Last night the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill passed on it’s third reading, which means that it is set to become law soon.
The Land Transport Management Act dates from 2003 and it set up the New Zealand Transport Agency and established the rules under which it operates in order to achieve “an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system”.
The LTM Amendment Bill changes a number of aspects of the Act. For starters the purpose of the Act is now to “contribute to an effective, efficient, and safe land transport system in the public interest.” Gone are the sustainability, affordability and integration aims.
Back in October we covered this and other changes in this post. At the time it looked like the major concerns were the reduced influence of the Regional Land Transport Committees around the country, the repealing of the legislation that enabled a regional fuel tax and the provisions that enabled the NZTA to borrow hundreds of millions from the Crown for its roading projects. (There is one part of the Bill that is quite good – the introduction of PTOM to hopefully get better value from public transport operators.)
But the sting in the tail for Auckland now appears to be the repealing of a section of the Auckland Supercity legislation. Brian Rudman described the effect as this:
The new law strips Auckland councillors of their power to decide how the $459.5 million of ratepayers’ money – 33 per cent of total rates income – spent on transport each year is targeted. Instead, the final arbiter will be the unelected board of Auckland Transport, which will have to follow the Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport
The repealed clause of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 is highlighted below.
The rationale for this change is covered on pages 158 – 160 of this report from the Ministry of Transport. Acknowledging Auckland Council’s concerns, the MOT had this to say:
Auckland Council considers that the proposed consequential amendment to the purpose of Auckland Transport, within section 39 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, would misalign the transport functions of Auckland Transport and the democratic accountability of Auckland Council and the overarching Auckland (Spatial) Plan.
Particular reference was made in the presentation to the committee to section 15(1)(ab) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 which gives the Auckland Council responsibility for setting the transport objectives for the region.
But the MOT dismiss this with:
This, however, leaves the question of Auckland Council’s role. That role is framed in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and does not need to be duplicated in the Act:
- under the spatial plan provisions set out in Section 79 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 Auckland Council is charged with setting “a strategic direction for Auckland and its communities that integrates social, economic, environmental, and cultural objectives”
- Auckland Council also controls the local transport funding needed to deliver the regional land transport network. Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan sets out Auckland Council’s policies and plans over at least a 10 year period
- under section 92 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 Auckland Transport must give effect to the Long Term Plan and act consistently with the relevant aspects of any other plan or strategy of the Council to the extent specified in writing by the governing body of the Council
- additionally, section 91 requires that Auckland Transport include in its statement of intent a narrative on how the organisation will contribute to the Council’s and, where appropriate, the Government’s objectives and priorities for Auckland.
There is, however, one duplicate reference to transport objectives. Section 15(1)(cb) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 refers to Auckland Council’s functions including setting the transport objectives for the region, while the Regional Land Transport Plan prepared by Auckland Council sets out the objectives, policies and measures for the region. Officials recommend that the Auckland Council’s provision be repealed.
It seems strange that on the one hand MOT say Auckland Council are tasked with writing the Regional Land Transport Plan, yet on the other hand Auckland Council has no decision making for transport objectives. But actually, having a closer look at the relevant section of the Act, it is Auckland Transport (who are governed by a Board), not Auckland Council (who are governed by a democratically elected Council) that is tasked with preparing the Regional Land Transport Plan (every six years now under the Bill). The MOT are clearly wrong in stating that it is the Auckland Council’s responsibility to prepare the Regional Land Transport Plan.
The effect of this remains to be seen. “Governing Body” here refers to the elected members of the Auckland Council, including the Mayor. Does this now mean that Len Brown no longer has a say on what transport projects proceed and which ones do not? Has Len’s campaign for the CRL been neutered by this legislation? Do Councillors now effectively become lobbyists to Auckland Transport’s Board to get their own local transport issues into the plan? What becomes of Auckland Council’s Transport Committee? Does it now pack up its bags?
