Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, in its consideration of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4), have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10, despite Standing Order 283(1). The Supplementary Order Paper preserves those provisions in the Land Transport Act 1998, the Transport Act 1962 and associated regulations, and the Land Transport Amendment Act (No 2) 2006 that are due to expire on 1 July 2009. Cabinet approval has already been obtained to transfer into, or preserve in, the Land Transport Act most of the provisions affected by an expiry date. The transfer will not be able to be effected before 1 July, and therefore an amendment to the expiry dates needs to be enacted before that date.

The amendments are minor, but the consequences of not making them are significant. In summary, the main changes are: preserving the Transport Act—this Act contains, in particular, provisions relating to local authority traffic enforcement powers; preserving some transitional provisions; preserving regulations and notices having effect under the Land Transport Act but made under other legislation; preserving the powers of local authorities in respect of the enforcement of special vehicle lane offences; and continuing the obligation of a court to have regard to the New Zealand Truck Loading Code for offences relating to insecure loads until the provision can be widened to include other relevant industry codes. I look forward to support for this motion from all other parties in the House.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) : The Labour Opposition will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce, the Minister of Transport, which is an amendment to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I have had a discussion with the Minister to make sure that there is nothing sneaky in the Supplementary Order Paper. The briefing information we have received about him says that it was a good decision to seek that assurance, but he did say that it was of a technical nature only, and his speech has outlined why. Obviously, the Opposition will be in support of this Supplementary Order Paper being referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

It is not in the interest of any member for the provisions to lapse on 1 July. The consequences of that, other than being annoying, would be very disruptive to the transport sector, to ordinary motorists, and to everybody who would be affected.

The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) is before the select committee at the moment. It was introduced by my colleague the Hon Annette King when she was Minister of Transport. It covers a number of areas that the House has long wanted to give consideration to, so I am very pleased that the Minister is not seeking to have this Supplementary Order Paper considered in such a rushed fashion that the bill itself does not get proper consideration. I think the issue in the bill that the Supplementary Order Paper refers to—drug testing of drivers—is something that Parliament needs to consider very carefully, and I know that the select committee is doing that.

Although we could have a major procedural battle about whether the Supplementary Order Paper is within the scope of the bill, and we could be difficult and raise things like that, that is not the nature of this Opposition. The nature of this Opposition, as our leader, the Hon Phil Goff, said, is that where the Government comes up with a good idea, we want to support it. We want to see that action is taken on such a measure.

But where the Government makes terrible mistakes, of course we want to point them out as vigorously as we can. In fact, in the very portfolio we are debating with regard to this Supplementary Order Paper, the transport portfolio, we have seen some big disasters. We have parted company with the Minister and his decision to rip off the people of Auckland with only half a plan for transport, and then to rip off all the people of New Zealand by charging them 6c a litre of petrol to pay for it. Those are areas of difference that we have with the Minister, and we will have to argue those quite strongly.

But it is good to have an example where we can unite with the Minister, even if it is only on an administrative matter. So far, his ability to reach out across the political divide extends only to matters of administration, but I believe that the bridge that the Minister has tried to build will have much more substance as time goes on.

One of the effects of the substantive bill before the committee is a walk-the-line test with regard to drug testing, and those safety issues are covered by the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has referred to. We in the Labour Opposition would like to know whether that test would be extended to people who use the bicycle lane that is now to be the saviour of the New Zealand economy. We want to make sure that this Supplementary Order Paper is not focused on just a narrow transport area. We have heard from the Minister that he seeks to be a visionary in this portfolio. I hope the bicycle lane can be counted among the matters referred to by the House this afternoon. I think it would be a missed opportunity for our country if that was not able to happen, knowing how transformative that project is going to be for the country.

Obviously, most of these matters are very technical. They should not be matters of division, and it is important that the House acts on them before 1 July. So Labour will be supporting the referral of this Supplementary Order Paper to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and we hope that it can report it back with the substantive matters raised in the bill itself, so that the legislation can be passed in due time.

I say to the Minister that while we are in a facilitative mode it might be useful if he briefed the Hon Gerry Brownlee. Although the Minister himself has worked very diligently in order to put forward this Supplementary Order Paper, and he has found a way to give effect to the policy, it would be such a tragedy if he gave up his interest in it after the vote today and thought his work was done. If he relies on the Leader of the House to get the bill back in time, before 30 June, it could be that some more substantial action would be required by Parliament. Although on one occasion we are prepared to cooperate, I think two occasions would be pushing the bipartisan hand of friendship just a little too far, with regard to Mr Brownlee. I say to the Minister that I hope he will take the opportunity to make sure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed on this particular matter.

