Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) Link to this
I move, That the Public Transport Management Bill be now read a third time. This bill enables regional councils to require improvements to New Zealand’s public transport system. Regional councils will be empowered to impose greater controls over commercial non-contracted public transport services. The bill also provides a mechanism enabling regional councils to require that some or all public transport services be provided under contract.
This bill does not tell regional councils how to run their transport systems; it simply gives them the tools to run them as effectively as possible. Regional councils will be able to set longer notice periods for commercial public transport providers in commencing, varying, and withdrawing services. This will allow providers more time to respond to changes and ensure the continued delivery of services to communities.
Regional councils will have greater access to information such as detailed patronage statistics. This will enable more effective planning of public transport, and the development of regional public transport plans. Where this information is commercially sensitive, strict requirements will be in place to govern its release. The bill will also give regional councils greater monitoring powers to ensure that commercial services are meeting controls. Regional councils will be able to set quality and performance standards, enable the integration of services, ticketing, and fares, and, where justified, require the bundling of services. To ensure that any controls set by regional councils are justified, the bill also includes an oversight mechanism to allow existing commercial public transport operators the right to appeal to the Environment Court. The role and process for the development of regional public transport plans has been improved and clarified. The New Zealand Transport Agency will be producing guidelines to assist regional councils with the new requirements for regional public transport plans. The bill defines the transport disadvantaged, outlines clearly accessibility standards that may benefit them, and recognises that accessibility issues go beyond simply the ability to get on to a bus or ferry.
Finally, the bill enables regional councils to require that some or all public transport services must be provided as contracted services. Councils will be able to discontinue commercial services and operate what will be known as a contracting regime. It will be up to each region to decide whether it adopts a contracting regime, and already in New Zealand we have a range of contracting options carried out by local authorities. For example, in the Tauranga area, where Peter Brown lives, there is a fully contracted model, which allows those regional councils to use whichever tool they would find best for their region, after putting in place a plan and consulting to get the best possible deal for passengers.
I have to say that missing in this debate from the National Party was any mention of passengers. The whole debate from that party was about bus operators, and I think that that shows the difference between the members and parties who support this bill, and those who oppose it. This debate is about getting the best deal we can, with ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money, for the passengers we want to see travelling on public transport. But what we heard from the National Party was a whole series of ideas—about the development of the bill, deals made, and a whole range of other fanciful things out of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—cobbled together as National’s approach to this bill. There was almost more voting on mindless, meaningless amendments from Maurice Williamson than there was debate on the bill. The public of New Zealand sat through hours of mindless voting in this Parliament—to make two or three changes to the title of something—in an effort to delay a bill that will advantage passengers.
I say four-squarely—and I place it on the Table today—that we stand for the passengers of the public transport service. I know that operators will be getting a good deal from this Government, because in the whole time that Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport, he spent the grand total of no more than $40 million a year on public transport.
Over the 5 years, or whatever it was, that he was the Minister of Transport, he could not get himself out of the groove of putting money into roads and ignoring passenger transport.
I will say something nice about Maurice Williamson—I certainly will. I think that he speaks the truth about the National Party’s transport policy, and when he tried to, he was hushed up. He was taken out of the job and Bill English took it over for a couple of weeks until the party could trust Maurice again.
I say in conclusion that this bill will have a significant effect on operators who have existing commercial services discontinued. Regional councils are required to consider a number of factors when adopting a contracting regime. A lot of safeguards are built into this legislation, but the bottom line is that it will be good for the travelling public of New Zealand who want to use public transport services.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) Link to this
Let me start from the very outset by assuring the Minister that the National Party does care about passengers and about a public transport system that works. That is why we made the offer, we continued to make the offer, and we would still be making the offer today, if it were an option on the Table, to vote for what the Government had originally decided to do. That is why. If we were opposed to it, if we did not care about passengers, or if we did not think anything needed to be done, then we would not have been prepared even to support the option B that was canvassed, consulted on, and agreed to in the Cabinet minute of February 2007.
Let us make that clear to the Minister straight away: National thinks that some improvements to the public transport regime were needed. We think that the consultation was a meaningful process, we think that the original decisions the Cabinet of this Government came to were the right ones, and we tried as hard as we could through the process not to make “mindless” and “meaningless” amendments to the legislation.
The Minister never once took up my challenge—never once took up my challenge—during the Committee stage to show where any one of the amendments I had proposed was not in line with the originally agreed option B. If the amendments had not been in line with that option, and if they had been just frivolous or vexatious, then the Minister could have said that National was just time-wasting. But every one of those amendments was intended to try to bring this bill back into line. However, we were attacked and accused. I think the Minister said that we did not care about integrated fares and integrated ticketing. Well, my typewritten amendments are quite clear. There is a whole range of amendments about how important integrated fares and integrated ticketing are, and because they were to be a complete mirror-mapping of option B, they would have allowed for that process to occur.
Actually, I am interested to know why the Minister thinks we need legislation; integrated fares and integrated ticketing are happening around the country already in some jurisdictions. If we go to Christchurch, we see that a phenomenal operating system is going on down there already. But I think that says more about the local authorities in Christchurch, and their bus companies and their cooperative spirit, than it does about those in Auckland, which do not seem even to agree on which side of the road buses should drive on. I have seen them drive on both the left and the right. So for that reason I do agree that legislation was required.
When the bill first reached the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I sat down and had a quick read of it. I read the explanatory note. I was delighted to read in the explanatory note after the bill’s introduction to find that the Minister had completely ruled out option C. She stated in the explanatory note: “For this reason the Government rejects it.”, and I thought that that was good because it went too far. Option C will give unbelievably unfettered powers to the contracting authority, on an almost “take it or leave it” basis—“Do what we say or you do not get.”
I say that in any contract negotiation he who pays the piper calls the tune. When it comes to contract negotiations, the regional council will have the money, so it will be able to be very forceful in terms of what it lays out as its specification for its contract. When it does a request for a proposal for contracting for services, it will be able to be very specific about what it is seeking. The bus companies will have to say either that it is too tough or that they do not think it is fair, but in the end if they want the council’s money—because that is how the contract works—they will have to comply with what it is putting out in a contract. I think that is an absolutely fair basis for it, and that is what option B would have been.
