Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill

I appreciate the chance to take a call on the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill, and I am pleased that Labour is supporting the bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimons on her bill and I acknowledge how frustrating it must have been to have the bill stuck on the Order Paper since November 2007. I sympathise with that position somewhat. I went through a similarly lengthy process with my own bill, only to have it fall at the third hurdle when National failed to give political support in the Committee stage to a $15 an hour minimum wage.

Labour supports this bill because we are seriously concerned about the Government’s funding direction away from an integrated, multimodal approach that includes a significant role for public transport. The risk that that direction poses to important projects and priorities such as the electrification of Auckland rail, integrated ticketing, and walking and cycling facilities is very worrying—particularly for Auckland. I believe that National has set public transport back, but not only in Auckland. We want to ensure that by supporting the bill the debate is kept alive. We know that people support public transport because it is transport that backs people rather than penalises them. As an Aucklander I know that billions of dollars more spent on roading, as proposed by National, will not solve the problem. We cannot keep on building more and more roads and motorways, and filling them up. There is a better plan: investing in public transport.

We had the ludicrous situation recently whereby cyclists and walkers spent endless efforts to get agreement from the Government to walk across Auckland Harbour Bridge in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the bridge. It is our bridge. One would think that people would be able to walk and cycle across it just once. They could not get the Government to agree to that, and inevitably the people who gathered to politely ask whether they could walk or cycle across the bridge on that special day lost patience and simply did it. The only action we saw from the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Government on the 50th anniversary of the Auckland Harbour Bridge was a conference. They hosted a conference with the theme “Bridges Linking Communities” to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the bridge. I am certain very important things were talked about there, but the most important question was left unanswered: how will the lack of investment in public transport, cycleways, and walkways help link communities? It was left to Labour to organise the only other public event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Harbour Bridge. It was left to Labour to hold a tribute for the three workers who died building the bridge and for the thousands of workers who have worked on the bridge to maintain it and paint it ever since.

Why does the National Government believe that the only good transport spending is money spent on roads? Why is it so hard for the Minister of Transport to get his head around 21st century thinking? John Key thinks cycling is good, but only as long as it is on his national cycleway. John Key thinks party central for the Rugby World Cup in Auckland in 2011 is good, as long as no one expects integrated ticketing to get around Auckland. When it comes to cycling, walking, and public transport, we are now in no man’s territory. This Government thinks roads are the only way to solve transport congestion in the future. We are going backwards, yet Auckland public transport patronage has never been higher. The Northern Busway has been a runaway success.

I am interested to hear whether the member for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, makes a comment. I would like to know what she has done since the election about integrated ticketing. She might be able to tell us. She promised to untangle what she then called the alphabet soup of transport funding. Nikki Kaye told the electorate of Auckland Central before the last election that a transport smart card would be a high priority for her as an MP for Auckland. She said she would be knocking on doors to hurry things up. Well, did she knock on the door of Minister Steven Joyce? I suspect that if she had there was no answer, he was not listening, and no one was home when she called. I feel some sympathy for that member, like Melissa Lee, because when it comes to National members listening to their backbench MPs, there is silence. It is a very difficult lesson for those MPs.

The bill is important to keep debate alive and to keep hope alive for the sensible people of New Zealand, and particularly those in Auckland who know that a viable, well-supported and funded public transport system is an important part of our transport network. They know it is an important part of future productivity and they know that in this era we need to seek new solutions, not the old National remedies of the past. Thank you.

I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to alter the funding priorities of the National Land Transport Fund over time so that after 5 years funds are allocated mainly to travel demand management and infrastructure, and to services supporting transport modes other than the private motor vehicle. National will be opposing this bill. This Government supports public transport and a modal shift over time, but we also recognise that fewer than 6 percent of New Zealanders actually use it on a regular basis. The facts are that around 70 percent of all freight in New Zealand goes by road, and about 84 percent of people go to work by car, truck, or motorbike. We need good roads in order to grow and compete.

