Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9731] 
Land Transport Management Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 4 November. 
Part 3 Administrative provisions relating to Transfund and Transit and miscellaneous provisions ( 
continued 
)  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Bill sounds great but as we have found during the Committee debate it will do nothing at all to solve the transport needs of New Zealand. In fact it is a politically correct woolly-woofterish sop to the Green Party. Anybody who reads this bill will see all the Greens’ provisions in it—provisions that most New Zealanders do not know anything about. They think their petrol taxes actually go into building roads and improving the infrastructure of New Zealand. When they read this bill or when it is enacted and takes effect in their local area they will find out it is quite different. 
Let me give an example. One of the bill’s provisions is that Transfund Transit local authorities and every approved public organisation must consider the needs of persons who are transport disadvantaged. One of the rules of passing good legislation is to make sure it spells out very clearly what it means. I ask the Minister of Transport to explain what “transport disadvantaged” means. Does it mean somebody who does not have a footpath? Does it mean somebody who does not have a bicycle track? Does it mean somebody who cannot catch a bus or a train or a ferry or who does not have a car? Maybe it means somebody who has a Skoda instead of a different car. Maybe it means somebody who cannot drive. The problem with this provision is that local authorities will have to try to figure it out. They will have to go through endless rounds of consultation litigation or whatever it takes actually to figure out what “transport disadvantaged’ means. 
I can tell the Minister in the chair Mr Swain that local authorities are already sick to the teeth of the costs this Government has imposed on them. The Local Government Act the Gambling Act and the Prostitution Reform Act are examples of legislation that puts millions and millions of dollars of compliance costs and consultation costs on the back of ratepayers up and down New Zealand. The problem is that ratepayers do not know that because all that stuff has happened in just the last couple of years. It is disgraceful. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 When the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked through Part 3—which is quite a substantial part of the bill—the submitters raised a couple of issues that I would like the Minister of Transport to consider. 
One relates to clause 70 “Objective of Transfund”. It is quite important that the Minister notes in the Committee today that the select committee heard a near-unanimous view from submitters that they wanted Transfund to have the objective of considering the economic benefit of its spending decisions. I know that the Minister is prone to say that that is all about benefit-cost ratios which depend on how many people have been killed on a piece of road and that the Government is not going to do that because it means a new road is built only if someone has been killed on the old one. Well that actually was the case; if someone was killed on a dangerous corner that meant that corner might be more dangerous than one down the road and Transfund might spend some money on fixing it. That makes common sense. What the Minister is careful not to tell New Zealanders is that Transfund still takes that into account even though it does not use a benefit-cost ratio—that where a road is dangerous it will fix it. The Minister nods. I do not think for one moment he would stand and say that just because someone was killed there we will ignore it. 
I say to him that given that the Government does not want to go back to the benefit-cost ratio he should at least include in clause 70 words to the effect that Transfund should have regard to the economic benefits of any spending decision. Otherwise we will get into the situation whereby Governments will be accused of pork-barrelling. Already Labour has appointed its campaign organiser and president to Transfund. Already Mr Mike Williams the person who sits down and decides how Labour will hold the Otago seat is deciding how Transfund will allocate its money. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis of the marginal Whanganui seat says: “Don’t you wish that National had thought of that?”. I say to Jill Pettis that I do not believe that Transfund should be using its petrol tax money as some sort of large Labour Party re-election slush fund. That will now be able to happen because Transfund does not have to have regard to any economic impact at all. It can just decide that the seats that are marginal will get the bridges and the new money. I for one believe that is exactly what Labour will do. That is exactly what Mike Williams will do. 
That is exactly why the Minister will not put economic benefits into this clause. It has nothing at all to do with his going on about someone having to be killed in order to get a piece of road done. The Minister wants to ensure that Transfund has the ability to make political decisions. That is absolutely outrageous. I tell the Committee and that Minister that we will undo that. Roading decisions should be based on the economic benefit not on the political benefit for the Labour Party. That is why we will be strongly opposing Part 3. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why he will not support an amendment that stops political decisions from being made by the board of Transfund; that stops the Labour Party president and campaign manager from making decisions about where large amounts of Government funding for roading are allocated. I say to the Minister that it is outrageous that he has allowed that to happen. Never before has a party political president and campaign manager sat on a board dishing out funds like Mike Williams is doing with Transfund. The Minister could put a clause in here to stop it. 
Jill Pettis 
: I bet that’s a first. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is a first. I know that Jill Pettis supports it. She thinks it is the best way to get roading projects done in Whanganui. She tells the people in Whanganui not to worry about that bridge because she can get it done. It is a marginal seat and she can ring the Labour Party president and get it done. [ 
Interruption 
] Well she asks about the “Road to Nowhere” or whatever it was—the road that Sandra Lee had money spent on even though it was not a public road. Taxpayer money went on that road because of a political decision that the Minister made in order to keep the Alliance in the tent. He spent taxpayers’ money for political purposes on that road and he will do it again to try to buy David Parker the Otago seat. He will try to do it again to buy Jill Pettis the Whanganui seat. 
We will be watching where that money goes. I suspect the money will not be going to areas that are of economic benefit for this country; it will be going to areas that are of political benefit. That is outrageous. That is why the system was made transparent. The one sneaky underhand thing that this bill does is to take his political appointments one step further. It says to the Labour Party president and campaign manager that not only is he appointed—and paid—to sit on the board of Transfund but he is able to make decisions about where the money goes without being accountable on any economic criteria at all. He just has to have his eyes on the politics of it and that will keep this Minister satisfied. 
I would like the Minister to take a call. I bet he will not take a call and deny it. I bet the Minister will not take a call and defend the Labour Party president’s appointment to Transfund. I bet the Minister will not take a call and defend the Labour Party president’s allocation of money to projects all over New Zealand based on political patronage—not based on the economic benefit of roading. That Minister will not do that and that tells us a lot. [ 
Interruption 
] Jill Pettis is already saying she wants a new road. We will see whether she gets it. 
