KEY POINTS:
Auckland law professor Michael Taggart thundered away in the Herald on Wednesday that if the Public Transport Management Bill was passed in its present form, it "could have a serious impact on bus services in the Auckland region".
Here's hoping it does, because that's the point of the legislation. My only regret is it doesn't go far enough.
Professor Taggart doesn't quite see it that way, which is not surprising considering his message of gloom was submitted by public relations guru Cedric Allan, on behalf of Auckland's main passenger bus operator, NZ Bus.
The author is obviously not a regular user of public transport, otherwise he would have appreciated the futility of trying to scare users with the claim the bill "will remove many of the commercial incentives to provide efficient services and will put bus services under pervasive bureaucratic control".
As a customer of one of the commercial routes he's trying to defend, I can testify they are not exactly the beacons of free enterprise excellence he is trying to make out. The erratic time-keeping and no-shows that occur under the existing service are neither something to praise, nor to retain.
He also mutters darkly that "in the longer term the proposal could lay the foundation for nationalisation of bus services", but then admits that such a move "is not proposed". So why stir the pot unnecessarily?
Mind you, I see nothing wrong with returning Auckland public transport system to community control. The bureaucrats that the professor frets about, surely can't do a worse job than the existing "privatised" set-up which was imposed on Aucklanders by the new right ideologues who controlled Parliament 15 years ago.
Since then this region has experienced the worst bus patronage growth of any city in either Australia or New Zealand, down 34 per cent relative to population. This year, private passenger transport operators will pocket nearly $100 million in public subsidies. Over the next decade ratepayers and taxpayers will pay $1.4 billion subsidising bus and ferry services. Add to that the billions of public funds going into upgrading rail infrastructure, the northern busway, and assorted bus and train stations, and you have to ask, why shouldn't those who are funding the system be calling the tune?
Since 2004, subsidies to private bus operators have increased 89 per cent but patronage only went up just 1.2 per cent. No wonder an exasperated Auckland Regional Council chairman, Mike Lee, despaired recently that pouring ever-growing subsidies into the pockets of Professor Taggart's client was "like pumping blood into the patient and getting the odd twitch".
The existing system allows private operators to cherrypick the most popular routes and time slots for themselves, then leaves the community to try to cobble together a service for the 60 per cent of Auckland the privateers consider non-profitable. The private operators then demand a public subsidy to serve these areas, but refuse to allow their books to be inspected to prove they're not gouging the system. Rivalry between operators continues to stymie attempts to introduce an integrated ticketing system - regarded as normal in most civilised cities.
Short of restoring full community ownership, the ARC asked the Government to introduce a fully contracted system. That would have meant the community designing an integrated passenger transport network, linking trains, buses and ferries, then contracting private operators to provide a service, at a negotiated price. Not only would this ensure an integrated service designed for the benefit of the passengers and not the private operators, it would also ensure transparency in pricing.
Unfortunately, the Government, claiming it was hog-tied by reluctant coalition partners, produced a very watered down version of this ideal in its bill. Private operators will still be able to hide their books when demanding subsidies. They will still be able to run commercial services in competition with routes on the integrated network plan. Better than nothing though.
Professor Taggart also has a bee in his bonnet about the trend towards regulation which he regards as "soft law". He's written and spoken about it before, worrying that delegating powers to regional government raises "extremely serious issues of policy and constitutional law". He sees the bill as part of this drift.
Standing at the bus stop waiting for a lost bus, such niceties rather pass me by. I'm too busy debating the merits of a constitutional walk home instead.