But now the regional council will have the power to drag all the commercial services in here as well, and maybe even take away an property right that a private sector operator may have built up over decades.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
Well, Howick and Eastern Buses is a company in my electorate that was started by the Dalbeth family. They built up a phenomenally good and well-patronised local bus company. It is just not fair to say to those people: “Yes, you have spent years putting your sweat and toil into building a bus company, but we will now not only come in with a contract but also we feel we have absolutely every right to demand what you want.”
Again, if a person was contracting for someone to build his or her house, that person would lay out the specifications, tell the architect and the builder what he or she wanted, and negotiate what that price would be. But that person would not have the right to say: “Well, I will also have a say over somebody else’s house down the road and tell that person what colour it will be and how big the bathroom will be.” One would not have the right to do that, but option C will give regional councils that total power to come in across the top of the contracted services, quite properly, and to bring in the commercial operators, which is not quite proper, and say: “Take it or leave it. We do not care how much sweat and toil you have put in and how much property right you have built up in your business. We will do it.”
If I am wrong, then the Government would not have gone with option B at Cabinet, it would not have gone with option B-plus when the legislation was brought in, and it would not have put in an explanatory note stating: “For these reasons we reject ‘Option C’.” So when the next Labour speaker gets up and says that Maurice Williamson is wrong, I want the listening audience—which, I have been informed, is quite small; in fact, it could be named, so I will say to John, Peter, and Mary, the three of them who are listening—
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
I think Peter, Paul, and Mary are the three people listening out there. I say to those three listeners that if the Government was serious about what it was saying at the beginning, then the legislation would have reflected the consultation and reflected the agreed position. In that case, we would have been debating this third reading 2 or 3 days ago, because National would have given this bill its full support and we would not have taken as much time as we have done. We would have agreed to put option B through in the legislation, and everybody could have lived with it. The regional councils would have had some real power, but they would not have had absolute power, and they would not have been able to abuse the power that would allow them to be in a position where they could say “take it or leave it.”
This is driven by an ideology. The chairman of the Auckland Regional Council, Mike Lee, is clearly of a mind that it would be far better if the regional council actually owned the buses again. He is from the left, he openly admits to being from the left, and that is where he comes from. He thinks that Auckland would have a way better bus service if the regional council could own the buses again.
I did a survey in this House, and I need to report it to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, because I am not sure that you were present. It was a very, very good survey. I asked the House—a number of members were present on that night, including the Greens; I think MetiriaTurei was here to witness it—how many people thought that Auckland had a good bus service when the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned and operated it.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
Mark Gosche has just changed the vote. We had nobody saying that the other night, but now I think he has said that lots of people did. This is excellent! When the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned it, it was the most despicable, dreadful operation going. That is what there was, and Mike Lee would love to go back. He was unable to convince the Government this time, although now that it has bought back Air New Zealand and KiwiRail, who knows? Maybe the bus companies are next on the agenda to be bought back and nationalised.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON Link to this
Yes, we will be having the Labour Government supermarket chain next.
Mike Lee was not able to convince the Government to buy back the buses this time, but he got the very next best option. He has now got the total and absolute control through this bill to say: “Not only do we have the right to negotiate for the bits that we want to buy from you”—and quite properly so—“but also we will take total control of your operation and we will actually force you into obeying our rules, to the point of even taking away from you some commercial services that you may have built up.”
I think the Minister’s words in the explanatory note of the bill were absolutely right. Annette King got it absolutely spot on: “For these reasons the Government rejects ‘Option C’.” What have we gone and done now? We have gone in through a grubby little set of arrangements around the traps, whereby the select committee did not even get to have all the evidence considered and brought into the bill, and then some Supplementary Order Papers were drafted and put in at the last minute by Labour to outflank its coalition partner New Zealand First.
New Zealand First did the right thing. Peter Brown sat and listened to the evidence. He listened clearly and decided he would not support option C. I understand, from everything I have heard, that Peter Brown went out and talked to lots and lots of people in the industry—to lots of the players, including the Bus and Coach Association—and came to right position. That cannot have been an easy thing for Peter Brown to decide, especially at this time, with all of the other bits and pieces that are going on with his party. But he did the right thing.
Peter Brown must feel a bit gutted about this. He did the right thing. The select committee would not vote for option C—it was voted down. I found it interesting that the Labour members on the select committee put in a minority report in the select committee’s report.
For those reasons I say that National does care about public transport. We do care about passengers. We would have supported option B, and I say today that we would still support it. If members want to put forward option B now, then we will vote, sit down and shut up, and it will be all over.
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this
This is a very pleasurable day for Labour politicians and for other politicians who are here to pass public transport legislation that will improve the public transport system in leaps and bounds. We have seen over the last 20 years—since, I think, 1989 when the legislation that the Public Transport Management Bill replaces was first bought in—a very rapid decline in public transport use, largely driven by the fact that the National Party froze the public transport subsidies for 5 years at around $50 million. In Auckland that was $18 million. Ordinary people trying to get to work in Auckland were forced into cars because there was no decent public transport system, the trains were dilapidated and ready for the museum or the scrapyard, and buses were not purchased by bus companies in the private sector because there was no incentive to do so. It was a recipe for disaster that would require any future Government to spend billions of dollars building more and more roads because there was no alternative.
Driving around Auckland, as I do regularly, I have seen a dramatic reduction in the congestion that Auckland has suffered for a very long time. There are two good reasons for that. One is that people are deciding not to drive cars as much because of the price of fuel, and the other is that there is an alternative, and it is called public transport. That public transport system may be groaning at the moment, but it would have been completely lost if we had had a National Government for the last 9 years. The reason it has been able to improve is that we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into it. But the accountability for that spend is not there, the ability to plan better is not there, and the ability for the regional council and the local authorities to work with the private sector in a fair manner is not there. That is why we have this legislation.
Members on the Labour side of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee listened to the submissions, heard what people had to say, and promoted the idea of improving the legislation by adding option C. Why did we do that? Well, we did not just listen to the bus companies, who have an enormous vested interest in seeing the taxpayer and the ratepayer pour more and more millions of dollars into public transport without necessarily getting the results. The results are now starting to actually plateau because more and more money alone will not fix the problem. We need planning.
