The closest thing to reason in Parliament. His blood was boiling it was a great watch.

Rodney's speech from the third reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill.

23RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): The ACT party rises to oppose this bill and we oppose it for two fundamental reasons. The first is contained in the title, which states that it is the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. We would be a lot more comfortable voting for this bill if we thought there was some management for the land transport sector of New Zealand but clearly what we have seen over the past few days demonstrates that there is none. The second reason why we oppose this bill is the concept of a regional tax. Again, if Government was lean and efficient and taxed us very, very little, we could understand, maybe, an additional tax to go into the roads. But when we see Government increasing its expenditure from $34 billion to $61 billion in 10 years that is an 80 percent increase. And then it comes along and says it has not enough money for roads and needs a bit more tax. We say “Hang on, what about all the money that you have already taken and have been spending.” When we see a Government that can gaily—and I use that word in its old-fashioned sense—come along and say “Over the next 5 years we’ve got $1.5 billion to spend, propping up rail, and by the way we need a regional tax to fund new roads.”, we start wondering what the priorities of the Government are. We cannot deal with land transport in New Zealand until we get some principles right and just piling up an extra tax is not actually addressing the principles. Let me explain what I mean. We have had the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, stand up in this House and say the reason for buying back rail and putting in—what is it? —$400 for every man, woman, and child in the country, or $2,000 for a family of five, into rail is because it is a sustainable business. That is where the fundamental principles are wrong because a business cannot be sustainable if it cannot cover its costs. It cannot be environmentally friendly if it cannot cover its costs; that has to be a necessary condition to be environmentally sustainable. What rail is doing is sucking in more resources than it is creating, by definition, because the cost of rail exceeds the return. I will allow that it is quite possible to have a business that is profitable and not environmentally friendly—that is possible—but there cannot be a business that is environmentally friendly, a loser, and costing resources. Rail is wasting New Zealand’s resources; it is wasting our environment, it is wasting our labour, it is wasting our capital, and it is wasting our time. We have the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, coming in here and proudly saying “Look at us, aren’t we wonderful because we are propping up this business that is somehow sustainable.” Well, it is not. Here is another principle that we have got wrong.

Sue Kedgley: Should we rip up the railway lines, Rodney?

RODNEY HIDE: Sue Kedgley from the Greens asks whether we should rip up the railway lines. If they consume more resources than they create, yes, of course we should. We should not be going around pouring our resources into, say, a horse and cart or into rail— [Fucking bang on Rodney]

Sue Kedgley: What about the cost of roads?

RODNEY HIDE: I am coming to the cost of roads, I say to Sue Kedgley, if she holds her horse [haha]. The idea that we run along and prop up a failing business and think that is environmentally sustainable is, frankly, nuts! Here is another principle: it is not smart in a land transport management sense to give $700 million-odd to an Australian company and think that is a smart deal and to let it keep the largest trucking company in New Zealand for free. That is not a smart deal, and yet we have done that as though it is somehow wonderful now that we own the trains. So I disagree with all those principles that we have seen displayed here. Here is the next one. Yes, we should have public transport, but let us not make it a bottomless pit that poor taxpayers have to pour into without any return. Let us have public transport that is actually cost efficient. Let us help people on a low income to get around the city and around the country, but let us not apply subsidies just indiscriminately like we are doing here—no one now knows what things cost. Let us also admit that roads are a great way of getting around. They are great when we are in a car, they are great when we are in a truck, and they are great when we are in a bus. Actually, rail is a horrible way of getting around because one cannot get a bus, one cannot get in one’s car, one cannot get a truck, the trains do not go where one wants, and they do not go when one wants to go, and they do not end up at one’s house. RODNEY HIDE50That is why rail is a difficult proposition in New Zealand.

Sue Kedgley: Can’t you walk?

RODNEY HIDERODNEY HIDE50: I am quite happy to walk along, of course. But it is very hard to walk from, say, Auckland to Hamilton.

Bob Clarkson: Go on your pushbike.[Fuck, I can't believe the cheek of these comments!]

RODNEY HIDE: It is very hard to actually ride a bike from Auckland to Hamilton; and actually it is quite hard to catch the train from Auckland to Hamilton, no matter how much money we put in. The best way to get from Auckland to Hamilton is to take a bus or a car, or to drive a truck.[By fucking Road!]

Bob Clarkson: Horse?

RODNEY HIDE: Well, maybe if we followed the Greens’ policy we would all be in a horse and buggy, and be covered in pollution[horse shit] as a consequence. So roads are a good idea. It may well be that the price of oil continues to climb—who knows? The great thing about living in a capitalist world with entrepreneurship and invention is that, I think, we will be driving around in the future in electric cars. They will not be invented by Governments; they will not be invented by committees. Wasting billions of dollars on rail does not help us one jot. I just wish we would reflect a bit more on the ability of entrepreneurs and of New Zealanders to make the right decisions, being confronted with the proper costs. [Interruption] I also wish we would not sit in Parliament like Judith Tizard, who I notice quite happily drives around in her new BMW and then lectures the rest of us about climate change. I think if we did that a bit less we would actually get on a lot better. So here is what we need to do. We need to reform the *Resource Management Act so that roading projects can go ahead. We need to allow the private sector to invest in roads and charge tolls. We need to consider user-pays—if one uses a road, particularly at times of congestion, one actually has to pay the cost. If we did that then we could afford a decent roading network. Let us stop just taxing people—the opposite of user-pays—which is what we do now. We force non-users to pay. That is unfair, wrong, and inefficient, and it wastes resources—something that I would think our environmentalist friends should be concerned about. Thank you.