Brown Peter: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brown Peter: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16901] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to follow the member who has just resumed his seat. If we wait in this Chamber long enough we finally hear something sensible from United Future. I think by and large United Future covered the issues pretty well. Let me state from the outset that New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We will never ever vote against safety when it comes to transport. We realise that safety is a very important element in the whole mix of transport so we will be supporting this bill. But that is not to say that what the National Party and indeed ACT said can be dismissed. Without the constraints of reasonableness we get safety at any cost. I take members back to the time a few years ago before we had the provision regarding safety at reasonable cost. I speak from my experience on the waterfront. Anything that was seen to be unsafe somebody stopped something for—stopped a ship from loading or discharging in order to have a look at it examine it and modify it or what have you. It was a totally unreasonable action.  
The submission that sticks in my mind the Air New Zealand submission outlines that pretty darned clearly. I think it implies that if we take the constraint of reasonableness away from the costs of safety then we are unwittingly likely to start a competitive scenario inasmuch as operators will say that they will not get picked up for something that Air New Zealand would be picked up for. Because the other operators think they may get away with something their safety level will go down a bit. Air New Zealand I would say will maintain safety at the appropriate level but there may well be operators who will try to drop the safety net and get away with it. We need only to have one mishap to know that we have paid dearly for having no constraint on safety at reasonable cost.  
I share the concerns Larry Baldock alluded to about roading. I recall a document produced when the Hon Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport. It was called  
Better Transport Better Roads 
 and outlined the fact that 15 percent—I think I am correct on that figure—of road deaths were caused by bad road design poor engineering or something along those lines. 
Larry Baldock 
: You are right. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I am correct. In those days we were talking about 500 to 600 people dying on our roads each year. Fifteen percent of that is close to 90 people—if the total is 600 people it is 90 people; it is somewhat less obviously if the total is 500 people. That is a lot of people. I believe the cost of a life has now been put into legislation as being something like $2.5 million not $2 million as the Minister said. That is a lot of money. Never mind the human cost; that is a lot of money. I think this bill by having safety at—dare I say—whatever cost will compel the Government to look more seriously at the state of our roads. I know that the Minister knows I welcome that. If he does not know this already let me tell him that I believe the state of our roads has been poorly addressed for years now in terms of funding. I believe that this legislation will give the Government an incentive to say it had better start to look at roads if it is to get rid of the provision for safety at reasonable cost.  
I recall the time some years ago when somebody who was in charge of our motorway network came on nationwide TV and stated almost with a smirk on his face that we did not need to have centre barriers on our motorways. If I had agreed with him then the way that he put his point across would have made me disagree with him. Only moments later the Rt Hon David Lange came on the programme and stated that we would have centre barriers on our motorways. I was grateful for that. I do not know how many lives just doing that has saved—probably hundreds if not thousands.  
Another area I think the Government will be compelled to look at very seriously is the state of our rail-track. A chap called me the other day and asked me to come out and look at a section of rail-track. It was in Tauranga on the line that goes from Auckland to Tauranga which is heavily used by port traffic. The section I looked at runs through the residential area—it has houses on the high side and houses on the low side—in a gentle curve. The guy who asked that I come out there had a few colleagues with him. He bent down and as I did shortly afterwards literally plucked out bolts all over the place. That is not good enough. In fairness I was so worried about the situation that I rang the Hon Harry Duynhoven there and then and he got straight on to it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Ha ha! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member may laugh but Harry Duynhoven got straight on to it and addressed the issue. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s like rust; he never sleeps. 
PETER BROWN 
: I can tell the member he was certainly on to it that day. Within a few days there was a team of people working on that rail-track.  
I have seen something else on the same rail-track that concerns me enormously. I will not go into the details now because I would put the whole Committee to sleep. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s a good story. We want to hear it. It’s about safety. 
PETER BROWN 
: The National Party is interested which is very good. The track is actually near the foreshore and runs across the seabed. Does that lift the interest of the National Party even more? I am referring to the old rail bridge that crosses Tauranga Harbour. 
John Key 
: I know it well. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member knows it well; perhaps he has dived off it. I can tell him that bridge looks as though it needs some tender loving care and attention. I have raised that with the people involved including Harry Duynhoven and I have had a very positive response. I understand that the bridge will be inspected very shortly if not now. My view of the situation is that I would expect some work to be done on that bridge but I will let some expert tell me whether I am right or wrong. This legislation will I believe put the Government in a difficult position from time to time in looking at things like that. The legislation combines the Land Transport Safety Authority and Transfund and New Zealand First welcomes that. We believe we should get a more professional businesslike approach as a result of that and I believe there will be a closer look at roading and the rail-track. 
 But one little area that I must refer to because I feel that I am running out of time is the issue of when a ship is not a ship. It is raised under clause 25 and it is a little thing that really bugs me. Clause 25 provides that: “land transport—(a) means—(i) transport on land by any means: …” and it then goes on to state: “and (b) includes—(i) coastal shipping (including transport by means of harbour ferries or ferries or barges on rivers or lakes) and associated infrastructure:”. However the bill then goes on—and I know that members are very anxious to hear this—to refer to transport on land although I cannot remember the exact clause. I say to the Minister that that will confuse a few simple sailors out there. They will say they are aground and ask whether they are land transport—transport on land. They will ask what they are and whether they should look up the Land Transport Safety Authority regulations now that they have gone aground. We were told at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that a coastal ship should be a form of land transport for funding purposes only. Well why does the bill not just state that?  
Lindsay Tisch 
: Good point—that’s why we’re voting against it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says that is why he is voting against the bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But the member is going to vote for it. 
PETER BROWN 
: We will vote for it I say to Mr Williamson. I tell the member that quite categorically. New Zealand First will never ever vote against safety in transport.  
We think that a little tidying-up could be done in this bill which would make for a bit of clarity here and there. But we will support the bill because overall it will put more onus on the Government to address the problems in roading and on our rail-track and we will ignore that little glitch in terms of shipping and what have you and take it for what it is. We will just have to educate all the sailors out there who may understand that they come under the Land Transport Safety Authority for something that they really are not meant to come under it for and tell them that that is not the case.