Land Transport Management Amendment Bill

Hon MARK GOSCHE Link to this

—it was just spread too thinly—that the expertise in transport, as previous Ministers of Transport will know, is not large. We do not, for instance, have university courses—or we never did when I was the Minister—that people could go to that would set them up as good bureaucrats, policy analysts, and implementers of transport in New Zealand. We found that many of those people were working in different organisations, but this bill will put Transit New Zealand and Land Transport New Zealand together into one entity, a New Zealand Transport Agency, which I think will be able to carry out its work in a much more efficient and proper way. That follows on from the work that the Minister of Transport has done in the Next Steps process, which looked at the structures and which has come up with what this bill now delivers.

The other important issue in the bill that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I chair will be looking at is around the question of regional fuel tax. That will be allowed for in this bill, should it pass—which I am sure it will—and that will allow an excise duty of up to 5c per litre to be added on to the existing duty and to be used for each region, after the regions have been through a process that will involve the Minister. In this bill we have also put together a better planning process. It has new structures, again, that are probably streamlined in a way that will get much better results, and it has plans that will be more realistic in their time frames. So I am very pleased that this legislation is coming forward.

Some important challenges still face us. We have a huge road-building programme throughout New Zealand. I travelled back and forward to the North Shore on the weekend, as many Labour Party members did, and quite frankly it was very hard to go anywhere on the North Shore where there was not a busway being built, a new road being widened, motorways being improved, and so on. That is a picture we will find up and down the country. However, we do need to continue the process of better planning. We do need to allow for extra funding so that transport infrastructure or services that are important to a region can be brought forward sooner than the current funding regime would allow for, and that will mean that regions that are prepared to pay extra will get their infrastructure more quickly.

The other thing that needs to be noted in this bill is the use of the fuel excise for land transport only. That is something that I think every member of this House would support. I do not think any party would vote against that particular element of the bill. If it did, then it is not following its own policies, because all parties have said that they want what is collected off the motorists to be spent on the transport infrastructure and services in New Zealand, and surely that is something we will do. Just as an added little bonus, there will be some of that relief that the pleasure boat, maritime search and rescue boat safety education, and maritime safety services people have been asking for. That is another small part of this bill, but it is important for people who feel that it is wrong to pay excise duty on the fuel that was purchased, as if it was going to be used on our roads, when in fact it is being used on our oceans.

I look forward to the opportunity for this bill to be referred to our select committee. It is, as I said, a very important step down the path of improving our transport infrastructure. It deals with a better bureaucracy, in terms of the new transport agency; with the question around a regional fuel tax; and with the hypothecation of the fuel excise taking care of better planning. I know that we will be able to make improvements to this bill through the select committee process, and I look forward to bringing it back to the House next year.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

Mr Brown is not taking account of the fact that during the 1990s, when National was in Government, there were serious structural deficit problems across the nation. But here we have a Government that has been running surpluses for a long time and not spending anywhere near as much as it could do or should do.

The next myth I want to dispel relates to this graph I am holding. I hope that our cameras in the House can get a nice close-up so that my adoring drive time audience in Auckland, if they have a TV on, can see this. I am holding up a graph showing the amount of money spent on roading as a percentage of GDP. That is the standard international measure that should be used. It is drawn in blue for when National was in Government, and it is drawn in red for when Labour was in Government. I know that Sue Kedgley will be delighted with this graph, because when Labour came into office the amount of spending on roading went down. But that is not what Labour would have us believe. It would have us believe that the amount of money spent on roading went up. Well, actually, it has gone up every year we could ever name, even back in the 1950s and the 1960s, except for one year. This little straight brown line on the graph shows the actual dollars. It is not a really good measure because as the GDP grows we would expect revenue to grow. But what is interesting about that first full year of a Labour Government—2001—is that it is the only year in the last 50 years that the actual spending on roading went down—not the percentage of GDP—

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

These are the Ministry of Transport’s own answers to parliamentary questions, so I have to say that that the member is wrong.