Perhaps this is central Government’s bid to stop the work of the Consensus Building Group (of which I am a member). The objective of the group is to look at alternative funding mechanisms for transport, so under this change it looks as if the work of the group now falls outside of Auckland Council’s responsibility.
But does this change amount to taxation without representation? Accountability for the expenditure of 33% of the rates budget now falls with Auckland Transport, governed by a Board and not Auckland Council. But presumably Auckland Council still has the power to withhold ratepayer funds when Auckland Transport comes cap in hand for more money, as it did for the Hop project? Does the passing of the Bill now mean that the Finance and Strategy Committee has no say in how transport funds are spent?
This is a confusing state of affairs. What are the MOT and the Government thinking? How will this work in the real world, away from the rarefied atmosphere of MOT headquarters? (For the record, National, ACT and United Future were the three parties that supported this bill, all others were opposed.)
Processing...
Under the new legislation council’s RLTS is replaced by the RLT programme prepared by the Auckland Transport board. So it seems MoT fucked this up.
More rampant incompetence in ministries… could it be that these apparatchiks are messing up under pressure to please unreasonable Ministerial agendas?
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2013/06/05/gordon-campbell-on-the-latest-novopay-revelations/
‘Backroom’ staff do policy, etc. Getting rid of them has predictable consequences.
Its more complicated than that. The current RLTS in use is the 2010 one made by the ARC. This seems to have been replaced by the RLTP.
I don’t mind AT preparing these documents, just as long as their is strict council (professional and elected) oversight to set objectives, question things, and sign it off.
Of course worry is council presented with fait acompli, as happened with the ITP, with not enough resources to question some of the craziness. Good to see that climate change report in the transport committee minutes, which professionally and politely tears ITP to shreds regarding its climate change effects.
What a mess. In any case the result will probably be more control in Wellington, which is what the government wants (and the MOT would likely never object to…)
BTW FYI the ACT party also voted for the bill, IIRC from last night the vote was 61-58.
Thanks, have updated.
Technicality, but can United Future support things still or is it Dunne?
Would love to see Act’s justification for Supporting taxation without representation…
So are there any bush lawyers out there who can tell us if Peter Dunne’s vote actually counted last night? Was a confidence and supply agreement signed between National and United Future, or National and Peter Dunne?
Peter Dunne was elected to Parliament to represent the interests of the people of Ohariu. Of course his vote continues to count.
Last night’s vote wasn’t a confidence vote or a supply vote and it is unlikely there will be such a vote until next year’s budget.
In a similar way I guess John Banks represents the interests of Epsom. He should be reminded of his vote at election time.
Ah, now there you raise an interesting point. Should Dunne still hold his ministerial portfolio since that really is a political role held on behalf of United Future’s party voters rather than electorate voters?
No it isn’t. It is a role held on behalf of all NZers, he is the minister, he remains the minister.
The vote taken last night did include the de-registered United Future called as “United Future” (1 vote in favour) – contrast with Brendan Horan’s vote which was called individually as “Brendan Horan” (one vote opposed). The video of the vote being taken is here. Very interested to find out whether the vote is valid, although sadly without it, it would still pass.
What are the implications if we get a Labour-Green government next election? Was this even thought through, or were the parties involved too excited to be on board the spite train?
Well I assume a whole lot of senior MoT Sir Humphreys discovering that their new minister ‘has no confidence in them’, and are therefore out in the cold night of the free market. Either that or they have been cleverly finding time to draft much more sane versions of the acts and amendments they’ve been butchering under this regime and are able to whip them out while convincingly tut-tutting about the truly awful things they had to do under the last two ministers…..
In other words these will surely change back to being more balanced, and in the meantime the new government will have a free hand to ‘guide’ AT in the completely opposite direction from this one. Hardly ideal is it? Transport has never been as politicised as it is under this government.