The select committee had an excellent submission from a representative of the consumers. He happened to be, I think, the Auckland Green Party representative. He came along to the select committee and those who listened to him were just blown away. He lives in the central city, somewhere around Herne Bay or Ponsonby, and he goes to work in Manukau City by public transport. It takes him 2 to 2½ hours to do that by bus and train. Is it connected so that the buses that he gets from Ponsonby into the city and then to the train station, and then from the train station in Papatoetoe out to Manukau are all linked up so that they meet at the same time? Can he use the same ticket? Can he guarantee himself that the fare will be cheap because he uses the same integrated ticket? Not on your life! It is a shambles. He came along and showed us the shambles that is Auckland’s public transport system, which cannot be put straight without this bill being passed. It was an embarrassment. It was crazy—he would get off the bus one stop before the train station in Papatoetoe because the fares actually went up if he stayed on the bus until the last stop. They did not even coordinate the fare system. He could not get off at the train station without having to pay the next full fare as if he had travelled the next section. What a ludicrous situation!
The private sector says that that situation should be left as it is, and that nobody who pays the bills should be allowed to tell them what to do. Well, hang on. Where does that happen in the world? Sixty to 80 percent of the revenue for those bus companies comes from the ratepayer and the taxpayer. The National Party says we should leave it that way, we should not give them any controls, and we should not allow them to see the books and see how the money is spent and see whether they are getting results. Oh, no! The National Party says we should leave it to the market. That is what the National Party says. It put up some pathetic Supplementary Order Papers written by the bus companies—that is how they do policy work over there. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune—I heard Maurice Williamson say that. That is what happens with the National Party’s policy—whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. For the National Party it is about putting up the industry’s submissions in this House as Supplementary Order Papers. That is how it works over there. It does not work that way over here. The other interesting fact is that every regional council—[Interruption]
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
Excuse me. Can we just have one person speaking instead of an argument across the Chamber?
Every regional council of substance in this country that runs subsidised public transport systems supports this bill and the addition of option C. The select committee got letters from the regional council here in Wellington, from Christchurch, and from Auckland, and they said that they support the fact that an option should be added and a region should get the choice of having option C.
I have to say that Mike Lee does not control the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The people who sit on that board are appointed by all of the territorial local authorities. Last time I looked John Banks was not a left-wing politician. I actually like John—I think he has a good heart—but I would not describe him as a left-wing politician. He is one of the people who appoints the Auckland Regional Transport Authority board, so is Bob Harvey, so is Len Brown, and so is the Mayor of North Shore. They appoint the board for their commercial nous. I am sure many of those people on the board do not vote for me or for the Labour Party, because they are there not for their politics but for their commercial nous. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has said that it needs this to fix up the problems if it is to go forward and continue to improve public transport.
The Auckland Regional Council is very busy at the moment—not purchasing buses, but purchasing trains to replace the clapped out rubbish that was left to us by the private sector, which did not invest a single cent in a new train in this country in all the time they owned them. Everybody in Auckland knows that. If Maurice Williamson has this fantasy that the Auckland Regional Council has a secret plot to go out and buy buses, I tell him that I think it has its hands full at the moment trying to get the trains to replace the private sector rubbish that was left behind. So we will see improvements in public transport in Auckland and we will see improvements coming because the private sector and the public sector will work together. That is the sort of thing we hear over there. We heard from private bus companies that asked to be given option C because it was good for business. They said it was good for business to have contracts that they could go to their bankers with and say: “Look, we’ve got a guaranteed revenue stream, we’ve got a long-term contract, and we want to improve the bus fleet. We can now borrow money.” That is what will happen.
In terms of the pathetic excuses the National Party used about the process, I will say that the letter from the Regulations Review Committee—which I am happy to table if need be, although it is a public document now—was followed absolutely. We changed the Public Transport Management Bill according to the requests of the Regulations Review Committee. It was not a big fuss. It was an annoying problem that the letter got lost, but the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee met again, and we sought to do a special report to the House. That report would have said that we agreed with the Regulations Review Committee and we had changed the bill accordingly, but the National Party denied leave for that to happen, so it has been done by the Minister of Transport after we wrote to her as a committee and asked her to do it. There was no fuss, no bother. It was not big stuff; it was just sensible regulations review changes that were passed in this legislation by way of amendment.
I am enormously proud of this legislation. As an Aucklander and as somebody who grew up catching the train and the buses, and as someone who is now representing working people who need to do that every day of the week, I am very proud that in the last few days I will be able to speak in this House as an MP, this bill will be passed as amended. I know it will make an enormous difference to everyday New Zealanders’ lives. They want a public transport system that is reliable, and they will have that through a cooperative relationship between the private sector and the public sector. I trust regional councils because regional councils are elected by the people. No bus companies were elected by the people to administer the $900 million of public funds that we put into public transport in this country, compared with the $50 million that the National Party used to put in. No, we actually care about public transport. This bill will deliver a very good result for the public.
PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
What a good sentence that Labour member, the Hon Mark Gosche, ended on! He said his speech was one of his last in Parliament. The Labour Government is going to have its biggest electoral defeat, because it holds the New Zealand people in contempt. It rushes through the House the Public Transport Management Bill, and it introduces last-minute changes that Cabinet itself rejected.
Let me remind listeners—who have now increased to five, because Maurice Williamson’s spouse and mine have joined the three other people who are probably listening to this debate—that we have just heard a very confused speech from the Hon Mark Gosche. On the one hand, he gave praise and said he was enjoying the fact that people in Auckland were using public transport services. He was enjoying the fact that public transport services are available right now. So I ask him why the Government introduced this legislation. Then he told us the reason. It was because one Green Party member came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; suddenly, a bill had to be passed to enable the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the Auckland Regional Council to plan the whole public transport service around one Green Party member’s needs. That is a mightily expensive exercise.
I hope the next Labour speaker will explain to us why, if things are so bad, it has taken the Government so long to do something. Why does it take 9 long years before this Labour Government, in its dying days, rushes this legislation through the House? I have some bad news for the Hon Mark Gosche. My parliamentary secretary used to use the train to come to work in Wellington, but the number of fare increases has driven her back to using her car. Using the train has simply become too expensive. So although the member is trying to defend the Labour Government’s record on public transport, it simply does not stack up.