We will support this motion. I know that one of my colleagues wants to explore some of the other areas in the Supplementary Order Paper a little further than I have had the chance to do. It is certainly something we want to see progress through the House this afternoon, so that it can go off to the select committee to make sure that the consequential effects of our not doing that are not brought to bear on the good people of this country.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : That was quite an interesting speech from the Labour member Darren Hughes. There was a lot of love in his speech about transport. Unfortunately, that love extended to the cycleway issue, but if he had been at the financial review of Land Transport New Zealand, he would have seen that it was noted that the cycleway would be related to the tourism portfolio, not the portfolio of the Minister of Transport. So, unfortunately, the Minister of Transport will not get the glory for the cycleway, and we will miss out on that bipartisan aspect of what has just been going on in the House.

Supplementary Order Paper 10 relates to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). This bill is progressing through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, as the member opposite, Darren Hughes, just noted. This bill has two main provisions. One is in respect of drug testing and the other is in respect of the motor vehicles register, and the bill is progressing at a good pace. The member raised some questions around the issue of drug testing. Those questions will be for us to debate at another time, and we will be going fully through those aspects. There are some quite interesting proposals around drug testing, and the nature of the motor vehicles register can be quite complex, so there will be a lot of debate on those issues. But Supplementary Order Paper 10, which we are looking at today, is really just a timing issue, in the sense that it sets up the dates so that a lot of the more significant rules and regulations that are needed in the transport area can still progress and be in force.

The amendments of the Supplementary Order Paper may seem minor, but their consequences are far from that. They are significant in some areas; for example, they preserve the provisions of the Land Transport Act. That Act has provisions relating to local authority traffic enforcement powers, so preserving that Act is vital to achieving the continuation of those enforcement powers. The Supplementary Order Paper also preserves some traditional portions of the Act by preserving regulations and notices that have effect under the Land Transport Act but made under other legislation. So there is very much a wide effect in the sense that the Supplementary Order Paper goes beyond the Land Transport Act into other legislation that may have a transfer aspect to it.

It also preserves the powers local authorities have in respect of enforcement of special vehicle land offences. That is another area that often does not get a lot of coverage, but it is something that this bill maintains; the change in dates in this bill makes the retention of those powers possible. The last main change is the continuing of the obligation of a court to have regard to the Truck Loading Code for offences in regard to insecure loads, and that is basically a temporary piece of legislation until it can be widened to include other industry codes.

Although the Supplementary Order Paper itself is not grunty in the sense of having any of the major tests or policy in it that one would expect in legislation, it has a very important role aligned with a bill that is coming up that focuses on some bigger areas and some bigger issues—namely around drug testing and the motor vehicles register. The timing issue incorporated into this Supplementary Order Paper means that we can continue that process and be able to have the rules and regulations that are vital for the transport sector to fulfil its role in providing growth and support for our economy.

We look forward to Labour’s support of this Supplementary Order Paper. We are thankful that Labour members found it in themselves to be supportive on this measure. We also look forward to the way that they will work with us on the wider issues in the bill around drug testing and the motor vehicles register. Those are more prominent issues in the public eye, and getting a lot of cross-party support on those issues will be vital to making the passage of that legislation through this House a lot quicker. I do not think there is much disagreement in the public about this legislation; the public see the need for some legislation there and if we can get cross-party support for it in the way this Supplementary Order Paper has had, then that will actually make the job of this Parliament a lot easier, and will mean that the legislation will have a lot more validity in the public eye when it goes to the community later this year—or hopefully even a lot earlier than that if we can get through the bill quite quickly in the select committee.

In summary, this Supplementary Order Paper does not include the major structural changes or policy changes that the bill will incorporate, but through its minor change of dates it preserves significant laws and regulations that are vital in transport enforcement and the transport industry. We are thankful for the support of the other parties on this bill, and we commend it to the House.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : As my colleague Darren Hughes indicated, we will be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. It relates to some important issues that, although of a technical nature, none of us would like to see expire due to time constraints.

As Mr Bennett started to mention, Supplementary Order Paper 10 relates to a very important bill that explores important issues like drug-driving and the protection of personal information held on the motor vehicles register. Just to be clear, though, the Supplementary Order Paper itself proposes measures of a technical nature. We have been through what some of them are; some of them are very important matters like truck loading, local authority traffic enforcement, and enforcement of special vehicle land offences.

