Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17066. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 With regard to this opportunity of debating a bill to amend the principal Act the Land Transport Management Act 2003 I could not let the opportunity go past to test just whether the Government is genuinely serious about welcoming public-private partnerships—that is private-sector participation. When I have looked at projects overseas on a regular basis from the Millau Bridge in the south of France to the M6 Toll in Birmingham to the M7 in Sydney to the ConnectEast project in Melbourne I have seen that those projects have all had a concession period in the order of 50 60 or sometimes 65 or 70 years. The private funders have all said to me that the legislation in New Zealand is so restrictive at 35 years maximum that every time they try to configure up a funding proposal they find that they just simply cannot make the return in that time frame. 
Thirty-five is not the absolute number because if we read the principal Act it states that the term of a concession agreement must not exceed 35 years and the Minister gets to set what that time is. It may be that the Minister chooses 25 or 35 years but I would like to remove that artificial limit of 35 years so I have put forward an amendment to the principal Act that changes the figure from “35” to “70”. I stress again to members that that is just a maximum. It will be a real test as to whether Labour really does want the private sector involved in public-private partnerships because that would be the one issue that I have had raised with me as being the barrier more than any other by the financial institutions. If 35 years has to be the limit to recover one’s net investment in the public-private partnerships then it just cannot work. I would say to the Minister again that she should look at any of the very successful public-private partnerships that we know about including some that I have seen around the place—certainly in New South Wales Victoria Britain France and other places—and she will find that none of them have been able to be configured up with a concession period of 35 years. That is the reason for the amendment I am putting forward in my name. 
I will come back to the eastern suburbs of Auckland because that poses an important question. People ask me where if they are to pay a regional petrol tax their double-track electrified railway line is. They ask where their dedicated busway is. Where are their options to use public transport? The people of Invercargill do not want to pay for all of these things but why should the people of the east Auckland area pay for all these things when there is no railway line in sight for them? There probably never will be because of the economics of trying to build a new railway passenger system and so on. I think that those people have a genuine issue. 
The next issue I would raise with the Minister which is quite an interesting one that needs some work done on it is to do with the fact that the power has now been granted to the Secretary for Transport to designate what a State highway is. One of the problems we have had in this country for a long time—and I acknowledge that it was the case under both National and Labour so I am not getting at anybody—is that the designation between either State highway or local road is too much of a blunt instrument. I think that we probably need to go to say a three or four-tier category like a number of other jurisdictions do. We should have roads of national importance roads of regional importance roads of strategic importance and then local roads. I find it bizarre that in my electorate when I look out of my electorate office each day I look out on to the six-lane Pakuranga Highway which carries 64000 vehicles per day. I want to stress that number because it is more vehicles per day than any other road other than the motorway—64000 vehicles per day; more vehicles than any road other than the motorway. Yet that is a local road funded administered and operated by Manukau City and its ratepayers. I wonder why that is when I can look at another road elsewhere even in Auckland that because it has the designation “State Highway” in front of it is 100 percent funded from petrol tax and road-user charges because people were lucky enough to get that designation. 
I think that if there is one thing we will need to do in the future and I know that other jurisdictions have done it quite well it is to try to segment the various roads. We will have to say that this is a road of national importance and it will be 100 percent this is a road of regional importance and it will be 75:25 and this is a road of local importance and it might be 50:50 as we do. It may be that we could even get down to some small roads that are more the property developer and local territorial authority’s responsibility to be funding the vast bulk of but I would just stress again that I am not sure whether giving the Secretary for Transport this power is the right thing to do. I know that when Transit used to do the complete review of what was designated in the State highway system each year there were all sorts of pressures on people. Some of the local authorities wanted their roads out of their books and they wanted them moved to being State highways because if they could get that then those roads would be 100 percent funded by the State. Others were always on about and asking why this road was a State highway and another road was not. This legislation will confer to the Secretary for Transport quite strong powers. 