That’s not the issue here – the point is that most people are more likely to vote on the issue of transport in local body elections – not general (national) elections, but more importantly, a lot of transport funding comes out of your council rates (whether paid directly by you, or on your behalf by landlord/caregiver) rather than your taxes.
The principle being violated here is “no taxation without representation” (which was one of the key factors that lead to the American war of independence!) – you pay rates, about half your rates become transport funding, but with this law change, the council you both elect and pay your rates to has no say on how that money is spent, instead Wellington calls the shots as to what that transport funding is spent on.
Whether central government is left or right wing doesn’t matter – it should be local or regional councils who make those decisions.
(context: that was in reply to Nic, I didn’t see Patrick’s post when writing it)
I think some of these fears of lack of local control are unfounded.
National MP Nick Smith, in working to the “Mackenzie agreement” made it clear the process should ”be driven by local people”. He promised government funding, providing solutions were supported by local people and warned he would not listen to ”extremist positions” from either environmental groups or developers wanting to influence people. (some people were opposed to high intensity dairy farming due to effluent and other environmental concerns)
This was supported by a local woman Jacqui Dean who is chairwoman of the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust. ( set up in 2011)
For details see http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-otago/256417/goodwill-key-mackenzie-future
Surely if this consideration is given to locals in rural South Island, Auckland’s locals concerns will also be addressed.
Personally I’d prefer it if local control, representation and the need to consult was legislated, rather than relying on the goodwill of Nick Smith and whatever brain explosion the current Government comes up with next.
True Cameron. Also local woman Jacqui Dean could be biased to Government views as as she is the local National MP and is a member of the Local Government & Environment Select Committee and a member in the BlueGreens, National’s environment policy advisory team.
Well he may offer calming words to the masses in reality prioritisation of the NLTF is clearly prioritised for what is perceived to be national benefit for what the national government wants. Euphemistically this is called strategic fit. Alignment with government aspirations equals high strategic fit. Similarly an activity that will be effective in delivering what the government wants. Will also get a high effectiveness. And here is the kicker because most of the RONs don’t stack up – even a low bc will get funded if it is a favoured project. Torbayite this is the final stacking up of a series of legislative meddling that gives precedence because government knows what’s best.
People full of fear seek to control others.
time to shift this legislation out of the “poorly considered” category and place it in the “Bad ass honey badger” box.
Judith Collins replied to a tweet asking her if central government should intervene in the Hamilton water fluoridation issue. She tweeted that she thinks it’s something voters should or will overrule by way of the next local body elections instead. This is as it should be – local representation on local issues, including both water fluoridation and intra-city transport. Now if only we can have some consistency…
How was the large public transport work like double tracking the western line under Labour get funded? From NZTA ?
No from the consolidated fund I’m pretty sure.
Yes from the consolidated fund when half the petrol tax was going into the consolidated fund. Not as transparent as paying the money through the NLTF but probably more effective.
I contacted Nikki Kaye about this – her response is attached, I hope anyone who still think she gives a rats ass about PT in Auckland finally realises he’s a pro-roads Nat through and through.
Thank you for your email regarding the Land Transport Amendment Act, and your concerns around transport planning and funding.
The key aim of this legislation is to simplify the way transport projects are planned, funded and undertaken – eliminating duplication and better aligning regional and nationwide strategies. Building a better transport system is vital in ensuring our economy can grow, and create more jobs.
We all agree Auckland is the powerhouse of our economy and efficient transport systems are vital in unlocking the city’s potential. The Government is investing approximately $1 billion each year in Auckland’s transport system or approximately 40 per cent of total government funding for land transport. This is up from around $300 million per annum a decade ago.
Changes in the Act will help us simplify and modernise New Zealand’s transport system so that it is efficient, cost effective, and fair for all users.
I would like to thank you for taking the time to write and outline your views. We do appreciate your feedback.
Yours sincerely,
Jacinda Thorn
Issues Assistant to Hon Nikki Kaye|MP for Auckland Central
04 8178346|www.nikkikaye.co.nz