Estimates Debate — Transport

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Budget Estimates 2024. This Government has an ambitious transport agenda to get transport back on track and to deliver the transport New Zealand needs so that New Zealanders can get where they need to go quickly and safely. We have, in this Budget, invested significantly in the roading projects that New Zealand needs: rail, metro rail, road policing—all of those things which will help ensure that New Zealanders can get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Of course, since we’ve become the Government, we have issued the new Government policy statement on transport, which outlines our roads of national significance programme and puts that back on the agenda and gets it back on track. It outlines a 91 percent increase in funding for road maintenance on our State highways, a 50 percent increase in road maintenance on our local roads, a 40 percent increase in public transport services funding, a significant investment in completing the rail network rebuild of $159 million to complete the rail network rebuild, and Auckland’s ready for the City Rail Link, which will open in 2026, and, as the member for Upper Harbour, Cameron Brewer, says, the Northwest Rapid Transit, continuing progress on that critically important rapid transit program for West Auckland.

This Government is investing significantly across roads, rail, and public transport services to ensure New Zealanders have the ability to get where they need to go quickly and safely. That is what Budget 2024 delivers on, and I look forward to taking questions and talking more about that tonight in our ambitious agenda to help unlock the economic growth and productivity that these roads will do—the road to Northland, the economic growth and productivity benefits that will come from those investments, the travel-time savings helping to ensure we have more efficient networks for our freight. It’s all part of our plan to grow our economy and help New Zealanders get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The differing view that’s contained by members of the Opposition parties is quite clear, but I have a number of questions that I will just fire off.

The first is, Minister, when will we see the first construction activity that you have promised for the key roads of National Party significance—projects like the second Mount Victoria tunnel—and what is the time line that we can expect around that?

Also, why is the Government simply leaving out critical regional projects for the South Island by not having any funding set aside for projects like Brougham Street that will actually make a difference, and just talking about what money might sort of be left over—Rocks Road, in Nelson—and, simply, no love for the South Island?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m keen to know about the targets the Minister and the New Zealand Transport Authority have around the repair of potholes on our State highway networks, particularly around having them fixed within 24 hours. Can the Minister tell us a little bit more about that, please?

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. During the Estimates hearings at our Transport and Infrastructure Committee, the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency, Simon Bridges, said to the committee that we didn’t have all the economic evaluation yet about the proposed roads of national significance. My question to the Minister is: if the goal is economic productivity and cost-effectiveness, why has he promised and committed to a series of projects for which we don’t know the true cost and we have no idea of the actual economic benefit? Why is it that the Government has proposed to spend tens of billions of dollars on projects for which we do not have any economic evidence? Or do we have any evidence of the cost-effectiveness?

Since members opposite are very interested in this, the most recent benefit-cost analysis for the Mount Victoria tunnel was 0.2, which means it was losing money. I’m not sure if members opposite understand what a benefit-cost analysis is, or a benefit-cost ratio, but it means that the cost massively outweighs the benefits. The question to the Minister is: how can he possibly claim that his programme is going to deliver economic productivity or achieve cost-effectiveness, particularly when tens of billions of dollars are proposed, on projects for which the chair of the Transport Agency, former transport Minister Simon Bridges, admits there is no evidence for those projects yet?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the—

Tom Rutherford: Just answer the pothole one.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, well, I thought it was a very good question about potholes that the member asked about, and, of course, it’s an issue which many New Zealanders are very concerned about—

Tom Rutherford: Particularly in the Bay of Plenty.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and particularly in the Bay of Plenty, around improving road maintenance. Of course, in our Government policy statement (GPS) on transport, we introduced the pothole prevention activity class, which was about ring-fencing funding for road resealing, road rehabilitation, and drainage—the core activities to actually ensure we’re preventing potholes on our roads and make sure we’re maintaining them to appropriate standard.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) board has increased funding for those activities, for pothole prevention on the State highway network, by 91 percent following that GPS being released. And, of course, there’s also been standards set with contractors to ensure that those potholes that do appear are repaired within a timely fashion to ensure the safety of our roads. My understanding is, I think, 95 percent on tier one State highways within 24 hours and 85 percent on other State highways within 24 hours—must be repaired within 24 hours. That is a significant improvement, but it’s also about ensuring that we have a safe, reliable surface for New Zealanders and for the freight operators to be able to travel around this country quickly and safely.

About ring-fencing, that money is about ensuring that we are actually investing more in that rehabilitation of the network, which has not been getting the right number of kilometres done in recent times. In some years, I think it’s been down to 0.5 percent or 0.4 percent of the network actually being rehabilitated. We actually need, over the long term, to get that up to 2 percent.

