Estimates Debate — Transport

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s my privilege to chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and work collegially with our colleagues from across the House throughout this Estimates process. Can I also acknowledge the Minister of Transport, the Hon David Parker, who stepped into the role as Minister just days prior to coming before our committee.

Vote Transport comprises funding for infrastructure investment, services, and regulatory activities related to transport in Aotearoa New Zealand. In 2023/24, the total sought for Vote Transport is $10.115 billion. The largest element of the Vote is funding for the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) through the National Land Transport Fund. In 2023/24, $3 billion is appropriated for the NLTP, and this funding is drawn from the land transport revenue and is detailed in the appropriations “National Land Transport Programme PLA” and “National Land Transport Programme Additional Crown Funding (2021-24)”. The five largest activity classes under this are the State highway improvements, approximately $1 billion; public transport services and infrastructure, $778 million; State highway maintenance, $496 million; local road maintenance, $425 million; and Road to Zero safety infrastructure, $182 million.

The focus for Estimates this year, as I understand it, as presented to our select committee, is to tackle congestion and reduce emissions, and I appreciate the contribution that the Minister has made throughout this process.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a short call on these Estimates. One of the questions I’ve got for the Minister, of course, is relating to this Government’s so-called transformational transport programme, which in particular relates to Let’s Get Wellington Moving and Auckland light rail. Of course, this Government was elected in 2017 and said that Auckland light rail would be built to Mount Roskill by 2021. I frequently go down Dominion Road, but I’m yet to see any evidence of that. But the question I’ve got in relation to the Estimates is: what is going to be achieved for Auckland light rail and Let’s Get Wellington moving during the Estimates period, the 2023/24 Estimates for Vote Transport? What is planned to happen for those two projects during the Estimates period?

This Government talks a big game when it comes to transport. They cancelled the roads of national significance to build light rail in Auckland and Wellington, but we’re yet to see any delivery. Well, there has been delivery in Wellington; they built the pedestrian crossing. Who knew that a pedestrian crossing could cost $2.5 million and that you need half a million dollars for consultants for a pedestrian crossing? Clearly, no one at the New Zealand Transport Agency remembers how to build a pedestrian crossing.

So I look forward to the Minister answering to the House what will be delivered for Let’s Get Wellington Moving and Auckland light rail during the 2023/24 Estimates period.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I found that contribution from the previous member Simeon Brown quite interesting, because when I worked as a transport consultant in 2008, a common cost at the time known to all engineers was that the cost of upgrading to a signalised intersection was $4 million. So in 2023—

💬 Simeon Brown: That’s not even an intersection. It’s a pedestrian crossing.

It’s actually signalised—it has signals, Mr Brown. I’m not sure if you’ve seen it, but it does have signals. It is a signalised intersection.

Anyway, I think that this debate shows the pathetic-ness of the state of the transport debate in New Zealand. It’s absolutely outrageous that in 2023 the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Labour Party are competing to see who can spend more money on new motorways that have incredibly high carbon emissions just in building them. But the worst part is they won’t even address the very problem that they’re supposed to solve, and by now, in 2023, we have enough evidence—we literally have 70 years of evidence—that urban motorways do not reduce congestion and that relying on high car ownership poses an enormous fiscal cost and burden on households.

This is related to the Estimates, Mr Chair, because Simeon Brown from the Opposition party recently said that he thought the countries with the best roads in the world were Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland. Those are all countries that have lower cars per capita than New Zealand—significantly lower, in many cases—and have lower vehicle kilometres travelled per capita. So I want to know, Minister, in the decisions that were made around the Estimates and in recent announcements by the Labour Government, if the goal of reducing vehicle kilometres travelled was taken into account in any way in the analysis of the proposals around the second harbour crossing. If the Minister could tell us that, it would be very useful.

