Annual Review Debate — Infrastructure (continued)

The House is in Committee for the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The Committee is debating the question that the reports of committees relevant to services for infrastructure—Canterbury earthquake recovery, communications, energy, and transport—be noted. Many of the supplementary calls available for the debate have already been used by parties. National has five supplementary calls remaining. Labour has one. The Greens have one. New Zealand First has three. The Māori Party and ACT have one each.

This Government is aspirational for New Zealand because we have the absolute confidence in Kiwis and Kiwi businesses to compete and succeed when they have a Government behind them that is providing the framework to help them to be successful. And in this National-led Government, that is precisely what they have. Our Business Growth Agenda provides the framework for Kiwi businesses to succeed, to grow, and to employ more people.

Today I would like to talk about investing in infrastructure and what we are doing there to provide enablers for Kiwi businesses to succeed in their markets and to grow and employ more people. I would like to talk about our broadband initiatives: our Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and our Rural Broadband Initiative. I sit on the Commerce Committee and we were very fortunate in the annual review process to hear from Crown Fibre Holdings. The information it shared with us was that in the 12 months to December 2014 end-users with access to ultra-fast broadband grew by 57 percent. The number of businesses passed by the ultra-fast broadband project has increased by 47 percent. Over 231,000 businesses and households have access to ultra-fast broadband. Over 2,200 schools, including 1,000 rural schools, have access to the capabilities that broadband can provide. Average quarterly orders have increased by 153 percent. That is about this Government investing in infrastructure that Kiwis and Kiwi businesses can use to be successful.

What does it really mean? I have heard Opposition members talk about struggles in the regions, falling employment, and economic woes. Well, this Government has just been getting on and putting things in place to lift prospects in our regions. So what does ultra-fast broadband mean? In South Canterbury, information and communications technology is now the third-largest sector and the fastest-growing sector in South Canterbury. In Timaru there is an example of an IT development company that prior to ultra-fast broadband employed one employee. It now employs over a dozen, because ultra-fast broadband gave it the reach and the capability to take its services and address a broader market. It is the regions that are benefiting, and not just in South Canterbury.

How about the productivity gains that we see in places like Whangarei? In Whangarei there is a software development company. Its network infrastructure was so poor that it used to have to ship all of its development out on CD-Roms; now it can deliver it via the internet, saving it and its clients valuable time and money. Or how about the case in the world of medicine?

💬 Dr David Clark: It’s not working in Karitane. It’s not working in Warrington.

And that, Dr Clark, is the weakest interjection in 50 years. In the area of health, a medical practitioner, also in Whangarei, used to have to go with his patients to the base hospital to perform retina scans. He can now do that in his practice and send that data across the internet to the hospital, saving time and money and particularly saving inconvenience to his patients.

Or how about the panel beater on the North Shore? The panel beater who has reported a 15 percent improvement in productivity because he can now send videos and photos of damage and assessment directly to insurance assessors, saving incredible amounts of time and helping to get his clients back on the road sooner?

This is a Government that is investing in infrastructure that makes a real, positive difference to Kiwis and to their businesses. It is not just in the information superhighway that we are doing this; we are also doing it with highways. In my own electorate, in this region, we are finally seeing action on Transmission Gully, a 27 kilometre four-lane motorway between McKays in Kāpiti and Linden on the edge of my own electorate of Ōhāriu, a motorway that will see between 18,000 and 22,500 vehicle movements per day. It is an initiative that is unlocking productivity, helping us to move people and goods far more efficiently in our region.

This is a Government that is investing in the things that matter, the things that will make a real difference to Kiwis and to Kiwi businesses, helping to promote growth and an increase in employment. This is a Government that is working for New Zealand.

Nothing saps the legitimacy of a third-term Government more than the perception that it is governing in the interests of a certain section of society and ignoring another. And regional New Zealand over the last few years has formed a very strong view that this Government governs in the interests of Auckland and the big urban centres and neglects the rest. It is not just the centralisation of services and infrastructure. It is not just the loss of jobs and the cutbacks. Yesterday Air New Zealand abandoned Kaitāia, it abandoned Taupō, it abandoned Whakatāne, and it abandoned Westport, and not a word was said by the National Party MPs who represent those areas. The Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport, hides behind the fact that it is supposedly a commercial decision of Air New Zealand. He does not have a thing to say about how those cutbacks will affect the economies in parts of regional New Zealand.