Those matters will join the matters being considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on drug-driving and the protection of personal information held on the motor vehicles register. I thought it was worth taking time to mention a bit of information about those two areas, because they are both very significant, and are ones that people in this House should think about. The issues are quite complex, and we are working very hard on them in the select committee; perhaps people might like to think about some guidance to members on these matters. First of all, in the drug-driving area, this bill will make it an offence to drive while impaired by illegal drugs. It will, in fact, create a compulsory roadside impairment test. That impairment test has been demonstrated in the select committee, and I can tell members that it is quite hard to imagine getting through it sober, let alone under the influence of illegal drugs.

But, seriously, the pros of this bill are very important in relation to drug testing. The bill will improve road safety outcomes for all road users by deterring and sanctioning drug-impaired drivers. It is in line with international trends. It will raise awareness among the public about the risks of taking psychoactive drugs before or while driving. It will also reinforce community expectations about the responsibility of drivers not to drive when they are impaired by alcohol and/or drugs. In fact, one of the things the select committee has had evidence on is how the combination of alcohol and drugs leads to far more significant road accidents than either one by itself. Of course, if the matters before the select committee are not put in place, some significant negatives will occur, and that is that we will have to rely on the current provision of “incapable of proper control of vehicle“. That offence has a very high threshold in terms of what is meant by impairment. Many drug-drivers who are unsafe to drive will be able to continue to avoid prosecution, as they are not at the extreme level of impairment that is required for the offence of “incapable”. In that case the status quo would have a very negative impact on road safety.

That is the first part of the bill before the select committee that this Supplementary Order Paper will be joining. The second is in relation to the motor vehicles register. The motor vehicles register is important in relation to improving protection of personal information held on that register. The register is publicly available, and under law any person may obtain the names and addresses of the present and previous owners of a motor vehicle simply by quoting its registration plate number. That information is available over the counter at post shops and other registration agencies, and is, of course, open to abuse. There have been instances of people who feel angry about the behaviour of somebody else on the road getting that information and harassing that person, and of professional car thieves who target high-value vehicles and use the register to find out where that car is kept. So it is a very significant matter, as well.

I am sure that members on both sides of this House will support the general principles of the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). We will be working very hard to deal with those very complex areas, particularly with the drug-testing part.

I will go back to the amendments that were put up today. They are of a technical nature, and we have had assurances of that, as Mr Hughes has already said. They seek to maintain the status quo, effectively. We are supporting this Supplementary Order Paper, but as an Auckland-based MP it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity, as we are talking about transport, to express my opposition to the change in direction in transport policy announced by the National Government.

We have gone from a situation where there is an agreed plan for Auckland transport, with funding secured for all aspects of that plan, via a regional fuel tax, to a situation that means that certain key changes to public transport are now under threat, such as new railway stations, including the railway station in Onehunga, where I am based; integrated ticketing; and new ferry terminals. The Minister provides no reassurance to those who are waiting for those changes—and people are certainly waiting, I can tell members. The people of Onehunga are definitely waiting for their railway station. It is disingenuous and disrespectful to those Aucklanders to say their railway station may be funded by the Auckland Regional Council. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the financial position that that council is in at the moment. The railway station may be funded by the Auckland Regional Council or by the New Zealand Transport Agency. The MP for Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, indicates that the funding is not secure and that projects like the Onehunga railway station will have to bid for that funding. I am not just making this up; I have had that acknowledged by the member.

Onehunga is a very important area. It is seen as an area of Auckland that is a growth node, and an area where perhaps there can be some intensification of housing and further development. It is important that part of that development includes the reopening of the Onehunga branch line. That is well under way, but the problem is that one cannot use a railway line without a station. We need to make sure that this matter is resolved. I can certainly assure this House that there will be very, very many angry residents if this important part of transport infrastructure for the people of Onehunga falls over because of the actions of this National Government.

Although members on this side of the House will support this Supplementary Order Paper and will work hard in the select committee on the main bill, I tell members that in relation to other directions of transport policy, we will be trying to make sure that the Government does fund those things that the people of Auckland have long been waiting for, and that it is pressured by the people of Auckland to do so.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : I had not been planning to take a call in this debate on Supplementary Order Paper 10 in the name of Steven Joyce, which is an amendment to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). I can tell members that the ACT Party will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper, but I take this opportunity to comment on the previous speech by Carol Beaumont, the Labour member.