But I say to Mr O’Connor that he should not take my account of it. He should take what the New Zealand public say in a survey done about our transport network in Auckland. The headline states “Motorway work has not helped the crawl”. Then it goes on to show that the speeds being achieved in Auckland at present are the worst that have been. So Labour members can get up and wax lyrical all they like about what they have done. We should have a survey of 1,000 people in Auckland, at random—and I am happy to bet my salary against Mr O’Connor’s salary any time—and ask just one simple question: “Has congestion got better or worse?”. I tell that member that he can have my entire salary for the year if Aucklanders come back saying that they think congestion has got a lot better. I can tell that member what the answer will be. The poll will show that it has got a lot worse.

Another part of this particular legislation that we find really quite obnoxious relates to the Government running surpluses. It is interesting that at question time today we heard that the surpluses are now “structural”. They are not cyclical any more; they are structural, and they are mega-big surpluses. I find it unbelievable, because I now have a copy of Hansard from 1992 and I would like members to listen to this. In 1992 the National Government—and there is Mr Brown saying we did not do anything—tried to implement a regional fuel tax of 2c a litre that would last for only a 3-year period. It was 2c a litre over 3 years.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

Let me tell Mr Parker what the Labour Party said. It said it was an outrage that the Government was trying to introduce regional fuel tax. The member should read the Hansard—here it is: Volume 526, from June-July 1992. Labour voted against it.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

I will give the member the page reference. The best quotes occur on page 9041. There are another couple of doozies on page 9045. Labour voted against a 2c regional petrol tax that was to last for only 3 years, and that was a disgrace. Now the legislation that the Government is bringing to the House, at a time of mega-surpluses, is not for 2c and it is not for 5c; it is for 10c a litre and it is to last for 35 years. How come it was so evil back then? By the way, I have lovely quotes from the New Zealand Herald, the , and the —and I think that even the was still going at that stage—from people like Pete Hodgson saying—listen to this: “This tax measure is not progress. It’s a disgrace. Instead of being an exercise in environmental friendliness, it’s prostituting the environmental cause to bring in a 2c a litre regional petrol tax.”

I think that members on that side of the House had better start stumping up to the public. How come, back then, when the country was in major deficit and did not have enough even to pay for the running of the schools and the hospitals, Labour was opposed to an extra 2c regional petrol tax for only 3 years?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

It was 1992—June and July. Here is the Hansard for Mr Brown to read—Volume 526. Labour waged a campaign, and those members voted for it. Their record is in here. I know that Mr Parker was not here. I do not think that Mr O’Connor was here in 1992. How about Mr Barnett? I am trying to find someone who was here in 1992. No, there is not anybody in the Chamber tonight who was here in 1992. I may be it, but all I can say is that those who were here, like Annette King, the Minister who is in charge of the bill—oh no; actually she was gone in 1992. She lost her seat in 1992.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this

But Annette King was not a member of Parliament between 1990 and 1993, was she. But there were others. Pete Hodgson certainly was, because he is quoted as saying it was just a disgrace and outrageous and wrong. I have to say that it is just amazing that it could be so wrong back then—when it was only 2c a litre for 3 years—but that when it is 10c a litre for 35 years, it is all right. Now, as I said, this bill is a bit like the curate’s egg—it has some good bits. I quite like the idea of providing for a Government policy statement to set out the Government’s planned investment and funding priorities for the next 3 to 6 years. I think that is a sensible move. I think changing to a 3-year planning cycle is a sensible move.

There is one organisation I will be watching with great interest—Local Government New Zealand. I will watch with great interest, because when I was a Minister it was on my case regularly about the conflict between the funding agency and the provider of roading. Back in those days Transit was just the one agency. It was the provider of State highways and it allocated the funding. What Local Government New Zealand said to me, over and over—and I have got all its documents; I have kept them all, and I am really pleased I kept them—was: “Minister, Transit has an inherent, almost, sort of drive to fund its own roading rather than ours. There’s a complete lack of transparency and a complete lack of consistency. The bids all come up and, lo and behold, State highways get a better than expected allocation each year and local roads seeking to get the financial assistance get to be the poor cousin.”