But nothing—nothing—demonstrates the cynical neglect of regional New Zealand by this Government better than its cutting and cutting and cutting of spending on local roads. Under this National Government, spending on new local roads has gone down from $180 million in the 2008-09 financial year to $162 million in the year 2013-14, an $18 million cut, a 10 percent cut, over the time that National has been in office. This Government has been running down a multibillion-dollar taxpayer-owned valuable asset—that is, our local road network around the country. Why is it doing that? It is doing it so it can pour billions of dollars into a handful of urban motorway projects, some of which will not even pay for themselves because the benefit-cost ratios are so low.

Last week I was in Invercargill. Everybody whom I spoke to raised with me the fact that Southland has been hit hard by successive cuts to the funding of local roads. Southland is not getting a fair go under this National Government. In the year 2009-10, funding by central government for local roads in Southland was $56 million. In 2013-14, under this National Government, that had been cut to $51 million, another 10 percent cut, $5 million sliced off the funding of local roads by this National Government. The effect of that on the ratepayers is that they are taking a hit. In Invercargill, that means an $810,000 cut by central government for local roads every year. For Southland District Council, $750,000 every year is cut from the spending on local roads. Gore has taken a hit and Clutha has taken a hit.

The reason this is such a serious issue in Invercargill and Southland is that Southland has the biggest network of local roads in the country, outside of the Auckland super-city, but it has only 14,000 ratepayers left to pick up the slack when the National Government turns out the light and cuts its funding off. What is the result? The result is that local roads in Southland are falling into disrepair. There are 100 dairy tankers a day on some of the roads in Southland, and the Minister in the chair will know that for every dairy tanker, that is the equivalent of 1,000 regular vehicle movements. So these roads in Southland, funded by the poor old Southland ratepayer, are clocking up the equivalent of 100,000 regular vehicle movements every day. I want to acknowledge the passing recently of Frana Cardno, the wonderful former Mayor of Southland District, who was a staunch advocate for her region and an outspoken critic of this National Government’s cynical neglect—cynical neglect—of regional New Zealand and the cutting of road funding.

Let us contrast Southland with the other end of the country, Northland, an area that the Minister in the chair knows a little bit about from his recent experience. Let us call him the maestro of National’s humiliating by-election loss in Northland. One bad poll and Simon “Bridges” Bridges went into a flat panic and splashed out $69 million of taxpayer funding on 10 nonsensical one-lane bridges in Northland.

I was hoping to give a relatively thoughtful, cerebral speech but then I heard some slippery comments from the member for Te Atatū, Phil Twyford, and I think they really do have to be countered. Firstly, we have this baseless claim that somehow in aviation the regions have been forgotten. Actually, in every single case where Air New Zealand has left, whether it is Whakatāne, whether it is Kaitāia, whether it is Westport, or whether it is Taupō, they have new and enhanced services, from little players—

💬 Phil Twyford: Rubbish!

Mr Twyford may not like it, but they have new and enhanced players with more seats and, I think, in most of those cases, bigger planes or good planes. That may be something that Phil Twyford does not like, but, actually, that is what has happened, and I know because I have talked with the mayors and I have talked with the local players. They feel very confident, actually, about the situation that they are placed in.

We have had this discussion about roading cuts. Well, if you talk with the Greens all you ever hear is that that is all we do spend the money on. Actually, in a sense, neither has any truth to it. What is true is that in the latest Government policy statement we have increased funding in every single aspect of transport, whether that is local roads, whether that is State highways, whether that is cycling and walking, or whether that is improvements or maintenance, that is what we have done. In fact, we have spent an unprecedented amount on transport in this country—higher than OECD averages—

💬 Phil Twyford: Not on local roads.

—and on local roads. I commend to the member an excellent speech, if I do say so myself, that I gave in a general debate a few weeks ago, where I ran through the figures region by region in local roading, and it made quite clear that in almost all of the areas we have increased funding in local roading. I say to the member to watch that speech. If the facts are wrong, come back to me in question time. Here is what I know—the member will not. The member says that, actually, it all adds up to a picture of the regions not being backed. Well, again, I refer the member to that speech. The facts do not lie. We have backed the regions and we have spent more in a number of areas.