Our State highways represent 11 percent of our roading network but they cater for around 50 percent of traffic. Large chunks of our roading network are clogged with bottlenecks and delays, inevitably leading to cost escalations that stifle economic growth. Accordingly, the Government will invest an extra $1 billion in the State highway network over the next 3 years with the release of its revised Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. Funding for State highway construction has significantly increased on levels indicated in the previous Government policy statement to 35 percent of the National Land Transport Fund, with over $1 billion of additional investment going into the network over the next 3 years. The National Land Transport Fund will provide around $10.7 billion over 10 years for investment in State highways, reflecting the importance of the network to New Zealanders. We have announced roads of national significance: Pūhoi to Wellsford, completion of the Auckland western ring route, the Auckland - Victoria Park bottleneck, the Waikato Expressway, the Tauranga eastern corridor, the Wellington northern corridor from Levin to Wellington on State Highway 1, and Christchurch motorway projects.

We have realigned the transport budget to reflect the realities of how New Zealanders get around. The changes on the scale proposed by the Greens would result in a remarkable decrease of expenditure on the construction and maintenance of State highways and local roads. New Zealand needs to invest in infrastructure such as roading that will lift the country’s productivity and provide an economic stimulus. Such a reduction would also result in no new roading projects going ahead, such as the Kōpū Bridge. Importantly, it would also severely restrict the New Zealand Transport Agency’s ability to progress safety enhancements on our roads. The result would be that local authorities would have to increase rates or cancel other projects in order to continue local road maintenance, or face roads falling into disrepair.

During the current global recession, this bill would result in our goods not being able to reach market or people not being able to reach their workplaces. Since the bill’s drafting, the concept of a Government policy statement has been introduced. It directs how the amount of Government spending is divided across the various transport categories. We are replacing Labour’s expensive and inefficient regional fuel taxes with smaller, nationwide increases in excise tax that will go towards transport projects around the country. We are investing in rail and jobs for New Zealanders with $39.2 million to upgrade passenger carriages for Tranz Scenic routes, and that work is being done at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin. Another $75 million is being spent on 20 locomotives being built in China. A major upgrade of the Auckland rail network includes double tracking and electrification involving $1.6 billion, while we are providing more than $258 million for the Wellington commuter network. The Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, is looking at whether a public-private partnership could be used to fund the purchase of new rolling stock required for the electrification of Auckland’s rail network. This Government is serious about getting our country moving. Thank you.

When I travel the roads down south, it would be rare to see one of those energy-efficient, space-saving wonders like the Honda Jazz or a Toyota hybrid. That is not to say that the constituents of Te Tai Tonga would not support cars that are fuel efficient and environmentally friendly; it is just the reality that smarter cars cost more. The writing is on the wall that vulnerable communities will become even more threatened as oil gets more expensive. The current prediction from the New Zealand Energy Strategy is that by 2020 only 5 percent of new car sales will be electric. That is, after all, only a decade away. As the technology advances, it is likely that the numbers of new car sales that will be electric will rise rapidly to 60 percent by 2040. But members can bet their last dollar that it will not be our whānau driving away in these flash vehicles, no matter how much we believe in energy efficiency.

We had a good look at this bill to see whether there were any options the Māori Party could support in the pathway to sustainable transport. The proposition in this bill is to increase the amount of investment from the National Land Transport Fund to be spent on sustainable transport options rather than on roading. I want to be clear that the Māori Party is very supportive of the development of public transport options to respond to the dual challenges of peak oil and climate change. In the medium to long term, public transport will benefit lower-income earners by providing affordable transport as petrol costs continue to increase. But we have to be real about these options. There are not a lot of commuter trains between Murupara and Whakatāne, between Ahipara and Kaitāia, or between Hokitika and the Haast. In fact, it is a bit of a push to find a good bus service in the electorates that we in the Māori Party serve. The energy-efficient trams and underground trains in Ontario are a long way from our situation here.

