2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
How does a 12.6 percent decline next year in national spending on passenger transport, included in the 2007-08 National Land Transport Programme, help achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) Link to this
I believe that the member has misunderstood the funding for passenger transport. Rather than a decline, there will an overall increase in Government investment in passenger transport during the coming year. That is because not all of the Government’s investment in public transport is allocated through the National Land Transport Programme. A sizable investment also goes into rail. The total Government investment in passenger transport is expected to be $506 million in 2007-08, which is an increase of $75 million from last year. This year’s investment includes $263 million through the National Land Transport Programme and $243 million provided directly to ONTRACK and the regions for upgrades of the Auckland and Wellington urban rail networks.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Is the Minister saying that the National Land Transport Programme is wrong when it shows public transport funding declining from $301 million this year to $263 million next year—and is the New Zealand Herald also wrong—and how can she claim to be putting new money into Auckland rail electrification when Auckland has to pay all the servicing charges on the long-term Crown loan?
No, I am not saying that the National Land Transport Programme is wrong, but I think it is rather difficult when talking about passenger transport to talk only about buses and not about trains, because trains, as the member knows, make up a major and growing part of passenger transport. So to isolate one part out, and to say that it is not enough to achieve the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality, I think is being too cute.
Hon Mark GoscheThis $506 million investment reflects the importance that the Government does place on improving passenger transport as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also providing better transport choices. This Government has enabled a major step change in the funding provision for passenger transport. I just remind members that in 1999 the investment in passenger transport was around $45 million.
What is the National Land Transport Programme funding allocated to Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city, which was starved of funding under the National Government?
That is a very good question. The Government is allocating nearly $780 million to land transport in Auckland through the programme. That is a $221 million increase from last year and does not even include any of the rail announcements made in Budget 2007. This year Auckland is receiving a major boost with the opening of the northern busway, which will provide dedicated and high-occupancy vehicle transit lanes and facilities between the Auckland Harbour Bridge and Albany. Further, in the past year Government funding has enabled the successful completion of the central motorway junction, Panmure Station, and the Esmonde Road interchange, just to name three projects. I remind the House that in 1999 the National Government was investing around $18 million in public transport in Auckland.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
How will she explain to the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint that next year the Government’s National Land Transport Programme will spend $113 million more on roads and $38 million less on public transport, despite the fact that the National Land Transport Programme makes it quite clear that the Land Transport Fund can, and does, spend on rail?
I do not think people in New Zealand will be confused at all about this Government’s commitment to passenger transport. In fact, in the National Land Transport Programme announced last night, predictions under this Government’s agenda are that passenger transport services funding will increase by 75 percent over the next 10 years. I would put that record against that of any other party in this House that has had the opportunity to be in Government.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Why does a State highway that is mostly used by local people to get from one side of a city to another get funded 100 percent by central government, whereas a rail line or a busway that does exactly the same thing must be paid for half out of local rates; and is that not a reason that we do not get very many public transport projects applying for funding from the Land Transport Fund—because the locals have to find half the money?
I think that most New Zealanders want to be fair about this. Most New Zealanders who use their cars or drive trucks pay the petrol excise duty. They pay the road-user charges, and that is the funding that goes into the National Land Transport Fund. So they put the money in, and I believe that most New Zealanders believe they should also get benefits out of it. But they do not mind—most of them—also putting some money into passenger transport for those who do not pay the petrol excise duty directly, or who do not drive cars. So there has to be fairness in terms of allocating money to roads and to passenger transport. This Government is committed to increasing the allocation to passenger transport, and I welcome the support we receive from the Greens, particularly on the announcement today about the major investment that will go into trains—for example, here in Wellington.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Can the Minister confirm, in relation to her answer about motorists’ funding, that analysis in Auckland shows that 44 percent of the benefit of upgrading the rail system in Auckland goes to motorists and only 28 percent to passengers on trains; and is that not a reason for motorists to fund more of the public transport system?
Increasingly, New Zealanders who drive cars will pay for more passenger transport, because, for example, the use of the train in Auckland when it is electrified comes from a fuel tax. That is paid for by people who drive their cars and trucks. So they increasingly do pay for passenger transport, and I do not think they resent that. But they would resent it if there were not an ability for them also to have roads on which they, too, can move around. I do agree with the member in one respect—that is, if we can get people off the roads and into passenger transport, it will be easier for those who are on the roads to move around. So there is definitely an advantage. But the member constantly tries to play one group off against another, and I do not think it is helpful, when we are trying to encourage people to accept their duty to pay to help fund passenger transport, if people cannot see a benefit coming from it for themselves.