But I do feel that I have to elucidate for the other parties in this House—particularly on this side of the Chamber—that as a planning tool, reducing vehicle kilometres travelled makes absolute economic sense, because people have not chosen to have to use a car for all of their journeys. This was a result of decisions made by central government and local government that have used up enormous, valuable amounts of our urban lands in car-parking and that have unintentionally subsidised single-occupant vehicle trips and led to enormous costs on ordinary New Zealand households, who have to spend $8,000 a year, at least, owning a car—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter, could you just relate this to the appropriations, please.

It’s related to the debate, which is that I want to understand if the Minister and Waka Kotahi are undertaking actual analysis of the impact on carbon emissions and the vehicle kilometres travelled of the proposals, particularly around the preferred option for the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing.

Mr Chair, thank you very much. I’d love to take a call in this Estimates debate on transport. Mr Chair and the Minister in the chair, as you know, you’ve travelled State Highway 35. You’ve travelled State Highway 35, I know, several times. That particular road is part of the roading network, and I want to acknowledge the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who gave the bare minimum of introduction of the Estimates, but he did mention the $1 billion around State highway improvements.

I just want to focus on State Highway 35 because it’s a stretch of road that is the only access way to the communities that live up the Coast. The Minister himself has been told directly, as have other Ministers in this Government, about the challenges of the people that live in that part of Aotearoa New Zealand. So the questions I have to the Minister really go to his Estimates and the flexibility of those policies to adapt to the changing environments.

My first question is: how flexible is the New Zealand Transport Agency in being able to adapt to the changing climate, and by that I mean, on a scale, could the Minister indicate whether it’s very flexible or very inflexible? That’s question No. 1.

Question No. 2: where in the Estimates does it best reflect this level of flexibility? So I am again trying to lead to the point of our having a transport policy that is fit for purpose with our changing climate, particularly for State Highway 35.

My third question is: in real terms, where do communities like those that live off State Highway 35 get assurances that access to their homelands is not put at risk due to this level of flexibility or inflexibility? My fourth question to the Minister is: what overall plan has his Government got on improving the livelihood of those on State Highway 35 now and for the future?

For the benefit of listeners, we’re all subject to time limits in this debate, and so I will try to briefly reply to the questions that have been put to me by various speakers. In respect of the question by Simeon Brown on Let’s Get Wellington Moving, both the Prime Minister and I have said that we’re dissatisfied with the pace at which that is progressing, as have the mayor and the chair of the regional council. They have both written to me recently, saying that they think the Government should take more responsibility for the parts of the project, particularly, that are on State Highway 1 leading from the Arras Tunnel towards the Mt Victoria Tunnel and for the improvements needed or the additional tunnel needed through Mt Victoria, which is not to deny the importance of the other parts of Let’s Get Wellington Moving, particularly the rapid transit issues that are important to Julie Anne Genter and others, and to the Labour Party.

In respect of Julie Anne Genter’s question about—

💬 Simeon Brown: What about Auckland light rail?

Oh, Auckland light rail. No decisions will be taken on that before the election. We are seeking—

💬 Simeon Brown: Nothing?

Well, there’s a lot of work being done, but no final decisions will be taken as to whether it’s over ground or underground.

In respect of Julie Anne Genter’s questions in respect of Waitematā crossings, any option that proceeds will have increased public transport capability in every stage. There will be no stage that doesn’t increase public transport connectivity across the Waitematā, including for public transport but also for active forms of transport—cycling and pedestrian access—across the bridge.

In respect of her questions about vehicle kilometres travelled, I accept the member’s capability in these issues, and I would, though, observe that quite a bit of the Government expenditure on roads at the moment is necessitated by storm damage, particularly in provincial and rural areas, where people actually don’t generally have public transport options and they are reliant on the roading network. But particularly in our cities—yes—you can’t build your way out of traffic congestion through more motorways; you actually have to support rapid transit.

