Williamson Maurice: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12821] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I say from the outset that in the National Party’s view this legislation is very much like the curate’s egg—it is good in places. There are parts of it we are very supportive of. In fact parts of it contain policies we campaigned on at the last election. Many many New Zealanders I am sure will remember the red and blue billboard the first in a series that said: “What’s your petrol tax for?”. On the blue side of the billboard we campaigned on one word “roads” and on the Labour side it was “Treaty lawyers wanangas hip-hop tours twilight golf” etc. 
Dr Cullen has said at times that the National Party was a bunch of loonies for wanting a petrol tax—that is what he said—and that it was just absolute “loony-nomics” to suggest that all the petrol tax should be dedicated to the Land Transport Fund. Surprise surprise! What a difference a 2-year period makes! Since the 2005 election campaign Dr Cullen has come onside. I am not going to be churlish and dwell on that. I thank him; it is a great idea. I think it is finally time because it has been a barrier for a lot of New Zealanders to pay anything further for the roads while money was being stolen. When I was the Minister of Transport a number of people used to say to me: “While you are stealing money from the— 
Peter Brown 
: What did you do about it? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Brown is not taking account of the fact that during the 1990s when National was in Government there were serious structural deficit problems across the nation. But here we have a Government that has been running surpluses for a long time and not spending anywhere near as much as it could do or should do. 
The next myth I want to dispel relates to this graph I am holding. I hope that our cameras in the House can get a nice close-up so that my adoring drive time audience in Auckland if they have a TV on can see this. I am holding up a graph showing the amount of money spent on roading as a percentage of GDP. That is the standard international measure that should be used. It is drawn in blue for when National was in Government and it is drawn in red for when Labour was in Government. I know that Sue Kedgley will be delighted with this graph because when Labour came into office the amount of spending on roading went down. But that is not what Labour would have us believe. It would have us believe that the amount of money spent on roading went up. Well actually it has gone up every year we could ever name even back in the 1950s and the 1960s except for one year. This little straight brown line on the graph shows the actual dollars. It is not a really good measure because as the GDP grows we would expect revenue to grow. But what is interesting about that first full year of a Labour Government—2001—is that it is the only year in the last 50 years that the actual spending on roading went down—not the percentage of GDP— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Rubbish! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: These are the Ministry of Transport’s own answers to parliamentary questions so I have to say that that the member is wrong. 
But I say to Mr O’Connor that he should not take my account of it. He should take what the New Zealand public say in a survey done about our transport network in Auckland. The headline states “Motorway work has not helped the crawl”. Then it goes on to show that the speeds being achieved in Auckland at present are the worst that have been. So Labour members can get up and wax lyrical all they like about what they have done. We should have a survey of 1000 people in Auckland at random—and I am happy to bet my salary against Mr O’Connor’s salary any time—and ask just one simple question: “Has congestion got better or worse?”. I tell that member that he can have my entire salary for the year if Aucklanders come back saying that they think congestion has got a lot better. I can tell that member what the answer will be. The poll will show that it has got a lot worse. 
Another part of this particular legislation that we find really quite obnoxious relates to the Government running surpluses. It is interesting that at question time today we heard that the surpluses are now “structural”. They are not cyclical any more; they are structural and they are mega-big surpluses. I find it unbelievable because I now have a copy of  
Hansard 
 from 1992 and I would like members to listen to this. In 1992 the National Government—and there is Mr Brown saying we did not do anything—tried to implement a regional fuel tax of 2c a litre that would last for only a 3-year period. It was 2c a litre over 3 years. 
Hon David Parker 
: Waste of time. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Let me tell Mr Parker what the Labour Party said. It said it was an outrage that the Government was trying to introduce regional fuel tax. The member should read the  
Hansard 
—here it is: Volume 526 from June-July 1992. Labour voted against it. 
Eric Roy 
: What page? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will give the member the page reference. The best quotes occur on page 9041. There are another couple of doozies on page 9045. Labour voted against a 2c regional petrol tax that was to last for only 3 years and that was a disgrace. Now the legislation that the Government is bringing to the House at a time of mega-surpluses is not for 2c and it is not for 5c; it is for 10c a litre and it is to last for 35 years. How come it was so evil back then? By the way I have lovely quotes from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 the  
Dominion 
 and the  
Evening Post 
—and I think that even the  
Auckland Star  
was still going at that stage—from people like Pete Hodgson saying—listen to this: “This tax measure is not progress. It’s a disgrace. Instead of being an exercise in environmental friendliness it’s prostituting the environmental cause to bring in a 2c a litre regional petrol tax.” 
I think that members on that side of the House had better start stumping up to the public. How come back then when the country was in major deficit and did not have enough even to pay for the running of the schools and the hospitals Labour was opposed to an extra 2c regional petrol tax for only 3 years? 
Peter Brown 
: What year? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It was 1992—June and July. Here is the  
Hansard 
 for Mr Brown to read—Volume 526. Labour waged a campaign and those members voted for it. Their record is in here. I know that Mr Parker was not here. I do not think that Mr O’Connor was here in 1992. How about Mr Barnett? I am trying to find someone who was here in 1992. No there is not anybody in the Chamber tonight who was here in 1992. I may be it but all I can say is that those who were here like Annette King the Minister who is in charge of the bill—oh no; actually she was gone in 1992. She lost her seat in 1992. 
Eric Roy 
: John Carter was the only one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: But Annette King was not a member of Parliament between 1990 and 1993 was she. But there were others. Pete Hodgson certainly was because he is quoted as saying it was just a disgrace and outrageous and wrong. I have to say that it is just amazing that it could be so wrong back then—when it was only 2c a litre for 3 years—but that when it is 10c a litre for 35 years it is all right. Now as I said this bill is a bit like the curate’s egg—it has some good bits. I quite like the idea of providing for a Government policy statement to set out the Government’s planned investment and funding priorities for the next 3 to 6 years. I think that is a sensible move. I think changing to a 3-year planning cycle is a sensible move. 
There is one organisation I will be watching with great interest—Local Government New Zealand. I will watch with great interest because when I was a Minister it was on my case regularly about the conflict between the funding agency and the provider of roading. Back in those days Transit was just the one agency. It was the provider of State highways and it allocated the funding. What Local Government New Zealand said to me over and over—and I have got all its documents; I have kept them all and I am really pleased I kept them—was: “Minister Transit has an inherent almost sort of drive to fund its own roading rather than ours. There’s a complete lack of transparency and a complete lack of consistency. The bids all come up and lo and behold State highways get a better than expected allocation each year and local roads seeking to get the financial assistance get to be the poor cousin.” 
Now I have to say it was a pretty compelling case and when one looked at a number of years of Transit’s behaviour I think that it could easily be argued. The reason we separated funding and providing—the reason we set up Transfund New Zealand and Transit—was that Transit was to manage the State highway and Transfund would fund all the land transport programmes which would be the State highways the private roading network etc. We were supportive when Transfund was moved into the Land Transport Safety Authority and made up Land Transport New Zealand because that was no conflict. But now the Government is proposing merging back the agency that decides who gets the money and one of the major agencies that will be bidding to get that money. I will watch with great interest what Local Government New Zealand and a whole lot of councils around this country have got to say on that. 
Finally can I say that we oppose this bill for a lot of reasons but mainly for what is not in it. The Land Transport Management Act has been a complete and absolute barrier to private sector investment in roading. We are one of the few countries that do not have it. Instead of this bill opening up land transport management freeing it and taking away the prescriptions it has actually done nothing and it is silent on it. The National Party is totally opposed.