Coddington Deborah: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14014] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to address Part 1 which contains the purpose and interpretation clauses. If the Minister Chris Carter were serious about solving some of the transport problems in Auckland he would urge his Government to make a decision on Whenuapai Air Base. Instead Government members are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. The Government will not make a decision on Whenuapai Air Base because it is too political and because it does not want to upset Auckland International Airport. While the people in west Auckland sit waiting for this airport so they do not have to sit in traffic for 3 hours to take a 1-hour flight to Wellington Government members sit around passing legislation such as this in urgency. 
Clause 3 states that the purpose of this Act is to improve the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system and decisions on stormwater funding. It does not say anything about building roads about pricing mechanisms or about ending the gridlock in the Auckland transport system which is a total disgrace. If this Government were serious in doing something about the Auckland transport system it would bring in legislation such as that brought in for the America’s Cup which enabled the America’s Cup village to be built in time for the event and enabled the money to be poured into the Auckland region. That benefited not just downtown Auckland in terms of aesthetics and creating businesses but the whole of New Zealand. All that is needed is a bill like that to set up some sort of central body that could hear all the submissions and objections in one piece. There would be one right of appeal and then the whole roading network could go through. 
As I said before there is no point just in building more roads because cars will pour on to them—especially in Auckland which is built on a very narrow piece of land. As the Greens say it is hopeless trying to get people to use rail. If people want to use rail let them pay for rail. The motorists in Auckland pay through their road-user charges through their accident compensation levies through their drivers’ licences through registering their cars and again and again through petrol taxes. Even though they pay all that money less than 50 percent—I think about 17 percent—actually goes back into the roads. The rest goes into the consolidated account. Aucklanders are so desperate that they will agree as a last measure even to a regional petrol tax. That will not solve anything anyway because people will just pour out of the area to fill up their vehicles and go back in again. 
This bill will do absolutely nothing because this Government is ideologically opposed to any form of private enterprise. Until this Government—or any Government—allows private enterprise to come into the picture in terms of building operating and transferring roads we will never get anywhere. This bill is really an asset grab. It is an asset-grab bill. It would put Brierley’s to shame in terms of grabbing all the assets that belong to Auckland people—in the form of Infrastructure Auckland—which they have paid for and which interestingly enough it took an Alliance person to safeguard for them. Now it will just hand over those assets to the Auckland Regional Council and it will not even require that all of those assets be used on the roads and the stormwater system. As I said during a prior debate on this bill the Auckland Regional Council will be allowed to use 15 percent of the assets for whatever it wishes. 
This is the council that with a straight face unashamedly put up rates on the North Shore to $6000 per year. Those people would have to pay for a rail system that they would never use that some of them would never see and that because this Government is so soft and pathetic on crime they would not want to use. A pensioner lady I spoke to whose rates were going up to $6000 per year said: “I would not use rail anyway because the railway stations aren’t safe. Why would I want to use it?” This bill is just cosmetic public relations.