Fitzsimons Jeanette: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Land Transport Management Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 01 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17054. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on Part 1 of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and particularly on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 209. I realise that I left the House somewhat on tenterhooks on Thursday afternoon when I drew attention in my second reading speech to what I called then the Minister’s pork-barrel clause whereby the projects that the Ministers can decide should occur in Auckland—not in any other region but with the second 5c in Auckland—were not subject to any set of Auckland regional priorities. I was particularly concerned that in a bill that strengthens the role—quite rightly we in the Greens think—of the regional land transport strategy and adopts the principle that regions can determine their own destiny their own priorities for expenditure and whether to levy a regional fuel tax it was quite inappropriate for Ministers then to be able to impose projects on Auckland that were not in accordance with the priorities in the regional strategy. The Supplementary Order Paper fixes that and we are very happy that that has been fixed. 
The Supplementary Order Paper adds a short statement to new section 65N(1) inserted by clause 31 which states that the Ministers must be “satisfied that the projects are consistent with the Auckland regional land transport strategy”. That is a big improvement. It closes a big loophole that the Greens were very concerned about and we are now able to vote for the bill. Although we are not ecstatic about everything in the bill we are now able to vote for the bill on balance without further reservations. 
The Auckland regional land transport strategy was prepared under a very democratic process as provided for in the Land Transport Management Act. There was large-scale consultation. As I recall about five options were put out although it may have been six for the balance of expenditure between roads and rail and for different kinds of projects that were to be funded over the long term in the region. The public got involved and chose which option they wanted to go for. They chose well in my view. They said that they needed to get the rail system fixed and that it was a high priority and they chose option five which did that. It would be quite inappropriate to allow that decision to be overturned for projects that did not even make it on to Auckland’s priority list at all to be funded by the Minister’s 5c which let us remember is not money that comes from central government. The Government for that second 5c in Auckland raises the loan and puts it on the Crown’s balance sheet which does not require any immediate expenditure but it is Auckland that pays an extra 5c on its petrol to raise the money to service that loan. If Auckland is paying to service the loan then it is essential that Auckland gets to say what projects it is used for. 
I am very glad that has been fixed. I thank the Minister for recognising the danger going into the future that some future Minister might use it for totally pork-barrel reasons which would not be appropriate. 
It still however leaves the fundamental problem of transport funding and that is the financial assistance rate. We still have a problem that if Auckland and I use Auckland as an example but it is the same anywhere wants to build a State highway for Aucklanders to use to get from one side of Auckland to the other—let us say State Highway 20—then that is 100 percent funded out of the National Land Transport Fund paid into by motorists across the country. OK fine; it is like that in every region. But if Auckland wants to improve its rail system to carry millions more passengers from one side of Auckland to the other performing exactly the same function then Auckland has to find at least half of the money to do that. If we compare dollar for dollar rail is the better option.