Coddington Deborah: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14056] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we do not support this legislation. We oppose it because it will not do anything to fix Auckland’s transport problems. On the face of it we could give this Government a small tick for trying to solve the problems in Auckland but when we read the bill we realise that all that this legislation will do is to make a bad situation worse. By the bill’s own admission it promotes only the integration of decision-making processes. There is nothing in the purpose clause about building more roads ending the gridlock or solving Auckland’s transport problems. That is not a hard thing to do given there are only a million people in Auckland. Other cities in the world have solved their problems. We can look at what London has done. London had a culture shock and brought in legislation with new ideas to solve its problems. Sydney did it by using private enterprise to build and develop roads for the State. But no because this Government is ideologically opposed to any form of private enterprise it will not even go there. At the very most it will allow tolling on some roading but that will not solve the problems. 
The Minister himself in his third reading speech admitted that traffic problems in Auckland impact on the rest of the country. That is the reason why the rest of the country should realise that Auckland is being penalised in this bill by having to use its own assets built up by Aucklanders over the years to fund in large part the solving of its transport problems. If we went and asked Aucklanders whether they wanted to sit in traffic for hours and hours every day of course they would say no. If we went and told them that there was a piece of legislation in which the Government was going to do something about that they would probably be pleased. But if we then said to them that that legislation would just set up more bureaucracies and put the new bureaucracies under the control of the Auckland Regional Council they would be horrified. They would know that all that would happen would be more talkfests and more arguing and not one new piece of roading would be built. This bill is an asset grab. That is what it is; it will take $1 billion in assets that belong to Aucklanders. Previous Governments and this Government have dictated to Aucklanders what they can do with those assets and now the Government is giving them to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings. The last thing that Auckland needs is more bureaucracy. We already have enough bureaucracy in Auckland and the last thing we need is more of it. 
If we look at the clauses in this bill and analyse it clause by clause we can see that the bill will not do anything. Any fool can see that when the roading network is not even a priority. The priority is land transport alternatives. They are stuck between the same rock and a hard place that the Land Transport Management Bill was when we passed it last year. That legislation actually did set out to solve the whole country’s transport problems but it was hijacked along the way by the Green Party and deals were done. What happens is that two issues now stymie the whole development of a roading network. The first is that we have to look at land transport alternatives and not just look at them. They have to play a major part in the decision-making process about whether to build a road or instead put that money—money paid in by motorists by the way using cars—into funding cycle lanes walking lanes or other alternative forms of land transport. The other issue that stymies development is consultation with affected communities. On top of the Resource Management Act this endless consultation will mean that we will never get anywhere. 
The United Future member said that no Opposition party had put up an alternative solution. Well he obviously has not been listening because there is an alternative. The ACT party has consistently put up that alternative and has likened it to the America’s Cup legislation. A Labour Government—I think it was Labour—saw the need for the development of the America’s Cup village given the advantages it would bring not just to Auckland but also to the whole country. So it set up in the legislation one entity to hear all applications and gave the right of appeal—I am not saying that matters should go through in a dictatorship. People did have the right of appeal under the America’s Cup legislation but it was fast efficient and smooth. If the Greens had had the influence on that legislation that they have had on this legislation we would never have ended up with the America’s Cup village and all the boatbuilding industries wonderful restaurants and activity that still goes on there long after the America’s Cup has gone. 
Building more roads on its own is not a solution. If one builds more roads—yes of course the Greens are right—people will just flock on to them in their cars. That is why I do not understand why the Greens do not support issues like congestion tolling. Congestion tolling is the ideal way to get rid of the pollution caused by cars idling on motorways. People would have a choice between paying a bit more to go on a faster road or if they do not want to pay going on a slower road. What is wrong with that if it gets people moving? Those are the only sorts of things that will solve the transport problems in Auckland. We have to have pricing mechanisms but at the moment we do not. People just go out and get in their cars. These days most families in Auckland have at least two cars and they get in them and drive because the roads are perceived as being free. Roads are not free; the Minister talked about spending $1.6 billion on them. Where does that money come from? People need to be reminded that they pay for those roads and the only way they will be allowed to make decisions about when and where they use roads is by means of pricing mechanisms. 
We need practical legislation. More of the Labour Government members who understand the pragmatism of the situation need to take more control over what is being done. When the Land Transport Management Bill was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the Minister went around the country urging submitters to be strong on the legislation and to support the public-private partnerships and the Build Own Operate and Transfer proposals whereby developers could come in from overseas build roads operate them and transfer them to the State after a certain number of years. However those matters were lost from the legislation because the Minister of Transport was not strong enough and deals were done with the Greens. But Auckland’s transport problems could have been solved through such schemes. 
In conclusion I would like to answer the United Future member who criticised the National Party for saying that $250 million was still in the kitty and had not been spent. That is money that motorists have paid up in user charges petrol taxes and Accident Compensation Corporation levies and the United Future Party says it should not be spent on the roads. Those members said that just because that money is there that does not mean to say it should be spent. Obviously they would rather spend it on something like the Families Commission. Well I would love to know what the Families Commission will do for Auckland families when in 10 years’ time mum and dad have to leave home before dawn and do not get back until after dark because no new roads will have been built as a result of this legislation.