Mapp Wayne: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16924] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the interesting points about that last contribution was the one that Mr Locke made very early on when he talked about Labour and the Green Party getting together to make sensible legislation. He was very enthusiastic about that point too. Interestingly the Minister of Finance nodded in affirmation because he knows that is what lies in the future for him. He is looking forward to that new coalition. We saw that last week because legislation was passed and—get this—the Labour - Green - Maori Party— 
Keith Locke 
: Isn’t that good?  
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is what Mr Locke said. That is the real choice that will confront New Zealand at the next election—the Labour - Green - Maori Party coalition. That is what the constitutional select committee is all about—the Labour - Green - Maori Party facilitation of debate on that issue. That is the sort of thing those parties are doing. I just wanted to draw that point to the attention of members.  
The only credible support for this legislation—actually it is incredible support—is one submission made by two cyclists. All the other groups as my colleague Mr Williamson referred to representing literally millions of people in this country said no to this legislation. It has been pointed out quite carefully that at least in those circumstances we would expect the Government to defend the abandonment of a principle that millions of people want to retain: safety at reasonable cost. No we do not get that. Instead we get the flimflam of the weasel words that are scattered through this legislation about environmental sustainability and economic benefits. Those are things that we cannot quantify. That is the danger of this legislation: on the one hand we have the certainty and security which is surely a cardinal principle of legislation of safety at reasonable cost and on the other hand we have conjecture hypotheses and uncertainty which are the very enemies of good legislation.  
There is one further thing and we are not just opposed to this. The Government made much play that a former Minister of Transport was in the Chamber and indeed had been the Minister of Transport in 1995 and Government members boasted about their inclusions. I say to the Government that we have listened to the people of New Zealand. We have been listening over a period of time and yes there has been a fundamental change in the way we should develop public policy. Concepts like the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi did not elicit great concern 15 years ago but today they do. Surely the lesson from that and surely the lesson for legislators and for those aspiring to represent the public is to listen to the public. The public has made it very clear I suggest that the election will be fought on the principle that the law applies to us equally. That will be one of the great cardinal issues in the coming election. So that is why National has said it might have done certain things in the 1990s but it has listened to the people who have said that it went too far. National has listened to the real concerns about the future viability of this nation and the way that people interrelate together. In the law itself there should be one principle. People should not be sectioned out according to ethnicity and then get special rights and obligations. 
Darren Hughes 
: How’s the polling going? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That is exactly what the junior whip wants. He wants to be able to divide people by their ethnicity and to say that some get special rights that others do not simply on the basis of ethnicity. We are opposed to this legislation on that fundamental ground itself.  
Yes I am focusing on the issues contained in clause 30 which are inherent in this bill—in its title and its conception. If we as a nation continue to go down that path and in all general legislation always seek to identify Maori people as a special class with special rights and special privileges then this country will falter. I have listened to many many New Zealanders on the North Shore and they do say they are worried about that trend. That is why there was such an outpouring about it. Even National did not understand the sense and depth of outpouring on that issue from the general public. Addressing that does call for some simple rules that are the foundation of every modern democracy: that the law applies to us equally and that in democratic States we look first to the individual. We put the individual at the apex of our system and rights are connected to individuals not provided on the basis of people’s race and ethnicity. That is a fundamental flaw in this legislation.  
This bill could have been made right and National could have ended up supporting it. All that was required was for the Government to listen to two things. First the Government should have listened to all the submitters who said they wanted to have reference in the legislation to safety at reasonable cost because that was predictable certain and known and people could plan on that basis. Organisations and companies with literally billions of dollars of investments need to be given predictability and they asked for predictability in their submissions. In fact they did more. They subsequently wrote letters to me and to Mr Williamson and I guarantee that they wrote those same letters to the Minister of Transport as well to ask him to reconsider the issue because they could see the danger of shifting away from a tried and true principle. Yet the Minister simply ignored them. So ignorant was the Minister on this issue that he came along to the Chamber earlier today and said there was of course a range of submissions with some people saying yes some saying no and others saying maybe. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A balance. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Labour talks about balance. Its balance I guess is that about 98 percent here and 2 percent there looks like fifty-fifty to it. That is the kind of balance the Government believes in. If the Minister who is after all said to be the responsible Minister on this issue had taken note of the submissions he would have understood that particular issue. So we are opposed to this legislation on that basic issue in its own right.  
The second point is one that I have mentioned but I just want to restate my concern at what I find buried in this legislation—and this is a point of issue around general legislation. We should not be identifying people by race or by ethnicity and then giving them special rights in general legislation. We acknowledge on the Opposition side of the Chamber that there is Maori land law Maori language—all those things—and treaty settlements. In those things obviously we expect to find specific reference to Maori ethnicity and particular references to Maori because we do understand our history. But we are into the 21st century. This Minister no doubt spoke to Shane Jones in the weekend. Shane Jones gave a very interesting interview earlier this week in which he said: “Settling historic grievances was last century’s problem. That should not be the issue that we look toward in the 21st century. In the 21st century we should be looking at people achieving in their own right.” 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.