I also want to raise the issues in Supplementary Order Paper 165. There is a large Supplementary Order Paper with a range of clauses to be read into this part. Once again this Government behaves in this sneaky sort of way: it has submissions listens to everybody makes decisions and reports back then races off and does some sort of deal with the Greens and throws that in without anybody having an opportunity to have a say on it. That is what this Minister has done with this Supplementary Order Paper. 
I want the Minister to get up and explain why on Part 3 we have five pages of amendments about largely the transitional provisions. The committee went through those transitional provisions very carefully. The officials agreed. So why do we have an amount of backsliding from this Minister on those transitional provisions? Why have these amendments been written? Is it so that Labour can have a quick review of some of the funding decisions just to make sure? Do Mr Williams and the Minister want to have a look just to make sure that the money is going to their pet political projects? Is that why these transitional provisions are being rewritten in this way? That is what it looks like to me. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain those issues to us as well. He has not taken the chance to do that. 
Finally I note the provision that says a board member may well be on both Transfund and Transit at the Minister’s discretion. I predict that the Labour Party president and campaign manager will be dishing the money out and deciding the projects. He will be on Transfund and Transit deciding which project gets the money. That is political patronage at its worst. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was quite an enlightening speech from the Hon Roger Sowry. He talked about building roads for the economic benefit of this country. I remind members that National was in power for something like 9 or 10 years before Labour came in. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Nine long years. 
PETER BROWN 
: Nine long years—and it did nothing. In fact a former Minister of Transport stood in this Chamber yesterday afternoon and made two claims to fame. One was that he had split Transit into two to become Transit and Transfund—one being the practical side of roadmaking and the other being the funding side. In the commercial world that would be laughable and I question the need for a two-pronged attack so to speak. 
His second claim was that he produced a book:  
Better Transport Better Roads.  
I read the book with interest. As I recall it illustrated quite clearly that road design road fault was responsible for 15.1 percent of road deaths in this country yet the National Government did nothing—so much so that the Minister the Hon Maurice Williamson would not even turn up to the select committee to talk about the book! At that time I was a new MP in my first term and I was really disappointed by that. 
What we in this country have to do—and this bill will not do it—is to identify the problems identify the roads that need to be maintained and the roads that need to be built specify the timeframe in which we need to do all of that determine the cost and work on a system that will provide the finance. First and foremost New Zealand First advocates that the excise tax that goes from petrol into the consolidated account is used for the betterment of roads and the motorist. We accept that there might be some justification for not using all of it; there might be a genuine reason why some of it should be diverted to the consolidated account but we want to see the rationale. We want the report that the Minister referred to some months ago to be tabled so that we can understand the argument. We believe that Transfund should have the ability to borrow. I believe that it has it now but this bill seems to prevent it. If the funding is adequate—if we can get that 18.5c from the consolidated account and use it on roading—then our problem is well on the way to being solved. If it is not adequate then Transfund should borrow the money and we will repay the debt against future traffic volumes. Traffic in this country is increasing at a reasonable percentage and so is fuel use. We all know that. 
If all of that fails or none of it stacks up—but that is our first option—then New Zealand First is prepared to look positively at a regional fuel tax. In other words we could ask the motorist to pay a bit more to accommodate the concern. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much? 
PETER BROWN 
: I keep coming back to it because I do not think that member over there quite understands things: first and foremost we want to use the 18.5c that goes from the petrol motorist into the consolidated account. We believe there is a legitimate reason for using it. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When the member’s leader was Treasurer what did he do then? 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the Minister asked what my leader did when he was Treasurer but she was eating at the time. I am not sure whether members are allowed to eat in this Chamber. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’ve got a terrible cold. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not think she can eat whether or not she has a cold. My leader did transfer some money from the consolidated account into the roading account. I do not know how many times we have to tell her that. In fact he transferred 2.1c a litre from the consolidated account into the roading account. The intention was to continue doing that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How come that didn’t fix it? 
PETER BROWN 
: It was the first movement from the consolidated account to the road account for years. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to carry on the little theme I began to develop last night about the tool-box. I think the Mayor of Auckland said it as well I have heard it said. He was looking for a tool-box with a range of features and functions to fix Auckland’s problems. Auckland’s problems have without doubt got to catastrophic levels. Major congestion used to be at peak times and at certain locations but now it is anywhere anytime—and if it rains it is everywhere all the time. In Auckland the traffic just locks blocks and stops. 
When this Government came to power it was given a pretty damn good blueprint to start from called  
Better Transport Better Roads 
. Because of its ideological views the Government said some of it was too right wing. I warned the Minister last night—and I keep warning him—that if he wants to get stuck into me about the right-wing tolling projects we were proposing I have wonderful quotes from some of his senior party people including his Prime Minister about how dreadful and evil it was to have toll roads and this bill has some of it. However 4 years down the track—and believe me Auckland could not wait 4 months to progress this; when the Government came to power in 1999 its first priority should have been to pick up on that and move—we see an emaciated looking bill called the Land Transport Management Bill entered into Parliament then gutted by Green members because of their opposition to the motorcar. 
I found that opposition the most bizarre part. When I was Minister I went to a number of public meetings when we were standing at election time. Green members would show up in their caftans and sandals and get stuck into me about why I was not funding public transport better and about how the car was an outrage. I used to get someone in my team or I would do it myself to wait outside the hall and watch people arrive. I used to ask the question at the end of the meeting: “Could I have a show of hands please? How many people came to the meeting tonight using public transport?” I never had one hand go up even though we sometimes met in a hall right on a major bus route with a bus stop straight outside. 
Green members used to say: “We couldn’t because we’ve got to go on to another meeting.” What they were saying was: “It’s not us—it’s them.” There is some nebulous “them” out there who should not use their cars but not “us” because we have another meeting to go to. I tell Green members that everybody in Auckland has another meeting to go to. They have to pick their kids up go to soccer or to the supermarket. 