In respect of the issues that Meka Whaitiri raised in respect of State Highway 35, State Highway 35 is in a parlous position, made worse by Cyclone Gabrielle and the earlier cyclone, and storm events last year—repeated storm events. A total of about $1 billion has already been allocated by the Government to the restoration of roads, and the highest spend of that per capita would be in the Tairāwhiti region because of their great need in that region. So Waka Kotahi are working very hard on re-establishing bridges and roads throughout those storm-affected areas.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’d just like to set the scene for those people watching or listening at home. There is a huge infrastructure deficit when it comes to transport infrastructure, whether it’s four-laning within our regions or between regions so that people who want to do business—truckies who want to get around can plan deliveries and can actually meet their customers’ needs. And for cities that are growing by another half to a million people in the next 30 years like Auckland is, or only a few hundred thousand like Wellington is projected to, people who live there need to know that their Government understands what level of investment is needed in transport infrastructure—whether it suits people to travel by public transport, which ACT is a supporter of if the investment case stacks up, or by private motor vehicle, or by truck no matter whether it’s an electric or hydrogen truck.

So, Minister, I put to you that the budget proposed this year in these Estimates is completely inadequate. Only a billion dollars for CAPEX into the State highway improvements, only $497 million—less than half a billion—on maintenance. And that in Estimates that have been published recently, there’s a billion-dollar shortfall in road maintenance that has accrued over the past decade. Minister, that’s just not enough money.

And then we look at investment management. Well, clearly Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency has a huge job on its hands to plan future works, to do the designation, get the consents in place, acquire the land before they start building. Minister, this doesn’t appear to be enough money.

Would the Minister consider tolling and actually putting a user price on roads immediately in accordance with ACT’s plan to supercharge investment in the highway network, tolling for maintenance and CAPEX and allowing the private sector to compete with the Government for delivery, funding, and financing of roads? I’m sure there’s people at Waka Kotahi, perhaps even some of those sitting here in the House right now, who would love to offload some of those difficult projects and make them the private sector’s problem. And I can guarantee you, Minister, the private sector people who build roads here and around the world, they’re up for it.

Minister, specific questions—let’s just come to Auckland. I’m an Aucklander; Minister. I know you’re an Aucklander, and we love our city. So has any provision been made by this Government in the Estimates for an integrated transport plan for Auckland? And if the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council propose a transport plan and programme that differs from the Government’s in the way that it proposes to stage, time, fund, and deliver, say, an Auckland Harbour Crossing or an Auckland light rail, will the Minister accept the plan that bubbles up from the region and from the city—a city deal that might be proposed by a mayor like His Worship Mayor Wayne Brown?

Minister, question one: if the Mayor of Auckland doesn’t agree to the Government proposing to spend $30 or $40 billion on a harbour crossing, and the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council have a better proposal that’s more cost effective, will the Minister accept Auckland Council’s counteroffer? The same thing applies for Auckland light rail. If the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council have a proposal or prefer an option that’s, say, above ground at much lower cost or can be delivered much more quickly as part of an integrated transport management plan, will the Minister and will this Labour Government accept a counteroffer from the city and from the region that’s eventually going to have to pay for it and going to have to live with the consequences?

So, Minister, there doesn’t appear to be enough money. Where’s the money coming from? Will you take up or recommend ACT’s supercharge road maintenance and investment tolling plan? And the three specific questions about Auckland, Minister—Aucklanders would love the answers, so does everyone else around New Zealand, including people like farmers in Southland who do not expect to be asked to pay for a $30-billion light rail or a $40-billion harbour crossing for Auckland. Minister, there you go.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was wondering if the Minister could comment on a couple of things. One, on the record, if the Minister has it available, could he let us know or confirm that, in fact, roads are not entirely paid for by road users, particularly since there’s significant Crown investment in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and other roading projects—not to mention the 50 percent, at least, contribution from ratepayers to most local roads. And I also wonder if the Minister could comment on the impact on the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) on two things: one is the public-private partnerships that were signed up by the previous National Government, Pūhoi to Warkworth and Transmission Gully. What is the annual cost of that ongoing? And what impact is that having on the NLTF and the ability of future Governments to maintain and rebuild roads around the country in places like the East Coast, which has been severely affected by severe weather events, and the impact of the cut to road user charges and petrol tax that was partially in place during the previous financial year.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to thank the Minister for being in the House tonight to answer our questions on Vote Transport and the Estimates from the Budget that we’ve just had. I must say, being the Transport Minister at the moment in the dying throes of this Labour Government must feel like a hospital pass.

