Estimates Debate — Vote Transport

Kia ora, Mr Chairperson Tisch. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. On Saturday night some 18,000 Aucklanders boarded a train to Eden Park to enjoy a good game of rugby. It was good to see Dan Carter practising that drop goal, which might come in handy in the Rugby World Cup. It was good to see the rail network coping with such a huge number of people. But we saw delays of 30 minutes, sometimes longer, because the bottleneck in Auckland is the Britomart Transport Centre. Of course, we can get only 12,000 people through the Britomart Transport Centre; the capacity problem is that it is a dead-end station. The massive missed opportunity of the 1920s, 1950s, 1970s, and 2000s was not to construct the central business district rail link but to double the capacity of the station, which would have transformed downtown Auckland and transformed the rail network. The context, of course, is that we have the Rugby World Cup, which is a fantastic opportunity. But people will be disappointed when they see our dinky little diesel trains, no railway to the airport, and no plan to progress Auckland’s major asset.

Faced with an economic and ecological crisis, this Government, however, has gone down a road to nowhere, borrowing billions of dollars for its expensive motorways and acting as a roadblock to the smart transport alternatives that we need. In fact, the Government’s plans are failing to deliver economic development or sustainability. What we need is a smart transport policy that delivers jobs and clean, green economic development. The Minister of Transport asked me today what a smart transport policy is, and I say it is a balanced budget that looks across all the transport modes, it is resilient, it is future-proofed, and, lastly, it gives people options. When we face high oil prices, this Government says we should buy a hybrid or an electric car. Not many Kiwis I know can go out and do that. So I asked the Minister why he is acting as such a roadblock to Auckland’s aspirations to develop its transport network.

Of course, the problem stems from the fact that this Government refuses to fund Auckland’s ambitions. The pantry is bare, because the Government has spent all the money on State highways. It refuses to fund regional fuel taxes, which is Auckland’s own revenue stream, and it is leaving it up to rates or, potentially, asset sales in the future. Of course, on top of this we have a significant funding shortfall recently uncovered for Auckland transport. We have seen this Government ramp up the rail access charges. We have seen it pile on the interest for the electric multiple units, and we constantly hear in this House that the Government is spending $1.6 billion on rail. Yet at the same time we have also seen massive patronage growth of 21 percent in the last year.

The big picture coming from the Government in the last few months has been the Government policy statement for transport funding planned for the next 10 years. Again, what we are seeing is considerably unbalanced. For every dollar that this Government is spending on all the walking and cycling projects and on all the buses and trains, it is borrowing $6 and pouring it into State highways. If we look across the OECD, we see that we are spending 82 percent of our transport budget on roads. In the UK that figure is only 55 percent. In Sweden, which actually has an oil reduction strategy, it is down to 45 percent. We are seeing the Government spending an average of only $372 million on public transport infrastructure over those 10 years, yet we are seeing a total spend of $19.3 billion for State highways. That is absolutely unbalanced. We are seeing cuts to some activity classes, road safety, and planning, and something that I cannot quite fathom: we will see better data recording coming from the Government policy statement by having only one activity class in the future.

The context, of course, is that we have falling road traffic across the country. We are seeing oil prices increase. We see that being the major driver of inflation, which is now at the highest rate that we have had in 20 years. We have also seen new research findings come out in only the last month that 700 Aucklanders are dying prematurely as a result of the air pollution stemming from cars. The report from Auckland Council’s Kristen Webster, the principal specialist air-quality expert, found that we are seeing 700 premature deaths and 1.16 million days being lost due to poor health. We should be focusing on those issues in our transport plan. Instead we are seeing a not smart transport plan from this Government to borrow billions of dollars to pour into expensive motorways, when we are seeing traffic falling, we are seeing the price of petrol increasing, and we are seeing patronage on public transport increasing by more than 20 percent. We are seeing a monument in tar and asphalt to 1950s transport speaking—a colossus of roads.