In relation to the talk about an integrated ticketing system, Wellingtonians are talking about their new Snapper system. Christchurch has already implemented it. It makes one wonder why legislation needs to be rushed through the House under urgency, just to enable an integrated ticketing system to be adopted in Auckland. I understand that Auckland is making very good progress on it, anyway.
It was really interesting to hear the Hon Mark Gosche say that he rejected the view that it was a case of “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” I thought that was so true coming from a Labour member, because in the last few days, weeks, and months we have heard about poor Owen Glenn, who donated half a million dollars to Labour and who certainly did not get his money’s worth. He was betrayed and attacked. I do not know what dogs have been let off in order to get him.
The passage of this legislation under urgency is a total outrage. It was introduced into Parliament under a disguise. People understood that this legislation would give the regional councils and authorities that control the funding of public services for which a subsidy is required more power to ask for information, etc. The Government left those people in no doubt by stating in the explanatory note of the legislation that it would not go all the way and adopt option C, which would empower the regional councils and authorities to prohibit commercial services. Throughout the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings, every submitter who appeared before the committee had the understanding that he or she was making submissions on a bill that would adopt option B, which would give more power to the planning authority and the funding authority, but would not go the whole way and allow those authorities to prohibit commercial operators.
But then the chairman of the select committee, Mark Gosche, tried to twist the arms of the committee members. Even though the Labour Cabinet had rejected going all the way and adopting option C because, according to Cabinet, it would undermine business confidence and would stifle the introduction of innovative measures, the chairman wanted the select committee to adopt option C. The select committee members questioned the officials. We said that surely it was outside the scope of the legislation to introduce such a major amendment. The chairman quickly put that concern to rest: he said that the Minister of Transport had agreed to it. She could not get that option through the Labour Cabinet, so she tried to bully the select committee into adopting it. Even the New Zealand First members could see the nonsense of our changing the legislation in the last minute with such a dramatic switch of direction, and they rejected it.
The select committee members also questioned the officials as to whether it was viable and practical for them to rewrite the legislation to introduce option C. We could tell by their reaction that it was not possible for them to make sure that it would be good legislation and that there would not be implementation problems caused by such a major change being rushed through.
I think that by the end of the select committee process all the submitters understood that option B was no longer the original option B; additional controls had been introduced. But they decided to accept it as it was. One can imagine one’s shock when, as the bill was going through the Committee of the whole House, a major Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the Green Party. Owen Glenn has told us that he understands that New Zealand First has control and influence over Labour, because Labour needs its support to pass legislation. But now Labour has looked past New Zealand First to the Greens. Supplementary Order Paper 249 was introduced, and the Minister would not take a call during the Committee stage to reassure us as to how a small party could accomplish the task of introducing such a major Supplementary Order Paper, with the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed, when the officials had expressed to the select committee the difficulty in introducing last-minute major changes.
This legislation will come back to the House. Lawyers will be lining up—they will be laughing all the way to the bank—because of the loopholes and technical problems in it. The select committee and the officials were never given a chance to comment on the huge change in direction. The Labour Government and the Greens hold the New Zealand public in contempt, and they will learn the result of their holding the New Zealand people in contempt. The people do not appreciate the Government promising something, then changing the whole direction during a parliamentary process without public consultation. Labour went against its own Cabinet decision, and it deserves to have a huge defeat at the ballot box.
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this
During the term of this Parliament, New Zealand First, when it comes to transport, has had a very good working relationship with the Minister of Transport and the two Associate Ministers. I would say that it has been a first-class relationship when it has related to our working together, but on this issue we disagree. On this issue, New Zealand First takes a different view from the Government. I will explain why. The Public Transport Management Bill is really attempting to address an Auckland issue. Everywhere else in the country, public transport, when it comes to buses, is working, if not very well—
—adequately well. It does not need a great deal of legislation to improve it. It is true that in many places public transport is operating under a full contract model, and the Minister acknowledged that that is the case in Tauranga. In Wellington public transport is largely contracted, but it is still working very well. In Christchurch, and I think in Queenstown, it is a mix of contract and commercial operations, and it is working very well.
When this bill came before the House in its initial instance, it looked a very simple, straightforward bill. There were three options. Option A was the status quo, and I think that most people, although we recognise the issue principally as an Auckland issue, or almost totally an Auckland issue, recognise that the status quo was not working in Auckland. Option B seemed to be the favoured option because option C was ruled out, in the explanatory note of the initial bill—and quite firmly. It was not just that it would not be considered by the Government; there were good reasons why it had not been considered. So it came down to a bill that I, at least, thought revolved around just option B, as proposed in the bill. But when the submitters, particularly the bus company submitters, came to us, they told us a different story. They told us that another option B had been agreed to between officials and bus companies, and that it had gone to Cabinet and been signed off. That was the understanding I at least had, and I believed that the option B in the bill was a modified version of the option B that had been agreed on.
New Zealand First understands the concerns of the bus companies. We believe that bus companies have a role to play. They look after the passengers, they carry the passengers, and it is up to them to provide the services. So we believe they have a positive role to play, and it should not be a role that puts them into some sort of subservient position where they are told: “You will do this, or else.” New Zealand First does not agree with that attitude. Although some of the bus companies—the minor companies, I have to say—agreed with option C, the big players, which carry thousands of people, were committed to the option B version that had been agreed to before the bill came into being.
I have to say that when those bus companies’ representatives came before the select committee, I had never seen such enthusiasm, such determination, and such desire to provide a service. It sort of sprang out at us; they were passionate about their cause. They were not doing it just for the money. I cannot believe for one moment they want to run empty buses around the town, just to collect the subsidy; they want to provide a service. They told us that in Wellington they had taken chances by putting on services at a financial loss, and over a period of time they had built up the services they referred to, and made them profitable—but only just. Enthusiasm, determination, and competence are needed to run a bus company, and people who know how it all works and ticks together are needed. Equally, innovation and investment are needed. But we all know that this regime—even though the Minister has said “Oh, well, it will be optional as to whether Auckland people introduce it, or not.”—will come to pass, and that is why the lobbying has been so extensive. If we bring in a regime that says: “You will do exactly what I want because I know better, even though you are running the bus company.”, there is a real chance of dampening that enthusiasm, and of dampening that investment and innovation. In other words, there is a good chance that a second-rate service will be imposed on the Auckland public, whereas if we encourage people to do their thing—what they are fully aware of and know the facts and figures for—the chances are we will get a far better service because they are in there to service passengers.