What I want to say very briefly on this annual review process is that it is new and it is something of an innovation, and we are going thematic. I think that is excellent, actually, because it does allow us—Phil Twyford failed the test—to just stand back and be a little bit thematic across what is happening in infrastructure. In a sense, if we think about the hard infrastructure—energy and transport—what is not to like? This Government has invested $16 billion in the last 3 years. I would say it is unprecedented. The rebuilding of Canterbury is probably the biggest, if you want to say it this way, project—certainly undertaking—in the history of New Zealand infrastructure, which this Government is doing, and it is making a good job of it.

I want to say that I like what the chief executive of Auckland Airport said to me a little while ago. He does not think of his company, if you like, as an aviation company or a port company or an infrastructure company. He sees it as a travel, trade, and tourism business. I think that is a helpful way to think about these things, not in terms of the raw infrastructure—the crass way Phil Twyford likes to think about these things—but actually what it means for the end-users and how it enables the end-users. In that sense, yes, transport is roads, it is rail, and it is aviation, but it is also transport, it is travel, and it is enabling lifestyles. Yes, energy is transmission and lines and smart meters and all of these things that we have seen unprecedented take up of in New Zealand, when they have mucked up the way of doing it in other countries. But it is also fundamentally for the end-user, not the anoraks like Phil Twyford or the gentleman over there who is running for the leadership of the Green Party, who obsess about whether it is a bus, what kind of bus, or the colour of the seats. Actually, it is about enabling lifestyles and enabling people to get on with their day.

In energy it is not about the start line. It is about turning on the light, it is about powering your iPhone, and it is about doing good things, and we have done that well. Actually, infrastructure done well, like it has been done by this Government, enables New Zealanders to really get on and capture the benefits. Just to keep with that, there is significant—

💬 Phil Twyford: Come and see about “Darby and Joan”.

We will come to that. There are significant things going on and significant technological innovations happening every day. That is why you have seen me talk quite a lot in this Chamber, publicly, about electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, a number of smart meters, and the internet of things, because these things are happening. I think that New Zealand, with smart regulation and increasingly putting that in place, really can be at the front of all this, making a difference to New Zealanders’ lives.

The Green Party says, of course, that this is a Government that does not think about climate change. I hope, actually, we demonstrated today that that is not true. What is true across infrastructure, transport, and energy is that they do make up a significant part of our emissions. Of course, about half is from agriculture. The other half, broadly speaking, is from transport and energy. We think about those things. We are working through them, and technology can actually be a big part of the answer. We as a country have very significant advantages—generally, in infrastructure, and certainly in energy. I am really proud of the story that we have. We have got, I think, a very significant competitive and comparative advantage when it comes to energy, which is in renewables. I have just been at the World Geothermal Congress. It is remarkable, really, when you think about the story of geothermal. From pre-European times through to now we probably have the best story in the world, and that is set to continue. We are doing special things overseas with that.

Actually, energy as an export, and our expertise and experience as an exporter in this area, is something that I think we should be incredibly proud of as a country. We see Hawkins Construction at the moment with hundreds and millions of dollars of contracts that are primarily in Indonesia but they are looking at Kenya and so on. We have got an amazing story in renewables and we have got a renewable advantage that we should be extremely proud of. I have got to say to the member David Parker—he actually turned up in one or two of the slide shows at the World Geothermal Congress. Admittedly he was just cutting the ribbon; I am sure he had nothing to do with the projects, but he was there as well. We should be there. We should proud of that.

We should not forget though, like the Greens want us to, the non-renewable side of the equation. I know that David Parker did not make that mistake, actually, in Government, even though Opposition members now sometimes like to forget. We should actually push on, in oil and gas. We should continue what we are doing there because as the world does transition to a lower carbon future that will be an important part of the mix. The Greens make the, I think, fatal mistake of thinking that all fossil fuels are created the same. They are not, actually. Gas and oil have a significant role to play over the time to come.

In regard to transport, I have already dealt with a number of the, I think, very wrong-headed complaints of Phil Twyford, who, frankly speaking, is just playing politics. We will be focused in this term of Government on results and driving those from the New Zealand Transport Agency in terms of the roads of national significance, the regional roading package, and the cycleway, which will deliver a real step change in urban cycleways right around New Zealand. We will be focused on Auckland, where there are significant transport issues, and significantly engaging with Auckland on their issues for the long term. We will be re-emphasising, actually, that we do have a proud record and that there is more that we can do in public transport and in the alternative modes of transport. We spent $1.7 billion on metropolitan rail in Auckland and about half a billion in the greater Wellington area. We will continue that strong story, as I say, in other areas as well.

