Hughes Gareth: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9761. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I rise to oppose this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill but it is probably more aptly called the “Road to Nowhere Bill”. You could call it the “Put It On the Credit Card and Pray For a Brighter Future Bill”. But I guess most important for our National MPs who are all fired up now many of them who do represent the regions is that you could also call this the “Regional Road Kill Bill” because what this bill is doing is taking away regional decision making. It is taking away regional autonomy. It is basically saying that this Government does not care about the regions. No no; this Government cares only about motorways in the big cities. It cares only about these uneconomic roads of so-called National Party significance. All it cares about is putting it on the credit card and borrowing more for these uneconomic roads. I believe it should be called the “Regional Road Kill Bill”.This bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill deals with transport planning and funding issues. It is a big deal because it deals with the future of our economy the future of our cities and the future of our towns and the way that Kiwis get around whether that is going to be more expensive or cheaper faster or slower stuck in gridlock or not. These are key issues for our country and the Greens have got solutions.Again it was a very low-quality contribution that we saw from the member from the Waikato David Bennett but I think he did touch on the change and how it was seen under Labour. I celebrate this. I congratulate this. Labour in its last term did do some great things for transport particularly in Auckland. I would like to congratulate the Labour Party on the moves around electrification and double tracking in Wellington and Auckland—good stuff. I would like to think the Labour Party has moved with the times because the National Party these guys—and it is all guys in the House today—are stuck in the 1960s. They are stuck in a 1960s approach to transport. We see this in this bill that is all about removing local decision-making putting more money on the credit card for motorways and reducing the regions’ decision-making ability.First of all I would like to acknowledge the select committee process thank all the submitters thank the officials and thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were some improvements I understand. I did not get the privilege to sit on the committee but I understand that a new clause 43A has been inserted. This is around the privacy concerns about tolling. This is something I talked about in my first reading speech based on concerns raised by the Privacy Commissioner so it is good to see some solutions proposed and the improvements to the legislation there. Other changes are around regional public transport plans and the hierarchy making with the Government policy statement on transport planning.But you know let us get to the heart of this bill. What this bill is all about is the Government’s motorway agenda. When I was the transport spokesperson for the Greens I used to call Steven Joyce the “Colossus of Roads” but we have got Gerry Brownlee in the transport ministry now—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That’s Gerry—he’s a serious colossus. There’s a serious colossus there.GARETH HUGHES: —and if there was a “Colossus of Roads” there sure is with Gerry Brownlee.What we see is that this Minister with considerable power has been given a pantry which he has stocked with $20 billion worth of transport funding. The Minister of Transport does not have to go off to the Minister of Finance to get his spending approved. This Minister has got a pantry stocked with $20 billion paid for from the fuel excise tax and the diesel charges and what we have seen is that this Government has totally cleaned out the pantry. The pantry is bare because it has spent it all on the roads of so-called national significance. The pantry is bare because it has spent it on the motorways—the Transmission Gullies the uneconomic road from Pūhoi to Wellsford. That is why as Darien Fenton pointed out it is needing to borrow almost an extra $1 billion to fund the roads of national significance—the seven motorways in the cities.So the agenda behind this bill is bad news because it does not even meet its own economic objectives. We know that the benefit-cost ratios for half of them would get any National member laughed out of a business board meeting if they proposed to go and borrow billions of dollars with benefit-cost ratios of less than one. Take Transmission Gully. Independent estimates previously put that at a ratio of 0.4. For Pūhoi to Wellsford independent estimates put it at a ratio of 0.7. So for every dollar the National Government is going and borrowing from New Zealanders—borrowing from the future—it is planning to lose 30c to 60c. It would get laughed out of any business board meeting but somehow it is doing it to our country.This Government is removing the five previous transport objectives in the legislation: the objectives of being affordable integrated safe responsible and sustainable. I do not know what the National Party has got against being affordable integrated safe responsible or sustainable but obviously it has got some concerns about those points which I think Kiwis would find surprising.The rationale behind this bill is tilting the balance of power as we make decisions on these key transport issues that shape our cities towns and economy. We are seeing considerable and enhanced powers given to the Minister of Transport. We are seeing consultation provisions being removed. We are even removing the non-voting members of regional transport committees. These are the people who sit on committees and do good work advocating for walking and cycling. It is a pretty hard job at the moment because the pantry is being made bare to spend money on these roads of uneconomic national significance. The Government is even getting rid of these people who stand up in their community and advocate for walking cycling or public transport.The Government is removing the regional fuel taxes. This is quite interesting because the Government has the power of veto over any regional fuel tax right at the moment so what it is doing with this legislation is quite literally putting its foot on the floor rubbing it in and making sure that regional fuel taxes are an impossibility. It is disappointing because Auckland which is obviously disappointed by the Government’s 1960s transport agenda is setting out to try to provide solutions for its city—solutions that the city needs like the central business district rail link. But what this Government is doing is making it virtually impossible for Auckland to be able to raise the funds itself. There are other potential funding mechanisms that Auckland Council is investigating and considering but this Government is making it harder to see the transport solutions that city needs.What we are seeing is an increase in borrowing under this legislation. I think we should have an intelligent and considered debate around the hypothecation of transport funding. I think there are some pros and cons. I mean we are not going to see an intellectual considered debate in this House with the National Government on the Government benches but we have got to have a conversation. At the moment the funding raised from fuel taxes on diesel and petrol is spent on roads for everything from public transport to road safety campaigns to policing through to motorways and what this Government is saying is that it has blown the budget on the motorways and it has got to borrow more to fund it.This is an incredible statement because over the National Land Transport Fund’s 10-year funding horizon which the Government allocates through the Government policy statement it has got around $20 billion. Any other ministry would love to have a $20 billion kitty to play with over 10 years and all this Government is saying is that it has blown it all and it needs extra money—it needs to put it on the credit card. Of course there is an argument for long-term borrowing to fund infrastructure investments across generations but look this should be only in a situation where the infrastructure investments make sense have good business cases and have a good rationale.The reason why the budget has blown out of course is that while the Government is off borrowing billions for these uneconomic motorways what we have seen is road patronage flattening down petrol prices go up considerably over the last 5 years and public transport go through the roof in the last 5 years. We are seeing fewer funds in the National Land Transport Fund so the Government has to go to the bank to borrow some more for the motorways.It is not a good way to run the economy it is not a good way to plan for our cities and New Zealand is stuck in traffic because the Government is not offering alternatives to ride or walk to work or to catch a bus or a train. Because those solutions are not there it is going to be the Aucklanders in congestion cursing the National Government because what it is doing through this “Put It On the Credit Card and Pray For a Brighter Future Bill” or the “Regional Road Kill Bill” is not going to be providing the solutions our cities and towns need for the future. That is what the Green Party is doing. We have done it for a long time and it is something we will continue to champion.In Government—sooner rather than later we believe—what you will see a Green Government doing is funding a fair contribution towards the central business district rail link. We will be seeing things like the light rail link in Wellington. We will be trying to make public transport more affordable. Of course this is going to help people get on the bus or safely cycle to work. It is also going to help those motorists because the more people we have taking sustainable forms of transport the more room there is on the roads for the taxis and the plumbers whom Michael Cullen used to talk about fondly. In summary this is a bad bill. That is why we are opposing it. It is a 1960s approach totransport. I believe the Green Party is reflecting the future and the solutions this country needs and I am proud to be championing them in Parliament. Kia ora.