Estimates Debate — Vote Transport

During the select committee examination of the transport estimates, it was encouraging to hear the Minister acknowledge the importance of what may be seen by some to be fringe transport modes. The Minister made the point that when one takes into account the other threats to human health, then cycling, walking, catching the bus, and all those other means of transport take on a different look. I will quote his words, because I found them particularly encouraging: “The road toll also includes the indirect toll that my predecessor gave some publicity to when he was the Minister and now, probably, even though it is only a statistic, larger than the road toll from death by accidents, the effect on human health of transport is material. If we start thinking about human health and safety, that means that Transfund is going to have to pay attention to emission levels.”

He referred to cycling as being something for which the Greens get laughed at, but when one takes into account the type 2 diabetes epidemic, it has a different focus. We get a glimmering of the holistic thinking that says, in this area, that the Government’s claim to a whole-of-Government approach is more than lip service. However, the Minister acknowledged that there are gaps in the ministry’s expertise. When I examine the transport estimates and Transfund’s spending programme, I see little evidence that the gaps are likely to be filled in the near future.

So where are the gaps? The Land Transport Management Act clearly states that we have to look at demand management. The Minister acknowledges the need to change the way New Zealanders get themselves and their products around. We applaud the construction of dedicated cycle and pedestrian ways in towns and cities around the country, and the improvement in public transport services in some parts of the country and the restoration of rail in others. While some are doing well, others are much less successful.

I have to ask why, when Wellington has 25 percent, or $25 million, of its Transfund funding directed at public transport, the top of the South Island—my region—with approximately a quarter of the population, devotes 0.7 percent, or $200,000, of its allocation to public transport. Why do so few communities have well-developed cycle strategies and cycleway construction programmes? The programmes give the amount of $100,000 over and over, but have nothing down about where that money will be spent. Why is 80.5 percent of the national land transport programme funding still devoted to roads and a mere 0.3 percent to research, and why is most of that devoted to roads and motor vehicles, and so little to finding ways to persuade more of us to choose travel options that are less likely to overheat the planet or rush to use my grandchildren’s share of this planet’s fossil fuels? There is a gap in the country’s expertise, and it is in the area of behaviour change.

To its credit, the Government has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. It has acknowledged the need to play our part in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It has recognised that transport solutions need to be sustainable and to not contribute to the diseases of inactivity, obesity, and air pollution. To date it has done little to contribute to reducing our dependence on the motorcar, cool the planet, persuade us to live closer to where we need to be, or choose more appropriate modes of transport for our trips around.

More disappointing, however, is the Government’s reluctance to insist on the research or the expertise necessary to understand the mechanisms of change to provide local authorities with the kind of advice that cities like mine so clearly need if they are to pursue a sustainable transport future. I am aware that when Transfund decides what money to hand out, it decides on the basis of regional land transport strategies, and those regional land transport strategies are clearly made by people who do not have the expertise, or even any notion half the time, of the kind of transport options that they ought to be pursuing. It is not reasonable to expect Nelson—

Vote agreed to.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.