The last thing I want to do is to mention what I think is grossly unfair and I hope that at some stage this matter can be reconsidered and that is the representation on the regional transport committees by road users. It was brought to our attention along the way by the Road Transport Forum and by the Automobile Association that their people pay for all of this and I guess that is exactly right. It is the motorcar driver and the truckdriver who pay either the petrol tax or the road-user charges and therefore they should seriously have a voice. It should not have to be a crowded-out voice or multiple voices where they can win the day by their numbers but I would have thought that the old “no taxation without representation” principle really really should have kicked in here. Yet the regional transport committees—we are dropping the word “land” I remember—are still not acknowledging that those people have a right to both be represented and have voting rights. Yes they have to be consulted but so too does Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and everybody else. If we look at the consultation list I cannot think of anybody who will not be consulted along the way; in fact we probably should have put in an amendment stating that anyone who was not consulted will be anyway. But these people are the ones who pay the piper. I think that the Automobile Association and the Road Transport Forum represent very well the vast bulk of either motorcar drivers or commercial road users and I would have thought that letting them have a place at the table of the regional transport committees that are setting regional strategies would be the right thing to do. 
I said that that would be my last point but I would point out one other problem I have with regional transport programmes. Something like the Kopu Bridge is in the Waikato zone. I know that for the Waikato region Kopu Bridge is not its high priority. It is not its highest priority; there are lots of things to do with the Waikato Expressway and lots of things to do with other roads around Hamilton Cambridge Huntly and Ngaruawahia. But the biggest priority of the Kopu Bridge rests with people from Auckland and with people from the Coromandel who are trying to get to and from Auckland. We have people living on one side of the region who are trying to get through that bottleneck to the other side and when they are locked blocked and stopped it is by far a major priority. But when it comes time for the region where that located point is to set its priorities it does not. So again one of the issues we have about informing the National Land Transport Programme is that it should be very careful not to be driven solely by the regional plans. Thank you sir. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that is before us we see that it includes the regional petrol tax which is the part of the legislation that everybody has been focusing on. I will come back and focus on that as well but first I want to draw the attention of the Committee to another part of the bill which is to do with representation on regional transport committees. This legislation provides for a certain number of Government appointees to represent certain areas. I believe there are five such appointees to represent the areas mentioned in the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 and there is to be formal representation on each transport committee to that effect. 
The problem with that is that if there is a full complement of appointees which would be the norm then there is the potential that in some regions the number of local government representatives may be fewer than the number of Government appointees on the regional committee. There would be the potential if say a busy mayor did not attend a meeting for the Government-appointed officials on the committee to be in the majority; the elected representatives from that region would not have a majority at that meeting. I believe that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we had the numbers on the potential for that to happen. A number of committees represent areas that do not have a lot of territorial authorities within their region and this situation could potentially happen to them. So there is then a dilemma if a regional transport committee’s decision making is being made by appointees rather than by elected representatives. There would be a tremendous uproar in many areas if people knew that the decision makers were not their elected people but rather the appointees under certain requirements in the legislation. That could be a fish-hook that comes out in the future and it is something that the Committee needs to be aware of. 
The regional petrol taxes present an interesting dilemma. We have already touched on the fact that the regions are not being given the discretion to determine how to use that money. There is no discretion it is a mandatory apportionment—5c one way and 5c the other way. It is 5c for roading and 5c for public transport. A slight amendment was made to that at the select committee to bump up the 5c for roading and to take a little bit off the 5c for public transport in relation to things like walking and cycling but those components were minor. That defies the submissions we received from around the regions which wanted discretion. It was obvious that the regions wanted the ability to determine their own future and not to have a mandatory clause saying that it was a 5c-5c split. 
When we spoke to those regions we indicated that we would put forward an amendment to that effect. However it appears that we do not have the numbers for that amendment to go through. It will be interesting to see whether the New Zealand First Party will make a commitment when Peter Brown gets up to speak as to whether it is in favour of the 5c-5c split as in this legislation or whether it would give regions such as the Bay of Plenty which has asked for discretion in relation to the 10c. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Taranaki. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes and Taranaki and Waikato. New Zealand First indicated at the select committee that the discretion was of prime importance and it is now time for that party to stand up and deliver. If it does so then we may have the numbers to achieve that goal. 
Peter Brown 
: Have you got a Supplementary Order Paper in? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We will if the member agrees to do it. 
Peter Brown 
: Oh it depends on us! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes it does in this case because the public needs New Zealand First to do what it says it will do at the select committee and not to come to this Chamber and change its mind as it normally does and just vote with the Government. That is the reality— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We’re trying to be nice to him! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes but to see some honesty from that party would be good in this case. 