Now, I have to say it was a pretty compelling case, and when one looked at a number of years of Transit’s behaviour I think that it could easily be argued. The reason we separated funding and providing—the reason we set up Transfund New Zealand and Transit—was that Transit was to manage the State highway and Transfund would fund all the land transport programmes, which would be the State highways, the private roading network, etc. We were supportive when Transfund was moved into the Land Transport Safety Authority and made up Land Transport New Zealand because that was no conflict. But now the Government is proposing merging back the agency that decides who gets the money and one of the major agencies that will be bidding to get that money. I will watch with great interest what Local Government New Zealand and a whole lot of councils around this country have got to say on that.

Finally, can I say that we oppose this bill for a lot of reasons, but mainly for what is not in it. The Land Transport Management Act has been a complete and absolute barrier to private sector investment in roading. We are one of the few countries that do not have it. Instead of this bill opening up land transport management, freeing it, and taking away the prescriptions, it has actually done nothing and it is silent on it. The National Party is totally opposed.

PETER BROWN Link to this

I will quote from Hansard for Mr Woolerton. I have the Hon Maurice Williamson’s here. He said: “The first thing is there would not be enough roading projects or enough contracts out there to do them.” That is what he said in 1995 when a bill gave him the opportunity to do what he now says he has wanted to do for several years. He went on to say: “Even at conservative estimates with the doubling of the current annual road expenditure and present levels of charge Transit New Zealand has identified no more than $500 million worth of projects that are worth doing into the future.” That is all the Minister of Transport at that time, the Hon Maurice Williamson, could come up with in terms of an argument against putting all the petrol excise tax that goes into the Crown bank account into the National Land Transport Fund.

I draw it to members’ attention that at that time only 9c a litre went into the National Land Transport Fund, but something like 20c to 21c went into the Crown bank account. In other words, under the regime of the Hon Maurice Williamson the petrol motorist was being ripped off, big time. He said —I think he alluded to it or stated—that the reason was that the Government was running in debt and was not running in surplus, so the National Party at that time thought it wise and fair for the petrol motorist to pay for that shortfall.

Currently, at this point in time, 23.8c a litre from the petrol motorist goes into the roading account, and 18.7c goes into the Crown bank account. In July next year that 18.7c will all go into the roading account—the National Land Transport Fund, which pays for more than roading. That represents a transfer of $570 million a year into roading. I say to members that we are still building roads or enhancing roads in this country, particularly in Auckland, that were planned for in the 1960s and should have been well built by this time. This money going across will help significantly, but not as much as it would have done had it been transferred across when National had the opportunity. Since that time concrete, bitumen, and steel have all gone up hugely in price, well above the inflation rate and well above the CPI, so to some degree we are playing catch-up. In other words, the 2007 dollar will go nowhere near as far as the 1990s dollar, and it is not just inflation that has taken care of that.

We welcome this bill for a number of reasons. We have no problem with Land Transport New Zealand merging with Transit. We think that probably makes good sense. I know that the Hon Maurice Williamson objected to that because basically he was the Minister who split them up. But we see some common sense in combining the two entities and making one organisation totally responsible for road building and other matters in this country. We think that is a move in the right direction. But we have one concern, and that is in this bill—and I want to record it here—the Treaty of Waitangi principles are mentioned. I challenge anybody in this House to tell me—

PETER BROWN Link to this

Oh, the honourable member will tell us. I will listen with interest when he tells us what the Treaty of Waitangi principles are and how they should affect a Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I can tell members that at the select committee we will be asking officials, and, indeed, anybody there who thinks they have an interest in this sort of legislation, what the Treaty of Waitangi principles are all about as they pertain to roading, or, indeed, as they pertain to anything. So I forewarn the House that that will be a concern that New Zealand First will take on board and try to address.