In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I listened intently to the bus companies’ representatives, and I spoke to them privately—as the Hon Maurice Williamson referred to—before New Zealand First made a decision whether to support or oppose the bill. We certainly thought the bus companies had a case worth supporting. There are five categories of bus service. Earlier on in the House I said there were four, but the Hon Maurice Williamson has added the fifth, and that one is very important. To run an efficient bus service the service has to be reliable, convenient, comfortable, and affordable, and, as the Hon Maurice Williamson reminded me, it has to be safe. I had taken that as read. So there are five attributes—
Clearly, I have not for some time. Those guys know what they have to do to deliver an efficient bus service. New Zealand First says they should have been given their chance with the introduction of option B—as agreed behind the scenes—before the bill arrived in the House for its first reading.
What disturbs me—and I will not talk too much about it because it has been well canvassed—is the regulation review issue. The issue came up in the select committee, but a certain letter did not get to that committee. We addressed the issue as speedily and efficiently as we could, and I believed that the issue had been taken care of. But I have since found out that the Ministry of Transport engaged an independent consultant, who consulted the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, did a financial analysis, and then wrote a report to the ministry. But the report did not come to the select committee and the bus companies were not consulted on the report.
I have a copy of the letter written to the Minister by the Bus and Coach Association, and it is quite worrying. Obviously, I cannot read all of it out. It was copied to me in my role as transport spokesperson for New Zealand First—if you like, a support party for the Government. I will read out a segment of the letter to the House, because it is worrying: “Our concern regarding the MOT report—the financial analysis and the disregard for due process—raises serious issues about equity and objectivity. The main points are summarised below:” I will read out two of them: “The data provided for the analysis came from ARTA without reference to the industry, when ARTA has a vested interest in the findings of the financial analysis.” That concerns me immensely. The letter goes on to say: “The analysis is based on a bus scheduling exercise conducted by ARTA officers, using a selected sample of commercial registrations and associated contracted services where ARTA assessed the relative efficiency of operating these services on an all-contracted or mixed commercial/contracted basis. These results were then provided to MOT without any reference to the bus industry.” I will stop there, on the letter.
I say that that analysis should have gone to the select committee. It is not good enough for that committee to make a decision to send the bill back to the House, and for us to have the Greens produce a Supplementary Order Paper to bring the bill back to option C, which was never agreed to, by anybody, in the first place. New Zealand First opposes this bill.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
I will start the Greens’ contribution to the third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill by giving some thanks, particularly to the MMP parties—to the Māori Party, to ACT, to Jim Anderton’s Progressive party, to Taito Phillip Field, and indeed to the Labour Party for supporting the Greens’ option C proposals, which were debated in the Committee last night. It is important for the public to note that these are the kinds of times when MMP truly delivers its benefits for the public of New Zealand. What we have done with this collective of parties in Parliament has been to make sure that there is a real, constructive option for councils when dealing with the public transport needs that are so clear in their cities, and in Auckland in particular.
Probably I ought to give some thanks to National members too for spending all of their time in the debate on the bill in this House on giving the Greens the credit for option C. Of course, we are most happy to accept credit for option C, because it is, in fact, the best outcome for the community and for public transport. At times, and at this time in particular, when our most vulnerable communities are suffering from the rising cost of food and fuel prices, alternatives must be made available to them so that they can get out and do their daily business in an easy, financially useful, accessible, and cheap way. Option C and this bill will provide that option for our communities. We are absolutely proud that option C has been supported by Parliament.
Option C was supported by all of the Auckland councils, by all but one regional council, and by those operators in the public transport arena who were unable to break through the legacy of incumbency and monopolistic behaviour established by the previous National Government’s policies on public transport, which were developed in earlier times. Those policies essentially entrenched the capacity for commercial operators to continue to lock out other operators from the public transport sector. We are very pleased to be able to break the monopolistic policy that was proposed and supported by National many years ago, and to be able to reform and transform our public transport system into one that truly works for the community as a whole.
I think that enough has been said on this bill and that that is all that needs to be said. We are very pleased that it is passing into law. We are very pleased to have delivered this outcome for the community of Auckland in particular, and also for other communities around the country. I am pleased to see this bill passing into law.
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnātātou katoa e huihui mai neiitēneirangi.
[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all gathered here today.]
This will be interesting. Ten days ago a cloud descended over Wellington. Well, to be more precise, tension spread through the Metlink buses, trains, and ferries as commuters came to grips with a price increase of between 50c and $1 per trip. To compound the situation, the extra costs come from paying for the privilege of jostling for a seat and fighting for space, with only the ticket collector game enough to run the gauntlet between the crowded crush of the commuter traffic. The one consolation for the passengers was that at least they were not in Auckland—
—it is—for those who live north of the Bombay Hills, like I do, are now rushing to grab that bus or train in far greater numbers than ever before. Patronage of the Infratil buses, for instance, has increased by about 7 percent in the last year. In real terms, that is an extra 6,000 trips. We celebrate this congestion as a marker of the further development of public transport systems and initiatives to reduce road traffic. It is a tangible measurement of the way in which we are lessening the nation’s dependency on oil and reducing carbon emissions. It gives us hope that we as a nation are making humble efforts to address the peak oil and global warming crises.
But there is little to celebrate if we, as a Parliament, are not doing what we can to make life easier for those choosing the option of public transport. We must make it a credible option. We must make public transport fulfil the expectations of people that it will respond to their needs in terms of frequency and capacity, and in terms of public transport services. I remember 5 years ago, in June 2003, when the Britomart transport centre was officially opened, NgātiWhātua o Ōrākei officiated, with the kaumātuaTakutaiWikiriwhi blessing the site and the station platforms, and we had a dawn service. The first train arrived at 5.40 a.m. on 23 June, and, from what I have been told, it commemorated the historic moment 73 years earlier, when the first scheduled train set off from downtown Auckland. As the train arrived, a large crowd gathered and a lone piper released the call. As passengers disembarked, the kapahaka group of Te Puru o Tāmaki and NgātiWhātua let forth a haka and a waiata to truly herald the moment.
