3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Does he agree with Paul Mees, a senior lecturer in transport planning, who is reported as saying that Auckland has spent 50 years putting all its eggs in the motorway basket and that “in Auckland you’d think it was the 1950s, from the way the road lobby and the Government carry on”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
No, and I note that Mr Mees is also a noted Melbourne-based public transport activist—which is fair enough. My view is that there are no single-modal solutions in Auckland. We will need both public transport and roading solutions, and this Government is investing heavily in both.
How can he say that he is committed to, or investing heavily in, public transport when one of his first acts as the Minister of Transport was to cut $420 million from funding for rail, bus, walking, and cycling, and put that money into an expanded motorway-building programme?
That money was not cut from any programme; it had not been spent. All those activities receive increased expenditure in the Government policy statement shortly to be released.
Dos he agree with Paul Bedford, the former chief planner of Toronto, who says that Auckland should stop spending on new motorways, and vastly improve public transport, because the reality of motorways is that they fill up to capacity with additional traffic almost immediately after they are built?
I have to say I prefer the opinions of Aucklanders to those of Australians, Canadians, and—for that matter—Scotsmen.
David BennettThis Government is investing hugely in Auckland’s public transport infrastructure. There is the ongoing $600 million Project DART, $500 million for the electrification of Auckland’s rail network, and $500 million for the new electric trains themselves. In addition, the new Government policy statement will increase funding for public transport services next year by a further 5 percent, to its highest level ever.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
Why is he one of the only people in New Zealand who thinks that redirecting $420 million in future funding increases away from things such as public transport is not a cut?
Members of the previous administration confuse what they expected to do with what actually happened and is about to happen. One cannot cut money that has not actually been spent.
How can he say that he wishes to listen to Aucklanders, when all the surveys show that the No. 1 priority of two-thirds of Aucklanders is better public transport, and, furthermore, when his Government took away the ability of the Auckland region to have a fuel levy that could fund improved public transport?
The reality is that about 86 percent of Aucklanders, whether or not the Greens like it, proceed to and from work each day by car, truck, or motorcycle, about 7 percent use public transport, and about 1 percent use rail. We are committed to improving the investment in all those modes, but we have to have some basis in reality in terms of our investment in the transport sector.
How can it possibly make sense for his Government to spend $8 on motorways for every $1 on alternatives to motorways, when the latest reports from the Transport Agency show that motorway traffic has reduced to 2004 levels—it is declining—and that, secondly, buses and trains are at capacity in Auckland because we have simply under-invested in them for decades?
The point is that we have to have some basis in reality. The reality we are faced with is that 86 percent of Aucklanders go to and from work each day by car, truck, or motorcycle, and 7 percent use public transport. I appreciate that the Greens want to save the planet, but I think in this instance it would be appropriate to first work out which planet they are on.
Mr SPEAKER
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to Russel Norman, but the last part of that was a gratuitous insult. Although the question was political in its nature, it was not the sort of offensive political question that you have ruled out before; it was a pretty simple question and did not deserve that sort of response from the Minister.
I have heard that statement used in this House on more than one occasion. It has never been ruled to be offensive before. In fact, the Minister gave rather more information that he needed to. He was asked how he can do something; he could have said “Easily.” and he would have answered the question perfectly well.
Is the Minister therefore confirming that it is not the policy of the Government to do something to save the planet, which most New Zealanders actually want; and does he realise that the reason why most Aucklanders are stuck in cars is under-investment in alternatives for years, which means they do not have the choices that survey after survey show they want?
This Government is very committed to supporting the planet and environmental causes. I was just making the point that one has to understand the reality of people’s transport options, and the impact that investment can have. We are investing around $1.6 billion in public transport in Auckland, which will increase the amount of rail use from about 1 to 2 percent to, probably, 3 to 4 percent. It would require a massive, massive amount of money to move that percentage to anything like the 80-something percent that roads provide now.