11. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his statements that “The Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand’s public transport networks.”, and “We will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes and yes. I have just come from the Auckland Unleashed summit, where we were discussing the Auckland Spatial Plan, and where I specifically outlined the Government’s commitment to public transport in Auckland.
If the Minister is now confirming that his Government supports the Auckland Council’s vision of a compact eco-city supported by strong public transport, why then is virtually all new Government transport spending for the next decade dedicated to motorways?
I am not quite sure that the member is right in the assertions that she makes. The purpose of the spatial planning meeting today in Auckland was to get all the stakeholders round the table to look at what the future of Auckland might be like. As I said in my remarks made in Auckland, there will be a wide range of aspirations from Aucklanders about where they live and what form of transport they use.
Given that in the last decade the central business district of Auckland has attracted more residents and new office jobs than any other part of Auckland City, is that not a very clear sign that the aspiration of many Aucklanders is that they do not want to live on lifestyle blocks far out from the central city and have long, expensive commuter drives that include being stuck in traffic?
As I just said, there will be a range of aspirations from a range of Aucklanders. I am not entirely sure that the member is right about where in Auckland the bulk of jobs are created. My information may be out of date, but when I looked at it prior to the election back in 2008, from memory, only about 11 percent of jobs were in downtown Auckland. One of the issues with Auckland is that it is extremely spread out and jobs are spread out right across the Auckland region. People do a lot of commuting, as they live in one place, play in another, and work in another.
Hon Shane Jones
Mr SPEAKERHow reliable are his commitments to Auckland public transport, given the forecasted decrease in the New Zealand Transport Agency fund due to petrol excise tax revenue being down?
We intend to honour the commitments we have made, and that was one of the things I said to Aucklanders today. It is also one of the reasons why we always have to be careful with promises we make, and make sure that whatever promises we make can be backed up in terms of funding and also with an appropriate benefit-cost ratio. I know that it is quite a foreign concept to the Opposition to have to find the money before one spends it, but on this side of the House that is what we do.
Let me just check. According to my records, Labour has had 27 supplementary questions today, which means it had one of the Independents’ supplementary questions. The Greens have had seven supplementary questions today, which means they have had one of the Independent members’ supplementary questions. I am not sure whether a—[ Interruption] Two extra supplementary questions have been used today. There are no more. Both questions available from the Hon Chris Carter have been used today. Labour used one of them and the Greens have already used one of them. Therefore there is no other—[ Interruption] Let me just check, because something is not tallying here. The Hon Shane Jones was using one of the Progressive’s supplementary questions. I beg your pardon. If I am to accept these additional supplementary questions, I should be advised beforehand, but that is for the future.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and, yes, we understand and we do advise the office. Will his Government listen to the people of Auckland and prioritise public transport over the new motorway spending his Government plans, so that Auckland has a chance to become the world-class city that it can be that does not have to rely on increasingly and predictably expensive oil imports?
Once again, the member makes assertions for the people with whom she hangs around in Auckland and not necessarily for all Aucklanders. Building roads allows public transport to take place, because the last time I looked buses travelled on roads. Let us take the Pūhoi to Wellsford road, which the Government has committed to. It is a highway of national significance. On that road on any one given day are 27,000 people using it. When it comes to commuter rail in Auckland on any one given day, 24,500 people use it. So it looks to me like the Government has its commitments and its priorities in the right place.
Given his stated commitment to public transport in Auckland, why does he allow his Minister of Transport to be so antagonistic against the super-city mayor, Len Brown?
He is not antagonistic. As I said earlier, I know that it is a foreign concept to Labour. I know it promised $1.3 billion worth of tax cuts with no idea where the money would come from. I know it promised $5 billion worth of spending with no idea where the money would come from. I know that when Labour members get the acid put on them, they say it is desirable. I can assure the member that the last time I saw the Minister of Transport and the Mayor of Auckland, they were in some sort of group hug. That is not antagonistic.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, you have allowed the Prime Minister to rant at the Opposition, and it turned into a speech. After about half an hour—
The member will resume his seat. [ Interruption] I am on my feet, and that will be enough interjecting from the ministerial benches. The member should reflect on the question that was asked. The question that was asked alleged that the Minister was being antagonistic to the Mayor of Auckland. That is to invite a response that is perhaps not quite what the member might have wanted, but with that kind of political question there is no way I can stop an answer that is pretty political. The remedy for that lies in the hands of the questioner. Members will notice that today when a member on my left asked a very straight question I put some acid on the Minister to answer it. But where a question alleges that a Minister is being antagonistic to a mayor, do not blame the Speaker if the Minister—in this case, the Prime Minister—gets a little bit political when answering it.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order was not that the Prime Minister was being political; he was quite entitled to be political in response to a question. My point was that once again it was not a concise reply. Standing Order 377 states that answers ought to be concise. For the second time this sitting you have allowed the Prime Minister a great degree of latitude to make a speech rather than—
Order! [ Interruption] I am on my feet for good reason, so there will not be this kind of interjection. I am sure that the member does not really want me to implement that Standing Order too tightly, because I would be ruling out so many supplementary questions—
The member knows not to interject when I am on my feet. I believe that the member is implying that I have not been even-handed. Twice today I have invited members to repeat questions where I believed that Ministers had not answered the question adequately. On another occasion I actually asked the Minister specifically to answer the question. That member, who has been in this House a while, should think back to the reign of previous Speakers; I have never known that done by previous Speakers, and I did that in just one question time. So I think the House is doing rather better in terms of opportunity for the Opposition to get straight questions answered.