A little bit in this bill that pleases New Zealand First no end—and the Minister made reference to it the other day in a question and answer session—is the part the Minister has taken directly from our transport policy. I want to read that policy, because it says it all. I am reading from the section headed “Recreational Boating”, which states: “The New Zealand Coastguard provides an essential service but is dramatically under funded, relying heavily on donations and voluntarily raised income.” It goes on to state—we have a couple of options here but it is the second option that the Minister has taken on board—“New Zealand First will … allocate petrol taxes generated by boating activities to these operations.” Again, we say it is about time. This has been a long time coming. The leisure boat industry is a major industry in this country. It is also a cause for concern to professional mariners, such as myself. We go out on the harbour, we know and understand the boating rules, and we might see a group of individuals out on the harbour, or sometimes further afield, with a case of beer or what have you, thinking they can manoeuvre or meander their craft anywhere they want. They are very dependent on the coastguard coming to their aid when they get into real trouble. We think it is about time that some official funding went to help that organisation and indeed other organisations that are involved with recreational boating.

So we compliment the Minister on taking that initiative. She read our policy. She admitted in a question and answer session in the House that it was a New Zealand First policy, and we think that is a good move. There is much more to this bill than we have had time to cover right now, but New Zealand First will most certainly support this bill’s referral to the select committee.

MARTIN GALLAGHER Link to this

The reflexes are slow because the great danger is that we take for granted the huge strides made in transport over the last 7 to 8 years. That is the problem with the slow reflexes, I say to the good member for Taupo—and a very active member he is. I say to him that that is the danger. The danger is that we have short memories in this country. We have short memories in this country when we reflect on how hopeless the previous National Government was in terms of transport. There was only one good National Minister of Transport—he came from the Waikato region—and that was the Hon Rob Storey. What did National members do to him? They axed him; they dispensed with his services.

This Government has an exceptionally proud record in terms of transport in this country, to which the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is but another very, very important addition. The previous speaker, Jeanette Fitzsimons, spoke very eloquently about the need for public transport. The reality is that this Government has spent a record amount on promoting public transport in this country. It puts the previous Government to shame.

As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the really good leadership and partnership that we have had between the Minister of Transport’s central government agencies, our regional government agency—Environment Waikato—and the Hamilton City Council. I acknowledge the work that local government and my good colleagues Mark Burton, Sue Moroney, Dianne Yates, and Nanaia Mahuta—and I will take some small credit myself, as well—did in lobbying for the wonderful package that the Joint Officials Group put together for the Waikato, along with places such as Auckland and Wellington. That was a culmination of local government, regional government, and central government working together. It was also a very good example that we in this Government mean business when it comes to transport in the Waikato. We mean business when it comes to improving transport in the Auckland metropolitan area. We mean business when it comes to improving transport in the Wellington area. We mean business when it comes to improving transport massively in the South Island. We mean business when it comes to improving transport in the regions.

I think the frustration of the Opposition members comes from their being able only to watch and wonder at the progress we have made. [Interruption] Again I acknowledge my good colleague the member for Hamilton East, Mr Bennett. In his quiet moments he will admit that when he came into this Parliament after he was elected he was shocked at the absolute inaction of some of his colleagues. This Government has done so much. We can look at the . We can look at the integration of massive extra spending on State highways, roading, and public transport. The irony is not lost on me that we had those blue and red billboards with one of the previous leaders of the National Party on them—I am not sure which leader of the National Party it was; National has had about five or so in the last 10 years—that said: “What should petrol taxes be used for? Roads.” Well, here is the message, folks: that is exactly what petrol tax is being used for. Petrol tax is being used for transport—nothing more, nothing less. Indeed, there is a further subsidy from the consolidated account, and that is indicative of just how much we are spending as a Government on transport in this country. [] I know that it hurts; I know, when we hear the interjections from the Opposition, that it hurts. It is wonderful to be in a Government that is seriously committed to transport. Those interjections are indicative of a party in Opposition that has a memory loss, a memory blank, at what little its Government did—zero—in the transport area.