Aotearoa is characterised by having a high level of car ownership; a high proportion of used imported vehicles; a trend towards importing older, larger vehicles; low use of public transport; and a limited rail network. This transport profile is not sustainable. With peak oil upon us, there is an urgent need to prepare for ongoing oil price increases and a future downturn in availability, by providing people with affordable alternatives to private motorcars. Our policy has always been that we will support improved public transport in order to reduce carbon emissions and reduce the nation’s dependency on oil in the face of peak oil production. Transport emissions currently represent around half of the emissions from the energy sector, and are growing at an unsustainable rate. Bold action is required.

This bill falls into that long-term plan for transport spending to focus on sustainable and affordable alternatives. The bill also requires the Minister of Transport to report annually on the performance of the Act, including its operation in relation to the goal of a safe, integrated, responsive, and sustainable land transport system. This is an important goal: to be able to measure progress as it occurs. Simply by making the commitment that the Minister of Transport will monitor, review, and report annually on the state of land transport in New Zealand, we have made an important first step to improving the operations of our public transport system. We need to develop strategies to invest in a public transport system that is frequent, reliable, and inexpensive for users. Ideally, we must be able to investigate the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles to lease or sell to low-income earners at prices they can afford.

A final point in favour of this bill is that we are aware that the labour intensity of public transport is higher than for roading, so we reiterate the vital need to consider ways in which Māori employment strategies can be introduced in association with any investment in new infrastructure. We end with the final word in the letter from the member sponsoring this bill: the outcome is what is important. We need to become energy literate to properly evaluate energy options. We need to lessen our dependence on imported oil, and in doing that we need to invest in sustainable transport options, services, infrastructure, and education. There is a lot to be done, so we had better start now. We therefore declare our support for this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

It is my privilege to support the adoption of the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill, initiated by my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons. The principal aim of this bill is to alter the funding priorities of the National Land Transport Fund away from private transport and on to public transport. The transport programme of this new and, perhaps mercifully, interim Government allocates a disproportionate amount of public funding to modes of transport that, palpably, are not sustainable. This is in an era when even the National Party acknowledges that sustainability is the imperative of our time. The Government’s programme equates to six times more funding for maintaining and growing the road network than for all the alternatives combined.

Our legislation would require that the National Land Transport Fund be spent mainly on travel demand management and also on infrastructure and services that support modes of transport other than the increasingly ubiquitous, yet increasingly troubled, private motor vehicle. It would require in its first year that 20 percent of the fund be spent on public transport operations and infrastructure, on facilitating walking and cycling, on rail freight and rail infrastructure, on coastal shipping, and on education and information pertaining to travel demand management.

It was pleasing to see the Labour Party and the Māori Party extend support to this bill in its first reading, as this will allow for submissions. It will be interesting to discover, in due course, what level of public support the bill will receive, not least in terms of demand management, for the main component of the Government’s concern with the bill appears to be that issue: the matter of what the public wants in its transport infrastructure. Well, let us find out. The challenge is there for the Government to discover what the public really want for their national infrastructure.

The Government’s policy, at least as articulated by David Bennett, rests on a descent into circular reasoning with such simplistic force that the Government is unable to reason its way back up for air. Mr Bennett derided the public’s concern about climate change and peak oil. He rested his opposition to the bill on the grounds that transport in the future would comprise electric vehicles and that we would therefore need more roads. In the Government’s brave new world, the public will not need much public transport. It took Mr Bennett most of his 10-minute speech to get this logical lock-in across. It took 10 minutes of circular reasoning because of his inability to step out of the Yezidi circle he had inadvertently created for himself.

💬 Hon Member: The what?

Yezidi—it is found in Central Asia.

Let us analyse in the logical light of a new day the points made by Mr Bennett. Point 1: we shall not be driving electric vehicles any time soon. They are simply too expensive. Point 2: electric cars remain just that—electric cars. Our bill addresses the problem of traffic congestion and supports having a sustainable urban forum. Point 3: unanswered questions still surround the technologies for batteries. Point 4: unanswered questions still surround the issue of electricity supply. Even people who drive electric vehicles today are drawing down on a grid that depends on fossil fuels. Mr Bennett made a second point that went beyond his reverence for electric cars. It was that public transport requires some minimum population density to be commercially viable, and that that has some mysterious implications for New Zealand because we are a population of only 4 million. He nostalgically cited his visit to Mexico City, which comprises 30 million people. He is simply incorrect. The International Association of Public Transport says that every city, of any size, requires an increase in public transport of somewhere around 30 percent in order for sustainable living to be attained.