The motorcar will be the central product for delivering transport in Auckland regardless of any pie-in-the-sky Green members who think that cycleways or walking tracks will fix the problem. Yes I would like to see a move towards making public transport better and quality public transport will help fix the problem but it is not the panacea it is made out to be. Jeanette Fitzsimons and other Green members would have us believe that if we did this bill properly everyone would give up their cars tomorrow and walk to work. It will not happen and this bill does not provide anywhere near the tools that are needed to fund it properly. 
The public-private partnership provisions of this bill are the weakest and most ineffectual I have ever seen. Larry Baldock told the House yesterday that he knows lots of people who will get into public-private partnerships yet he was challenged over and over again to name one company that says that if this bill goes through it will put money into a public-private partnership. The silence is deafening as members can hear if they listen carefully. It is the flutter of the wings as the chickens come home to roost. This bill does nothing. It does not give us the tool-box of tools. John Banks says so employers and manufacturers say so and the Automobile Association says so. To go through the list of interested parties we would have to seek an extension of the whole debate into tomorrow. 
Then there is the next bit with regard to consents. My God it takes so long to get consent for anything now—even something ordinary! But if the Government wants to fix Auckland’s major arterial routes it has to circumvent the old Resource Management Act processes or in 10 years it will still not have got those consents and there will be outrage from Auckland. If members of the Labour Party think the public do not want to pay for this I challenge any one of them to come with me on a Friday night at 5 o’clock and stand in somewhere like Stanley Street as the cars are trying to get up on to the motorway. They are locked blocked stopped and going nowhere. I challenge them to come with me and tap on all the car windows and say: “Would you pay 5 bucks cash right now to be home within the next 10 minutes?”. There would not be a car that would not say yes. This bill does nothing to fix that problem. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I took another call because I was really hopeful that the Minister would take the chance to take a call. We are now in a situation where Ministers decide that they will just not bother answering questions or talking about their legislation—it is all far too much trouble. This Minister is far too important to be bothered by answering questions around the detail of Part 3. He was too important to come to the select committee to explain the policy decisions behind the bill so he did not do that. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I wasn’t invited. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is because the Labour members voted not to invite him. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was a majority decision. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It was a majority decision so all the Labour members voted not to have the Minister attend. I can understand that they know him better than we do. They know his performance and they probably felt it was better to have the officials explain. But now the Minister has an opportunity to stand up on his hind legs and tell members why he is allowing board members to be on both Transit and Transfund boards. I want him to explain that so that New Zealanders understand. Just as the Labour Party appoints its campaign chairman and president—who happen to be the same person—a person can also be on Transfund and Transit and we should know why. 
Jill Pettis 
: Write to him and he might respond. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: We know that that does not happen. I actually wrote to the Minister a few weeks ago and told him that if he wanted sensible land transport legislation National would work with him and vote with him and we would not have to be beholden to the sort of round-the-back-of-the-bikeshed deal that he has done with the Greens. The Minister has not even bothered to respond. I know from dealing with the Minister’s office on Land Transport Safety Authority and other issues that people bring to me that it takes somewhere between 4 and 5 months to get a response from the Minister’s office. It is not one of the quickest offices—but I have to say it is not the slowest. One always gets an acknowledgement within 4 or 5 days but no answer for 4 or 5 months. 
But now the Minister has an opportunity to explain to us exactly why he is so keen on Part 3 which enables people to sit on both boards. He can explain to us why he will not let one of the objectives of Transfund be an economic objective. The Minister has every other objective in there. Paragraph (b) of clause 70(2) states that Transfund has to take into account the views of affected communities. We are inclined to define that as being just about anyone anywhere in the country. It has to take into account the need for environmental responsibility and exhibit a sense of social responsibility. The board of Transfund is sitting down with a large amount of money—hundreds of millions of dollars—and has to show that the decision it makes is environmentally responsible socially responsible and— 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Shame! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Greens say “shame”. OK that is fine. Let us have those provisions in there—we are not asking that they be taken out. But why not put in “economic”? Or do the Greens believe that one cannot be economically responsible and at the same time socially and environmentally responsible? That is the issue. The Greens have convinced the Minister that one cannot do things for the economy socially and for the environment at the same time so that is why “economic” decision-making has come out. 
Of course we do not have the clause that says that Transfund must not have regard to the political circumstances of the Government. I would like the Minister to stand up and assure the Committee that the Labour Party will not use Transfund as its marginal seat retention scheme because that is certainly the view in the community. It is the view in the industry that this is being restructured so that the Labour Party can put its snout in the trough and use it for that purpose. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome this second call this afternoon to clarify New Zealand First’s views on funding road transport. First and foremost we are advocates of using the 18.5c petrol tax that goes into the Crown account. If that is not justified or fair and if there is a genuine reason that all of it or some of it should go into the Crown account we would live with that if we could see a report that supported that assertion. Then we would look reasonably favourably at a regional fuel tax. It is important that we address the roading problems in this country. We hear that over $1 billion a year is lost to the commercial community in Auckland. I think the new leader of the National Party said that congestion in Auckland costs $1.4 billion a year. We say that the congestion problem is long past being reasonable. 
We do not support tolling across the board. We would support road tolling on an individual basis exactly as we have now where the legislation comes before the House and a case is put for a particular road to be tolled and only that road. It is not to go on to other roads etc. That is the case with Route K in Tauranga. We do not believe that the public-private partnership scenario in this bill will work. Larry Baldock asked yesterday as I recall why we are voting against this legislation if we do not believe it will work. Well in short it will not work because it is not flexible enough. It will not work because the risks are too high. It will not work because the profit is too low or is likely to be. 
