Ardern Jacinda: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9801. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I appreciate the ability to take a call on this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill particularly given that I have Supplementary Order Paper 238 which I would like to share with the Committee and which relates specifically to the notion of exempt services. I have not heard too much discussion in the time that I have been in the Chamber around the debate that I am sure was had amongst Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members on exempt services but it is an area that has the potential to derail our ability to create integrated public transport in critical areas like Auckland. New Subpart 2 in clause 69 of the bill contains the detail around exempt services. They are essentially those services that will not be able to be required by councils to be privy to all of the things that they have in their transport plans.Previously before the bill went to the select committee the criteria for an exempt service were contained in new section 129(2)(a) through to (e) in new Subpart 2 in clause 69. They have been struck out. Previously an exempt service included “a ferry service registered with the regional council as a commercial public transport service under the Public Transport Management Act”. It then included certain types of bus services and so on. They have been struck out. Now the criterion for an exempt service is a public transport service that for instance operates without a subsidy for the provision of the service. That is a key little indicator in there that no longer are we being explicit about exemptions being specific to ferry services. Now we are saying that one of the main criteria is that you do not receive subsidies.The reason I raise this is that there is a somewhat controversial provider of transport in Auckland that provides ferry services to Waiheke Island. Waiheke Island ispredominantly serviced by a sole provider. Some will argue that there are other options. Those who take that service daily will argue that they have very few options other than those provided by Fullers ferry services. Fullers ferry services very early on in the discussion around this bill directly approached Steven Joyce and asked Mr Joyce whether it could be exempt from the provisions of this bill and be considered an exempt service. Clearly it was given an indication by Mr Joyce that that was going to be acceptable because when Fullers then went to the select committee it included in its submission that it had already been given assurances that it would be an exempt service to the degree that it had purchased additional infrastructure which it implied it otherwise may not have invested in.Why is this interesting? Well for one thing some people would think that Fullers actually does receive a subsidy from the Government. It receives a hefty amount through the SuperGold Card. Many SuperGold Card holders use Fullers ferry services. Secondly by being exempt from this bill we will continue to have an operator—with Auckland Council having very little ability to ensure that the operator provides the kind of service that commuters require. If Fullers was not in the game of providing that service the council argues that in some form it would have to step in.The council argued on that basis that Fullers should not be an exempt service but unfortunately that was an argument that given Fullers had gone directly to the Minister clearly was lost. Why? Why should it not be an exempt service? It would argue that it is a private operator and there is no reason why it should be included.Well when you look at what the content of a regional public transport plan includes it includes the ability to provide an outline of the routes the frequency and the hours of operation. It would give for instance Auckland Council the ability—if for any reason the service dropped below what it would consider necessary for a fully integrated public transport network to be sufficient it would at least have some grounds for engagement around that. Secondly for those that are included and covered which an exempt service would not be it allows the council some ability and say over accessibility quality and performance—an issue that is of major concern for commuters from Waiheke Island who do not always believe that they get that level of service.It also allows transparency around fare setting the method or formula and around the reviewing of fares. This is not to say that you suddenly have the council coming in and being able to set the service’s fares but it at least adds a layer of transparency around that. That is certainly something that has been demanded for some time.I think Auckland Council was right to say Fullers should not be an exempt service. My Supplementary Order Paper would remove it from being an exempt service. It would allow for integrated fare structures and that is what I think we need.