Basically this legislation takes away the ability of regions to determine their own future. It is set up on the basis that we will have a mandatory 5c-5c split for regions. The history of that is that in Auckland there is a need for public transport and electrification was the big justification for this initial 5c— 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the question be now put. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am a little bit slow on my feet nowadays. It has been a long day and I was beaten by the two members opposite who were seeking the call. Had I thought you would give me the call I certainly would have sought it because I have not yet had a call in this debate. It is a very important bill. There is a whole range of aspects to it that have yet to be touched on. I urge you— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
PETER BROWN 
: I had not quite finished my point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry Mr Brown. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was simply urging you to reconsider. If you will not reconsider then I seek leave to have at least one call. To be honest I would like more than one call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wanted to note that Colin King came down to the Chamber specifically to talk about Part 1 in relation to an issue in his own electorate in Blenheim. He is keen to take a call on this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members that I have accepted the closure and the only way this can happen now is for the member to seek leave to take the call. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call for no longer than 30 minutes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member being serious? Is he seeking leave for one 5-minute call? 
PETER BROWN 
: I seek leave to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are aspects of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill that New Zealand First is very happy with. I will name those aspects briefly and I think the Committee is well informed on them. The first is the hypothecation of all the excise tax taken on petrol. We think that is long overdue. I think we are the only party that has consistently advocated for that and we have done so since our formation. We are delighted that that will occur. We also like the idea that the excise tax taken on petrol that goes into leisure boats will be used for search and rescue activities in respect of that industry. 
But we do have some concerns. One is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. We object very strongly to having the words “principles of the” in front of the words “Treaty of Waitangi”. Nobody knows what that means. Nobody has been able to tell us what it means. We think those words should be deleted. 
We also have concerns about the regional fuel tax regime as it is stated in the bill. We will support the Minister’s amendments because they improve the regime. We have an amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to add another criterion that will make the whole thing subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. We are hopeful that the Committee will see its way to supporting that because it seems logical. 
I know that regional councils want a regional tax but there is a better way of doing it. There is a better way of achieving the same end and that is to hypothecate part of the GST taken on petrol into a regional fund and allow regions to bid for it. I suggest that anything over 20c a litre of GST taken on petrol is windfall GST. A year ago the GST on petrol was 17 point something cents a litre—today it is 23c. So 4c a litre going into a regional fund would solve all the problems. It will not add to motorists’ costs and it will provide a fund that the regions could dip into for want of a better term on a project-by-project basis. I urge the Committee to give serious consideration to that. 
New Zealand First will vote against the provision dealing with the regional fuel tax even with the amendments. I urge the Maori Party to give consideration to our GST idea. I know that my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters has spoken to the members of the Maori Party and I hope they take that on board. If they vote for this provision just as it is then they are adding cents per litre simply for regions. 
I think it was the Hon Maurice Williamson who outlined that not every area in the country will benefit from the regional fuel tax. The regions will pay it but not every township will benefit. It is better that the money required is taken from the windfall GST. That would be acceptable right across this country. That would be easily done. The other night I spoke informally to the Minister of Revenue the Hon Peter Dunne and in two sentences he indicated how easily it could be done. 
David Bennett 
: What about the 5c-5c split? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Bennett that I am serious when I say that I did not make any promises about that whatsoever except that New Zealand First would look at any Supplementary Order Paper provided by the member. But that member is too darn lazy to get off his butt and produce a Supplementary Order Paper. Had he done so we would have given it serious consideration but I am not paid to do his work. I am not paid one cent to do his work. I have watched his performance at the select committee with interest and I see that he is carried by his senior colleague the Hon Maurice Williamson. If it were not for Maurice Williamson on that committee the National Party would be hopeless. I do not agree with everything the Hon Maurice Williamson says but I know he puts in the time and effort required to put his view across. 