The Minister spoke of the focus of this Budget—if I understood him right—around responding to flooding, resilience, and bridges. I want to get an update from the Minister for the good people of Ashburton after the devastating Ashburton floods just recently that took down that bridge that ended up cutting the South Island in half. So if there was a resilience project that was much needed in New Zealand, I’d advocate for the Ashburton Bridge. So I’d be very interested to ensure that that vital transport corridor remains open. What is his commitment to the Ashburton Bridge within this Budget for the good people of Ashburton?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to ask a couple of questions regarding the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which was discussed at the committee regarding the Estimates. The New Zealand Transport Agency had previously told us that Ministers were reviewing the scope of several New Zealand Upgrade projects. The Minister had no further update regarding the projects that were being reassessed—that’s what the Minister stated at the time of the hearing. I’d like the Minister to please outline to the House what the status of those projects are, including the South Auckland package, Ōtaki to north of Levin, and Whangārei to Port Marsden.

💬 Helen White: It’s going ahead. Don’t worry about it.

Well, the member over there says it’s going ahead, but it says here in the committee report that they’re being re-scoped. So it’d be great to hear directly from the Minister to know what is happening with those particular projects, because I’m sure there’ll be significant local interest in relation to the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Of course, this is the programme of projects which, at the beginning of 2020, the Labour Party said, “Oh, we need to build some roads because we can’t build light rail; that’s taking too long, and we cancelled all those roads back in 2017. So we better find some roads.” So, of course, they picked out a whole lot of roads, and one of those was Mill Road in Auckland, but they cancelled that one again after they announced it.

💬 Andrew Bayly: That’s right. One of the worst things they’ve done.

That’s right. And then there was the Whangārei to Port Marsden run, which they’re now just doing safety upgrades on. And then the Tauranga Northern Link, which they’ve decided they’re only doing half of it—they’re only doing half of it. And then they’re only going to give half the lanes to general traffic anyway. So I’d like an update, Minister, on the status of those projects.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just thank you to the Minister of Transport for his response around State Highway 35. I’m picking up on one of the priorities in this year’s Estimates, which is around reducing emissions. Again, off my earlier question, where’s the Government’s thinking around the blue highway strategy, Minister, particularly, again, for areas that only have one road and no airport? So, specifically, again, where’s the Government’s thinking around blue highways, particularly for our rural communities? And tagged onto that question is the introduction of sea gliders. I’m aware that previous Ministers have received a presentation on the evolutionary use of sea gliders, from a company here in New Zealand, actually—Air Napier—that have put their own capital in to explore the use of sea gliders—not just for the coast but actually for the whole country; fully electrical. Discussions have been had with ports. There’s not a huge amount of infrastructure required to set up sea gliders. But I’m interested to know, from the Minister and this Government, in the context of reducing emissions, whether blue highways are being thought about, and, in the context of blue highways, are facilities like sea gliders which are fully electric being considered in this Government’s plan to reduce emissions?

Responding to a number of the questions asked—Simon Court referred to what he said was a $1 billion shortfall in road maintenance that had accrued over the last decade, and he’s right that there was an underinvestment in road maintenance for most of the period of the ACT-National Government, when maintenance was frozen. As a consequence, the extra funding that went into the system was spent on roads, and the amount of road surfacing halved, or just about halved. Instead of 9 percent of roads been resurfaced every year, it dropped to about 5 percent—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Plus heavier trucks.

—made worse by heavier trucks. And as a consequence, the road surface both cracked up and wasn’t repaired. We’ve now, in every full year—in every full year—that we have been in Government since, been repairing roads—

💬 Simeon Brown: And it’s got worse—and it’s got worse.

—and resurfacing at the rate of 9 percent. The ignorant National Party spokesperson ignores those realities.