I speak in opposition to the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to alter the funding priorities of the National Land Transport Fund over a period of time so that, within 5 years, funds will be allocated mainly to the support of modes of transport other than private vehicles. This bill has come from the Green Party. It is typical of what comes from that party. It goes in the exactly opposite direction from where this country needs to go if it is to develop and grow. The Greens seek to take this country in the opposite direction from where it needs to go. [Interruption] I tell those members opposite who are having their say that it would be wise to reflect on a couple of facts. Fewer than 6 percent of New Zealanders use public transport on a regular basis. Nearly 70 percent of all freight moved in New Zealand goes by road. Eighty-four percent of people who travel to work go by car, truck, or motorbike. Those parties that support this bill are defying fact and logic by doing so.

New Zealand needs good roads for use by private vehicles if it is to compete and grow. Changes on the scale proposed by the Green Party would do a number of things. Firstly, they would result in a huge decrease in expenditure on the construction and maintenance of State highways and local roads. Secondly, they would occur at a time when New Zealand must invest in infrastructure. We have just had 9 long years of neglect, and this Government finds itself not only in catch-up mode but also required to move New Zealand forward. If we are to lift our country’s productivity and stimulate the economy, we must engage in this sort of development. National, as the party in Government, cannot, unlike the Greens and the other parties that are supporting them, stick its head in the ground, stick to an ideology that is irrelevant to the future development of New Zealand, and pretend that our current situation does not matter. Feel-good politics such as are shown in this bill are a luxury that parties not in Government have. They are certainly not a luxury that the parties in Government can tolerate.

I invite this House to think about what this legislation would actually mean. It would mean, firstly, a reduction in spending on roads to such an extent that no new roading projects would go ahead. I invite the Green Party and the other parties that are supporting it to think about the major announcements that have been made about projects to be developed in the immediate future. Secondly, this bill will severely restrict the ability of the New Zealand Transport Agency to progress safety enhancements on our roads. Thirdly, local authorities will be faced with a choice: either increase rates or cut out other projects in order to continue with local road maintenance and development. Fourthly, at a time of economic crisis—and we live in such a time—the passage of this bill would result in goods not being able to reach their markets and people not being able to get work. This bill makes no sense at all.

I rise in support of the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill and its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This bill put forward by Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons focuses attention on important issues of transport that are crucial to our people and our economy. We need to look not only at the implications of moving people and freight but also at the implications that transport has for economic and social development. We also need to look at the implications for quality of life in our cities, and the implications of transport for our environment. This bill specifically seeks to ensure that a greater proportion of the National Land Transport Fund is spent on transport modes other than the private motor vehicle. It also aims to identify the responsibility of the Minister of Transport in ensuring that transport decisions meet the principles of the Land Transport Management Act. Objectives include safety, sustainability, integration, and responsiveness to local needs. It is important that the Minister undertakes those responsibilities.

The previous Labour Government understood the importance of balance in the area of transport. We recognised the importance of roads, and we put in place significant funding after a period of extremely limited funding by the previous National Government. We should compare the efforts of the current National Government with the previous Labour one. National talks about $10.7 billion over 10 years being invested in State highways, whereas in Budget 2006 Labour announced a 5-year, $13.4 billion spending project in New Zealand’s largest ever roading programme. Labour, however, recognised the importance of a motimodal—

💬 Paul Quinn: Multimodal.

CAROL BEAUMONT:—multimodal programme of transport, involving roads, public transport, sea freight, and rail, I say to Mr Quinn. That programme involved roads, public transport, sea freight, and rail. This approach is fundamental. The extra funding going into roads to reduce congestion and improve safety over time is effective only if we also find alternatives. To do otherwise means that inevitably those roads reach capacity and we are back to where we started. This is a model that we can see in Auckland time and again. In fact, Auckland is often used as a case study of worst practice in transport management. Significant road building alongside comprehensive plans for public transport was what Labour had in place for Auckland.