To come back to the issue of a regional fuel tax I say that we have an amendment in the name of our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters to insert a clause to make the regional fuel tax subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. That is a common-sense amendment but I make it clear that after that it is very very unlikely that New Zealand First will support the segment of the bill that deals with the regional fuel tax. We say there is a better alternative. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 4 the words “principles of the”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 65A(1) the following paragraph: 
(d)subject to the stabilisation of international fuel prices. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 31 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to add new clause 41 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3  
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 What a dramatic start there was this afternoon to the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I feel that a more appropriate title would be the “Belatedly Looking After the Workers Bill” because at the eleventh hour after the transaction had gone through—the Labour Government is paying nearly $700 million plus the $100 - million odd for the loan plus the rent holiday; it is probably a billion-dollar transaction all up to buy back the railways—Labour found out that it had forgotten about the workers. At the eleventh hour today as part of this bill the Minister of Finance had to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 211 to ensure the Toll workers—[ 
Interruption 
] Actually if the ex-Tauranga member would like to speak he had better take a call. The ex-Tauranga member always likes to chip away without standing up—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The bill could be renamed the “New Zealand First Cave in Bill” too. Apparently in Part 1 the New Zealand First members stood up and said no way were they going to vote for this bill if the Labour Government was not going to remove the wording about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. But what happened? They voted for the bill anyway. It is like flying a white flag—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly! That party’s members say they will do what they have come here to do but when it comes to the crunch they cave in lie down and accept what exists. 
Let us get back to the railway workers. The Labour Government in 11 hours just suddenly remembered that during all the dealing the negotiations and pleasing the Australian shareholders when it paid a hefty price to buy back the railway it forgot about the workers. So National will support the Supplementary Order Paper to make sure the workers in the Toll company who are being transferred into the Crown entity KiwiRail will continue their contributions to Government superannuation. That was quite a dramatic start to this bill by a Government that always claims it looks after the workers. Actually it forgot about them during a very important transaction. 
The other thing I would like once again to reinforce relates to Local Government New Zealand raising serious concerns about the lack of a partnership approach in the introduction of this bill. I was very pleased that the Minister in the chair Annette King actually took a call. I raised a question with her about the Government policy statement. She explained that the issuing of the Government policy statement has been changed to a 3-year cycle to coincide with the local government planning cycle so that local government can take the Government’s direction into account. That makes sense except as Local Government New Zealand pointed out it sounds as though the policy is coming from the top down and the Government is to set out the priorities. 
What local authorities really want to see is a genuine partnership whereby the Government consults them before the policy statement is issued so that a local priority or a regional priority actually gets a fair hearing before it is too late. A certain local priority for a project may be agreed to but that might be overridden because of the Government policy statement. Local Government New Zealand therefore expressed concern—and I am not sure at this stage whether anything has been amended so that we have something here that will ease its concern—about the lack of a genuine partnership approach. 
So although the title Land Transport Management Amendment Bill sounds very bland the content of the bill is really significant. It is significant in the sense that there is concern about the super-bureaucracy that will be created with the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are some nights and days in Parliament when one is just utterly and totally amazed. That a National Party spokesperson would get to her feet and raise the issue of New Zealand railways is as I said today a case of her having either the utmost gall or total amnesia. There was an outfit according to Booz Allen Hamilton that sold a $100 million profit-going company in 1993 not for $400 million as was claimed but for $328 million. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She wasn’t here then. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Not being here is no excuse; to show total ignorance is the problem with National members. Too many of them were here. They are still on the front bench and they have learnt nothing. The reality of the whole thing is that they said: “We are doing this because we cannot afford $200 million of capital to develop infrastructure and Wisconsin Central Transportation and our friends Fay Richwhite can.” So did those companies invest $200 million? No. Did they recapitalise and take a $9-plus shareholdership down to 28c? Yes they did. And why have they been in court in the last 12 months? It is because they robbed the public blind. They are the very same people who are lining up behind the National Party as I speak today—and they all know it. So for the last speaker to get to her feet and talk about the railways repurchase is beyond anything in my wildest dreams that I would contemplate would happen here this evening. 
Parts of this bill are very good and parts are not. First I believe we should not act until we have international fuel stabilisation. Secondly I believe there is a windfall occasioned by GST that could mean we could pay this money across; we could actually hypothecate it to use a term that came out of some bureaucracy. But let me tell members this: we cannot sell that to the public—hypothecation. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It is the same thing—you can’t sell it— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes we can. My mayor wrote to me as he would have written to all National Party MPs—although of course he does not have one now that “Bob the Quitter” has gone; if it is not for Bob and for Bob’s advantage Bob is not interested. The mayor wrote to me and asked me whether I would back this legislation because on the whole he substantially believes it would be good. Mind you I believe that he also thinks our ideas are more sound. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Simon is out there knocking on doors. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well if I were him I would knock on doors with my head because frankly no one can silk-purse a sow’s ear. National at the last election robbed the people of Tauranga blind by bringing in somebody who spent all his time complaining about the local council and trying to get deals done for himself. Robbing the ratepayers blind by getting a white elephant and selling it to ratepayers is what the National Party calls “socialising your losses”—passing them on to ratepayers. That is why Bob has gone and bought two farms just north of Tauranga for $24 million. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Who won in 2005? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will tell the member who won. He should look at the Electoral Act. Nobody will get away with that sort of cheating again. Oh no—they are laughing nervously now. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Who got the electoral petition? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will tell the member who won the electoral petition—the man who got the law changed. He won the petition in the end did he not? Just because one can find three judges who against all the record say one thing—but let me tell that eminent lawyer at the far end over there— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he is ranging too far. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I know but I just want to say one thing. Those members will not be able to get up in this election and use mates’ rates of one-tenth of real and actual costs and get away with it—sorry but we are on to it. 