In respect of cost overruns, Julie Anne Genter is correct that there were cost overruns on Transmission Gully and some other projects we inherited from the last Government. Sadly, we’ve also had cost overruns on big public transport programmes, including the City Rail Link, where cost overruns for us and the council have totalled about a billion dollars. In respect of the question as to whether roads are not paid for by road users, that is correct that there is insufficient money in road-user charges and petrol excise duty to cover the cost of road maintenance and construction. For some time now, there have been top-ups required from general taxation in the form of both grants and loans.

In respect of Simon Court’s question about if there’s money in this year’s Budget for preparation of an integrated transport plan, yes, there is, including for Auckland, and that has been the case.

In respect of the question about the loss of the Ashburton Bridge, which freed the lower half of the South Island from Ashburton, those issues do need to be addressed.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister for Transport, thank you very much for addressing some of our questions, although your history of road maintenance in New Zealand might have missed a few things out, but you and I can catch up afterwards and I’ll set you straight. Minister, City Rail Link—thank you for raising City Rail Link—a $5.5 billion dollar project. You’ve acknowledged in response to a written question, actually, that it’s more likely to be closer to $6 billion because there’s a huge contingency or risk outstanding that the public haven’t been told about till I told them just now, Minister. Then I want to get on to the unfunded contingency, Minister; that is, the road and rail separation, the grade separation in Auckland. City Rail Link’s going to deliver zero benefits. It’s going to be stuck on 15,000 passengers an hour unless we can separate the road crossings from the rail in Auckland. That’s going to cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, and it needs to be done before City Rail Link opens, otherwise City Rail Link is a lemon. Minister, will the Government fund grade separation, road and rail separation, in Auckland so that we can get the most out of City Rail Link before this Government spends another dollar on Auckland light rail?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just want to follow on from my colleague Simeon Brown—and, I must say, I think New Zealand is looking forward to him being the next transport Minister in two months’ time. He outlined a lot of roads that have been cancelled. But wait—there’s one more: the Belfast to Pegasus expressway, including the Woodend Bypass, that was cancelled by this Labour Government when they came in. It would have helped unlock the potential of the Western Belfast Bypass and the northern corridor, which were built by the last National Government—no Government has done more for transport and greater Christchurch than the last National Government.

So my question to the Minister of Transport is: when you look at AA Canterbury highlighting the Woodend area—one of the most dangerous roads in Canterbury, with the fatalities and the accidents. Since they cancelled that motorway, the traffic volumes have increased by over 30 percent. What is in this Budget for the good people of greater Christchurch about ensuring that the arterial route out of Christchurch is secure with a new four-lane highway?

Just for the members, that is the time left for the debate which is on the screen now.

Responding to the question about grade separation in Auckland, Waka Kotahi has been doing work with Auckland Council on the cost of grade separation, and I agree that is a challenge that is yet to be overcome in Auckland.

Well, Mr Chair, I’m still yet to get an answer from the Minister of Transport regarding the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and the projects that were outlined as having been re-scoped. I’d like an answer around those three particular projects.

I’m wondering if the Minister of Transport can comment on the benefit-to-cost ratios of the projects in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. I wonder if he has any thoughts about why there’s such a double standard for investment in transport projects, where so many politicians claim that rail is low value when we’ve seen many, many studies showing investments in passenger rail, like the lower North Island passenger rail business case that has a return well over the investment that’s being proposed to put in. But when it comes to highways, for some reason the parties on the right, who supposedly care about fiscal discipline, do not care about fiscal discipline, because they’re proposing highways that consistently have lower returns than the cost of the project—not even counting the environmental externalities, the health externalities, the fact that you have to own a car and operate it to use the infrastructure that they’re investing in. I mean, do you have any comment, Minister, on that? I also wonder if you could comment on the percentage of investment that has been put into new State highways relative to new public transport investments over the last years.

The Hon David Parker—four.

In the four seconds available, the good news is that we have funded new trains for Palmerston North to Wellington.

Members, the time for this debate has now expired.

Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2023/24 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.