Woods Megan: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 08 May 2013. Volume:689;Page:9802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am very happy to take my first call on this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill because I think it is really important and I think it is important for us to get on record why it is that all over the country Labour has a problem with this bill. My main two problems actually are covered by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway’s Supplementary Order Papers 234 and 235. I want to focus particularly on this: the constraints within the purpose of the bill and the limits of local input—so Supplementary Order Papers 234 and 235—and to talk about these particularly in relation to transport planning which is integral to the rebuild of Christchurch and the transport planning that is happening there at the moment.If we have a look at the first of these the bill as it currently stands removes the purpose statement of the Land Transport Management Act which sets out the integratedapproach to the transport system. Many of my colleagues have talked about this and what it will mean at a local level and the problems that this puts in place. We have specifically touched on how removing the integrated approach to transport—including the environmental responsibility that goes with that along with rail and coastal shipping—is a backward step and I want to show how this will be the case in Christchurch. The other thing that I want to touch on is the changes to the make-up of the regional transport committees and talk about the importance of local community input into planning effective transport systems that will operate well in certain localities. After all Labour does believe very strongly that local communities need to have a strong say in their local futures and transport is very much one of those areas where we would like to see this happening.In Christchurch as we plan our recovery we see transport as absolutely central to this recovery. One of the key things that we are grappling with and that the Government opposite is grappling with as well is how the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority the New Zealand Transport Agency Environment Canterbury and the Christchurch City Council are all going to fund different elements of the transport recovery strategy and the transport recovery plan—different agencies have different responsibilities for different parts of this—and how all this is going to fit together. I think the case of Christchurch shows very clearly the need to have this very integrated approach to transport because we cannot think of just one mode of transport as we think about transport recovery.So the Christchurch Central Development Unit has just drafted a transport chapter as part of its plan for the recovery of the central city of Christchurch but within this—I mean in many ways there are some very positive steps about what transport in a recovered Christchurch is going to look like. But one of the things that we in Labour have signalled as a really strong concern that we have with this chapter is that there is no detail about how it connects up with other elements of planning within transport. So how does it connect with Christchurch City’s transport strategy? How does it link with theCanterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy? How do all these things go together?Going back to my colleague’s second Supplementary Order Paper in terms of the make-up of the regional transport committees and the need to have this local input into them we have real concerns. One of the things we know is that the majority of submitters who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee including representatives from the regional transport committees really wanted to maintain the status quo of requiring specialist experts including the police disability experts—and I would like to come back to that about the need to have a city with very accessible transport in the 21st century—and representatives from walking and cycling groups on regional transport committees as they have valuable input to make. Having this wide variety of experts and perspectives in the transport planning and funding process at the outset ensures that far more robust discussions are had about priorities and about projects. But the concern is that if the funding is not there it is not actually going to have this diversity of views that will lead to the integrated approach to transport.So what is it that we are hearing from Christchurch residents on what they want in their recovered transport plan? Well one of the things that we are hearing very loud and clear and that the Christchurch City Council heard really loud and clear and also the Christchurch Central Development Unit when it put its transport chapter out for consultation is that Christchurch citizens very much want—