Baldock Larry: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9746] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on schedule 1AAB about the principles of consultation particularly in light of some of the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made a little earlier. There was a lot of criticism of the bill in its original form in relation to the overly complex nature of consultation. I believe that we have done a very sensible thing in adopting principles from the local government legislation for consultation and placing things in line with in particular the regional land transport strategies. Although initially there will be some projects that are caught in the transition as this bill comes into force in time as consultation occurs through the regional land transport strategies there will be no need for duplication as from there projects will be put on Transfund’s schedule or private-public partnerships will be sought unless there are changes into a tolling scheme in which case there will need to be further consultation. 
We have to realise that in today’s age consultation is a part of life. If we want people to be on board with the things that we are planning then we have to get out there early and involve them in the decision making so that people feel they have ownership of the projects. Nowhere is this more evident than in Tauranga where a major roading project proceeded to the Environment Court and got its designation within the space of a year despite all the stories that we hear constantly about how long the Resource Management Act process takes. The project was granted its designation without any objections because the council took great pains—along with Transit and the Access partnership in Tauranga—to consult the community. As a member of the community there I also was very concerned about the project. It is one that will make a major impact upon the landscape because it is a huge concrete viaduct that will link the second bridge. 
I think it is a real credit to the council and to those involved in the process that the project went through without designation. It is a very good example of how good consultation can work. In my opinion it is also a very good example of why we should have had this bill many years earlier. I wish we had had this bill 3 or 4 years ago when we were at the conception stage of the project because the council was always forced to look for the cheapest option to provide a new link across the harbour. Had we had the option of tolling and alternative funding then I think we would have probably come up with a tunnel. It was one of the options that was pursued but was discounted because of its expense. However in terms of benefit for the community a tunnel would have been much much better and could have been provided if we had been able to toll it back in those days. The traffic volumes on the project will certainly be sufficient to guarantee that it is able to pay for itself. 
I have some other comments to make about the principles of the regional land transport strategies and about the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made earlier. She said that there is so much emphasis in the bill on economic development and that we do not need amendments regarding efficiency which shows that she simply misses the point again. New subsection (2)(b) which can be found in schedule 3 states that the regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy—“(i) assists economic development;”—the word of course is “assist”—“(ii) assists safety and personal security; and (iii) improves access and mobility; and (iv) protects and promotes public health;”. But when the bill gets to “environmental sustainability” it uses the word “ensures” which is a much stronger word. It is not about “assisting” environmental sustainability; it uses a very strong word and “ensures” environmental sustainability. It is because of the strength of that word— 
Jim Peters 
: What does it mean? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: There are questions about what it means but let us deal with the “ensuring” part of it. Because of the strength of that word United Future continues to promote the need for amendments that would bring efficiency into account so that the bill is balanced. True sustainability has three legs to it: the environment the social aspects and the economic aspects of any project. It is this that we want to see balanced by the amendments I have proposed. I am grateful there have been some amendments to further strengthen the emphasis on efficiency. Also in relation to the regional land transport strategy in subsection (2) there is paragraph (n) which states: “include a demand management strategy that has targets and timetables appropriate for the region;”. I confess that when this was first added to the bill I was horrified because it looked a heck of a lot like the Road Traffic Reduction Bill which was promoted by Jeanette Fitzsimons earlier. When I saw “targets and timetables” I was very concerned that we would be required—