I come back to my point about hypothecation. It should have gone from the GST windfall straight across to the national roading account—transparent fee-equivalent no commission taken off on the way through—and we would have been happy with that. 
There is one other thing I want to say to Mr Williamson who mentioned the issue of public-private partnerships. If someone cannot get a project going in 35 years and make a profit then I would be very fascinated to know what that project is because if the project is being run on a profit—whether it is the Millennium Wheel the Tauranga Harbour Bridge or anything like that—and if the developer has the utility for the public at heart then it should be able to be done in 35 years. But the member is not talking about that of course. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As we look back on this legislation I think we will see it in relation to the purchase of Toll NZ by this Government. The question from the ACT party today was pretty apt. It asked how such a deal could be so great in the Government’s eyes and in New Zealand First’s eyes when the purchase price some years ago was much less and the company was then rorted by the purchasers yet they now pay over $1 billion and say it is a good deal. What arithmetic is used by the Government and New Zealand First when it comes to purchasing? 
The reality is that the bill before us today the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a problem in the sense that it does not take into account what the regions actually wanted. The regions wanted the ability to distribute the regional petrol tax according to their needs. The Government did not give the regions the ability to do that; it imposed a mandatory split of 5c and 5c. The regions including Tauranga wanted the ability to distribute that tax of 10c per litre of their own accord. That is not what the Government handed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Region after region including the Bay of Plenty came and submitted that the Government should give that discretion. Would New Zealand First support the Bay of Plenty? No it did not. The Bay of Plenty wanted the ability to make that distribution according to its plans and not according to some mandatory distribution by the Government of 5c to public transport and 5c to roading. 
That is at the heart of the problem with this legislation. It does not take into account the roading needs of most of the regions of New Zealand. This legislation was set up because the Government had problems financing Auckland’s growth. It did not want to put the money in so it decided to charge the people of Auckland through a regional petrol tax. Then it decided that if it was going to charge the people of Auckland it might as well charge the people of New Zealand. That is the real reason for this bill. There was pressure on the Government to electrify the rail system in Auckland and there was pressure on the Government to provide some roading in Auckland. The Government would not stump up with the cash; it would say in its Budgets that it would build these things but it would not deliver any cash for them. Then it decided where it would get the cash: it decided it would have a regional petrol tax. This bill is the result. 
This legislation has been built around one region’s desire and does not take into account the desires of other regions around the country including the Bay of Plenty Waikato and Taranaki all of which wanted the ability to distribute the money as their regional plans dictated. That is the real crime in this legislation: it has been set up for one region then it has been extended across the country to give some kind of consistency but it does not provide the discretion needed for it to be effective. The regions wanted that discretion. They came in one after the other asking for that discretion. Did New Zealand First give them that discretion? No it did not. Did some of the other minor parties give them that discretion? No. Did the Labour Party give them that discretion? No. Those political parties stood against the wishes of the regions. The regions have been let down by this Parliament. Time after time they made submissions seeking that discretion and they have not received it. It is a shame on the Government of the day that it has not done that in this bill when it had the opportunity to do so. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of totally refuting that last speech I wish to table a letter dated 30 June 2008 from the Mayor of Tauranga Stuart Crosby on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill seeking my support for the legislation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I know that the previous speaker my good colleague from Hamilton East was talking about the regions and the relevance of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill to the regions. I just want to state to the Committee that my colleague the member of Parliament for Hamilton East along with the Government member of Parliament for Hamilton West wants to congratulate warmly the Rt Hon James Bolger on his appointment as chair of KiwiRail. Speaking on behalf of David Bennett and myself I say that we are immensely proud that a Waikato son—and I know Winston Peters joins me— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No I don’t. He sold it mate. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I withdraw that immediately. But I just want to say that as Waikato members of Parliament we note the appointment of James Bolger to that role today. I personally think he will do a very very good job. The historical ironies obviously are not lost on us. 