Tangi Utikere: Why is your track record previously showing a reduction in investment and maintenance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s interesting to hear the Labour Party member, the spokesperson for transport, interject. Of course, we all remember their record when it came to cycleways across the Harbour Bridge—$250 million, I think it was—and Auckland light rail didn’t even get a business case delivered. Didn’t even get a business case delivered—

Suze Redmayne: 62,000 potholes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And 62,000 potholes, thank you, Suze Redmayne—62,000 potholes in their last year in Government. That’s the type of stats they’re very proud of. They’re very proud of the fact that they left our roads absolutely riddled with potholes. That’s a few notes for the member for Palmerston North.

In terms of the roads of national significance, which the member likes to talk a lot about, in terms of the South Island, we’ve identified the Woodend Bypass as being a road of national significance and the Hope Bypass as being a road of national significance. Both of those will make a significant difference in the South Island—and, importantly, the significant investment in road maintenance we fill across the country to support that—as well as the NZTA board, through the National Land Transport Programme, identifying the second Ashburton Bridge as being a priority of regional significance as well.

The member from the Green Party asked some questions around economic growth and productivity. I suggest she asks those questions of people in Northland, who have recently had the Brynderwyns shut again for multiple months. The reality is that roads are what people drive on and move freight on around our country—

Ryan Hamilton: And electric buses.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And they move electric buses, and they also connect people to their homes and to their Green Party offices with their car parks. The reality is, roads drive economic growth and productivity. We’ve seen that with what the Waikato Expressway has done through the Waikato. We’ve seen a number of economic reports which identify the economic benefits of continuing the roads of national significance programme. Yes, NZTA is going through the work of cost and scope to ensure that we get that right, as we get those programmes of roads under way over the coming years. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for the clarification that the potholes allocation of funding is not just about potholes but, in fact, about the strength and the robustness of the entire road. That’s very, very helpful.

Look, I did want to start off by asking one question around that area, and that is the whole issue of asset management. We were told, in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), that, in fact, over quite some period of time, they’ve been investing at about 50 percent of the amount of money that they should have been investing to keep the roads at the right level. An increase of 91 percent basically takes it to pretty much where they should be. The first question I’ve got for you is about how you intend to make sure that both for State highways—so NZTA’s own asset—and also for the assets that NZTA subsidises—i.e., the local roads—those asset management plans are being done well and that the investment levels are right to keep those roads in good nick, both the State highways and the local networks.

The second question I wanted to ask is around the roads of national significance. The first part of that is just to say: how quickly do you think it will be before the public of New Zealand, who are looking forward to these roads of national significance, can see concrete evidence of new roads being designed, consented, and actually shovels going into the ground?

On Northland, I’d be really interested to get some feedback on that too, because in travelling to Northland for a meeting with Northland businesses, it was not an esoteric “Look, if you build a road, there will be a certain amount of economic development which might occur”—and it’ll be plus X percent or Y percent—but there are a lot of very substantial businesses there which are quite clear that, without that road, they will not invest. With that road, they are quite clear what they will invest in, and they are significant investments for the good of not just the Northland region but the country as a whole. So I’d be interested in your feedback on that.

The last part of that question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter said that benefit-cost (BC) ratios are not very high in some cases, but it seems, to me, that the one example that I would use is Transmission Gully, where the BC was supposed to be at 0.2 or 0.3, or something like that, but I think it was predicated on a relatively modest level of time saving, and the actual experience is much more significant than that. I wonder, Minister, whether, in fact, NZTA is underselling some of those and being very conservative on those. I’ll come back with a couple of other questions later on, so I’ll leave those for now. Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Andy Foster for his questions. The first question, in relation to pothole prevention and State highways and local roads, is an issue which is particularly important, and I thank the member for the question there. It’s about making sure that we are maintaining the assets to the appropriate levels. That means ensuring that it’s the appropriate funding, but, actually, also, that there’s the appropriate targets in place and that we’re also getting those efficiencies through that investment. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has a road efficiency group. They are undertaking work through NZTA and alongside all road-controlling authorities. They will be getting work around benchmarking councils around their spend per kilometre, making sure that they’re getting quality investment from the investment they’re putting into road maintenance, and also looking to find efficiencies around how they can get better bang for buck out of that investment.

There’s a number of things that the New Zealand Transport Agency will be going through, around their contracting model, how they can find efficiencies across road-controlling authorities, ensuring that taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money is getting bang for buck. There’s a huge amount of work that the agency is leading in terms of that, because it is the factors—it’s not just about the money; it’s about making sure it is getting value for those who are paying it, and they need to see that value on the road. Even just recently, NZTA has changed the methodology with its contractors around how they’ll be fixing potholes which appear on the road. Rather than just putting some cold mix into that hole and waiting for it to pop next week, actually going in there and cutting it and repairing it properly—yes, it’ll cost slightly extra money in the short term, but that’s the type of maintenance which actually has a longer payback and is more efficient. Those are the types of investments I’m expecting to see more of from both NZTA and from all road-controlling authorities across New Zealand, because that is actually what New Zealanders expect from their taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money.