Lastly, the solutions we need are transport choice and an inspiring vision for our future. The Green Party view is that we are wasting billions of dollars on expensive motorways, locking us into a car and oil - dependent future. We need to set a moratorium on motorways. We need to redirect the transport budget into a balanced transport system that takes into account all the transport modes, including buses, walking, cycling, and sea freight. That is the answer.

We heard an interesting contribution from the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes, although I have to say that I have heard it all before. Of course, he is from the party that has not seen a road it likes—ever—and it is unlikely to, so we should probably just cope with that. He also has not seen a tax he does not like, and, in fact, neither has anybody on that side of the Chamber. They love a new tax. It is not a good week until a new tax has been introduced, according to that side of the Chamber. If it moves, tax it.

Of course, the latest solution from the Greens is to add another tax in Auckland to go with all the other taxes that they want to add. Just think—if we actually had all the taxes that the left has advocated for over the last few months, we would absolutely have a New Zealand that would look very, very down in the mouth at this point, instead of coming out of the recession, which is what is happening right now.

The other thing I should mention in response to the member is the great fiction that we are not investing in the railway business, because of course we are, and very, very significantly. Again, the member has not seen a train track he does not like, in the same way that he has not seen a road he does like. But we are spending very significant sums not only in metro rail but also in seeking to turn round KiwiRail, which, as we know, is a very, very big challenge. The second quarter of a billion dollars of seed capital has gone into KiwiRail as a result of this Budget, and there is a third one to come. It is a very, very challenging turn-round; it was in very, very poor shape, and it will not be easy to do, but, effectively, we are investing $4.6 billion over 10 years to turn round that organisation.

Also, the Government is investing very significant sums of money into Auckland metro commuter rail. Again, it does not suit the member’s story, but, nevertheless, it is occurring.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Labour policy.

No, no. That is actually completely wrong, I say to Shane Jones. The member needs to get that checked out. The reality is that Labour wanted to have a 10c a litre regional fuel tax in Auckland. That was Labour’s policy. We cancelled that tax and we put the money directly into the electrification. This Government has paid for the electrification that is currently being built in Auckland. That is slightly unpalatable for Labour; it would have rather had its 10c a litre regional fuel tax. I invite Labour members to campaign on that at the upcoming election, because that would be very popular alongside the congestion tax that it is also promoting at the upcoming election! Motorists in Auckland will not be able to move, because every 10 seconds there will be “ker-ching, ker-ching” for Labour and the Greens. We cannot have that.

We are making a very big investment and are working to invest in the electric trains alongside Auckland, as well. And, of course, we are prepared to evaluate further projects, including the central business district rail link, but, as the member will know if he takes off his rose-tinted glasses, there is a lot of work to do in that area before that is ready to go. As for that fabled 20 percent increase in patronage—well, if we take 20 percent of 1.5 percent, then yes we are making good progress! But I do think it is great that all these people used the train on Saturday night. I think that is fantastic. Of course, the price was pretty good, but, nevertheless, they did and it is progress. We do need the train system to work well, as we need the roads to work well. That is why one cannot take a blinkered approach to transport.

That is also why the Government is investing very significant sums right across the transport system, with the investments in the western ring route and the Hobsonville deviation, which was opened this weekend. We have heard that the Victoria Park tunnel is ahead of plan, and there are a number of other projects that are proceeding around the country.

I would like to mention before I sit down the road safety policy, because I think that is very important as well. Again, it is about achieving outcomes. One interesting thing that people always say is that we should spend more on something. Actually, we are spending better on road safety and we are getting better accountability. I do not know the reason exactly why we are at the lowest 12-month rolling road toll that New Zealand has ever had at this point. Certainly I do not think it is right as a Government to claim credit for that, because a range of things have occurred. But it does include things like the price of fuel. It does include things like better enforcement initiatives.

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

Vote agreed to.

Vote Courts agreed to.

Vote Pacific Island Affairs agreed to.

Vote Employment