But recently, that comprehensive plan for public transport was put at risk by the National Government. Subsequently, a number of announcements were made seeking to reassure Aucklanders, but those announcements were incomplete and potentially pushed the burden back on to Auckland ratepayers. I ask members to also consider the issues of funding for public transport over the next 3 years. The Government is looking to reduce public transport services by $85 million. It is also looking to reduce public transport infrastructure by $250 million, and walking and cycling facilities by $15 million. These will mainly affect people in Auckland. So much for the Government’s super-city plan! How can it grow without effective transport?

The Minister of Transport does not seem to get it. He continues to refer to the figure of 85 percent of Aucklanders using motor vehicles to get to work each day as the justification for greater emphasis on spending on roads. He fails to understand that if there is not a viable alternative of affordable, accessible, regular, reliable transport going to the right places, then people have no choice but to continue to use motor vehicles. We have one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, and that will not change until we have real choice. People are willing to use public transport—and they will—as any of us who have lived in cities with decent public transport will know. I back up Kennedy Graham by saying that, clearly, there are different options based on scale, size, and density of population. But public transport does not just work in large cities—look at Wellington. In Auckland we know that people want better public transport. Whenever public transport improvements have been made, such as the Northern Busway, the use of public transport rises sharply.

Many important issues have been raised in this bill, and I look forward to it being referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where we can put further effort into discussing these issues.

It is a pleasure to celebrate Green Day, where every bill on the Order Paper today is a Green Party member’s bill. I am proud of that. I thank the Māori Party for its support, and I thank the Labour Party for its support for the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. Last year I spoke to the then Labour Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, and we agreed that on the basis of this bill we would negotiate funding ratios and the financial assistance rate available for various kinds of projects, to try to level the playing field somewhat, which has been tilted very strongly in the direction of motorways for many, many years. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.

This bill provides choice for New Zealanders in how they travel. I am really disappointed that this Government is opposed to giving New Zealanders that choice. The Government says that because 85 percent of New Zealanders go to work by car, we have to spend all the money on roads. Those 85 percent go by car because they have no choice. When we provide choice, people use public transport. Figures in the New Zealand Herald earlier this year showed that over the last year, patronage on public transport in Auckland grew by 3.9 million trips. That is a growth rate of 10 percent in 1 year. Use of the Northern Express busway was up 77.5 percent, because public transport was provided and people used it. The rail system was improved, and its use grew by 14.7 percent in 1 year. The growth in the use of public transport has been phenomenal wherever investment has been provided in it.

But the Government is stuck in the past. It does not recognise climate change as a serious issue, and it does not recognise peak oil as a serious issue. It puts its faith in the idea that technology will provide. This technology is supposed to be electric cars. First of all, electric cars, which are much touted by members of the Government, will look after a very small proportion of the elite. Electric cars will be very expensive, so their penetration of the market will be small. The Ministry of Economic Development—which obviously the Government does not take any notice of—says the penetration of electric cars into the New Zealand market will be 5 percent by 2020. The International Energy Agency says there will be a major oil crunch by at least 2015. What are the other people going to do? The other 95 percent of people will need to have more efficient cars, but the Government does not want to address that. They will need public transport, but the Government does not want to address that, either.

The member Allan Peachey said that roads will stimulate the economy. Well, roads are about the least job-intensive way to spend a dollar. In fact, if we shifted funding out of motorways and into public transport services, we would create 40 percent more jobs for the same money. I ask members whether that is something the Government is not interested in doing. The previous Government created the biggest road-building bonanza ever in New Zealand’s history. We have had years and years of building roads, but not of rail or public transport. Towards the end of its term, the Labour Government started to put more funding into public transport, and that was good. Now we are back in the dark ages. It is time to level the playing field. It is time to recognise that no society anywhere in the world has motorway-ed its way out of congestion; only providing the alternatives will do that.

I urge the Government to reconsider its position on this bill, and to give us a way forward in the days of climate change and peak oil.