Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14053] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In following that member I too as a Northland member express the same sentiment. The future and issues of Auckland’s transport vitally affect us. That is why some years ago when we found that Auckland was thinking of a drastic light rail solution we were very very concerned. We realise that our future particularly our commercial future is linked to our ability to get goods into and through Auckland and out into particularly South Auckland—and it is the same for the Waikato. Therefore we in New Zealand First take a personal interest in this bill. In our party policy that we are developing under the heading of “New Directions” we have Auckland’s solutions as one of the issues we have to contend with in our policy development. 
In the select committee hearings the issue of whether there should be one entity was expressly covered. I want to pick up what was said by some people in response to that concept because we have heard it enunciated and developed in the House as being the answer. An answer was sought from Mr Maher of Infrastructure Auckland who has been mentioned here and he said that to put Transit and TrackCo into one organisation was quite risky. That was his considered opinion from the point of view of his knowledge of Auckland. An alignment of plans must have a mechanism to make sure that those plans are strong enough. 
That to me is an indication that there needs to be a two-phase development for the issues of Auckland. Federated Farmers is a very conservative sound-thinking group. Its advocate said to us that it generally supports the provisions of the bill. Alisdair Thompson is known for his views on Auckland and on business infrastructure and when he was asked— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell the whole story. Mr Thompson said it didn’t go far enough. 
JIM PETERS 
: I say to Mr Williamson that when Mr Thompson pointedly was asked the question whether the suggestions within the bill could advance Auckland’s transport issues his answer was a qualified yes which is not the answer I have been hearing in press statements from people from the business forum and elsewhere. An honest qualified yes was Mr Thompson’s comment. The Automobile Association as has already been mentioned in the House had a very strong view of the joint venture between the Crown the Auckland Regional Council and the territorial bodies where appropriate. But having some knowledge of the way in which those things work I find that it is part of a phased development. 
So where are we in 2004? We have before us a bill that largely meets Auckland’s present needs but not in the time-warp sense of the last speaker from the National Party who seemed to have a very static backward view of Auckland. Instead there is an opportunity here for the Auckland Regional Council to work with other groups—territorial groups in particular—in a far more robust strategic development than it has been able to do in the past. As I said previously unlike others I see this 2004 model continuing over the next 10 years. The core question that was always asked of Auckland was if more money was made available—and this question would have been asked by the present Government—what would Auckland do with it. How would Auckland use it? How would it be spent? The 2003 Act was an Act of mixed parts but it certainly reinforced the need for more robust development with regard to road strategy. 
In that regard both Transit and Transfund have shown a remarkable change over the last 4 to 5 years in the way they work and in their understanding. I have to say that in my experience that has been very gratifying particularly in areas such as Northland. 
We come to the addition in 2004 of this bill in its revised form—I want to emphasise that—as we see it before the House now. It restores the Auckland regional land transport strategy as the primary mechanism for Auckland’s input—that is territorial input; that is the input made by other groups and bodies that make up the regional land transport committee. In turn over 10 years those views will provide the Auckland Regional Transport Authority with the comprehensive regional transport directions that it must undertake on behalf of Auckland. Clause 28 now allows references to activities and allows them to be prioritised but it gives the operational arm—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—the ability to get on with the job. New Zealand First applauds that attempt to do just that. It is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s task to go through the fine detail. It will be the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s task to seek the funding and that funding can come from other sources. I have heard talk in the House about private funding. Among the things that are needed are toll roads which were allowed in last year’s bill. That in turn needs rethinking with regard to some of the strategies for Auckland’s future. 
So this bill in encompassing the regional land transport strategy the earlier regional policy statement and in particular the impact of the regional growth strategy and the changes that that strategy will make over the next 5 to 10 years puts together a strong ability for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to work for the sustainable development of Auckland’s transport. No one in this House who has lived in Auckland or has gone through Auckland would underestimate that task. By the way over 30 years ago as a youngish teacher teaching at Tamaki Intermediate some of the members of our staff had to leave from the North Shore at a quarter to 7 to get to Tamaki Intermediate in time for an 8.30 start. That gives some indication that some of the supposed recent problems in Auckland have in actual fact always been there. There has been decade after decade of inadequate development and thinking about the real issues of Auckland. 
In conclusion New Zealand First believes that this bill is a brave attempt to provide an integrated approach to the management of Auckland’s land transport system. In my dictionary “transport” does mean roads does mean buses might mean cycling and might mean walking—in other words making way for those people who want to walk as well. The 1998 Act the 2003 Act and this bill together will give Auckland an opportunity. I recall the words of John Law the Mayor of Rodney District who gave the councils’ combined submission. He said to us in Auckland that the councils were in broad agreement. They had some differences with the Auckland Regional Council and they suggested that Transit and Transfund should have a more integrated role. But I believe that this is a reasonable attempt to look at the establishment of what will become and should become a strong working relationship whereby we have the Auckland Regional Council the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings working together with the authority of the regional territorial bodies towards improving passenger transport and roading. It is but a step. In time the other issues—TrackCo Transit’s future role and all the other components of a regional transport strategy and package—will be further developed. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I accept the intention of the legislation. We were uncertain at the beginning as to whether the bill would have focus and clarity. We believe that that has been restored in the bill and we believe that the Auckland Regional Council has the energy and ability to see this thing through. We await with interest the next 5 to 10 years because this is a long-term development. Nothing will happen tomorrow and perhaps nothing will be seen even next year apart from the concentrated energy of the people who start working in those new bodies from 1 July as they put together a long-term comprehensive plan for Auckland’s needs in a systematic way and in a manner that we have not seen in the past. New Zealand First supports this further reading of the bill.