In terms of the roads of national significance, the work that is under way there, the Ōtaki to north of Levin road, will start next year. Construction will start on it next year. There are seven other roads which have been identified for enabling works, contracts, and construction within the three-year period of the National Land Transport Programme. And the reality is that, to get these roads started quickly, we are going to need fast-track legislation. That is critical to being able to build the infrastructure New Zealanders need. We need fast-track legislation, because there is only one of—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon David Parker: We already had it, and it was working.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if that’s the case, the reality is that the only major new road is the Warkworth to Wellsford Road, which actually has a consent, and there are not consents for other roads. If there was fast-track legislation in place, why were there not consents for all of these other roads which, actually, New Zealanders need? That last Government cancelled those roads, and they didn’t want to actually get these roads put on the books—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order—point of order, Madam Chair. The Minister has just claimed that the last Government cancelled roads, yet he’s announced a road that’s going to start construction that was funded by the last Government. It’s completely inconsistent.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s not a point of order, but I’m going to call the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Minister was incredibly cocky in his last performance, but I guarantee you one thing, he would not have been cocky if he were at the public meeting in Woodville last night. He would not have been cocky if he faced 500-plus locals who are absolutely disgusted at his proposal to toll the replacement road—the Manawatū Tararua Highway.

Before I ask the question I want to pre-empt one thing: I know that he will say that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are consulting on this and it’s part of the process, and all that sort of thing, but the fact is he instructed them to do this. He changed the rules, as Minister, to instruct NZTA to go and look at new roads and put a toll on them. That’s the point—this is not a new road. This is a replacement road. This is nine months from being finished. This is a seven-year project, and I want to know what the Minister would say if he actually had the guts to turn up to that meeting in Woodville last night.

Shanan Halbert: Where was he?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No answer. And that’s very fitting because that is the answer that Mike Butterick and Suze Redmayne gave to the locals in Woodville last night. The Government is treating the people of Manawatū, Tararua, Hawke’s Bay, and Wairarapa with disgrace. They are treating them with disrespect. The Minister needs to stand up and explain to them why he will not scrap this ridiculous toll idea from the get-go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Following on from Mr McAnulty, is his focus on tolling as an action to simply address the $6 billion financial hole that is in his Government’s transport plans.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I can answer that—yes.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, there we go. The Minister’s not answering it, so we’ll take that as a yes.

I want to move on to the Government policy statement (GPS). The Minister has referred to the additional capital funding in the GPS package. How can we have confidence when the Treasury has indicated that they only had one hour to review the limited information that was provided by the Ministry of Transport and, on that basis, they recommended not including the additional capital funding for the GPS in the Budget package as it had not been through the same assessment process as other capital initiatives had and they were not able to provide any validation and, further, that there were risks of cost escalation and delivery delays with large transport projects if they are accelerated.

My question to the Minister is: how can there be confidence in light of that Treasury advice? And, further, when it came to the concern that Treasury expressed around the cutting of bus driver wages and the funding around that contributing to front-line shortages, which they identified, and that there would be a significant risk of ongoing shortages and, in actual fact, the Treasury provided information to the Minister of Finance that they recommended that she ask the Minister of Transport to provide an assurance that core public transport networks will continue to be able to operate at the current levels if this saving is implemented—my question to the Minister is: what response did he give to the Minister of Finance if that question was asked; if it was not asked by the finance Minister, what is his answer to that question?

Well, I’ll take the point that he made there about cost blowouts on projects, because the last Government was very famous for cost blowouts on projects. Let’s go no further from “Auckland light fail”, which was going to start at $1.2 billion, and by the time that Government had, I think, drafted the 300th page of the draft indicative business case, it had got to $29.2 billion. Let’s talk about that.

The other point I’d make is that the Manawatū replacement road, in terms of the tolling proposal, that road has had a $200 million cost blowout—$200 million cost blowout. That has had a $200 million cost blowout; it has gone from about $600 million to $800 million in terms of its cost. The reality is the tolling proposal has been put out as a way to recover some of those revenues in order to protect those other parts of the country which need road maintenance and new infrastructure being built in them. Ultimately, there is a consultation under way. As with many of these tolling proposals, there are a range of perspectives, and I look forward to hearing from them and considering them as part of that process.

In terms of the member’s questions around the Budget allocation and the Treasury briefing, ultimately that funding is being set aside in a contingency to help support and advance roads of national significance and major public transport projects.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister of Transport will be in just a moment. I just want to outline my concerns, and that of many of those who live in the Warkworth region and up into Wellsford and Te Hana, about the new motorway heading north from Warkworth.

Now, we know that Labour absolutely hate motorways, because the road from Pūhoi to Warkworth, they labelled the “holiday highway”—the “holiday highway”—when all of those that live in the North need to access Auckland in a very speedy manner; no “holiday highway” at all. I’d like to ask the question around the frustration that those in that electorate—the Kaipara ki Mahurangi electorate—face getting through the Dome Valley. This is a treacherous little piece of road; it has now got sticks all through the middle of it. If you ever happen to have some sort of breakdown, you can’t get around; there’s a blockage that goes on for hours—so many frustrations for people travelling between Wellsford and Warkworth.