But all that can be changed with a stroke of a pen and then the average New Zealander could be faced with road tolls here there and everywhere. We say “No” to that. We say that for every dollar that goes into a toll plaza firstly in part it has to pay for the physical cost of that plaza; secondly it has to pay for the manning of the plaza; thirdly it has to pay for the administration of the roading scheme; fourthly it has to pay the debt that the private investor has incurred by borrowing money to fund the plaza; and finally it has to pay for the profit—no profit no investment. Maurice Williamson alluded to no profit no investment; he not only alluded to it he stated it in very very firm terms and I agree with him wholeheartedly. If there is no profit investors cannot see money coming back to them and they will not invest in the scheme. Virtually every dollar that goes through a regional petrol tax or fuel tax goes directly into roading. The best part of half the dollars that go through toll structures I suggest would be lost. The best part of half goes into administration capital costs and what have you but every cent in every dollar that goes through the fuel tax system will go into roading. 
If Transfund had the ability from the Minister to borrow it could borrow sufficient money at reasonable terms to address the roading needs of this country in a relatively short time frame. We would pay it back through our petrol tax. As I say if a petrol tax of 18.5c going into the consolidated account can be justified and we have real doubts about it then we would be prepared to support a regional fuel tax. I say “regional fuel tax” because we seek to have it imposed on more than just the petrol motorist. It would be collected through a fuel tax on the petrol motorist and— 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 70(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 96 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 79(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 In recommending the schedules to the Committee I point out that like most schedules they are pretty technical in nature. They apply to some tidied-up consultation provisions and to provisions relating to the safety administration programme—“SAP”—Transfund and Transit. Other matters relate to the performance agreement between the Minister and various entities and the last part concerns consequential amendments to other Acts. I recommend the schedules to the Committee. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister might have tried to get away with that little stunt but it just will not work. The schedules are huge. The Minister knows very well as do the submitters who opposed a lot of this bill that large parts of the bill are on consultation and the way that local government will have to consult on roading issues. All those provisions on consultation which were opposed during the process of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s hearing of submissions have been taken out of the main part of the bill and put in the schedules. The schedules now run to some 70 pages in length and that tells members the amount of detail that is contained in them. 
Perhaps the Minister may indulge the Committee and explain why the Government felt it necessary to have all the consultation principles which were opposed and to require regional councils local councils and the private sector involved with roading projects not just to consult and go through the Resource Management Act process and the local government legislation but now to go through a special consultative process laid out in new schedule 1AAB. There are so many new schedules. The Minister may think it was smart to remove the consultation provisions from the bill and put them in the schedules but they are onerous and will add a considerable amount of delay and cost to any project and particularly to any public-private partnership if somebody was to get such a project under way in that environment. In fact people from the private sector said that they just would not get involved in any project. They said they would not risk capital to get involved in roading partnerships with local and regional authorities with those consultative provisions. So lo and behold the provisions have gone from the main body of the bill and appear back in the schedules. Perhaps the Minister should explain why those people’s concerns were so wrong. 
The schedules also provide for the method of appointment of board members to a board. Appointments used to be made by the Governor-General but the Minister has now removed that provision. He wants to appoint board members directly. He is a Minister who wants a very hands-on political appointment process. There will be no going through the Governor-General now and no worrying about any minor problems that that might cause. This Minister wants to recommend his political mates and he does not want anyone to question them. He wants to make direct appointments and interestingly enough direct sackings as well. So someone who is appointed to the board of Transit or Transfund and who does not make a decision on one of those boards that is to this Minister’s liking will be gone. 
Perhaps the Minister who has been very keen to have that provision put in the bill could explain to the Committee where that method of appointment occurs in other legislation and explain what other legislation provides a Minister with so much power. Why does he want all the power with regard to this legislation? What was wrong with the old system? What was the problem with a process whereby Ministers had to recommend appointees to the Governor-General and had to go through a proper process in order to sack people? What was so wrong with that? Why do we now have to have such a ministerially dominated position if it is not because it is the only way I think that this Minister can make sure the people who politically support him are on the board and making the decisions that back up this Government in the marginal seats around the country? That is what people see this bill as doing. 
This would also have been a good time for the Minister to stand up and explain to us why he has allowed people to be appointed to both boards. That is in this part of the bill. I hope he will take a call. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The schedules and in particular schedule 1AAB import into the bill the consultation provisions that were developed last year for the Local Government Act. As many of the agencies making decisions under this legislation will already be subject to the Local Government Act this bill does not actually add any further obligations to their existing ones but it clarifies that the obligations in the Local Government Act that they are already under should also be used in their transport decision-making processes and it clarifies how they should be used. The provisions also apply of course to Transfund and Transit and that is new. 
What is different about these consultation principles is that they set out that consultation should take place early. It should take place while options are being considered and it should encourage people to have a say at that point rather than waiting until all the engineering work has been done and everything has finished before the consultation takes place. When that occurs if the community does not like the project it is told that that is too bad because it is too late to change the project. That is what tends to create all the hostility and the delays at the end of projects now. It has been the origin of a lot of discord and a lot of contention over consents. I am quite convinced that consulting earlier on the options will lead to a much smoother progressing of new transport projects. 
I want to look particularly at schedule 3 which sets out provisions for regional land transport strategies. Regional land transport strategies of course are already provided for under the Land Transport Act but this legislation amends that Act and provides what those land transport strategies should do. I point out to those members who have been rabbiting on for 2 days about the lack of any economic objectives in this bill about the lack of any requirements for economic efficiency or development or whatever that each regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy assists economic development. This is not the only place in the bill that those words occur. There is also an obligation on the Minister to do that when he approves concessions and tolling. If people would just read the bill they would find those words that give them so much comfort about assisting economic development. That is of course the first objective in the New Zealand land transport strategy which was published last year after its development by the Government and the Greens. We are not economic illiterates. The economy is provided for; it is just not the only thing that is provided for in this legislation. 
