Mapp Wayne: Third Readings 
Mapp Wayne: Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17241] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Well I guess that that speech is an indication as to why that member’s seat will be changing hands at the next election. One of the extraordinary things we have learnt is that it is dangerous for a member from the far end of another island to apparently speak knowledgably about issues in Auckland because if he knew the truth he would know that we have been waiting on the North Shore—and Madam Speaker will be well aware of this—nearly a decade for the North Shore busway. The Government has been in office now for 5 years and not a sod has been turned so it is extraordinary for the Government to stand up and boast that it is solving the transport problems. The problem is that there is very little action. 
I will pick up on a comment made by Mr Peter Brown from the New Zealand First Party because I found it to be particularly interesting. He said that New Zealand First was fundamentally opposed to tolls. Mr Brown comes from Tauranga and will be well aware that the bridge in Tauranga would not exist but for tolls. That is the reality although I appreciate that the tolls have subsequently been removed. Mr Winston Peters the leader of that party has been the member for Tauranga for the entire period involved and no doubt supported the erection of that bridge presumably with tolls. He knew that it would not be built without tolls. More seriously however how on earth can there be public-private partnerships unless there is a degree of tolls? Has New Zealand First or for that matter the Government even thought about the fact that the whole reason that Australia is able to have an effective programme of road building in the major cities—Sydney Melbourne and Brisbane in particular—is precisely that it has tolls? The tolls are the funding stream fundamentally for the public-private partnerships. Without that those projects would simply never have been completed.  
Let us contrast that with what occurs in New Zealand. We have a very ineffective regime that was introduced last year. It is very ineffective indeed and as a consequence there has been no real progress on some of the major infrastructure projects. I refer the House and the Deputy Speaker to an issue that I am particularly interested in: the matter of the second harbour crossing. Currently 160000 vehicles cross the Auckland Harbour Bridge. On projected rates of growth that will rise to between 200000 and 250000 vehicles within the space of 10 years. Even at $2 per vehicle that translates into a revenue stream of something like $140 million. That is the sort of revenue needed to build a project like a second harbour crossing particularly if it involves a tunnel. If the New Zealand First Party and because of the limitations around the Government’s legislation Labour are so blind to those opportunities then there is no hope that a project like a second major harbour crossing can be completed. Yet that is exactly what the Auckland region needs. So I would say to both the Government and its helpers—in this case New Zealand First—that they should take their blinkers off look at what Australia has done effectively and repeat the formula here. Motorists and other citizens are crying out for real results.  
We are opposed to the legislation and we are particularly opposed to it on two grounds. The first is the removal of the phrase “safety at reasonable cost”. It was simply a ludicrous proposition for the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to suggest that Maurice Williamson did not support our position. Maurice Williamson wrote the minority report on the Transport Legislation Bill. The reason he wrote it of course was that he was the Minister when “safety at reasonable cost” was introduced. It was Mr Williamson’s initiative that brought that into place. Now the Government wants to cancel it and substitute words that are frankly no longer capable of precise meaning. They can be interpreted in pretty much any way that one wants. I have no doubt that the Government or the authority will do precisely that. We will see references to sustainability economic balance and all those sorts of words that are not capable of precise meaning. Because they are not capable of precise meaning we will get no sense of prioritisation no sense of ranking and no sense of the allocation of scarce resources. Blind alleys will be pursued effective transport solutions will be ignored and public funds will be wasted. That is the scenario we are looking at. Therefore I guess it is not surprising that the Greens support this legislation. I find that to be most disappointing. I would acknowledge in this particular instance that New Zealand First recognises the importance and seriousness of the removal of those words.  
The other issue I wish to deal with is the insertion of the consultation rules in clause 30 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. They refer to Transit every affected regional council every affected territorial authority affected approved organisations—I wonder what an “affected approved organisation” is—the Ministry of Health the Accident Compensation Corporation the Commissioner of Police the Secretary for Transport the Ministry of Justice land transport users and providers affected communities and—get this—Maori and the public. What is different about Maori that would not make them an affected community or members of the public? Where is the oft-stated mantra which I have even heard the Maori Party talk about—of one law for all? TarianaTuria was obviously using it in an unusual situation in her desire to have police protection because of the SIS.. Clause 30 is a breach of the principle of one law for all. Surely it is reasonable in 21st century New Zealand that we treat all citizens alike and that we all have equal rights of consultation. That is the very foundation of our democracy. Instead we are building and deepening into our law provisions that separate people out by virtue of their ethnicity. Surely if a particular community is affected such as Ruatoria that will encompass the Maori residents of that community in relation to a particular project.  
What is the difference between Maori and the affected public generally or the affected community? The answer in relation to land transport is nothing. Maori have the same interest in land transport as the general public. We are not talking about the issue of Maori land or the language where specific and separate consultation may be expected. We are talking about issues that affect all of us equally and that affect particular communities in particular ways. On that basis also we are opposed to this legislation. I know that Government members will say that that was in the previous legislation. We in National have been reviewing the way we look at things. It is absolutely clear—and even the Government has some minor recognition of this—that New Zealanders are crying out for our laws to treat us equally where they affect matters of general interest. So along with the issues around the removal of the phrase “safety at reasonable cost” that is also a profound reason why we are not able to support this legislation.