I take this opportunity to compliment the Minister on being a very visionary Minister of Transport. I compliment her in terms of this bill which is another important step in terms of the roll-out of a very important vision. I know that the Hon Maurice Williamson in his heart of hearts is envious and would agree with this; this Minister has achieved far far more in her term along with her predecessors such as the Hon Mark Gosche and the Hon Paul Swain and other Ministers. I am very keen that we go back to a situation of creating the New Zealand Transport Agency a new Crown entity replacing the existing Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I know that there were quite a lot of submissions to the select committee in terms of the split of those organisations but I have to say from a Waikato point of view that on balance I do believe that having one entity in the end will streamline strategic transport planning in this country. 
I know that the members for Hamilton East and Hamilton West would also be in accord in acknowledging the huge work already being done in terms of building Hamilton’s and the central Waikato’s transport infrastructure and in my own electorate I note that even under the current system the western bypass—the Rotokauri Road to Rifle Range Road bypass—is a good example of strategic planning and we see the wonderful green buses. I noticed Dr Norman today asking Ministers whether they took a bus or a car or whatever to work. I tell Dr Norman to come to Hamilton and he will see the roll-out of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
. He will see an equal investment in roading infrastructure and he will see a comprehensive commitment to public transport which is a direct and precise result of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 and which this land transport amendment bill will add to and indeed strengthen. I say to the Minister that I think that Hamilton is a very good example of the comprehensive— 
Hon Annette King 
: The biggest increase in passenger transport. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The Minister is correct; it is the biggest increase. It is quite easy sometimes to forget the huge strides that have been made. If we want to see—and Mr Maurice Williamson would agree— 
David Bennett 
: Come on Martin! You know what Land Transport New Zealand did last month. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I have to say that if the member drives north of Hamilton he will see the huge advances in the Waikato Expressway. He does not need to read volumes and tomes or even to read the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 to know about the big gains. He does not need to read volumes and tomes to come into Hamilton and see the huge advance in the western arterial route. He does not need to read to see the wonderful development in our bus network and indeed in terms of the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 I offer compliments to the Rt Hon Winston Peters in relation to the impact of the SuperGold Card. I am really looking forward as a Hamilton and Waikato MP to older New Zealanders being able to use public transport for free in off-peak hours. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I guess when we are talking about the title of this bill we need to try to summarise some of the things in the bill and try to analyse whether the title conveys that impression. I think I would have named this bill the “Mixed Bag Land Transport Bill” because some things in it are very good and I have already canvassed those. The hypothecation issue was long overdue and it puts to bed the argument over the years of how much money was being siphoned off to the Crown account. Now all those revenues that come from petrol tax road-user charges and motor vehicle registration— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We’ve come a long way on this one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well actually Mr Peters is one of the earlier converters to this view but I think at the time when the economy was still struggling to get into balance across the board it was a bit hard to justify. But with the levels of surpluses where they are now I think it is the right time to do it. So yes we all learn and I think we should give some credit to people who have learnt. 
Peter Brown 
: Just apologise; we’ll listen. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I do not need to apologise. There are other good things in the bill like getting on to a proper planning cycle. I will be interested in the Government policy statement because the “GPS” the Government policy statement is a sort of a direction of funding and funding priorities— 
John Hayes 
: I thought it was something that goes in a vehicle. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No it is not the global positioning system; the Government policy statement is about funding priorities and areas where the funding will fall across the regime. I guess that that in part will offset the concerns I have about the funding agency being included in the provision agency and so on. 
Having said all that I get back to some of the stuff National did not approve of. When we had the land transport agencies before the select committee with the Minister a couple of weeks ago we learnt that one of the reasons they finished the last financial year with $220 million unspent was that there were too many pots of money. They said: “There is some money in this fund here but it can’t be used for that. There is some money in this regional fund for this region but it can’t be moved to that region.” It was clear from that what happens when we build too many pots and I think there are already too many pots in the land transport account. We would be better to actually get rid of all those little internal barriers and use the money where best we can and if it is not available for that year use it somewhere else. 