The land transport strategy has to take into account how it will assist economic development how it will assist safety and personal security and how it improves access and mobility. That is the “effectiveness” that Larry Baldock was talking about in the Chamber yesterday. As he said it is not about efficiency but about moving people around without wasting time. That is effectiveness and that is access and mobility. So that is there in the land transport strategy too. The strategy also takes into account how it protects and promotes public health so that we do not have traffic arrangements that will lead to more likelihood of crashes and more likelihood of air pollution and takes into account how it ensures environmental sustainability. 
Those objectives are then reflected further when we look at the membership of the regional land transport strategies. The regional councils are responsible for those strategies and we see that typically they have co-opted on to the regional land transport committee a whole lot of road users. There is nothing wrong with having road users on the committee but if we have only road providers road users and road funders on the committee then we will not take a balanced approach to the need for public transport to the need for alternatives to roading to the need for rail and so forth. Rather than having people who are representative of particular factions of transport provision we will now have people who represent the various objectives of the regional land transport strategy. So there will be people representing the need for economic development representing safety representing public health representing access and mobility and representing environmental sustainability. They will be able to argue on the committee for those values and to scrutinise the strategy that comes out according to those values. They are guardians if one likes of those five objectives. I think that is likely over time to lead to better transport planning at the regional level. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 We should not be surprised that the Green Party comes to the Chamber and tells us it is OK for environmental sustainability to be put into the purpose clause of the bill and throughout the schedules as well ahead of economic efficiency because the Greens are financial and economic Neanderthals. Under their way we would have “fortress New Zealand”. We would be back where we were about 50 or 60 years ago. Under those conditions the walking bus that the Greens promote so heavily would work really well. We would be able to walk around the villages in our Roman sandals in between our morris dancers and we would have a lovely time. 
Those of us who want to live in the 21st century and take New Zealand forward need to refer to the schedules and to look at exactly what is being done to land transport in New Zealand. I want to talk for a moment about what the schedules are doing as they relate to the construction of the boards of Transit and Transfund. One of the great tragedies is that the schedules do not include structural changes to the way Auckland is constructed in terms of roading purposes. Anybody who knows the situation will know that Transit and Transfund which are referred to in the schedules play an important role in Auckland. But equally anyone who knows the Auckland situation well will know that we have a whole group of people involved. We have seven territorial local authorities the Auckland Regional Transport Network Infrastructure Auckland and the Auckland Regional Council. They all have their own boards their own agendas and their own plans. None of them are put under one simple possible structure. I know that the Minister is doing his job up there privately and secretly with the joint officials group and if he is doing it properly he will be instructing it to look at that. He will not be worrying about the fact that the schedules set out the construction of the Transit board because that is not the solution to his problems. 
I want to talk for a moment about one of the things that the Transit board will be able to do under the new plan and that is to borrow money. That is not new. As I said last night the board has had the capacity for many many years through the Minister of Finance to borrow money but it has chosen not to do so. Today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee I asked Dr Michael Cullen what he thought the fiscal implications would be of the joint officials group effort in Auckland in terms of how much money would be likely to be applied to fixing Auckland’s roads and just what impact that would have on the Crown’s operating balance into the 2003-04 period. I was shocked and stunned by the answer. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Which was? 
JOHN KEY 
: The answer was that there would be very little impact. Dr Cullen is not intending to do very much for Auckland roads. That is just more and more of the Labour Party’s spin. Labour has had 4 years to fix the problem in Auckland and every year it has become worse and worse. The spin machine and the “Burns unit” have been wheeled out. That Government would wheel out anything—except the wheels of a car because they are not spinning in Auckland. We are losing $1.4 billion a year. That is $1.4 billion of lost economic activity. 
So I hope that the board of Transit is appointed via these schedules in a good and constructive manner. I hope that its members do not just become the Labour Party lapdogs that we know they have been in the past and that the Hon Roger Sowry indicated to the Committee they would be. We hope that this Government will not turn that whole exercise in Auckland into a vote-buying process that is merely an extension of the election but we know that that hope is wrong. 
We saw when Transit released its 10-year plan last year how cruelly Auckland had been treated. Auckland consumers and businesses came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and begged it to make alterations to the plan but that did not happen. In fact what happened was that Auckland was dropped from the vast majority of projects and projects in marginal Labour electorates were brought further up the list. That was the reality of Transit New Zealand’s 10-year plan and that will be the reality going forward under this Government because the Government cares more about staying in office about its own LTDs and about preserving power for the sake of power than about using it for the benefit of New Zealand. What a tragedy that is! 
I cannot wait until election day in 2005 when we will be able to vote that Government out and replace the boards of Transit and Transfund. Those boards will be full of Labour Party lackeys who do not deserve to be there. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Actually Mr Key is not correct. A new report has come out in the last few days that shows that the cost to the economy of the congestion in Auckland is actually closer to $4 billion according to the Employers and Manufacturers Association. I will put that in a different form. It is a week’s holiday every 2 months. That is what this congestion is costing the workforce. This Government would rather buy-off the workforce with the promise of an extra week’s holiday than do something about the Auckland roads. 
These schedules are an absolute disgrace for a huge number of reasons. Most significantly they give the Minister of Transport enormous powers to appoint to hire and fire and to take this country back to pork-barrel politics. I remember being driven when I was a child— 
Jill Pettis 
: That would have been a long time ago. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It was a long time ago. That member is right about one thing. It is the first thing I have ever heard her say in this Chamber that I agree with. It was a long time ago but I do remember—because I get the right drugs—going around to the western side of Lake Taupo and seeing what a certain Prime Minister had been able to do— 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s right; I agree with the member. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Exactly. That was pork-barrel politics and we will see a return to that under this legislation and especially under the provisions in these schedules. We are already seeing that in the actions of the board members of Transfund. As the Hon Roger Sowry has pointed out the Labour Party president and campaign manager the Eftpos machine man Mike Williams is already on that board. The reason why we have a motorway in north Auckland that ends in the middle of a paddock is that we are already seeing political manipulation by board members and we will see more of that. We will see more vote buying and more appointments to that board. 