Some of the less informed among us may ask why we would have a dawn ceremony for a train. I say: “Why not?”. It is entirely appropriate to clear the way and to embrace the new dawn that we envisaged would come from the opportunities that come with more comprehensive public transport. For many of our whānau, before they embark on a journey, they have karakia to ensure safe travels ahead. In much the same way, opening Britomart at dawn—te ata tū—is imbuing the provision of public transport with that same significance. It is about ensuring that the population is safe, protected, and able to travel well.
This bill continues that goal. The bill will enable regional councils to adopt controls on commercial public transport services in order to implement any policies that can meet the unique needs of their region. Although we would assume that the regional public transport plans would take into account issues of vehicle quality and service reliability, and the provision of integrated systems such as ticketing and fares, we would also expect them to consider special provisions for the people they service—provisions that will enable them to respond sensitively and appropriately towards passengers who are elderly, disabled, children, and all groups that may require special service.
The aim of this bill is also to help regions obtain the best value for money in public transport. Although it makes particular mention of the impact of competition for commercial operators, we would hope that the balance weighs in favour of efficient and effective services for customers. Attracting and retaining new passengers is a challenge that regional public transport services must turn their minds to. There is no point in having a competitive and efficient market in place if value for money is compromised or if services are congested, slow, and unreliable. This bill will enable regional councils to decline registration of a commercial service if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the service will not meet the controls specified in the regional public transport plan. The bill will also force services to deregister for non-compliance. These are all positive initiatives that are about improving the quality of existing public transport services. We have heard speakers in the House describe how Aucklanders were forced into cars, and it is that culture we are trying to break in order to put people back on public transport. But in the space in the market that appears from the deregistration of non-compliant providers, we would expect other initiatives and other alternatives to be introduced, which will fill the gap.
Many members will be familiar with the overhead call that echoes through the station platforms in the London Underground: “Mind the gap”. It has in fact become so popular that Transport for London even sells T-shirts with the branding: “Mind the Gap”, to remind passengers of the dangerous gap between the train door and the station platform. This bill must also mind the gap. We in Parliament must mind the difference between what is real and what is not real. We must look beyond the limitations of what currently constitutes our public transport system and think creatively around ways of achieving an integrated, safe, and sustainable public transport system that will make immediate progress in lessening our dependence on oil. We must do everything we can to mind the gap between public perceptions of the problems of public transport and making it a viable option.
The Sustainable Energy Forum has recommended that one possible positive intervention the Government could take up would be to increase present subsidies for public transport, even to the point of making public transport free. We believe that this option should be investigated further. It may well be useful in considering this further to apply an analysis based on the genuine progress in the next genuine progress index. In such an analysis we would envisage that the whole-of-economy costs would be weighed. The health and environmental costs of allowing private transport to continue unabated must be recognised as a significant constraint.
The unequivocal truth is that New Zealanders are almost totally oil dependent for transport. We cannot delay action in terms of the developing public transport options. The ability to register services commercially provides opportunities for operators to establish innovative public transport services that would not otherwise be provided. We encourage all those in the transport sector to take risks, to be bold, and to stretch our thinking in terms of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable public transport system. Opting to explore the electrification of public transport, or rationing schemes to respond to short-term fuel projects might be other projects that are worthy of further review. We need to prioritise urban design around walking and biking, and this is just the start.
I believe that what happened at Britomart 5 years ago was right. We are at the dawning of a new era, and we must engage all our energies into planning for our future. The Māori Party supports this bill.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I thank the member from the Māori Party for that last contribution on the Public Transport Management Bill, but I think that when people look at public transport, they need to look at the reality of the situation we have in New Zealand and the reality of what will happen in the future in transport. Public transport is often seen as having a clean, green image and as providing us with the best mechanism to transport people in an environment that is dependent on oil. There is a big news flash for those political parties that believe that, and it is that in 5 or 10 years’ time we will not be dependent on oil. The technology is there now. It is just a matter of making it commercially available, and that will happen in a very short period of time. The world is moving away from oil, and that movement is accelerated by the problems in accessing oil from the Middle East and also by the cost of that product relative to the new technology.
It will be only a matter of time before people will be looking at roads and cars as providing the most green, efficient form of transport we can have, because public transport will still be very highly dependent, in a lot of cases, on fossil fuels. Some public transport will also run on electricity, but that public transport will probably be more expensive to run than smaller cars that are run on electricity. So when we look at the public transport debate, we see that people need to be realistic about future transport options, and that the future is in electric vehicles—especially electric cars, which are not far away, at all.
The debate that centres on public transport as offering some kind of universal panacea that will provide our transport solutions in a clean, green way is incorrect. The reality is that modern transport mechanisms and scientific advancements will mean that we will see some of the traditional forms of transport actually become the clean, green method of transport. I think the public need to be aware of that in this debate, because it is something that is lost out there in the community. We have the notion that public transport is the only answer. Well, it is not the answer. The answer will come from technology, and the technology is here. The commercialisation of that technology is probably a couple of years away, but it will happen in a very quick period of time.
So when we look at this legislation, it is important for us to remember that public transport will probably have its biggest effect by reducing congestion in places where there is large-scale transport of people or products. Public transport works best where there are concentrations of people, and it will be relied on to move people in a quick and an efficient manner in places where, possibly, people could not do that through their own ability. When we look for situations like that, we see there are probably only a few places in New Zealand where that applies on a population density basis.
One of those places is Wellington, which is served by a very efficient public transport system that has been there for a number of years. Auckland also has a public transport system, and as the city develops it is turning into much more of a consolidated urban environment with bigger population densities around the central city, and, therefore, more need for public transport in the central city area, unlike the spreading city that we have had in past generations. So we do have a public transport issue in Auckland, and it needs to be addressed. Auckland has our biggest population concentration, and it will get bigger. There will be issues about congestion and about moving the people of that city around.