The question, really—we’re wanting to get faster freight through that area, whether up into the north or back into Auckland; it’ll increase our productivity. Also, those businesses, then, would be able to contribute further to GDP. Could the Minister please outline his expectation of the time line of getting this road from Warkworth through to Wellsford under way?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, it appears that everyone else is coming up with plans for the Waitematā Harbour crossing but you. My questions tonight—

Grant McCallum: What’s your one?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not me.

SHANAN HALBERT: We delivered a plan.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Not me. Say it’s you.

SHANAN HALBERT: My apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT: Minister, so here’s your chance to come clean—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK—I can’t hear the member.

SHANAN HALBERT: —with Aucklanders: what is your plan? What’s the time line when the public can expect to hear from you on some sort of a plan? And what do you think of Mayor Wayne Brown’s plan that he has proposed?

Minister, I also want to touch on congestion charging, an additional levy that you’ve put on top of a number of other levies for Aucklanders. I wonder, here, what specific public transport improvements are planned to coincide with the introduction of your time-of-use charging to ensure viable alternatives for commuters.

Minister, the third part of my questioning tonight is around Auckland Transport. I’d like you to be clear with the public: do you support Marlborough MP Jamie Arbuckle’s member’s bill to disestablish Auckland Transport; if so, I’d like to know what costing and analysis you have done around that particular work, and is it your intention, following that disestablishment, to integrate parts and functions of Auckland Transport into Waka Kotahi?

Look, I thank members for their questions. Can I first thank my colleague Jenny Marcroft for her question in relation to the Warkworth to Wellsford highway, which, of course, we all remember the Labour Party calling the “holiday highway”. They spent years campaigning against it—the “holiday highway”—until Chris Hipkins turned up to open it, and then he said, “This is critical infrastructure that New Zealanders need.” That’s what he said when he got there and opened it.

Well, I tell you what, on this side of the Chamber, we know how important roading infrastructure is to New Zealand. That’s why we’ve put building and maintaining our roading networks at the heart of our Government policy statement on transport and what the New Zealand Transport Authority board has done with the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).

Now, the good news is the Warkworth to Wellsford road is consented. It’s the only major new road which has a consent, and that means it is on the fast track for delivery within the three-year NLTP period. The New Zealand Transport Agency has already been out engaging with the market on the Northland Expressway. That is a critical piece of infrastructure for Northland but also for our economy and for growing our economy and providing economic growth.

In terms of the point the member Jenny Marcroft made around Dome Valley, I note the last Government spent something like $70 million on Dome Valley, and the reality is they didn’t consider resilience as part of any of the work—they didn’t consider resilience. They spent $70 million on some works in the Dome Valley and didn’t even consider resilience. We’ve seen more slips, we’ve seen closures, we’ve seen all sorts of other problems, and Northland continues to suffer. That’s not acceptable, and that is why we’re prioritising the Northland Expressway.

In terms of the member Shannon Halbert’s questions in regards to the Waitematā Harbour crossing, NZTA has got work under way in relation to the options. I do note that the last Government—their greatest and most amazing idea at the end of their time was to come up with something like a $55 billion project. That was what they sort of thought was the way to win the election. The reality is—what did Aucklanders say? Aucklanders said, “Haere rā.” That’s what they said. They said haere rā to the Labour Party. So that was what happened after that. So we’re working through that methodically. The agency’s got work under way in terms of identifying routes and options, and there’ll be more to say on that in the near future.

In terms of the question around time-of-use charging—the member likes talking about congestion charging; timeofuse charging—I noticed when they were in Government, they were big proponents, and now they’re big opponents. I’m a bit confused because when I announced time-of-use charging, he was very clear and put in this press release that this was just going to be another tax and, therefore, he was going to oppose it. The reality is, this is about actually maximising efficiency of the network—that’s what this is about: maximising efficiency of the network.

The great news for Aucklanders is that the last National Government started the City Rail Link, which will double capacity of our rail network in Auckland. So, for the last six years—by the end of their six years, they’ll think about, “Oh, we should do congestion charging.” They hadn’t even got “Auckland light fail” past page 300 of the draft business case. and now they’re saying, “Oh, and what are you going to do at public transport?” Well, we thought about that when we were last in Government. We had the foresight to fund and start construction on the City Rail Link. It will open in 2026. We’re starting work on the Northwest Rapid Transit. We are going to complete the Eastern Busway. There’s significant public transport investment in Auckland under way. We’re very proud of that investment; it will make a huge difference.

Last question you asked was around Auckland Transport. We’ll work with the mayor. There’s a range of options that need to be considered carefully around the future, but the reality is there needs to be greater democratic accountability of transport decisions in Auckland.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do have a series of questions. I note that the Minister is taking up lots of time for this debate, not talking about the Estimates and what’s in his plan but shouting about things that previous Governments did or did not do. Could I ask the Minister to try and stay on track and address—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Shh! I’m trying to hear.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —some questions, because there is actually quite a lot of content—really important content—in the transport budget, which is quite enormous.