Under the provisions of these schedules the land transport strategies of regional councils have to take into account all the items that Jeanette Fitzsimons reeled off. We will see boards appointed to represent all those different factions of the community and we will see paralysis by analysis because they will never agree. How can all those different sections of a community ever agree on how a road should be built? 
Paragraph 14 of Part 1 in schedule 2 states: “Any steps that Transfund intends to take having considered ways in which it might foster the development of Maori capacity to contribute to Transfund’s land transport decision-making processes …”. I ask the Minister what on earth that means. What on earth is “Maori capacity to contribute to Transfund’s land transport decision-making”? Is that what Kara Puketapu was talking about this morning on  
Mana News 
 when he said that Te Puni Kokiri is totally useless in terms of looking after the needs of Maori? This was not some “cheeky whitey” making those declarations. It was Kara Puketapu who said that Te Puni Kokiri is not serving the interests of Maori when it looks at all the legislation that goes through this House to see how it affects Maori. 
This is totally meaningless nonsense but I can see people lining up already to be appointed to the boards of both Transit and Transfund. Gone is the separation of those two areas which the Hon Maurice Williamson brought in as he pointed out—and a good thing it was too. I guarantee that we will see on those boards people like Gary Taylor from the Environmental Defence Society. The society has already been favoured by this Government with numerous contracts. He was working in the Minister’s office and has now gone but we have seen numerous payments from this Government to someone who used the Resource Management Act to its greatest advantage to delay and stall consents for people. We will see more wastage of money. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from where the last speaker left off. My lasting impression when I look through the bill including the schedules is that yet again we have a Government talking about obtuse concepts such as “ensuring environmental sustainability”. For the life of me I am not sure what that is and I am quite experienced in local government affairs. I never knew what it was under some of the legislation that we have had to look at previously. I never found—and I cannot find now—a clear legal definition to give to regional land transport committees so that they have some idea of what that actually means. This bill and the schedules lack that. If there is no adequate definition here it is because there is no such definition. Why should local councils and all the various people who are now to make up the new regional land transport committees have to work out what that obtuse concept is? Because it is a nebulous concept. 
It reappears over and over again—it is in schedule 3—but I am in doubt as to what it really means. 
We have yet again the same problem with the Local Government Act 2002 —which this bill will be a factor of—and with the Resource Management Act. There are sections in those Acts that are directly contradictory and they contradict this bill as well. The proof of that will be court cases at great cost to ratepayers and to citizens in order to find out that I am right and that the legislation has failed to pick up the fine legal intentions in the wording in this bill and in those two Acts. I said that last year and in March this year. I am absolutely certain—and I am backed by senior counsel in this city—that those Acts are contradictory on some important matters and only time will prove that. The lack of application of this bill to those principles in a legal sense will be a factor here too. Whatever the term “environmental sustainability” means it will do that. 
The other issue that concerns me as a member of a regional committee is what the new representation means. Does it mean that for the first time the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee which is part of the regional council will have to consider the “cultural interest” issue? Who are the people concerned with “cultural interest”? Is it the local arts council? Is it some creative body that does performing arts? What is it? I cannot find a definition here at all. This will be a very strange addition to the regional land transport committee. 
The other thing I want to speak about is the fact that there is nothing in the bill—and therefore in the Act when it becomes law—that tells a land transport committee: “Thou shalt give weight to the majority opinion”—as we do at most times and do in this House. The bill states that all those bodies no matter how obtuse small or representative of the local community they are have to be listened to and heard. This is not a majority opinion. This is a collective of minorities down to the smallest minority somehow in this unique bill having equal place and equal weight. I find that incorrect. In the practical sense as a member of a committee I am not sure how we will resolve it. 
 I go back to the other schedule that deals with long-term community consultation. It might just be that if we take the Local Government Act 2002 at its word—and that part in this bill as its final word—we can by tiredness and long-term consultation reduce issues. 
But that would also be undemocratic because the local consultation process will do that excepting for the small groups well financed and well represented who again will have a pervasive say in a democratic process because the majority will be overcome by lethargy and by time. So overall having been involved with land transport for the last 13 years I do not see this bill or the schedules as a huge improvement because as I said last night at the end of some of the good intentions in this bill and in the schedules one fundamental issue still remains and that is funding. This bill will not help the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). It is finished all done and not able to be processed because of funding issues at this point of time. The Minister should not shake his head. If he had the will ALPURT B2 would be under way now. Instead under this bill ALPURT B2 will go right back to the start and instead of the 7-year term which the Minister sought—of which he gained only 10 months—it will take 14 years to complete. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
:  
The schedules are substantial and I want to talk about our amendments which we are hoping the Minister will support as well but before I do I want to raise an issue that has come to my attention. A special Automobile Association newsletter has just been put out and it rates the bill on 10 points. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Who put it out? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Automobile Association. I do not know whether the Minister has seen it. No? It appears that he has not. It rates the bill on 10 points and gives it two out of 10. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: That’s not bad. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister says that is not bad—such are his aspirations. I do not want the Minister to go out of here and do what his associate Judith Tizard does—ring up the Automobile Association yell at them down the phone and tell them that if they ever criticise the Government again they will not get in to see her office and will never get to talk to her again. I want the Minister to listen to this constructive criticism by the Automobile Association and I am happy to table it at the end of this exercise so the Minister can read it. 