But the bill before us today is not the answer on those issues. The answer is to get a common solution that the parties involved in public transport agree upon. We had an answer like that. The bus companies, public transport users, Government, and regional government came together and came to a concise solution that was workable for all parties. They agreed upon it, and expected that agreement to be implemented through legislation passed in this House. But what do we have here? We do not have that agreement. We have a Government-mandated change that the Government believes is a better solution than the one agreed upon by the parties involved.
The Minister said there was no agreement—that we agreed in principle only—and that through the political process things can change. That is not good enough. What gives the people in this room the ability to change what the professionals, the people who know about the business of servicing Auckland’s transport needs, have agreed upon? What gives the Government of the day the ability to know better than Aucklanders what they need for their public transport solutions, and to know its solution is better than what they have decided on? There is no reason for that. Nobody in this room has the ability to make a better decision than the people of Auckland can make. The people of Auckland made a call, and we should have supported that call. We should not be in this room, changing it on a whim to something that we think is better. That is what is happening through this legislation, because option C is not what the parties agreed upon.
The Government of the day believes option C is the best solution. It is engaged in making a decision on an ideological basis. It has come to the conclusion that it knows better than the people involved in the industry, and it is providing what it thinks is the best solution to this issue. That is simply not good enough. It simply will not work. Adopting option C means that some of the other players in the industry, namely the bus companies, which New Zealand First has been very staunch to support in recent months, will turn. They will say option C will stifle private sector involvement in Auckland transport issues. This bill will stifle innovation. It will stifle any investment that the private sector may have wished to make into addressing Auckland’s public transport issues.
What will we be left with? We will be left with the Government having made a decision on the basis of what it thinks is best, and with a solution that does not involve one of the key components in any viable solution to Auckland public transport issues: the private sector bus companies, which have a vital role to play. Theirs is not the only role to be played, but it is a vital one. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority also has a vital role to play. It should be encouraged and helped in its process, as well. But there needs to be a consensus agreement whereby the two parties, through the Government, can come together and arrive at a workable solution. This bill does not contain that workable solution. The Government has a mandate to implement what it thinks is best for the people of Auckland, but this bill is not what is best for the people of Auckland, because it cuts out one of the big players in the process. This decision will come back and bite the Government in a very short period of time, because the other player, the private sector bus companies, will not want this legislation to go through. The companies will see it as being detrimental to their ability to serve Auckland City’s public transport needs.
That problem now lies with the Government. By making this decision, the Government is effectively saying it will take control of public transport in Auckland. If the Government is to take control of public transport in Auckland in that way, then it has to fund it. The Government has not put up the money, it has not put in the innovation, and it does not have the ability to do that. The Government will find that it has lost the opportunity to work with the private sector, and has missed out on the innovation and increase in service that the Auckland users of public transport will demand.
So when we look at this legislation, it is important for us to note that we need to have a strong public transport sector, and that that may be for reasons other than those that political parties in this House currently see as underlying public transport requirements. Those reasons may be based more on issues of congestion and city development, rather than on the use of fossil fuels. But there is a need for a consensus approach when coming to these solutions. We were very fortunate to have reached a consensus in the agreement that went to Cabinet, but we are not fulfilling that agreement through this legislation. The Government has got itself into a dilemma now, by changing its mind after it had an agreement and not fulfilling the requirements of that agreement. The ultimate losers from that will be public transport users in Auckland.
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) Link to this
It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on the Public Transport Management Bill. I might perhaps be the last speaker, I suspect, but I say to the previous speaker, David Bennett, that in all the years I have been in this Parliament I have seen a number of interesting things, in terms of transport legislation. The member can look to his colleague on the front bench, the Hon Maurice Williamson, who was wise enough—and it is rare that I pay this tribute to him—to have listened very carefully to the submissions made in a select committee some years ago on the issue of cockpit voice recorders. The Government put up legislation at the time that intended one particular aspect in regard to prosecutions and using that information. Following the hearing of strenuous submissions, not from everybody but from some, that said: “We think you’ve got this spectacularly wrong and you need to rethink.”, Maurice was strong enough, brave enough, and wise enough to listen to those submissions and to go against what Cabinet had decided. The wisdom in that case was not with Cabinet; the wisdom was with the submitters. We face the same situation today, and far from it being from one particular aspect, several submitters supported option C.
I find it quite unusual to be speaking against my friend and colleague Peter Brown from New Zealand First, because he and I usually substantially agree on transport matters. But in this particular case I think New Zealand First has got it wrong. A number of submitters very strongly supported option C, which was the decision of the select committee. And these supporters are not minnows. They include the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the Auckland Regional Council, four Auckland territorial authorities, Local Government New Zealand, Auckland Sustainable Transport, and three public transport operators—one of which includes Veolia Transport Auckland—which run all the suburban rail transport in Auckland. These folk were not about saying: “Hey, look—our narrow commercial interests.”; they were saying: “For the greater good of the area.”, which is precisely what the previous speaker was talking about.
What a pity that the wisdom of Sir Dove-Myer Robinson many years ago was not actually more widely accepted. He proposed to greatly expand the public transport network, not because of fuel costs at the time but because of the development of the city. Thank goodness an earlier person with a Dutch name in this Parliament—a guy called Julius Vogel—had the wisdom to go against popular sentiment at the time—
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN Link to this
—and commercial sentiment, and actually develop New Zealand by putting in place strong transport networks, and this Government has done exactly the same. This Labour-led Government is committed to providing high-quality public transport systems throughout the country, because we believe that improved public transport is not only vital to achieve our goal of sustainability but vital in the interests of our communities. This bill will improve the tools available to local authorities for providing public transport services to a set standard.
As I mentioned in my speech in an earlier stage of this bill, if members opposite would like to research a company called, I think, Carrington Bus Company—a short-lived public transport operator in the New Plymouth area—they will see that the tools in this bill are needed in terms of the countervailing powers of larger operators operating commercially but saying: “Here’s how we’ll commercially deal to this company. We’ll drop our fares on their routes to zero until they go broke.” And that is what happened. Two larger operators dropped their fares to zero to put a commercial operator out of business. The National Party is very fond of saying that it is the party that supports business, understands business, and knows about business, but the unfair commercial practice that was operated in that instance caused a very good local company to go broke in a matter of weeks. Why? Because the other companies operating on those routes were able to cross-subsidise from their other operations, subsidised by the local community.