I have a series of questions about the specifics of the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which was recently announced, because that gives effect to the next three years of transport spending from central government. We’ve previously asked the Minister how many public transport projects were funded under the NLTP and how many were not. More than two-thirds of those projects that regional and local councils applied for did not receive funding, so a huge number of projects are not going to be funded. Can the Minister tell us how many of the public transport projects that were funded are new public transport projects and how many were projects that already had funding under the previous NLTP, firstly. We’d love an answer to that if the Minister is able to give it.

Secondly, in the National Land Transport Programme documents, there is a graph which says, “Revenue and expenditure 2024-25 to 2034.”, and it shows an enormous gap opening up between expenditure intentions and net revenue from about 2027. I’m sorry that I don’t have a large graph here to show the members opposite who are looking sceptical, but you can find it in publicly available documents.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All right. That’s enough.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So, in the detail of the first three years, 2024 to 2027, can the Minister outline how much of the funding is actually a loan that NZTA will be taking—a loan through the Crown—and is it the case that there’s an additional $1 billion from 2027 that, as of yet, has no planned revenue? Where is that revenue going to come from? There’s a question about revenue and spending intentions and the very, very large gap between them. How is the Government planning to fill that gap? Particularly in this first NLTP period, how much is NZTA already drawing down as a loan and, therefore, will have to pay back in the future?

Then, moving on from the public transport projects, is the Minister aware, and was he aware when he drafted the Government Policy Statement on land transport, that he was, essentially, defunding footpath maintenance and that councils are now going to have almost no money from the transport budget to maintain footpaths? Does he think footpaths are an important part of the transport system? Is he aware that people who use cars have to walk from their car to their destination in some cases, sometimes even crossing roads? Why has he defunded safe road crossings? We have multiple reports from regional councils here that they will not be able to meet the cost of depreciation on footpaths, that there will be no safe crossings funded. How do National electorate MPs who’ve lobbied for safe crossings and traffic calming—how are they responding to this news?

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Northland MP, Minister, I’d be very interested to know why you prioritised the road of national significance to Northland and why are you looking to fund it as one major project.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister’s spoken at length already about potholes. I just want to acknowledge that the largest pothole we’ve got in Christchurch East is the gap between Pages Road and New Brighton, where we should have a good Pages Road bridge. Some quick questions on the Pages Road bridge: can the Minister confirm the current new building standard for the Pages Road bridge? Can he confirm that his commitment so far is to only $13 million towards the construction of a new bridge? Can he confirm Minister Matt Doocey’s commitment to me recently on radio to a further $40 million to be invested in 2025? And can the Minister let New Brighton residents know when we can expect to see construction starting on the Pages Road bridge?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank members for their questions. I want to acknowledge Grant McCallum’s question in regards to Northland—

Hon David Parker: Here we go again—repetition, but don’t answer the questions the Opposition asked.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —in terms of the—oh, I’ve been answering everyone’s questions, if only the member asked one.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, that’s enough. I’ll be the judge of whether the Minister’s answering the questions. We’ve got quite a lot of ticks down here, so let’s just have some silence and have a constructive 25 minutes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m top of the class, aren’t I?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I couldn’t possibly comment.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: To acknowledge the question, in terms of the Northland Expressway, ultimately, that is one of the roads which already has a consent and it is critical to the resilience and the economic productivity of the North, and it’s also part of our coalition agreement with New Zealand First.

In terms of the questions from the Hon Julie Anne Genter around public transport projects, I mean, councils always bid more projects than are able to be funded, and that is ultimately what happens across all of the activity classes. There are always more projects than can be funded. The reality is, if the member wishes to put specific questions in writing, as she is genuinely quite good at, I would be very happy to answer that through the normal process, but the reality is that this Government has a significant record of public transport investment in this National Land Transport Programme and in the Government policy statement. It’s the biggest ever expenditure on public transport services and infrastructure in any national land transport programme—$6.4 billion. This is the biggest ever expenditure on public transport in any national land transport programme, and that is something we’re incredibly proud of on this side of the House, and we know it’s going to make a difference.

I just want to reiterate the point that the last Government talked a big game on public transport. Let’s get Wellington consulting—well, you have to acknowledge them for the monument to Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which we drive past on Cobham Drive. The crossing there, that is the monument to Let’s Get Wellington Moving—2.4 million bucks for that, and tens of millions of dollars on business cases. Let’s talk about the $230 million or $250 million of “Auckland light fail”—didn’t even get to page 300 of their business case.

Now I’ll answer the question around footpaths. I hear the members are very interested in the answers to footpaths. There is investment in footpath and in cycleway maintenance renewals—$114 million in the National Land Transport Programme, so here they are trying to make the claim that there is $0 for footpath maintenance. There’s $114 million for footpath and cycleway maintenance in the National Land Transport Programme, and that will go towards councils and support them in doing what they do on their networks.

