Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18653] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 We now move into Part 2 which is by far the real substance of the Public Transport Management Bill. I will just allude to some factors about the amendments that I have proposed. If members want to follow along then they are welcome to look at my explanatory notes that follow my amendments starting on page 14. In these notes I make it clear that the amendments will allow for—and I stress that they will allow for—integrated network planning under regional public transport plans or RTPs. They will allow for integrated ticketing and integrated fares but not to the extent of restricting individual operator discounting policies or requiring without adequate compensation an operator to incur reduced fares from its usual rate as a result of integrated fares. These are I think sensible provisions. 
I want the Committee to just focus on how the bill got to where it is. I am told—and I have no reason to disbelieve it—by the Bus and Coach Association and by a number of bus operators that a series of meetings and consultations occurred back in 2006 at which the Government quite properly said that it was concerned about public transport and its management and about how it could get the best value for the dollar and that it would embark on putting in place a new regime. The Bus and Coach Association and its various members were fine with that. They met and cooperated in what was a fairly extensive process of consultation. If that is not true then I would like the Minister to pick that up at any stage and say that it did not happen. 
What happened at the end of that consultation and what was then taken to Cabinet in February 2007 was a position that—although some players were slightly aggrieved with it—all players in the Bus and Coach Association as a representative of all the bus operators could actually live with. It was called option B and had some reasonably sensible provisions in it. It likely went a bit far for some players but as far as the Government was concerned it was about the best compromise and it was the right way to go. The bus operators who came to those meetings and consultations walked away confident that that was what was coming as legislation so did the Bus and Coach Association. But when the bill finally hit this House a few months ago they were simply gobsmacked to see that what the actual legislation—the words in the bill—said was not close to what the agreed position had been. They were pretty disgruntled about that. They actually started to blame officials which I said was a bit unfair. They said that some real tangles had obviously occurred in the drafting of the legislation from when it was agreed with them in terms of how it would be compared with the bill as introduced. They then began a process of trying to make submissions to talk to various players and so on to suggest that the bill could be refined and brought back to the agreed position but they really got nowhere. 
What I found interesting was that along came the spectre of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Let us not muck around the bush here: this is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s bill—OK? This is not a bill for the bus company in Taihape. This is not a bill for even the Christchurch base. The people in Christchurch in Red Bus Ltd think the operation they have down there is absolutely superb. They have integrated fares and ticketing and they did not need this legislation to do it. This legislation is not needed in Dunedin in Invercargill or in Eketahuna. This legislation is to appease the left-wing acolytes of the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority which want to take total and absolute control. 
When I met with the chairman of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—and I have a lot of time for Mark Ford; I think he is a super guy—he told me something that gobsmacked me. He said that the authority was OK with the bill now because even the Bus and Coach Association and all the operators agreed with it now. I was really taken aback. I thought I had made a bit of an idiot of myself here because I did not think they did agree with it and were confident the bill still needed some change. So I came back to Wellington with my tail between my legs feeling a bit embarrassed thinking: “Wow!”. So I called up Raewyn Bleakley at the Bus and Coach Association and asked: “Have you guys changed your position on the Public Transport Management Bill?”. She answered: “No.” I said that I understood there had been some meetings and that the association agreed that the bill was fine. “Absolutely not.” she said. I told her that that was what I had been told and referred to one of the operators a Mr Ritchie from Ritchies Coachlines. She said: “Yes to be fair he did but the rest of the operators present at the meeting”—and I want this to be really clear and put on the record—“didn’t agree and in the end we agreed to a final position that we would put to the Government and even Mr Ritchie of Ritchies Coachlines agreed to that.” So I came away from this situation really staggered that I had been told by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority that the Bus and Coach Association and its members all agreed to this almost Trotskyite legislation only to find out that that was not true. But then here is the real rub: New Zealand First decided—and I think quite properly—not to allow the bill to go even further which is what the amendments that were going to be put up by the Government would do. 
If members look at the minority report to the bill they will see that the Labour members were wanting to move even further to put unbelievable delegated powers into the hands of the regional council—powers that would mean it would almost be able to determine what colour buses could be painted and what the drivers’ hats looked like. In the end Labour could not get that through the select committee because Peter Brown did what I think was the right thing and said that New Zealand First will not support option C. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why did he do that? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The member can speculate on why he did that. He can even ask Mr Brown. 
Rodney Hide 
: He told you. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No he told the select committee something. What I am saying to the Committee now is that when we got this bill sorted and Labour realised it did not have the numbers the tricky little deal became quite clear within hours of that. It was to report it back with option B which is option B+. We were told originally that the Minister was going to throw some amendments forward but what has happened now is that the Greens have come in and put forward these amendments. I guess if anything the National Party is outraged at the process. The Labour Government is always on about consultation saying: “We consult. We listen.” So it went out and did a proper consultation process. Well done! It then got to a position where everybody involved thought an agreed position called option B was going to happen. Cabinet then passed a whole series of agreements which I refer to in my explanatory note. Cabinet minute CAB(07)5/3A refers to “original Option B”. That is what the Government agreed. All players were happy. 
Even the National Party—I give that commitment—would have been OK with that bill. But it did not happen that way and when the actual aggrieved parties which do feel very aggrieved at the process tried to get this poured back and took what I think is a staggeringly good submission from Professor Taggart to the Regulations Review Committee about the constitutional impropriety of allowing the delegated powers of authority to direct what is going into this bill and actually are a breach of it what happened? That stuff considered by the Regulations Review Committee did not even get referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It did not even see the light of day when we were deliberating and considering the bill. We did not even know that the Regulations Review Committee had had that review or had written to us. So when we asked that the bill be recommitted to the select committee it was a matter of: “Oh no not on your nelly!”. Labour has sat on this legislation for over 2 years from when the consultation started—2 years—and it would not allow a one-day select committee meeting on what came back from the Regulations Review Committee. In fact we would have taken only a couple of hours to take what the Regulations Review Committee put in place. I want to repeat that and be strongly on the record about it. 
The amendments I have proposed are not what National would have put up. They are not what the Bus and Coach Association would like. They are not what someone’s mates or someone who is funding a political party want. These amendments reflect absolutely and directly the original decision taken by the Labour Cabinet. I have said to this Committee—and I repeat it so it is clearly on the record—that if the Minister can show why these amendments do not reflect option B I will be very interested to know why because we have had advice that this is very much in line with that option. 
What this whole process calls into account is the whole way legislation is done. It is just wrong to go and consult with affected parties to get their views to get agreement to bring stuff to Cabinet to show a Cabinet minute and to say: “We’ve got your views; we think they’re incorporated.” and for everyone to go away happy then when it finally comes time for the legislative process to actually fast track some of those changes to do it without their knowledge. I understand why there is a severe level of anger from the various operators and from the Bus and Coach Association—a professional organisation deliberately there to represent the views of its operators—at getting completely and absolutely shut out of the process. I say to members including Rodney Hide that they should look very closely to the amendments I am putting up. They are not done lightly; they are done seriously to try to reflect something the Government would do and National would support it.