Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Public Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:650;Page:18658] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we look at Part 2 of the Public Transport Management Bill which talks about the regulation of public transport there are some queries that anyone viewing the legislation from a distance would have about the actual process that has been engaged in here because there was clearly an agreement between the parties involved in this case—the Minister the regional councils and the public transport providers such as the bus companies. There was clearly an agreement. 
The Minister interrupted earlier saying there was no such agreement that it was still up for public consultation to make a final decision. Well that was not the case. All the parties involved believed there had been an agreement and an agreement in substance. It actually went through the detail of what they wanted to do. That actually went to Cabinet for approval so there was an agreement. One does not have an agreement like that and decide 6 months later that one wants to change it under the guise of public opinion—there was an agreement. 
What Mr Hide referred to was the way in which the voting changed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which many of us found very perplexing including the Government members of the committee who did take some time to understand what was actually going on. But Mr Brown made it quite clear why he changed his mind and it was an interesting insight into how New Zealand First operates in the political process. 
The public will no doubt be very much concerned about what they are seeing in this bill because not only are there questions about political process there are questions about why legislation that is supposed to look after public transport in our biggest city in all regards is being pushed through without the genuine process of consultation without an agreement in principle being carried through and without the parties involved being able to come to a solution that is constructive for all involved. This is not a question where one has to take sides. It is not an issue where one has on the one side the public transport providers and on the other side the people in favour of public transport such as the Auckland Regional Transport Authority which has to manage it. It is not as if there is a major divide there. Both parties have come together and reached a solution. 
Yet the Government of the day will not do what both parties have agreed upon. The Government of the day the New Zealand First - Labour Government is doing what it thinks is best. It is not doing what the parties that are important in this decision have actually agreed upon. That is the problem we encounter in this situation. There was an agreement. It was an agreement that would work for the industry the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and for the public transport users. That agreement was made in substance and if anything it should be enshrined in law. It is not up to the Government of the day to use public consultation as an excuse for changing an agreement that it has already made. It is not up to the Government of the day to go out there on some whim and decide that it has a better idea than what the players in the industry have who actually agreed on a concept. Political parties should not change their motives halfway through the electoral cycle of the bill going through the select committee. This is something that is simple. 
There was an agreement. It went through Cabinet level. It has been supported it is valid and it should be enacted. That is what the National Party would want to see this Government do. We do not want to see this Government make up its own mind and say it believes in something that it knows is not what the parties agreed upon. We want to see the Government stand up and deliver what the parties had agreed upon. We challenge the Minister to do that. The Minister knows there was an agreement. The Minister cannot come into this Chamber and say there was not an agreement and use the idea of public consultation to get away with changing her mind. The reality is that parties have relied on that agreement but it has not been enacted here. 
We have very different interests within this political environment. We have the Greens who will be very much in favour of public transport for example. It will say how public transport is important and how we need to provide alternative forms of transport within our biggest city. It is right; an agreement was actually made. There was a solution that all the parties agreed upon to support that concept. Yet we are not enacting it. We are not enacting what the parties had agreed upon. What can be sillier than that? We had a solution to an issue—a big issue—and we are not supporting it through the legislative process. How can the Government of the day in good conscience stand up and say it represents the people of New Zealand especially the people of Auckland when it will not do what is in the best interests of those people when it will not do what it has as a commercial agreement agreed upon in a commercial setting and through its Cabinet process? It is using the guise of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to get out of that agreement and out of the performance of that agreement. That is a shame and it is a shame for all those political parties in the Government because they have not held their word. 
The great losers will be the public transport users of Auckland because they will get a result that the main players know will not be effective. The main players know what would have worked and they came to that solution. That is all the National Party wants to see happen; we want to see the agreement of the main players enshrined in law. The Government of the day has the opportunity to do that. It should pull this bill take it back to the select committee and do what was rightfully agreed upon in the first place.