Hon Annette King 
: He’d take if off them. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No actually I would not take it off anyone. If they were ready to go and their project was up they are the ones that should go ahead. The problem is that that money was unspent because some people who were supposed to be up and ready were not and they were not able to take advantage of it. In fact Wayne Donnelly I think gave Tauranga as a good example of a project that was supposed to be up and running but was not ready and had to be delayed for some time and the money could not be spent elsewhere. So we were quite strongly opposed. 
What is not in this legislation? If I wanted a better title for this bill it would be the “What’s Not in the Land Transport Management Bill”. If there was truly a desire by the Labour Government to see alternative funding mechanisms there would be more in this bill. I guess that after hypothecation is passed into law it is very unlikely we will see Ministers of Finance allowing much more dedicated fund money. There will not be Crown money or other stuff coming into it so alternative sources of revenue will have to be found. Elsewhere in the world those alternative sources are legion: private debt public debt public-private partnerships private equity schemes infrastructure bonds all sorts of shadow tolling regimes and so on. Yet we seem to be absolutely fixated on funding our land transport infrastructure on the one tired old boring regime of spending only the current revenue that comes in. I do not know anybody who bought his or her first house by paying cash. People went to debt markets they got the infrastructure early at the then price and then they serviced that debt over time. I do not know any big business that builds plant and equipment or commits to major capital expenditure without using debt funding or capital markets—that is what they are there for. 
The Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me why we needed to change the concession period from 35 years. All I say to him is that he should look at every one of the major projects that I think we could try to emulate. He should look at the ConnectEast and the CityLink around Victoria the M7 in Sydney or some of the other projects there. He should go to the North-South Bypass Tunnel in Brisbane the Millau bridge in the south of France the M6 Toll in Britain done by the Labour Government and the Kilkock to Kinnegad Motorway in Ireland. Every one of those projects has had a concession period considerably longer than 35 years. When developers were asked about it they said that to get a return in that period either the toll had to be put at a grossly unrealistic level so that no one would use it or if there was a very long concession period the toll could have a flat rate at a realistic level so the return could be attained over time. And I am sad that that was not in this legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I take the opportunity in this part of the debate to put a few myths to rest. We have heard speaker after speaker from the National Party talk about the sale of New Zealand Rail. Officially it was sold for $400 million in 1993—I say “Officially” because that was fiction. New Zealand Rail had $72 million worth of debt so effectively it was sold for $328 million not $370 million as the Hon Maurice Williamson said earlier. That was in 1993 dollars and if we allow for inflation—which was fairly high in 1993 1994 and 1995 and has been modest ever since—the figure would be close to $600 million - plus. So $328 million in 1993 is worth over $600 million in 2008 when a reasonable amount is allowed for inflation. The Minister of Finance recognised that the Government had paid a premium for it. It was also quite correctly suggested that the rail was asset-stripped once it was sold. But I say “Fair go” to Toll; it has improved the rail. It is better now than it was when Toll bought it so there is a premium price to be paid for that. Let us compare an apple with an apple not an apple with an orange. 
The other thing is and the Hon Maurice Williamson suggested— 
John Hayes 
: What assets were stripped? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member should not show his ignorance. There is an old saying about closing one’s mouth and not showing one’s ignorance. I will not waste my time on that individual; the guy is thicker than this piece of wood. For the last 3 years the Hon Maurice Williamson has been a firm advocate for the hypothecation of all petrol tax. He has officially changed his mind about that tonight; we have not changed ours. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No I haven’t. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well the member has changed his mind insomuch that he has voted against it. 
Hon Member 
: That’s because of all the other stuff. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well we have put a priority on hypothecation and other aspects of this bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You were going to vote against the principles. 
PETER BROWN 
: We wanted to vote against the reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The Hon Maurice Williamson said that perhaps he should have hypothecated the excise tax some years ago but he did not do so because of the economic situation. The price of not doing it then—not hypothecating all the excise tax into the road transport account—was $1 billion per year or thereabouts worth of congestion in Auckland. The price of steel and concrete has gone up by well over 30 percent and God knows what the price of bitumen has gone up by—I would say there has been a 40 or 50 percent increase. We have paid dearly for sitting on our hands in the 1990s and the early 2000s. We should have been transferring that money across years ago. 
