Street Maryan: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9793. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. There are two issues that I wish to cover and in the course of addressing those two issues I want to refer to the situation in Nelson. I trust Mr Chair that you will bear with me as I explain it a little bit for the benefit of members so that they can see why this applies and why this particular bill causes members on this side of the Chamber such anxiety.It certainly causes me anxiety on two counts. One is about environmental provisions and the other is to do with the curtailing of local community input. So it is those two points that I wish to make in particular.I see this bill as a Trojan Horse. It is a Trojan Horse because there are provisions in it that although they may not apply to examples such as those my colleagues have already given they are absolutely critical for proposals that may be considered in the future.The example I am thinking of in particular is a southern motorway through the Victory community in Nelson. The Hon Nick Smith the member for Nelson has been defeated three times in his desire to get a southern motorway through this Victory community centre. On two occasions he has been defeated by the council which hasgone out and done its homework consulted with the communities measured traffic flows and decided that such a motorway is not required. The trouble is that the main road State Highway 6 which goes through Nelson goes round the beautiful waterfront. Who owns the houses on the beautiful waterfront? Well squillionaires own the houses on the beautiful waterfront. Many of them are very strong contributors to Nick Smith’s campaign funds and they vote National. But I have to say that not all of them vote National. Not all of them vote National but they will not tell Nick that. They will not tell Nick that because—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member’s full name.Hon MARYAN STREET: I am sorry. They will not tell the Hon Nick Smith that because they know that they are surrounded by his supporters in that area. So their push and it is renewed time and time again—in fact as recently as just a week ago or 10 days ago now there was another front page article in theNelson Mail about how they want to get the logging trucks off State Highway 6 and in fact resurrect the idea of a motorway through the southern link road.This bill does two things that make the Hon Nick Smith’s desire to please the wealthy funders of his campaign possible. The first and the most dangerous is the limitations to community input. The bill gets rid of the obligation to consult communities on regional transport plans arguing that consultation is done anyway under the Local Government Act. It removes from regional transport committees representatives of the social environmental and safety criteria leaving just elected representatives from the councils.There is a vibrant community called Victory in Nelson—and you can join the dots easily enough to see why it is called that but that is an aside—which comprises people who are in lower socio-economic areas which houses most of our refugee and migrant population in Nelson and which really deserves to be consulted and to have a proper and adequate say in whether or not a roading project of the future should go through the middle of its community. This bill is just what Nick Smith needs in order to ensure that there is no input or minimal input from local communities and that there is every chance that central government could nominate that as a road of national significance change the designation of State Highway 6 from Rocks Road to this new project and drive a motorway through the Victory community.Hon Trevor Mallard: Better not.Hon MARYAN STREET: It had better not as my colleague Trevor Mallard says. That is absolutely right.Hon Trevor Mallard: There should have been a railway there.Hon MARYAN STREET: Indeed. What I am concerned about in addition to this impact on community input is the environmental impact and this goes to the point in the bill that takes out the original purpose of the Land Transport Management Act which had as its purpose statement the requirement for an integrated approach to the transport system including environmental responsibility and rail and coastal shipping. That disappears.Rail coastal shipping and care for the environment are things that would impinge directly on the development of Rocks Road. Rocks Road is a shabby little road. It does get logging trucks up and down it but it could be beautiful. What is beautiful about it is its view. It keeps getting torn up by logging trucks that is true but things could be done if we were to have an integrated transport system and not a Land Transport Management Act whose purpose is “to contribute to an effective efficient and safe land transport system in the public interest.” Gone are environmental responsibilities. Gone is the imperative to integrate transport options. Coastal shipping in Nelson is absolutelya possibility. It is entirely possible to shift logs by sea. It is possible to reinstate a railway.This bill is a Trojan Horse. Although my colleagues have outlined particular current proposals that are on the drawing board such as theKapitiExpressway which Kris Faafoi mentioned a moment ago there are proposals that are not on the drawing board yet but are a twinkle in the eye of the Hon Nick Smith and his supporters in Rocks Road who fund his campaign. His campaign would struggle for funds if it were not for these people in Rocks Road. He depends on them. This is exactly the kind of legislation he requires in order to push through something that is hugely unpopular. If he can limit and restrict the input of community groups through the provisions of this legislation then he will—he will.I can see the Hon Nick Smith’s fingerprints all over this as well. He will just be biding his time and waiting for the next opportunity when he cannot put additional funding into beautifying the Nelson waterfront which is entirely possible now with half the contribution from the Nelson City Council and half from central funding because it is a State highway. No he would like the State highway to go through the middle of a community that in large measure does not vote for him. That should not be allowed.This bill can be used for destructive purposes and I would ask the members opposite to consider that and consider whether what they are setting down here for the future is going to be constructive or destructive. Take away community input take away environmental responsibility and we are left with a roading programme that detracts from our environment that ruins our environment and that does not advance alternative and integrated systems of transport. We are left with an impoverished future as a result. Thank you.