In relation to the National Land Transport Programme, there is a loan which has been provided to the New Zealand Transport Agency. I think it’s a billion dollars per year. There has also been a capital grant allocated towards that. As we’ve talked about earlier, there’s a billion dollars of contingency capital to help support and advance projects such as the roads of national significance and the Northern Busway.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’ve got three questions. The first one of them is: we had some interjectory comments about the fast track being very much the same as the previous fast-track regime, but I just wanted to ask you—I went up to visit the Mount Messenger project not that long ago, and the hold-up there wasn’t resource consent so much as the ability to acquire land—in other words, the Public Works Act (PWA). I’d just like some feedback on that and the relationship with the fast-track legislation in terms of the PWA.

The second question: Minister, both you and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee have spent quite a bit of time looking at temporary traffic management, and the member opposite has kind of ridiculed that a little bit, but I’d be very interested, Mr Minister, in your observations about the potential savings that there are. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has done some great work in changing the temporary traffic management code, but the potential savings that there are going to be through that. Also, how is that going to be monitored so that we can actually keep not just the NZTA but all roading authorities and other utility authorities efficient?

The third question that I wanted to ask, which is a very specific one that I have discussed with you, is the Marlborough Sounds. The roads there were obviously seriously damaged by the floods back in what was 2022, and there’s been a lot of consultation with the community there about how to fix them—particularly the Kenepuru Sound, which is a very, very long, winding road. It’s a beautiful part of the world, but it’s a very challenging piece of infrastructure, which, of course, the next time there is a major downpour, is quite likely to fail again. There has been some conversation about thinking laterally, and instead of accessing some of those areas by road, accessing them by water, as is done in that area for, say, D’Urville Island or Arapawa Island already. The question is whether that would be a more resilient way of doing things, to fund that rather than to fund the road into—so maybe bits of road, maybe bits of water-borne asset infrastructure—so that those communities remain connected and remain resilient the next time there is a major storm event. I look forward to your answers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to acknowledge the member, who’s the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. He does a great job getting around the country, actually visiting the regions, understanding the issues, and visiting the projects. I want to acknowledge your visit to Mount Messenger, which is a project which has become significantly challenged. I was up there recently with David MacLeod and Barbara Kuriger—the local members of Parliament.

One of the challenges there has become the Public Works Act. Yes, there are consenting issues. That is why fast track is about making sure that we consent projects like that faster and more efficiently and deal with the complexity of consenting. The Public Works Act is also part of the challenge. I’m working very closely with the Minister for Land Information, who’s in charge of the Public Works Act, around reforms that are required to the Public Works Act, because a project can be consented but then it can be held up for many years, adding huge amounts of cost to taxpayers or hundreds of millions of dollars of cost to taxpayers, and slowing down and actually inhibiting those who require the use of that road to be able to achieve the economic benefits or safety benefits or the resilience benefits that that type of infrastructure would provide. There’s a review of the Public Works Act under way, and we’re looking at what changes might need to be made to make that more efficient. If we don’t fix that, we can have fast track for transport projects, but we will still be held back, so we need to sort that through.

In terms of temporary traffic management, there’s a number of things that we’ve outlined in the Government policy statement (GPS) around the approach required in terms of temporary traffic management. We’ve made it very clear that we need to see more efficiency and effectiveness across both State highways and local roads when it comes to the use of temporary traffic management. I think it’s fair to say New Zealanders are sick and tired of the cost and also the inconvenience which can sometimes often be caused by temporary traffic management.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has responded to that in the GPS in a number of ways. Firstly, they are reviewing traffic management set-ups on the State highways and instructing suppliers to remove temporary traffic management that is not necessary. In February, they audited 800 worksites across the network and found that 26 percent of unattended sites were actually not required. That just, I think, gives evidence to the intuition of everyday Kiwis driving on our roads, who realise that, actually, a big proportion of this stuff isn’t actually needed. NZTA is taking a more proactive approach to ensure that when that temporary traffic management is not needed, it is removed, and that motorists are not being inconvenienced by temporary traffic management which isn’t needed.

That’s one thing—also, transitioning from the old temporary traffic management code to the new guide. That is based more on a risk-based approach rather than a safety-at-any-cost approach, which was the previous approach. The previous approach literally would determine how many cones and how many metres between cones and drove the industry very hard in terms of temporary traffic management, but without any concern for costs. The reality is, again, it’s taxpayers and ratepayers who pay for this, so transitioning that to the new guide will deliver savings by adopting a risk-based approach rather than being prescriptive, and that’s a critical component. NZTA is now working to roll that out into all of their contracts, their capital contracts and their maintenance contracts, as quickly as possible. My expectation is for local road-controlling authorities to do the same and do it quickly.