She used her opportunity to speak on this particular Supplementary Order Paper to talk about National’s plans for public transport in Auckland. She said that the Government had gone away from an agreed plan for regional funding. She seemed to be criticising the announcements that Minister Joyce made last week. I say that I totally support—as does the ACT Party—the statements of Mr Joyce. Mr Joyce has given this country categorical assurance that National has identified seven major roads of national significance and is looking to provide funding on a national basis to put those roads through.

Let us look at public transport. In my speech on this issue just 2 days ago I gave credit to Labour for the money that had been spent on roading in recent years—in the last 3 or 4 years. The Labour Government was a bit slow to get going in 2000 and 2001, but it certainly spent up big time in the last 3 or 4 years. One of the roads it spent up on was the public busway on the North Shore. It is a dedicated two-lane road for buses to run from Albany to Northcote and then to merge with the Northern Motorway across the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The road was originally designed to take high-occupancy vehicles—two or three people travelling in a car—thereby encouraging people to car pool, but it is not being used to its full purpose. Why is that? The reason is that there is a bottleneck. The road is used only by buses, which come along every 2 or 3 minutes on a dedicated two-lane road that is designed to be used by two or three people travelling in a car. The reason it is not being used to its full potential is that there is a bottleneck at Victoria Park where the road narrows from eight lanes down to four. One of the roads that Mr Joyce has committed to funding is that viaduct over—or tunnel under, as it may be—Victoria Park. One of the things he has done is say that this road is of national significance. We will build that road, and it will enable the bus lane—the high-occupancy lane the previous Labour Government spent $350 million building—to be used to its full potential.

I take this opportunity to point out to the member Carol Beaumont that this National Government is proposing many things. It is carrying on and extending the spending on national roads. I remind the member once again that only 8 percent of the New Zealand public use public transport. An overwhelming number of people use the roads, and we need to provide more roads and make greater use of buses in order to maximise the use of our public transport system. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I rise in support of the Government’s motion relating to the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4). It is quite surprising how wide ranging some of these debates have become on what started as a rather technical and minor amendment.

Nevertheless, the amendment is very important as it preserves some aspects of the Land Transport Act and the Transport Act, so I very strongly support it.

The Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 4) has been my first opportunity as a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and as a new MP to participate in the very important democratic process of the consideration of submissions. Although this bill was introduced in, I believe, 2007 and certainly the submissions process was closed well before the election, it is taxing the committee to some degree. Over the last fortnight the select committee has not always seen eye to eye on one or two particular issues, but I think fellow members and particularly new members of the committee will agree that at least in relation to this bill, there has been very strong, positive, and robust consideration of what on the face of it is pretty straightforward legislation. This will ensure and enhance the safety of road users and also the privacy of the information held by Land Transport New Zealand.

As we dive into the detail—and, as we know, the devil is in the detail—some of the issues have become quite a bit more complex, particularly around the legal issue of driving while impaired by illegal substances. It is not for me to reveal the select committee consideration, because it is not completed, so I will not. I assure the House that when the committee reports back, it will be with a very considered opinion and the appropriate amendments. I can share with the House that I was the first, and I hope the only, member to undergo the drug impairment test—unlike the evidential alcohol test that some of my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber have, historically, gone through. I am pleased to report that I passed the test and I am very confident that anybody who has been under the influence of illegal substances would have a great deal of difficulty in doing so. In fact, the odd tired and stressed MP might have difficulty passing the test, even if he or she were not under the influence of narcotic substances.

However, the breadth of the debate now extends to this Government’s policies in respect of Auckland transport issues, and it behoves me to make a few comments about them. I assure members that this Government is very concerned about, and has a robust plan to improve, Auckland’s transport, including the transport hub. If anybody had cause for grievance, it might—I repeat might—be the people who do not live in Auckland, thanks to the headless chook approach of the member for Dunedin South, Clare Curran. In a recent press release, she certainly scared the horses in relation to regional transport impacts as a consequence of this Government’s response to the Auckland issue. I assure both that member and the good people of Dunedin that they need not worry one bit. They are very reasonable people—

Grant Robertson: They elect Labour members.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Not for long.

Grant Robertson: Oh, no!

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Always the optimist. Those people understand that the regional transport plan will enhance the road transport infrastructure not only of Auckland but also of the rest of the country, including the great city of Dunedin.

I support this amendment. I look forward to it being included in the bill so the select committee can robustly consider it and report back to the House.

• Motion agreed to.