One of the things in the schedules is the fact that cultural interest groups take the place of road users on regional land transport committees. An analysis of the bill shows that cultural groups Maori groups—and a colleague from New Zealand First was talking about this just before—take the place of the road users on the regional land transport committee. I say to the Minister that that is outrageous and that is why we are moving some amendments to the schedules. Our amendments would delete clause 52A of schedule 1 and clauses 14 and 25 of schedule 2. The Minister might not have read these clauses. I will start with clause 52A which tells us that as part of its performance agreement Transfund has to state how it will enhance its relationship with Maori and as part of its statement of objectives it has to state how it will foster development of Maori. It actually has to spend road-user money to increase the capacity of Maori to contribute to Transit’s land transport decisions. So Transit New Zealand which is making the decisions about where the roads and designations are going to be has to spend money to bring Maori up to speed so they can contribute to the decision-making process at that point. We think that is a nonsense and we are seeking to have that provision deleted. 
With the new provision the Minister has put in the annual report of Transfund now also has to spell out how many opportunities it gave for Maori to contribute to the decision-making process. I say to the Minister that this is just political correctness gone absolutely mad. On the Kapiti Coast we have been waiting for the western link highway for 20 years. It has been objected to by the local iwi and it has been changed because of their objections. The road has been diverted it has been to the Environment Court and it has been upheld. It has been back through a process with iwi the designation has been changed again and it has been back before the Court. The Court has now approved it and now local iwi are appealing. I defend their right to put the district through that process. That is the iwi’s right. They are using the law as they are entitled to. No one is arguing against that. But to say that they need to have more money from the road account to fund their objection is nonsense. No one else gets that. The farmer whose land the road goes through does not get any special treatment from Transit or Transfund. No one worries about the farmer’s capacity to object. No one worries about the environmentalist’s capacity to object. They do not get any special treatment or any special funding. But Maori do now in the new clauses that the Minister in his politically correct nonsense is engaging in. 
I invite the Minister to take a call and say more than he said at the start of this debate which was that these amendments are largely technical. They are not technical. For the first time ever the Automobile Association of New Zealand has put out a special newsletter which I have in the House today. The Minister has just admitted that he has not seen it. It marks the bill two out of 10 and one of the crosses is because cultural interest groups are going to take the place of road users on regional land transport committees. That is the effect of these schedules. This means in the Wellington region that the Automobile Association or the truck drivers—people who use the roads—will miss out on having a say on that committee because they cannot be included but iwi get on. I do not mind iwi being on the committee but why is the Minister taking the others off? Why is he limiting the numbers so that those people cannot get on the committee but then giving special places to iwi? I wonder whether the Minister will try to defend that in the Chamber today or whether he will just sit silent again all through this nonsense. I want to know this from the Minister: how much do Transfund and Transit have to spend—it will be in their annual reports—to satisfy the Minister that they have spent money to increase the capacity of Maori to object to roading projects around the country? That is what they are doing—they are funding Maori groups in order to increase their ability to object to projects. That is now a statement in law that they have to adhere to as part of their statement of principles and as part of the annual report. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Good one! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Maori member says “Good one.” How much money do they need? How much will be approved? Will the member answer that? Is there a percentage of money that has to go or is it a dollar amount? Ah! The member says no they will not say that in the House. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Ha! Ha! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Maori member giggles away. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Like I said we’re not going to put a benchmark on it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Ah! He says it finally. There is no benchmark on it says the Maori member. Well if there is no benchmark why is it in the annual report? How can it be there and be reported on if there is no benchmark? That is absolute nonsense and the member knows it. At the end of the day the Minister has to hold them to account and he cannot do so with it being so loose. That is why the Automobile Association has put out this damning special report which is critical of the legislation. I want the Minister to read the document and undertake in the Chamber that he will stop Judith Tizard his associate from ringing the Automobile Association people and abusing them. The last time the Automobile Association put out a statement criticising the Government Judith Tizard rang them up and said that if they ever did it again they would not get in her office. She threatened them. I said to the Automobile Association that I would take that as a promise. I would not bother going into her office. I was surprised that they still wanted to see her. I say to Minister Swain that I know he does not throw his weight around like that Associate Minister does. I know that he does not do that but I want him to bring the rest of the dogs into line. I want him to make sure that we do not get this threatening bullying behaviour. I hope that he will take a call and explain that to the Committee because this situation is unprecedented. Never before has the Automobile Association put out a special document solely to criticise the Government. Never before has it done that. I know that this Government likes to control everything but finally people are starting to see through it. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments on schedule 1AAB about the principles of consultation particularly in light of some of the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made a little earlier. There was a lot of criticism of the bill in its original form in relation to the overly complex nature of consultation. I believe that we have done a very sensible thing in adopting principles from the local government legislation for consultation and placing things in line with in particular the regional land transport strategies. Although initially there will be some projects that are caught in the transition as this bill comes into force in time as consultation occurs through the regional land transport strategies there will be no need for duplication as from there projects will be put on Transfund’s schedule or private-public partnerships will be sought unless there are changes into a tolling scheme in which case there will need to be further consultation. 
We have to realise that in today’s age consultation is a part of life. If we want people to be on board with the things that we are planning then we have to get out there early and involve them in the decision making so that people feel they have ownership of the projects. Nowhere is this more evident than in Tauranga where a major roading project proceeded to the Environment Court and got its designation within the space of a year despite all the stories that we hear constantly about how long the Resource Management Act process takes. The project was granted its designation without any objections because the council took great pains—along with Transit and the Access partnership in Tauranga—to consult the community. As a member of the community there I also was very concerned about the project. It is one that will make a major impact upon the landscape because it is a huge concrete viaduct that will link the second bridge. 
I think it is a real credit to the council and to those involved in the process that the project went through without designation. It is a very good example of how good consultation can work. In my opinion it is also a very good example of why we should have had this bill many years earlier. I wish we had had this bill 3 or 4 years ago when we were at the conception stage of the project because the council was always forced to look for the cheapest option to provide a new link across the harbour. Had we had the option of tolling and alternative funding then I think we would have probably come up with a tunnel. It was one of the options that was pursued but was discounted because of its expense. However in terms of benefit for the community a tunnel would have been much much better and could have been provided if we had been able to toll it back in those days. The traffic volumes on the project will certainly be sufficient to guarantee that it is able to pay for itself. 