In terms of Marlborough, the question there around the emergency response—the board, I think, has recently approved some more funding for their emergency response for those roads, which is critically important to help ensure that recovery, which is really, really important for the Marlborough Sounds.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Budget decisions taken by this Minister of Transport clearly show a real dislike for local government from this Government, because they are simply wanting to lump additional costs in this particular space.

I note from the Treasury’s release of the bilateral briefing notes to the Minister of Finance that there was a warning, and it was noting that a number of the Minister’s proposals would actually see an increase in the expectations on local government funding and that it may not be sustainable in the long term. The suggested question for the Minister of Finance to put to the Minister of Transport was to ask how he proposed to manage the risks of transferring further costs on to local government, with the removal of Crown funding from those programmes. My question to the Minister is: what was his answer to that question? Or in the circumstance where that question was not actually put to him, was it because the Minister of Finance simply didn’t have a sense of diligence in the particular space?

My colleague Mr Davidson is, I’m sorry, incorrect: the biggest pothole is not in Christchurch; it’s in the Cook Strait as we wait for a ferry. This was an issue that the Treasury identified as a real financial risk in the cancellation of iReX. My question to the Minister is this: why is there not a specific provision in the Budget for a ferry replacement? That would send a very strong signal that this was a Government that was actually serious about replacing the ferries for the Cook Strait, rather than relying on the $7.5 billion multi-year capital allowance that has been set aside. How, also, does the Minister justify wasting potentially half a billion dollars on an exit clause and penalties for this cancellation, without any viable replacement? We’re still waiting. Every day, you wake up and think, “Oh, is a ferry coming today? No, still waiting.”

Now, the question I put to the Minister during the hearing for Estimates was around ferry maintenance. Minister, you’ll recall that there was a figure that had been floating around that the maintenance cost would be around $65 million a year, and you told me in the hearing that, no, no, you were comfortable that it would be nowhere near that particular level. Within the next couple of days, we had an incident where the ferry ran aground. Now, your Government has indicated that they’re going to push out the replacement, when it eventually comes, by at least five years. That will come with additional maintenance costs. Do you maintain that that $65 million is inaccurate, and, actually, what is the figure in terms of maintenance as a result of pushing out the ferry replacement option to at least a five-year period?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’d like to ask some questions on behalf of the residents of Westmere and Point Chev. There’s been the raising of a possibility of a crossing across the harbour there. I would like to know whether you’ve spoken to the mayor about that, what your initial view of that is, and, if it isn’t your view that it will be there, when will you be expecting a harbour crossing?

I would also like to know just about congestion charging. My understanding is it was costing the country about a billion dollars a year. Has that amount that it cost in Auckland been revised? Also, how does that balance with the way that the congestion charging will work in terms of the kind of economic implications of that? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one final, very quick call. Firstly, I wanted to outline for the benefit of all members in the Chamber that suggesting that there’s a more cost-effective way to achieve the outcomes we want doesn’t mean we have any dislike of particular infrastructure projects. While they claim that, I think it is really important to say it up front that there is a more cost-effective way to achieve the outcomes we want, which is reduced transport costs and improved economic productivity and reduced emissions and more safety—that can all be done in a more cost-effective way. The people introducing the emotion around this are the people on the other side of the committee with their projection.

I’m looking at a graph, Minister, from Auckland Transport, which states—and this is about financial year 2025 to 2027—that prior to financial year 2025, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) funded 50 percent of walking and cycling improvements and maintenance. That is no longer the case; therefore, there is a huge shortfall in councils right around the country between what is needed for footpath maintenance and renewal and what NZTA is funding. While the Minister has some nominal amount in the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP), what is his response and does he accept that there will be a significant reduction in footpath renewal and maintenance as a result of his NLTP, which could result in higher rates, which, on the other hand, he’s complaining about.

Finally, because the Minister referred to the crossing on Cobham Drive, I just want to acknowledge that a person died trying to cross that road. I think it’s disgusting that he continually invokes something like a pedestrian crossing, which is a way for people to get around without having to be in a car—does he simply hate people who try to get around without using a car?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s not a fair question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the Minister of Transport. The first is a follow-up to a question that I asked three times yesterday in the local government hearing and was advised to ask this again in the transport hearing, which is—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): As long as it’s related to transport.

RACHEL BOYACK: It sure is, Madam Chair. The Minister advised me to ask it again today in this hearing, so I am. The question is around funding from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for councils who have roads damaged during severe weather events, and NZTA are proposing to change the criteria so only roads that suffer damage in a one-in-20-year event as opposed to current criteria, which is a one-in-10-year event—changing that criteria. That is currently being consulted on and would lump more costs on to local government. I asked the Minister three times yesterday in that hearing; he advised me to raise it again in the transport hearing, and so I am doing so.

The second question is: will he rule out tolling the new Hope Bypass in my Nelson electorate? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was remiss to not answer Reuben Davidson’s question in regards to Pages Road before, so I do want to just acknowledge that question, and to acknowledge the fact that this Government has funded it, unlike the previous Government in terms of that critically important road bridge—in his electorate, actually—which will help provide resilience there.

