Little Andrew: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Little Andrew: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5117. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and to reiterate Labour’s opposition to this piece of legislation which will only ever take us backwards. If ever there was a concern about why the New Zealand Transport Agency should be given extra borrowing powers one does not have to look too far back in history to understand why because this was the Government agency that made a financial error in the last financial year of—wait for it—$182 million. It miscalculated $182 million and had to get additional Crown financing to cover that gap. That is the level of mistake the agency made and this Government now wants to give it greater powers to borrow to cover its mistakes. 
The principal question for me in this legislation is how will this bill help the regions? How will this bill help the regions? Coming from working actively in a regional area the region of Taranaki home of the Ranfurly Shield and home of the brave I can say that it is a region that has suffered hugely from this Government’s transport policies or lack of priorities in roading and in transport. It has had little support. There has been little support from this Government for regional roading. This bill represents a greater concentration of power when the issue for regions at the moment is just how much input and how much power local authorities and their transport committees can actually have. This bill represents a greater concentration of power in the centre and in the roading agency and that will not help a bit. 
Let me talk about a couple of examples in Taranaki which are issues that have been longstanding and where the local committee and the local community have long expressed a need for priority and a need for funding. They are safety issues. One is the Normanby Overbridge in South Taranaki. They put up their submission to get it on the plan this year and it was knocked back. This is a bridge that is a death trap. It has killed a couple of young chaps already—in fact just recently. This is a community that is hanging out for roading improvements. It will not be that expensive. They have already attempted to divert local money into what is a State highway to fix the problem but they cannot get it fixed and they cannot get the New Zealand Transport Agency on board to fix it. The most recent long-term plan that the New Zealand Transport Agency produced has not fixed the problem at all. Then there is the road north of New Plymouth State Highway 3 which goes for about 100 kilometres. It has major problems with paving there is no shoulder there are issues about the bridge abutments and the uneven surface and there has been no money at the centre for it. The region has tried to use regional funding to fix up bits of that road but it simply is not enough. What will happen now if this bill goes through as it is is that we will just see an even greater concentration of power in the centre and less voice for the local community. 
Let us have a look at one aspect of this bill: clause 61 which amends section 96. Under section 96 at the moment there is a quite explicit and clearly set out approach to be taken when the agency is considering the funding of roading. It requires the agency in terms of its operating principles to “exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility”. That includes a host of things: that it avoids to the extent reasonable adverse effects on the environment; that it ensures in relation to its functions and to the extent practicable it consults with persons and organisations in the region; that it takes into account the views of the local community; and that it meets the requirements of consulting with local Maori. All of that goes in this bill—all of that goes in this bill. If this bill does one thing that is bad amongst everything else it is that it guts the opportunity for local communities to have a say and an input into the priorities for their transport needs and that is wrong. 
It is characteristic of this Government in so many respects. It is not just in Canterbury; not just in the Canterbury Regional Council. Now we are seeing it in this legislation too—taking away the local voice and taking away the voice of the people. It has happened so commonly with this Government in the way it operates and the legislation that it is passing and we are seeing it here now too. It is unnecessary and it is bad. It is one reason why the Labour Party will be opposing this legislation.