I have some other comments to make about the principles of the regional land transport strategies and about the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made earlier. She said that there is so much emphasis in the bill on economic development and that we do not need amendments regarding efficiency which shows that she simply misses the point again. New subsection (2)(b) which can be found in schedule 3 states that the regional land transport strategy must take into account how the strategy—“(i) assists economic development;”—the word of course is “assist”—“(ii) assists safety and personal security; and (iii) improves access and mobility; and (iv) protects and promotes public health;”. But when the bill gets to “environmental sustainability” it uses the word “ensures” which is a much stronger word. It is not about “assisting” environmental sustainability; it uses a very strong word and “ensures” environmental sustainability. It is because of the strength of that word— 
Jim Peters 
: What does it mean? 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: There are questions about what it means but let us deal with the “ensuring” part of it. Because of the strength of that word United Future continues to promote the need for amendments that would bring efficiency into account so that the bill is balanced. True sustainability has three legs to it: the environment the social aspects and the economic aspects of any project. It is this that we want to see balanced by the amendments I have proposed. I am grateful there have been some amendments to further strengthen the emphasis on efficiency. Also in relation to the regional land transport strategy in subsection (2) there is paragraph (n) which states: “include a demand management strategy that has targets and timetables appropriate for the region;”. I confess that when this was first added to the bill I was horrified because it looked a heck of a lot like the Road Traffic Reduction Bill which was promoted by Jeanette Fitzsimons earlier. When I saw “targets and timetables” I was very concerned that we would be required— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I apologise because I should have done this after my speech but because the Minister has not seen the document I referred to I seek the leave of the Committee to table the special AA Advocate document analysing the Land Transport Management Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I spoke earlier about the structure of the Transit and Transfund boards and about the structure of roading in New Zealand. I believe that has been one of the great significant contributing factors as to why roading in New Zealand has failed to deliver the kinds of results we need. One of the great challenges for the Transit board when it looks at the plan coming forward is just how much money it will require. The honourable member from New Zealand First Mr Peter Brown has advocated in the Chamber over the last few days the desire for regional petrol taxes. 
Peter Brown 
: No not the desire; the second option. 
JOHN KEY 
: The second option of a regional petrol tax. I want to outline for the member what I believe is the potential cost facing Auckland. The member may be aware that at the moment about $150 million per year is spent on new roading in Auckland up from about $85 million last year as a result of the 4.7c petrol tax that was put in place across the country by the Government. Now $150 million sounds like quite a lot of money and one would think that it would go quite a long way but I will refer to the kinds of things that the Transit board will be forced to look at. The eastern corridor is now estimated to cost $2.9 billion. 
I came back to Auckland 2 years ago when John Banks campaigned on roads—John Banks that wonderful mayor in Auckland who was a fantastic National Party Minister and a great member of caucus for 18 years and who I have absolutely no doubt will bolt in during the election campaign of 2004 because he will campaign on “give me some roads”. He has been around to the Prime Minister’s house for lunch and has schmoozed up to her. I saw him give her a kiss on the Television One news the other night—at Vogel House or wherever it was—and if he does not get a few billion dollars for a kiss then I do not know what he will get. Anyway he is going to be out there campaigning and saying: “Give me some roads. Give me an eastern corridor.” Well $450 million was the first figure he gave me. He came back a few months later and said: “Look John the figure is going to be somewhere in the order of a billion dollars.” Quite funny as it may be I was filling up my car with petrol just the other day just before the announcement and John Banks came over to me—it was a Sunday afternoon; a glorious day in Auckland—and said to me— 
Jill Pettis 
: A glorious day to be out in the BMW. 
JOHN KEY 
: No it was a Commodore. He said: “It’s going to cost a bit more for the eastern corridor.” I asked him why he did not just tell me the figure. He said: “I can’t tell you; it’s a national secret. We’re going to announce it on Tuesday but don’t worry it’s just a bit more.” Just a bit more! It went from $1 billion to $3 billion. If that does not worry John Banks then I do not know what does. No wonder he is kissing Helen Clark. He will be hugging her. He must be sending her letters: “Give me the money. Show me the money.” It will be like  
Jerry Maguire 
—“Show me the money.” 
It will take $2.9 billion for the eastern corridor and it does not stop there. A billion dollars will be spent on State highway 20. Members may ask what electorate that goes through. Well it is Mount Albert the Prime Minister’s electorate. It could be fixed with about $175 million worth of roading but the Prime Minister would like some tunnels so that the roads do not actually go through the backyards of her constituents; she wants them to go underneath. I guess we have to excuse that as a sort of prime ministerial whim but it will cost another $850 million. Then there is the alternative harbour crossing which lo and behold is going to take 16 years to build and will cost $3 billion. I reckon it will be about $5 billion by the time that thing gets built—if it ever gets built. 
Then there is the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) and the promise that it would be fixed. There was a promise that it would be looked at. What happened to ALPURT B2? Let us remember that it involves the Orewa to Puhoi motorway which currently stops in the middle of absolutely nowhere. So what happened to ALPURT B2? [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. A person who is represented by Jeanette Fitzsimons went and got legal aid spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal aid tying up the Rodney District Council and the Environment Court literally for years and by the time we won the case—as the Crown always would have or the Rodney District Council always would have—lo and behold it was nowhere to be seen on Transit’s plan. So that was hundreds of millions of dollars. 
State Highway 18 is one I would specifically refer the Minister to. I hope he is listening because his brother lives right off that street and it actually happens to be in my electorate. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Oh yes. 
JOHN KEY 
: So if he could help that would probably be about another $500 million to $600 million. I could go on and on but I do not like to because this is a very important topic. The cost of trains will be $1.5 billion. Then there are the busways. The numbers are extraordinarily high. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 165 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to the schedules be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 52A. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 14. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to schedule 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 25. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.