Coddington Deborah: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16906] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Is it not wonderful to see that the National Party is influenced by the ACT party? We are so pleased that the National Party is returning to its constitutional roots and recognising the freedom of the individual. The ACT party is quite happy for the National Party to adopt its policies. The Minister of Transport forgot to mention the 1992 amendment to the Maori Land Court legislation which also brought us into the situation we now have with the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It gave the Maori Land Court the ability to consider vesting title of the foreshore and seabed under customary rights. But we are very pleased that the National Party has now come back to its senses and is following the ACT party’s lead on this—one law for all.  
 I want to comment on the issue—coming back to this legislation—of downgrading safety in terms of land transport. We got a hint at question time today why this Government is doing this. It is actually a good way for this Government we found at question time to reduce hospital waiting lists. The Prime Minister herself said that waiting lists are reduced because people suffering from cataracts are being knocked down by cars and killed. I would say that the reason people suffering from cataracts and who are on waiting lists for operations are being knocked down and killed by cars is that they cannot see the cars because they have cataracts. 
I want to follow on from what Peter Brown brought up. He said New Zealand First would never vote against legislation that promoted safety. But this legislation pits safety against environmental sustainability. That is the issue. One cannot have the two things. The Minister of Transport says one can. I disagree with that and the ACT party disagrees with that. They are two issues that will be in constant conflict with each other. 
But there was a good point that Peter Brown brought up; people laughed at him but he is absolutely right. If members look at clause 25 “Interpretation” they will see that “land transport” now also means coastal shipping. But “land transport” does not mean only coastal shipping; it also means the infrastructure goods and services facilitating land transport by any means and also in terms of coastal shipping ferries and barges. The reason that that is important to debate is that if we look at the infrastructure goods and services facilitating that transport—that is transport on land by any means—and take that clause in conjunction with clause 30 “Who must be consulted about land transport programme” which provides that the authority in preparing a land transport programme has to consult with Maori we find we will never ever get any infrastructure relating to land transport. I am leaving roads out of the equation at the moment. I am talking bus shelters. 
More important what will happen with jetties and ports when the foreshore and seabed legislation goes through? What will happen with reclaimed land. Every time the authority prepares a land transport programme and whenever local authorities prepare land transport programmes they have to consult Maori. What will happen when those programmes are drawn up and the Foreshore and Seabed Bill goes through? I have to guess because that legislation is being rushed through without our even seeing it properly but we are informed that reclaimed land will be under the guardianship—the kaitiakitanga which is the current politically correct word—of the Department of Conservation and it will be impossible for any form of commercial development in terms of coastal shipping to go ahead at all unless of course as we saw when taniwha popped up around every bend in the roadway—