This Government, far from what the previous speaker said, has put a huge investment into public transport, not just because of the oil prices—we began this long before oil prices rocketed up—but because we see congestion as a huge impediment to business in Auckland, to the normal commercial operations of the city, and want to encourage people, particularly those in Auckland, to use public transport, as Wellingtonians have done for many years. Central government is putting funds—something in the order of $640 million in this current financial year—into mostly public transport. Some of that is the purchase price of new electric units. On top of that, local government is putting around $270 million into public passenger transport. On top of all this is the electrification plan for Auckland suburban services. One would have to say that well over $1 billion of public money goes into commercial and contracted passenger services throughout the country.
If we look at what is trying to be achieved in this bill and the reason for going to option C, we see that anyone who analysed this thoroughly would see that the purpose is to give more tools to central and local government, particularly to local authorities, for providing public transport services to good standards to meet the demands of the community, and to actually plan for, prepare for, and provide for the future. The bill will give regional councils greater powers over non-contracted—that is, commercial—services in order to help regions get the best value for money and to achieve an integrated sustainable public transport network.
The history of how commerce works is really worth looking at. If, as the National Party believes, the market will provide, let me recommend a book called The Great American Streetcar Scandal, set in Los Angeles in the 1930s. It shows how commercial interests demolished what was to have been the best public transport system in the United States at the time. They absolutely demolished it. The streetcar system in Los Angeles was effective, wide-ranging, and provided transport for a huge number of people, but it was demolished by commercial enterprise because the state of California did not have a bill like this to protect it against unfair commercial operation. I am a strong believer in providing a framework in which commerce can flourish and operate in a way that helps the beginning company but also protects the interests of the public.
If members can find the people who own the Carrington Bus Company and explain this bill to them, I guarantee when they see the provisions they will say they wish they had had this at the time. One of the members opposite said “What about the Commerce Commission?”. Well, the Commerce Commission said: “If a bus company wants to reduce its fares to zero on a particular route, then that is entirely fine.” That is what happened, because the bus companies that Carrington set up in competition with were able to reduce their fares to zero on that one route in order to knock that fledging company for a six and put it out of business.
I am pleased that this bill will enable local councils to set quality and performance standards for commercial public transport services—things such as emission standards or minimum periods of operation. These sorts of things are vital when one specifies public transport network conditions. The bill will also allow councils to require operators to integrate services, fares, and ticketing, in order to serve the needs of the community. I think that integrated ticketing is a huge facet of this, which we should not ignore. I have talked about it for a minimum of 15 years and I think it is absolutely vital to the success of public transport operations in major cities. Thank you.
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) Link to this
I am delighted to take a short call on this very important bill, the Public Transport Management Bill. Auckland has been calling out for this legislation for many, many years. There have been numerous attempts since the 1950s to get an adequate, comprehensive system that Aucklanders can use with confidence in terms of times, cleanliness, efficiency, and value for money for the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Auckland. I am delighted to be part of a Government that has listened to Auckland and has said that, yes, we do need to finish the roading network but, just as important, we need to provide public transport so that Aucklanders have an alternative, so that we can continue to improve the air quality in Auckland, and so we can provide value for money for Aucklanders.
I am very sad to see the National members attacking this legislation. Following on from the very good speech made by my colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven I ask National what they are talking about when they say that Aucklanders should be paying $50 a week in tolls but that they are opposed to public transport. I asked Jim McLay, a former member of this House, who is now the principal of Macquarie Bank, and who is advocating toll roads in Auckland, and advocating public-private partnerships where all the risk falls on Aucklanders, whether he is advocating this policy that the National Party is pushing. National is attacking public transport while promoting Aucklanders having to pay a levy of $50 a week, at least, on toll roads, and people will be forced back into their cars as there will be no adequate public transport. What is National’s interest in this? That is my question to National members, because, in my view, this legislation is absolutely vital.
We have seen Stagecoach—the main provider, I will concede, before Infratil took it over—declaring major bus routes as commercial routes, so there is no subsidy on them, and forcing everybody else, who might need some support, off those routes, particularly those who link other suburban routes and are not the main carriers, and then, halfway through a contract they just say: “We’re not going to do this any more.” So suddenly the Auckland ratepayers needed to find, I believe, about $5 million, as did the taxpayers, to meet that. I say we need some security as taxpayers and as ratepayers that we are getting value for money, and this bill is the first major step towards Auckland getting a really good public transport system that is value for money.
It is my great pleasure to support this bill. I congratulate the Greens on their initiative in this. I believe that no carrier, no public transport provider, interested in providing a service, and not interested in skimming the top off a service that is not comprehensive, has anything to fear in this. It is about time we got proper comprehensive public transport in Auckland. It is part of our plan to provide sustainable value-for-money and fuel-efficient services that all Aucklanders can access, so that we can do the intensification we need to do in people-friendly areas that are not cut through by motorways that are not working efficiently because people just sit in cars, idling, wasting fuel, and wasting time.
Everyone in Auckland talks about at least a billion dollars being the cost of congestion. That is people’s time and wasted fuel. Maurice Williamson is talking about that, and he wants to add another $50 on to that impossible cost that many Aucklanders are already facing. This bill, the Public Transport Management Bill, gives Auckland the tools it needs in local, regional, and central government to actually provide value for money for taxpayers and ratepayers as well as for motorists.
This bill is supported by the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which was set up to finally deliver rather than have the constant political ping-pong we have had. Labour Government supporter Sir Dove-Myer Robinson had his policy on public transport; Rob Muldoon and the National Government came in and threw it out. The fourth Labour Government said it would work with Auckland and look at a decent public transport system; Ruth Richardson and all her cronies came in and chucked it out. It is time we had some sustainability in service provision and some value for money. That is what I am standing to support, and that is why Labour-led Governments are delivering for Auckland and delivering value for taxpayers across New Zealand.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Public Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 61
- New Zealand Labour 49
- Green Party 6
- Māori Party 4
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 59
- New Zealand National 47
- New Zealand First 7
- ACT New Zealand 2
- United Future 2
- Independent 1 (Copeland)
Bill read a third time.