In terms of the timing of the funding, the advice I’ve received is there’s work to be done around design, and obviously procurement, etc. There’s funding to get construction started within this National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) period, and then it will need to be completed in the next NLTP period. The good news for the people of New Brighton and of Christchurch is that project is funded under this National Land Transport Programme.

Tangi Utikere: The extra $40 million from Doocey?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In relation, as I said, there’s—if you listen to my question, there will be a new NLTP period which the remainder of that construction funding will have to be completed in.

In relation to Tangi Utikere’s question around local government funding, ultimately we’ve provided a 50 percent increase in local road maintenance funding, and that is one of local road pothole prevention. That is critically important to helping councils do what is one of their core roles, which is to repair their roads—fill the potholes, rehabilitate them, reseal them, do the drainage—and this is big support for those local councils. I reject the assertion being presented by that member, when this NLTP makes a huge difference for those local councils.

Rachel Boyack: Hasn’t answered my question. Are you moving from one-in-10 to one-in-20 or not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Rachel Boyack asked a question around the consultation on the emergency work funding assistance rate, and I thank the member for raising that question again today. I’m advised consultation on the emergency works policies review has closed. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) is now analysing the content of submissions received, and that analysis newly resulting in recommendations of policy change will be considered by the NZTA board over the next few months.

In terms of the questions from Helen White, she asked about congestion charging and she seems to be very supportive of the idea. Shanan Halbert seems to be quite sceptical of the idea, and Helen White’s clearly in favour. The legislation will come to the House, it will go through a full select committee process, and, hopefully, by the end of that, Labour has actually determined what their view is as they squabble over it. But, ultimately, what we know is that the key purpose of time-of-use charging must be around maximising the efficiency of the network.

Shanan Halbert: You’re providing no alternatives.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The member there asked about alternatives. Well, I’ve already talked about alternatives and I’m happy to talk about the alternatives again because the last National Government started construction of the City Rail Link and it will open in 2026. We’re going to complete the Rail Network Rebuild. We’ve got the Eastern Busway under construction. We’re putting 40 percent more into public transport services. This Government is investing. This National Land Transport Programme has the biggest ever investment in public transport in the history of the National Land Transport Programmes—how fantastic is that? I just want to say there is significant investment in the alternatives.

In relation to the other question from Rachel Boyack, this Government’s position has been very clear when it comes to tolling proposals. We’ve been very clear that we will accept those recommendations which NZTA put forward.

I’m going to call the Hon David Parker, and I just want to say that there’s only about three-and-a-little-bit minutes of this segment of debate left.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask questions about the northwestern busway. I think the most successful public transport project in recent decades in Auckland has been the Northern Busway, which carries an enormous amount of traffic, without which Auckland Harbour Bridge would already be clogged at peak times. I think there’s now a general agreement in New Zealand that the failure to incorporate a separated busway alongside State Highway 16 was a mistake. We’ve got a road that is five lanes wide as we get close to Auckland, and it clogs at rush hour.

I note that the State highway plan that the Minister has brought forward has funding for some of the early stations out towards Westfield and Brigham Creek, and that there is planning work being done in respect of the more holistic grade-separated busway that would be separate from the State highway. I want to hear from the Minister as to what his vision is for achieving what, I think, is probably one of the more important public transport projects in New Zealand, which is the completion of the busway down State Highway 16.

I thank the member the Hon David Parker for his question in relation to the northwestern rapid transit project. That has been identified in our Government policy statement (GPS) on transport and in the National Land Transport Programme as a key priority, and it will make a huge difference for north-west Auckland. I acknowledge the advocacy of Cameron Brewer, the member of Parliament for Upper Harbour, who has been a staunch advocate for that project. I mean, ultimately, decisions were made in relation to that—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon David Parker: You can’t help yourself, can you?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I can’t help talking about the importance of the northwestern rapid transit project, just like the member for Upper Harbour, and there is consultation currently under way in relation to the route, where those stations might be, and I think it is important to acknowledge the work of the former Minister of Transport, in terms of the draft GPS that he did issue just prior to the election, which also prioritised that project. I think it is one that, on both sides of the House, we would align and say is a key priority for Auckland. It is something that does need to be delivered, it can be delivered, and it will probably need to be delivered in a number of stages, as those benefits can then be accrued over time.

Also, we need to make sure that we’re planning the extension of State Highway 16 beyond Kumeū, because that is a very fast-growing part of Auckland. It has a huge amount of housing, industry, and growth going on in north-west Auckland, and so the extension of the North-Western Motorway past Kumeū is also going to be a critical project for north-west Auckland. As our city grows and develops and as more housing and infrastructure is needed, we need to have the roading infrastructure to keep up with that. Thank you.

Members, the Minister of Transport’s time in the chair has come to an end.

Māori Development