Roading—State Highway Forecast

Does he think it is an appropriate way to run his portfolio, when the Chief Executive of Transit said on the radio this morning that the first time he heard that the Government was coming up with the extra $685 million shortfall required to meet the Minister’s statements today was in fact on the radio this morning; and, therefore, does he think it was fortuitous that Mr van Barneveld had his radio on, or is it quite usual for him to communicate with his department via the newswires?

Gosche Hon Mark Gosche Link to this

I have always made it clear to Mr van Barneveld and the Transit board that they are to allocate only the funding that has been provided to them.

In addition to the extra money for State highway funding, how much has the funding for public transport increased since 1999?

Brown Peter Brown Link to this

We have increased public transport funding from the derisory $40 million it was in 1999 to $250 million this year. Without that increased funding, New Zealanders would be poorer and traffic congestion in our cities would be significantly worse.

Is the Minister aware that in the document referred to in the primary question, 55 of the top 64 projects are listed as being of high priority when it comes to urgency and seriousness, and that that reflects a huge lack of funding for many, many years, which was verified by Transit this morning at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearing; if so, will he ensure that the group that is looking into bridging the funding gap is aware of that factor?

Yes, and yes.

How can the New Zealand public have any confidence in the Minister, when he knew last November that there was a shortfall in funding, but appeared to have been unable to secure that extra financial commitment until we saw yesterday the release of the report, with the Associate Minister of Finance putting it in the bin less than an hour later and saying he would find the money; why should he be believed?

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

As I said in answer to one of the earlier questions, I have always been very clear that Transit ought to allocate only the funding that is guaranteed to it.

How does the Minister reconcile the commitment given on 1 April last year, that all of the extra petrol tax would go to the regions, with the plan that was announced yesterday that Nelson, having paid $32 million a year in petrol taxes and road-user charges, would not get a single roading project in the next 7 years—or does last year’s commitment have the same amount of credibility as the Prime Minister’s pledge card?

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

The commitment made last year was that the additional petrol tax that was collected would be spent regionally. That promise is being kept.

No, it’s not; tell that to my mayors!

Yes, it is, and if people do not think the promise is being kept, then they have the transparent process that is provided for them to submit on the draft plan.

Has the Minister commissioned any reports as to what the funding situation would be if he had not done anything about the regime the National Party left in place; and has he had a chance to reflect on the level of confidence he would have then?

Smith Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this

There is absolutely no doubt that if that set of policies had been kept, and if we had not more than doubled the amount of money going into State highways already, Auckland’s traffic congestion, Christchurch’s traffic congestion, and Wellington’s traffic congestion—every city’s traffic congestion—would be far, far worse than it is now.

Does Transit’s 10-year plan make any provision at all for extending the motorway north from Pūhoi, or is the Government happy to see State Highway 1 traffic at a standstill as it tries to get though Warkworth and Wellsford; what will he do about it?

Heatley Phil Heatley Link to this

One of the most expensive highway projects in New Zealand is currently under construction north of Auckland, leading towards Pūhoi. It is the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 extension.

Will the Minister send two critical Northland projects, the Snake Hill realignment and stage 2 of the Kamo bypass, into the never-never—never expect them, because they will never happen—or will the Government commit funding so that construction can start as early as 2007-08, as promised by him?

Bennett David Bennett Link to this

The member will know the answer to that question once the State highway forecast is finalised in June.

How does the Minister explain that on the one hand, in the upcoming joint officials group process for the Waikato, certain projects will be advanced, when on the other hand, in the middle of negotiations, Transit has reduced the priority for all major Waikato roading projects in that 10-year plan, such as the Te Rapa bypass, which has been delayed another 4 years?

Martin Gallagher Link to this

The people of the Waikato are in the fortunate position that they will see progress through both the final State highway forecast plan and more than $100 million from a joint officials group increase.

Has the Minister had any representations whatsoever from Waikato National MPs with regard to the special Waikato roading package, or do they continue to be in a state of amnesia and unconsciousness? [ Interruption]

Order, please. That last comment was unnecessary. It will be withdrawn. [ Interruption]

No, I have not. I suspect they are as confused as both Mr Williamson and Mr Brownlee have shown themselves to be in questions yesterday and today, when they still fail to understand that the regional break-out documents are but a subset of the longer document. Transit tries to make those documents foolproof, but sometimes it cannot.

I seek leave for the Hon David Parker to be able to take some time to explain why a very lengthy document, which he himself has described as most authoritative, has one—

I am sorry, but would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. The member knows that he cannot seek leave on behalf of somebody else.

I seek leave to table a document that Mr Parker himself describes as a “lengthy document”, which has one set of figures and one set of projections for estimated start times on roads, and then a bundle of regional pamphlets, which have a completely different set of figures and start times for roads—the gap between the two is millions of dollars.

Leave is sought for those documents to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Brown Peter Brown Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

They explained it at select committee, if that member had been there.

Please, Mr Brown, if you wish to remain with us, we will hear the point of order in silence.

I wonder whether you could put that leave again, because I believe the Labour members may well have just refused to allow those documents to be tabled in Parliament, even though the Minister stood up in question time today to say that he welcomes people’s comments on them.

The reason why New Zealand First declined leave was obvious. The matter was clearly explained at the select committee to all those with the sense to understand it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

No, I thank the member. The House expressed its view when the leave was put, so that is the end of that matter. If there is a new matter, by all means raise it.

I seek leave to ask one further question of the Minister, the Hon David Parker.

You can ask a supplementary question. There is no problem with that.

Madam Speaker, as you know, we are on allocations, and we would like an extra one.

I understand now. Yes, the member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? I am sorry; it has been declined.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you telling the House that that is the end of question time in respect of supplementary questions for the National Party?

No.

Excuse me, but Mr Brownlee said that he would seek leave because he had a quota. I understand that he is No. 2 in the National Party. If he cannot get past his quota, heaven knows who can!

Would the member please be seated. That is not a valid point of order.

Which of the two documents produced yesterday should the public believe?

As I have said on three occasions, the regional break-out is not inconsistent with the longer document but it is a subset of it. I seek leave to table both the draft State highway forecast and the regional break-outs, to show that there is no inconsistency.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that a member cannot seek leave to table the same document twice on the same day. That is what I asked for leave to table.

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

Yes, I think a member can. You could not ask for leave twice, but someone else can ask for leave. A member cannot have two goes at it.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order 265(a) refers to the same question being put to the House. Previous Speakers have said that the same question cannot be put to the House if it has already been put on the day, as was correctly pointed out by the shadow Leader of the House.

Dr Paul Hutchison Link to this

I thank the member, but he will have noted that it is not a question that is being put. It is leave that is being sought. I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Documents not tabled.

I seek leave to table a raft of letters and a petition to the Minister of Transport, requesting this Government to commit to building a four-lane expressway on State Highway 2 in the northern Waikato—something it has repeatedly failed to make even the tiniest commitment to.