This Labour-led Government is committed to delivering high-quality transport networks. We are already seeing that now throughout the country. This bill is designed to maximise the performance of the Government land transport sector and to enhance New Zealand land transport planning and funding systems. In respect of that, I pay a personal tribute to people like Chris Allen, the retiring manager of Transit New Zealand in the Waikato, who has been promoted to the Hamilton City Council. I know that my colleagues Sue Moroney and David Bennett want to congratulate Chris Allen, because he has been a wonderful advocate for roading and transport in the Waikato.

This bill also implements the recommendations from the Next Steps review of the land transport sector, and it introduces measures that will allow New Zealand’s land transport sector to move forward in an integrated manner. You know, the news is all good; the news is all good. The bill provides for a Government policy statement that will set out planned investment and funding priorities for the next 3 to 6 years. Interestingly, the bill will create the New Zealand Transport Agency as a new Crown entity, replacing the existing Land Transport New Zealand and Transit New Zealand. I think the appointment of the interim board of the New Zealand Transport Agency will be very important, and I am sure that the Ministers and the Government will be paying due attention to getting the right skill mix, but we should not underestimate the talent, skill, and dedication already in those two organisations, which are to be merged.

Going back to the billboards that featured one of the many leaders of the National Party that I saw in my city during the last election campaign—[Interruption]—members should listen to this, and listen carefully—I say that the bill will reserve fuel excise duty for the National Land Transport Fund from 1 July next year. Members of the Opposition put up, and get their Business Roundtable mates to fund, a whole lot of billboards around the country. This Government does not talk about it; this Government actually does it. In fact, that crowd opposite spent 9 years in Government talking about it, but what did they do? They did absolutely nothing.

The bill will also introduce regional land transport programmes to rationalise land transport planning documents, it will reduce consultation, and it will encourage integrated land transport planning—another good step in the right direction. Regional land transport programmes will include land transport projects and services, including State highways, and will need to be prepared and consulted on every 3 years only, so that we do not have this incredible perpetual annual navel-gazing. We can actually be moving forward, and I think that is a great step to take. Also, the legislation will enable the levying of a regional fuel tax, which is a tool available to regions for priority projects that would not otherwise get adequate funding within the desired time frame.

I have paid tribute to Chris Allen, who is a fantastic manager of Transit New Zealand in the Waikato region. In the time I have left, I will also take the opportunity to pay a particular tribute to Jenni Vernon and the regional council. I acknowledge Jenni Vernon’s wonderful work in terms of some of the regional planning, her wonderful advocacy for land transport, and the really hard work that she did—I know that Mark Burton joins with me in that acknowledgment, as do Sue Moroney and Dianne Yates—in advocating for our region. The great Joint Officials Group scheme for the Waikato is due in part to Jenni Vernon. I acknowledge that, and it is my hope that the incoming chair, Mr Peter Buckley, whom I congratulate, and also the Environment Waikato team, will carry on that very, very good work in the land transport sector.

I also acknowledge councillor Dave Macpherson from my own city’s transport committee, the new chief executive, Michael Redman, who was the mayor at the time, and their officials for their sterling work in terms of the Joint Officials Group programme. I am proud to represent a city that is really walking the talk with this Government, and that in its own right has an integrated land transport management strategy. It does not just talk about public transport and buses, but actually does those things. It is wonderful to see those green buses going around Hamilton. They are an absolute testament to this Government and its strong support for public transport.

I am so delighted at the introduction of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. This is another great step in the wonderful work that this Government and Minister Annette King are doing to advance the crucial investment in the New Zealand transport infrastructure that is so critical to our economy and our society.

COLIN KING Link to this

I point out to members on the other side of the House that self-praise is no recommendation, because when we look at the problems we are presently facing in the transport infrastructure, and so on, we see that the status quo or the present situation is entirely failing New Zealand. The Next Steps in the Land Transport Sector Review report comments that the current situation is not “fully delivering”, and that there are gaps between the “vision and the broad objectives” and there are “confused accountabilities”. So the Government has entitled the review Next Steps, but, in effect, we have a failing economy mainly because we do not have an adequate infrastructural road system. Although we talk about the failed roading system in Auckland costing a billion dollars, it is probably costing equally as much throughout the country.

