Roading—Public-private Partnerships

Has he seen a Treasury report, written after most of the Government’s major transport initiatives had been announced, that found there is still substantial under-investment in road infrastructure in New Zealand and went on to state that we are passing up road investments that would undoubtedly reap significant benefits for our economy, in which case why does he still think that the role of the private sector is minimal—and that is right; the Treasury report is out there?

Gosche Hon Mark Gosche Link to this

I can refer to a Treasury report on the website—the name of the official is Mr Katz—that states that public-private partnerships have a lot going against them and details what that is.

Has the Minister seen any reports on the ability of Aucklanders to use roading infrastructure to commute back and forth from suburbs across the city?

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

I have received advice that one Aucklander, who registered on the electoral roll in 2002 as living in Waimauku, was also registered under the Companies Act as living in Parnell. His name was John Key. He clearly found getting across Auckland a breeze.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do hope that the Minister was not about to pot the member from Titirangi. But where is the ministerial responsibility for individuals’ choices as to the electorates they may be registered in, and how does that comply with the original question set down on the Order Paper?

Hide Rodney Hide Link to this

I will be considering the matter about reports, as I have indicated to the House, and I will come back to members on that.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During that point of order from Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Police three or four times interjected across the House. She did it on me. You said that you had given a last warning, but she is doing it again and again.

Brown Peter Brown Link to this

There has been a lot of chipping backwards and forwards today, so we can take it that as of this moment all members are on their final warning on that. Members must all just settle.

Will the Minister confirm that a private organisation involved in public-private partnerships generally has to borrow money at a higher rate of interest than the Government and also has to build in a profit factor, and does that not represent extra costs that the toll-paying motorist will have to pay?

Gordon Copeland Link to this

Generally, that is the case.

Is not the real reason that business has not come forward with public-private partnership proposals that the present legal framework is inflexible, and therefore non-commercial, because the Government regards itself as beholden to the Greens?

Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this

I refer the member to the answer that I gave the very same member yesterday on the very same point. I will give it again. The Ministry of Transport has received informal advice that there is, in the view of the private sector, no legislative impediment to public-private partnerships.

Has the Minister seen any reports on public-private partnerships overseas, for example in Australia, that describe major impacts on the public purse from provisions that have required Governments to compensate their private partners when they build public transport systems that take traffic off the roads, or any reports that describe big increases in the total costs of projects because of the large number of private lawyers, consultants, insurers, and others who clip the ticket before the road is built, and does he believe that New Zealand taxpayers should be protected from those risks?

Yes I have seen reports around those matters and others from many countries. It is true that in the case of Australia, some most unfortunate bail-outs have been necessary. That does not mean that public-private partnerships are wrong. It does mean that they have to be done very carefully, indeed.

Is he also aware that in the same report Treasury estimated that the private sector could earn returns on roading investments that would currently outstrip other investment opportunities; in which case, if his legislation is as enabling as he made out yesterday, why is the private sector not falling over itself to embark on this much-needed infrastructure?

It depends on which report the member refers to. If it is the report he referred to in his first supplementary question, no I am not. If he is referring o the report that I referred to in my first supplementary answer, it made no such claims.

Is the Minister aware of the background to this question today in terms of its political origin, and the fact that in 1998 the Budget had a taxation shift to move more money towards roading, repealed in 1999 by National, or that in 1995 a private member’s bill to move roading money, collected for that purpose, to roading was opposed by Minister of Transport Williamson and the National Government; and what is the word for that?

I will not be tempted to offer the word, but I will say that I am aware that during the 1990s there was a substantial under-investment in roading infrastructure and other forms of transport infrastructure, and the only relief for that came from initiatives from within the New Zealand First Party.

Is the Acting Minister concerned that Treasury has also noted that when he was last holding the baton of Minister of Transport, not only were high-value projects not started but some relatively low-value ones were; in which case would he be kind enough to tell the House this afternoon which low-value projects were funded and which high-value projects had to be scrapped to accommodate them, and why?

I am happy to tell the member that when Labour came into Government, in his city of Auckland $130 million worth of work per year was going into that city. Now the amount of money for the number of projects that have been started or are under way is precisely ten times that figure. Opposition members do not like it, but there has been a tenfold increase in investment in the member’s own city and he needs to start to recognise it. [ Interruption]

Hide Rodney Hide Link to this

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It must be surely on the conscience of everybody watching this Parliament that the sort of behaviour we have just seen is unacceptable.

True.

You have about 25 people—

There was an interjection. Who interjected, please? Would you please leave the Chamber. I did say people were on their final warning. You can come back for your question, but please leave the Chamber immediately.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

My point is that we have 25 people over here all screaming at once. I think interjections are OK, but not that number. They just demonstrate what a leaderless rabble those members are.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question to the Acting Minister by my colleague John Key was very specific about low-value and high-value projects during his period as Minister. The Acting Minister then proceeded to make a whole lot of comments about a time when he was never the Minister, for which he is not responsible, as per the Standing Orders. The reason concern was raised was that you did not intervene as Speaker to hold this Minister to the Standing Orders and require him to refer in his answer to the period in which he was Minister.

Cullen Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this

The Minister was giving an answer in the context of that question, and he outlined the spending for which he was directly responsible last year as Minister. He compared that with the pitiful level that was undertaken by the National Government in 1999.

Gerry Brownlee Link to this

The point Dr Smith raises is around some of your own rulings in the last 2 days. In straying into the territory that the Minister did, and in getting pretty animated in trying to get a point across—not that it was clear—he was completely ignoring your rulings by failing to talk about matters that pertain to him and his ministry.

Because I could not hear the answer to the question, would the Minister like to succinctly address the question?

No, I am not, but I do acknowledge that there has been a tenfold increase in investment in the member’s own town from the change of Government until now.

Does the Minister agree with his Cabinet colleague Dover Samuels that when he speaks it should not be assumed he does so as a Minister; if so, can he clear up for us now as to whether, when he next announces an injection into the roading system, he will be doing so as Minister of Transport or as a former vet?

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

When asking questions, we all know that we try to stick to the question without a flick—the vet comment. So I say to the Minister that he can reply to the substance of the question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday you determined that it was quite feasible for Mr Samuels to say he is a former district councillor some of the time and a Minister of the Crown at other times. For my colleague to ask whether the professional vet opposite, who is also the Minister of Transport, will be talking as a professional vet or the Minister of Transport is entirely consistent with your rulings.

Would the Minister please address the question.

If I am speaking as the Minister of Transport, I am speaking as the Minister of Transport.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was just wondering how we will recognise him as a Minister of Transport and how we will recognise him as a vet.

Brown Peter Brown Link to this

The member knows that is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the questioner should clarify whether he is speaking as the finance spokesperson for the National Party or as a former schoolboy.

Brown Peter Brown Link to this

That is not a point of order either, but you have had one each in terms of irrelevant points of order.

Does the Minister recall stating, in an answer yesterday on public-private partnerships, that private participants can often bring in new ideas in terms of construction and management; if so, is he aware that such expertise can be hired, even by public entities, and will he accept that to some degree that negates the need for public-private enterprise?