We will push on in technology, because, as I say, we can capture those benefits, really, for the advantage of New Zealand. I think there is an economic advantage to us in doing so, if we do become a leader in some of these areas—unmanned aerial vehicles, potentially electric vehicles, and autonomous vehicles. We have been a test bed in these areas before and we can be again. We will also make clear and continue to re-emphasise that transport and energy and infrastructure can be very strong enablers of economic growth and of productivity. That is why we will continue to focus on aviation, the good record in the regions, the air services internationally, where we have seen the number skyrocket under this Government, which means more tourists to New Zealand and more of our goods overseas, on our ports strategies, and on opening New Zealand up to markets regionally and right around the world.

We have a very strong cross-infrastructural story to tell as a Government. We are going to continue pressing on with that and getting results. I am sorry that you as a Committee had to put up with Phil Twyford’s appalling speech. This Government knows what it is doing.

The dust has not yet settled on the Canterbury earthquakes recovery process and there is a long way to go as far as infrastructure and homes are concerned. What is needed now is a shake-up, but a shake-up of the political kind, not, of course, of the physical kind—we have had enough of those. Some of the fixes are obvious and one of those is to fix the position concerning the Quake Outcasts group. Those people were inexplicably offered 50 percent of the 2007 valuation of their bare land or self-insured homes. They have spent years going through the courts and appeals and they have won every one of them. The Supreme Court has finally confirmed that the insurance status of those properties cannot be taken into account by the Government in deciding on an offer. They must surely now get the same 100 percent of the 2007 value that other red zone homeowners got, but the Government wants to delay the situation even more with a consultation process that is utterly futile and meaningless. The Minister now needs to accept that Government policy on this was wrong and give full compensation immediately without any further delay.

The Government should also direct the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to take another look at the priorities for the rebuild generally. For example, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on showpiece projects when the Christchurch City Council cannot meet the massive costs of its infrastructure repair programme, needs review right now. Otherwise, huge rate increases can be expected by Christchurch City ratepayers and the council will be forced to sell strategic assets that provide an excellent return for the council and that the people in Christchurch do not want to be sold. The council would also have to borrow—borrow too close to potential limits. So that whole area needs a good review. When Lancaster Park is repairable at a fraction of the cost of a new stadium, that sports stadium is a prime example of why such a review is needed. The need is for spending on the basic infrastructure, especially in the east of the city and elsewhere. That is the top priority. So much still needs to be done there and it is taking far, far too long.

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority - led rebuild of the central business district has also stalled. We see some new buildings going up, but they tend to go up outside the central business district zone so that they can avoid having to deal with the authority’s bureaucracy and some of the silly decisions it has made, too. Those plans and processes need serious review as well. Some of the silliest proposals need urgent reversal, such as the plan to destroy Victoria Square, which is not broken and which people want retained as it is.

I turn to transport infrastructure. This Government and its agencies seem determined to run down the country’s railway system instead of doing what it should do to invest much more in it. Just a few minutes ago, the Minister Simon Bridges talked about how much was being invested, but, actually, that is a tiny fraction of the amount that needs to be invested over the next decade or so in New Zealand. The roading system, of course, does also need continuing investment, but there is a need for a strategy to better integrate transport systems to make better use of the railways, in particular. We know that there are plans to de-electrify parts of the North Island electric rail system in favour of inefficient imported diesel locomotives. That is utterly ridiculous. When we have already got an efficient electrified system, we could make electric locomotives in New Zealand, and yet, what are we doing? We are going entirely in the wrong direction under this Government. Within 10 years the amount of freight that must be moved around New Zealand is going to at least double—just think about that for a moment.

What we really need is a strategic funding model, with more emphasis on long-term strategic planning and the integration of transport systems—all of the transport systems, not just Auckland motorways. There are many rail routes needing improvement so that they can compete effectively for freight, such as, for example, Auckland, Whangarei, Ōpua, Wellington, and Gisborne. Northland also needs a good rail connection to Whangarei’s deep water harbour. That is a harbour that does not require dredging and where there is plenty of land for expansion, unlike Auckland, which has problems that are virtually insurmountable in the long term. I see today in the newspapers that half of Aucklanders do not want to see the port in Auckland expanded. So let us look at the port at Whangarei and let us get a good railway system between Whangarei and the rest of the country. That is something that needs to be looked at with great urgency.