In 1989—or early 1990; certainly it was when Labour was in power before National took the benches under Jim Bolger—I went to Winston Peters and said more money had to go into roading in order to keep pace with the freight that was going to move on our roads just as a result of port reform which was coming. As I recall the excise tax that was going into roading from petrol was 9c a litre at that time. I was a consultant involved in the port reform process. It stood out by a country mile that if we wanted this country to develop economically we had to do something about roading and we had to do it there and then. We should have hypothecated all the excise tax and been prepared to borrow against the income in order to get our roading into a fit state. In terms of the economy we have paid very dearly for not doing that with a billion dollars a year worth of congestion. Also people have lost their lives on the roads in this country because the roads have been less than satisfactory. So New Zealand First saw hypothecation as a high priority and voted for this bill. 
We are absolutely brassed off with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi clause—absolutely brassed off. We cannot find one person in this House anywhere who can tell us what that term actually means. We think we should have got—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member can tell me; maybe she can take a call and tell me exactly what it means. We cannot work out what it means and I would be delighted to know what it means in terms of clause 5 of this bill. 
We also wanted amendments to be made to the regional fuel tax. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has tabled a letter from the Mayor of Tauranga supporting a regional fuel tax. I think the words in that letter were that it was “another tool in the tool box to address the problems of regions”. But a far better way than the regional fuel tax—and we are very disappointed that the Maori Party did not support us on this—would be to use the windfall GST that is currently being paid. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Sorry. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member’s party should have given serious consideration to that. We will be going around this country and telling people that that is what we should be doing. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a marvellous piece of work and incredibly complex with page after page. On that basis the title of the bill is probably quite appropriate the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. But I make the point that there is so much management that we have bureaucracy getting in the way of the intent of the bill. Too often this House tends to take a high view of things and that is probably where governance has its rightful position. I will draw the House’s attention to some of the very drivers that repeat themselves throughout this legislation including these thoughts of assisting economic development assisting safety and personal security improving access and mobility protecting and promoting public health and ensuring environmental sustainability. 
To bring things down to a regional level and to support the comments of my learned colleague David Bennett from Hamilton East who spoke earlier I say that it is quite sad to see that the regions have effectively been closed out of this bill in the sense that quite often when we look at the major issues that confront them we see that they do not show up in a meaningful way in the overall configuration of the National Land Transport Programme. 
I draw everybody’s attention to a situation in my own electorate. I have a newspaper headline entitled “Buck passes on Butter Factory corner”. Butter Factory corner is on State Highway 1. It is on the other side of the Bombay Hills but the situation there has been around for as long as Blenheim has been around and we are not able to even get it up on the radar screen. That is hugely concerning because if members look at what works have been done around elevations and bridges and things like that they will see that all too often in the region it takes a death on the road before anything is done. But at Butter Factory corner we have a complex situation whereby everybody is blaming one another. Transit is being blamed by the council and  
Marlborough Roads 
 is saying that it cannot do anything yet there was an opportunity for the regions to be able to have that flexibility. 
It was good to hear that they did submit to the select committee to ask for that flexibility to be able to raise a petrol tax. It was something I felt compelled to mention at the first reading of this bill and it is something I am pleased to see was canvassed. I am very sad that it was not taken on board and worked into the process. Maybe in time to come it might be the next step forward because when we look at the structure and the framework about getting these matters on to the National Land Transport Programme it takes an enormous amount of effort. 
We acknowledge the building of the Awatere bridge. There were no accidents on that bridge yet it was seen to be of such economic importance that it was a must-do. On that basis credit where credit is due but we do have an enormous problem around a market town such as Blenheim that has grown exponentially. We have a situation at Butter Factory corner where we have a railway line 10 metres from the apex of the corner and when a B train truck stops on that route it is parked over the railway line. It is complex. There is the opportunity to do business with the local landowner; however there is a bureaucratic jam in the system where nothing is happening. There is a school just up the way and again no matter how good this legislation is we must be able to see that the ability of the local region is taken on board and that we are not stymied completely. 
The Automobile Association has recognised this area as the No. 1 priority. When trucks come off the State highway and turn into this particular road cars have to back into the Canterbury Meatpackers’ freezing works to allow them to get through. The biggest problem as is articulated here is sadly when Transit does business and sits down and tries to talk to the landowner the landowner feels that he or she is going to be screwed over. 
So I just want to tell the Committee that it is very important that this is contextualised. It is a great piece of legislation but there is a lot more work still to do. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 209 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.