their thing—what they are fully aware of and know the facts and figures for—the chances are we will get a far better service because they are in there to service passengers. 
In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I listened intently to the bus companies’ representatives and I spoke to them privately—as the Hon Maurice Williamson referred to—before New Zealand First made a decision whether to support or oppose the bill. We certainly thought the bus companies had a case worth supporting. There are five categories of bus service. Earlier on in the House I said there were four but the Hon Maurice Williamson has added the fifth and that one is very important. To run an efficient bus service the service has to be reliable convenient comfortable and affordable and as the Hon Maurice Williamson reminded me it has to be safe. I had taken that as read. So there are five attributes— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You haven’t ridden in buses in Auckland then? 
PETER BROWN 
: Clearly I have not for some time. Those guys know what they have to do to deliver an efficient bus service. New Zealand First says they should have been given their chance with the introduction of option B—as agreed behind the scenes—before the bill arrived in the House for its first reading. 
What disturbs me—and I will not talk too much about it because it has been well canvassed—is the regulation review issue. The issue came up in the select committee but a certain letter did not get to that committee. We addressed the issue as speedily and efficiently as we could and I believed that the issue had been taken care of. But I have since found out that the Ministry of Transport engaged an independent consultant who consulted the Auckland Regional Transport Authority did a financial analysis and then wrote a report to the ministry. But the report did not come to the select committee and the bus companies were not consulted on the report. 
I have a copy of the letter written to the Minister by the Bus and Coach Association and it is quite worrying. Obviously I cannot read all of it out. It was copied to me in my role as transport spokesperson for New Zealand First—if you like a support party for the Government. I will read out a segment of the letter to the House because it is worrying: “Our concern regarding the MOT report—the financial analysis and the disregard for due process—raises serious issues about equity and objectivity. The main points are summarised below:” I will read out two of them: “The data provided for the analysis came from ARTA without reference to the industry when ARTA has a vested interest in the findings of the financial analysis.” That concerns me immensely. The letter goes on to say: “The analysis is based on a bus scheduling exercise conducted by ARTA officers using a selected sample of commercial registrations and associated contracted services where ARTA assessed the relative efficiency of operating these services on an all-contracted or mixed commercial/contracted basis. These results were then provided to MOT without any reference to the bus industry.” I will stop there on the letter. 
I say that that analysis should have gone to the select committee. It is not good enough for that committee to make a decision to send the bill back to the House and for us to have the Greens produce a Supplementary Order Paper to bring the bill back to option C which was never agreed to by anybody in the first place. New Zealand First opposes this bill.