There needs to be a rolling electrification programme for railways throughout New Zealand. That is necessary not just because of the increasing cost of fossil fuels and the fact that we need to do that for climate change and emissions purposes but also because, actually, it is the most effective and efficient system of moving heavy freight within the country, and New Zealand is made for it. A long, narrow country should be ideal for an efficient railway system. For example, we could start with electrification from Papakura to Pukekohe and also extend electrification north from Waikanae and from Upper Hutt to Masterton, amongst a lot of other very good opportunities that there are.

There is so much that we should be doing in transport that we did not hear from the Minister in his recent speeches that, really, it is a huge disappointment. Railways, in particular, need much more attention, but so do the Cook Strait ferries, for example. There is not enough investment in them. So we do need a more strategic approach, and that is what New Zealand First wants to see. We do also need to see much more progress, and much more intelligent progress, in the infrastructure in Christchurch as a result of those earthquakes. New Zealand First wants to see the Government take a more considered and strategic approach and to actually get things done, and it is not doing that so far.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the infrastructure services theme. Specifically, I am going to talk about connections—connectivity—and that specifically relates to the internet. And then, if I have some time, I will talk about roaming. Some facts: ultra-fast broadband is now in 2,200 schools, including 1,000 rural schools. Most of the schools in my rural electorate are connected. Over 231,000 households have access to rural broadband—and I say “rural” rather than ultra-fast broadband—but there is more to do. So we are planning to raise the percentage so that more than 75 percent of Kiwis—stepping up to 80 percent—have access to ultra-fast broadband. We are also aiming, by June next year, to connect rural Integrated Family Health Centres.

So what does that mean? What does that really mean for the people in my electorate? Well, when we get internet ultra-fast broadband in, say, Carterton or Dannevirke, it will not be for the work that people can come to those places to do. It is not going to be about creating work driving trucks or work in retail. People will be going there to export services. It will be about what work can be done from that town. So it is quite a different approach. For example, just recently, I was at Dannevirke High School judging an entrepreneurial competition amongst year 13s. There were about a dozen entrepreneurial teams, and more than half of them invented or created products that one could not touch—they were all internet-based. They were all out to service the world from Dannevirke. There are guys in Dannevirke who have Chinese customers—an accounting firm has Chinese customers and customers on the west coast of America. That is possible only because of their access to the internet.

Minister Adams has initiated the bid to raise the percentage of uptake from 75 to 80 percent, and I am pleased to say that all five of my councils are participating in that process. They know that the internet will make a difference to the people in their communities. Because it is all about productivity, is it not? This internet—this connection—was not even around 10 years ago. If we think about the world, it is now a much smaller place, not just because of the internet but because of travel. Travel has become cheaper. Just think, about 25 years ago, when I jumped on a plane to go overseas, goodness me, the price of that airfare has not changed a hell of a lot. Communications have become cheaper. You could not make a toll call from London to New Zealand—it was just too expensive—but now we can text instantly.

Communications have become cheaper, faster, and more efficient, enabling us to conduct business on one of these phones. These phones were not even around 10 years ago. These are the enablers of the future. These things will increase productivity and free up people to be more creative and to provide income and wealth for themselves and their families. These smartphones, and technologies like them, are the steam engine of centuries ago, when manual labour was automated and weaving became a mundane process and became automated because of steam engines. This is what we are going to see, and we will continue to see, simply because of the access to market driven by the internet.

We will be able to conduct our business from anywhere in my electorate. Martinborough, Carterton, and Masterton are very commutable to Wellington. Fast speeds enable architects and movie directors—and they do—to live in the Wairarapa, to spend a couple of days at home, and then to see their customers in Wellington a couple of days later. This is the way we are going to develop our rural electorates and towns. This enables the private sector to get on and create products that are able to be sold to the Chinese or the Koreans, and accentuate, promote, and support the free-trade agreements we have with those countries.

I am just checking that the Green Party is choosing not to take its call on this. OK.

Reports noted.

Justice