The New Zealand economy is performing pretty ordinarily. It is in urgent need of an efficient roading system. I want to talk about some of the challenges that we are facing in the provincial areas of New Zealand, where we are totally ignored in relation to the ability to raise funds and prioritise things so that we can get them done properly. We are confronted with geographical limitations—like the insurmountable Alps, and whatever—and with regional requirements, and we need more funding in the regions so that we can get some of the infrastructure up to standard. On State Highway 1 along the east coast of the South Island we have the problem of trucks tipping over. The problems are enormous there, and that is limiting this country’s economy. We are sitting in the Chamber discussing this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill, but we have a long way to go on the issue.

Roading ranges over a whole set of things—highways, byways, and streets. Every function of human society revolves around roading, like dropping kids off at school, taking produce to the port or to the works, trucking, and dealing in traffic around tourists. We need roading infrastructure that is a lot better. On that basis, what shape are we presently in after 8 years of Labour? We are not in good shape.

COLIN KING Link to this

As I said before, self-praise is no recommendation. One would be struggling, and stretching the truth, to say New Zealand has a first-class roading infrastructure. When we consider the consequences of what is occurring on the main State highways, we know we are in serious deficit. Sure, money has been put in in that direction but it has not shown any benefit.

COLIN KING Link to this

After 8 long years of Labour we still have a single-lane bridge over the Hurunui, with regard to the experience of trucks rolling over.

In this country we have very low-cost road infrastructure requiring high maintenance, and we are using poor materials. I received an email today from a motor cyclist complaining about the cut-cost measures on State Highway 1 of putting wire ropes as guard rails. Has anybody stopped to think what this might do in terms of safety? It is not safe; it is dangerous. At the end of the day, we really have some serious problems. I doubt whether this bill will get to the select committee, but a lot more could have been done to get provisions in this bill to move the job forward. As I said, it is more about what is not in the bill than what is in the bill. That is why National will vote against it.

The strategic development of New Zealand’s roading infrastructure is enormously important to the economy. This is what brings us back to this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. In terms of roading problems we agree that road transport needs increased funding, but we are opposed to the Government raising another tax to fund roading when it is sitting on massive recurring surpluses. Only 18 months ago we paid 5c in regional R funding, and when we gave it away we believed we would be able to get it back and do regional development. But then we got the rules from the Government saying we would have to match it with another 5c. Again, we are seeing a Government that does not play straight and true with its requesting of funds. So National will oppose this bill on the basis that we are not seeing the flexibility that would be appropriate.

I would be quite interested in the suggestion that there would be some flexibility around the raising of a petrol excise tax, if we could use it in the regions. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It has to be a situation whereby 50 percent of it goes into public transport, and I tell members that most of regional New Zealand is not really crying out for public transport. When we go to the Hurunui or Kaikōura, to anywhere in Marlborough, to Wanganui, or to the inner parts of Southland, we do not see that demand.

In fact, we would like to have the opportunity to use a fund of that nature to replace things. In Marlborough 280 wooden bridges have to be repaired, but more money goes out of Marlborough than has ever come into it. The regions are doing well in spite of the Government, not because of the Government. The Government should bear that in mind, and be warned, because when we look at the situation in the House we see very few Labour representatives from the regions.

So it is quite appropriate that somebody from the regions wraps up this debate on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. National looks forward to the voting down of the bill. The bill is as much about what is not in it as about what is in it. When I look at the whole structure of things, I think that it would probably be wrapped up best by the concerns expressed by Local Government New Zealand, which reported that “a concern about possible additional costs for regions and land transport committees as a result of the new prioritisation was expressed by these people”; and that “a number of public and private sector parties consulted had concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of the differentiated regional fuel tax regime.” So on balance National will oppose the bill for a number of reasons. On that basis, I thank the House for the opportunity of replying to members on the other side of the House.