2. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
What progress has the Government made in terms of Auckland’s western ring route since 1999?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) Link to this
Yesterday I turned the first sod for the Manukau Harbour crossing, one of a number of key projects that make up the core of the $3.1 billion western ring route. Good progress is now being made on all the key projects. The Mount Roskill extension is near completion, and the Manukau extension is expected to be finished by 2010. Of the upper harbour projects, the Greenhithe deviation and the upper harbour bridge duplication are completed, work on the Hobsonville deviation is set to begin in September, and additional lanes on the north-western motorway are in the early planning stages. Transit has also finished investigations around the Waterview Connection, and is currently consulting on design options.
Last month I listened to the Opposition spokesperson on transport, Maurice Williamson, speaking at the Automobile Association conference. He said it was “a bloody disgrace” how little progress had been made in joining up Auckland’s roading network on State Highway 20. [ Interruption] Those members should just listen to this: in 1999 construction had not started on any of the key projects on the western ring route. What is more, funding had not been approved for those projects. That is what I call a disgrace. Maurice Williamson is trying to reinvent history and has joined the group of mis-speakers on the other side of the House.
Keith LockeIs it still a good idea to spend around $2 billion on a 4.5-kilometre bit of motorway—the bit to Waterview that she mentioned, which has an appalling benefit-cost ratio according to the Auckland Regional Council—when oil prices are rising, when car traffic on the motorways in Auckland is levelling off, and when people are looking more and more towards public transport rather than towards more motorways?
Maybe one could mount that argument if the Government was not also investing a large amount of money in public transport in Auckland, as seen by the opening of the Northern Busway only a few weeks ago. The member will be interested to know that throughout the 1990s public transport expenditure across all New Zealand was frozen at $40 million. This Government has increased it manifold.
Peter BrownNoting the Minister’s earlier answer, will she confirm that the process of constructing the western ring route, which commenced in the 1970s and early 1980s, is still incomplete largely because a major portion of the excise tax taken on petrol was put into the Crown bank account, and that as a result of this tortoise-like approach—which occurred mainly under National, I might add—the cost to the Auckland economy has been billions of dollars?
The cost to the economy is huge, in that we have congestion and slow movement of freight around Auckland. As Auckland is our major city and our major economic mover in this country, we have to have investment in transport infrastructure, and the completion of the western ring route is crucial to that. It would be unfair, though, to say that nothing has happened since the 1960s. In fact, only one part of the western ring route had any work done on it. That work was done around 1995-96 and was a $10 million project. That was all that was done. There was no commitment in terms of funding to have any more done under the previous Government. This has been done under this Labour Government.
Hon Maurice WilliamsonThe member says it has been 9 years. Well, in that 9 years every part of that western ring route has been started or completed, or is planned and under way. That did not happen under a National Government. I do not mind how often National members yell out “9 years”. They had the opportunity to do it, but they never did it.
At the Automobile Association conference the same Opposition spokesperson, before being slippery about his climate change beliefs, said that the National Party—
Hon Bill English
Madam SPEAKERI agree. Would the Minister just address the question without terms of abuse being part of the answer.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give some more consideration to the issue you have raised. Government members have developed a habit of inserting terms of personal abuse into most of their answers. I draw your attention to Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, which states “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” The House has the choice of descending into mutual personal abuse. I do not think that is what the public wants, and I think that Parliament would regret it if it went down that path. Given that it has become a developed pattern, I ask you to consider whether it is something that should continue in the House.
Does the member want to stay in this House or not? You know that you do not talk when there are points of order. That is the last warning.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Madam Speaker, it is always good to hear a reformed sinner coming out in public immediately, but if you are going to enforce that Standing Order literally, then that will carry out a great deal of the questioners in this House, as well. I would be a little bit surprised, Madam Speaker, if the word “slippery” used in any context was now to be ruled out. My dictionary is getting shorter and shorter by the day.
I am happy to look at the matter. In terms of the general point that the member raised, if all members of the House took note of that, not just some, then there would not be so much disorder in the House.
At the Automobile Association conference, before Mr Williamson refused to disclose his views about climate change, he said that the National Party would build a whole lot more roads. Well, I find that fascinating, because when he had the opportunity to do that he did not do so. He did not increase funding for public transport, either. It has been this Labour Government that has progressively increased funding for our transport infrastructure. If we take Auckland as an example, National was spending around $230 million in 1999 and we are spending almost $1 billion in 2007-08.
Hon Dr Nick SmithOf course, congestion cannot be fixed overnight. If National spends 9 years doing nothing and putting no money into public transport—freezing it over that time—of course the number of cars on the roads builds up. Thank goodness this Labour-led Government is taking it seriously.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Why does a $2 billion new motorway tunnel, which cannot meet any reasonable benefit-cost ratio at all, have priority for Government spending over the much cheaper Britomart rail loop tunnel, which would raise the capacity of the whole rail system by more than 30 million passenger trips a year, and without which few of the economic benefits of the Auckland rail electrification that the Government has already funded will be reached?
It is this Government that has put funding into electrification of rail—double tracking, and so on. It has been done under this Government. But we also have to take some account of regional priorities that regional people put in place for a region, and the completion of the western ring route is one of the priorities that local people see as important. There is one thing that I do agree with Maurice Williamson about: we cannot have half a western ring route that goes nowhere, then leave it and go on to building arterial roads, before having the ring route join up somewhere else. It does need to be completed, but that does not mean we do not continue to invest in public transport, and we have shown the commitment to do just that.
I seek leave to table Transit’s document showing the western ring route—
Leave is sought to table that document. [ Interruption] This is a point of order. Obviously, some members want to go home early.