3. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Does she support the findings of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Roading Costs; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) Link to this
In general, I do. The report is one valuable stream of advice, and certainly the Government is interested in value for money. After all, we are spending about $24 billion over the next 10 years on land transport.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
What is her response to the ministerial advisory group’s findings: “To achieve value for money, there needs to be a strengthening of the focus on cost efficiency in the evaluation of projects. Roading sector participants and communities need to accept that affordability is a key issue.”?
I think that is an important issue. It is an issue I would like looked at in terms of the current review that I have the State Services Commission undertaking.
Hon Mark GoscheHow has this Government improved land transport infrastructure from the state it was in, in the 1990s?
We have been working hard to plug the infrastructure deficit left by the National Government in the 1990s. Investment in land transport has risen from $929 million in 1999-2000 to an expected allocation of $2.2 billion in this financial year. We passed the Land Transport Management Act in 2003, which provides for tolling in public-private partnerships, provided they fit the criteria. We have put a lot of money into public transport and developed a land transport strategy. This Government is committed to improving our infrastructure and it has certainly put its money where its mouth is.
Sue KedgleyDid the ministerial advisory group consider the extensive international research showing that building new roads simply creates or induces new traffic, and does she agree that the new inner-city bypass in Wellington is a classic example of this rule, because instead of reducing peak-hour traffic congestion by 7 to 9 minutes, as the previous Minister of Transport promised in this House it would, it is actually causing havoc in Wellington and causing delays of up to 40 minutes?
The ministerial advisory group looked at a number of issues, including passenger transport. In the light of the question regarding the inner-city bypass: as the member knows, the inner-city bypass is not completely opened yet. Half of it is opened. I am assured by Transit that when it is fully opened we will see much-improved traffic flow.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Does the Minister accept the ministerial advisory group’s findings that: “the change in project evaluation criteria away from solely using BCR”—benefit-cost ratios—“means that Transit NZ has less incentive to contain project costs.”, and that: “Some major Auckland projects such as ALPURT B2 seem to have escaped the close scrutiny of costs and consideration of value for money that might have been anticipated.” in such projects?
There is some dispute with the ministerial advisory group on its comments, particularly relating to the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). In fact, many of the changes in scope came from consultation with the community in relation to what it wanted in environmental terms, etc., and it led to additions to ALPURT B2 over the time it was being built. However, I do not believe they were the only issues that caused problems in terms of blowout.
Peter BrownIs the Minister aware that under section 8.8 of the report, headed “Funding Issues”, whilst recognising that funding systems are largely outside the terms of reference, the advisory group makes the statement that more formal longer-term funding is needed, and does she recognise that many of our roading problems are a direct result of the National Government’s—and the early years of her own Labour Government’s—deliberate policy of underfunding?
I am aware of that comment within the report. I need to tell the member that the report was written before the Government announced that it would be putting in long-term funding. We announced a 5-year funding track, then the Minister of Finance increased it to 6 years. I agree that short-term planning and funding for roading in New Zealand in particular, but also for public transport, have led to short-term decisions and an inability to make decisions in the long term because of a lack of commitment to funding or planning.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Can the Minister explain why the fact that the bypass is complete in only one direction and not in the return direction, which is on a quite separate route, should be creating mayhem on the part that is complete?
Because there has to be some engineering in the way that the traffic flows, including the bus routes on our Wellington roads, which is part of the re-engineering that is taking place.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table two reports; the first relates immediately to the Minister’s answer right then. I am happy to wait until the end of—
Madam SPEAKERHon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Given the cost estimates for the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2, which have risen from $138 million in 2001 to $358 million by 2005, or, my personal favourite, State Highway 20, the Avondale extension, which have risen from $185 million in 2001 to $1,100 million—a 500 percent increase in 2 years—does the Minister believe, as the ministerial advisory group says, that that “shows the lack of robust process of evaluation or rigorous review of costs needed in projects of this size.”?
No, because that is not the only reason that one has an increase in costs. In fact, if the member took the time to look at what happens internationally he would see that increases in costs are around 30 to 40 percent. Can I also tell the member that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, as a local member in the area, is very supportive of the ALPURT B2 road and wants it built. At the end of the day it will be a toll road for which the people of New Zealand who use it will pay.
Does the Minister acknowledge that had the National Government and the subsequent Labour Government, from when it was first elected in 1999, injected all the petrol tax, or its equivalent, into the roading account, this country would be far better off economically and socially, and people who have been killed on our roads would have been alive today?
I am pleased to tell the member that all money gathered from the three revenue sources available to the Government are being spent on transport in New Zealand, besides an additional $300 million. One could argue what should have been done in the past, but what I can talk about is what this Government has done.
Hon Maurice Williamson Link to this
Does the Minister agree with the ministerial advisory group’s recommendation that: “Value for money indicators should be incorporated into the performance monitoring system. Land Transport New Zealand should take an enhanced role in the evaluation of major projects and monitoring scope and costs.”; if so, why has this not been happening?
In general I do agree. In fact, in terms of the review that has been undertaken and the work that has been undertaken by the Cabinet committee, those are areas where we would like to see better performance. However, I would have to say that that member was a Minister of Transport, and there is absolutely no way he would have known what import costs there were in transport. He certainly did not have to worry about spending much money, because a National Government did not.
Is the Minister in a position to advise the House how roading will be funded, once the grant money, which currently the Labour Government does inject into roading, is exhausted; will it be by transferring all the tax collected on petrol into the roading account?
In terms of funding for transport in the future, that is something being looked at very closely by this Government, and work is being done both by the Ministry of Transport and Treasury. We do know that the money we collect from petrol excise duty, road-user charges, and motor vehicle licensing will not be sufficient for our roading and public transport needs of the future. Looking at ways that we can have appropriate funding for our infrastructure is very much part of the work being undertaken now.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
I seek leave to table two peer-reviewed papers from the transport literature. I thank the Speaker for advising me to delay my tabling, because the papers address particularly the question raised by Peter Brown. The first paper is by Peter Newman, called Sustainable Transportation and Global Cities. The other is by Anna Nagurney”: The papers show that the cities with the most roads have the highest fuel use, the highest air emissions, and the highest transport costs.
I seek leave to table a member’s bill in the name of the Hon Winston Peters and an extract from Hansard, in which the Minister of Transport at the time said that if he had extra funding he had no idea how it could be spent on roading.
I seek leave to table, first, a written response by the previous Minister of Transport, Pete Hodgson, in which he says that the inner-city bypass will cut 7 to 9 minutes off delays in the busiest peak time in Wellington; and, second, a Transit New Zealand website statement that people travelling across the city will save 7 to 9 minutes during busiest peak hours and up to 5 minutes at other busy periods.