4. GARETH HUGHES (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Will the Government be making buses and trains more affordable so that New Zealanders have options to avoid higher petrol costs introduced by the emissions trading scheme?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
I am pleased to report to the member that the Government, taxpayers, and ratepayers are already doing what the member requests, providing public transport fare subsidies around the country to the tune of $1.2 billion over 3 years. This equates to an average 54 percent subsidy of public transport fares around the country. The long-term target that the New Zealand Transport Agency is seeking to achieve is an average fare subsidy of 50 percent, to strike a balance between subsidies per service and further expansion of the range of services available.
Why has the Government introduced a policy that will force regional councils to raise public transport fares, when, according to a New Zealand Transport Agency paper, this will result in fewer people taking public transport?
I will repeat part of my answer to the first question, which is that the challenge with all of these subsidies is to strike a balance between the amount of subsidy per service and the number of services available. The current subsidy is about 54 percent of public transport fares. The subsidy has increased in the last 7 or 8 years. The long-term target out to 2018 for the Transport Agency is to achieve a balance of a 50 percent subsidy, which I think is fair and strikes a balance between the subsidies per service and further expansion of the range of services available.
If fewer people take trains and buses and instead drive their cars, will this increase or decrease our greenhouse gas emissions from transport?
Obviously it would decrease them, but I think the member is arguing against the emissions trading scheme with that question. Presumably as a member of the Green Party he seeks to see the emissions trading scheme introduced to raise the cost of fuel to encourage people to use more public transport. To suggest that that will somehow reverse the situation is, I think, unfortunate logic.
Did I hear the Minister correctly just then? Does he believe that if fewer people take trains and buses and instead drive their cars, it will decrease our greenhouse gas emissions from transport?
It all depends on the fuel efficiency of their cars, I would have thought. The emissions trading scheme is designed to encourage fuel efficiency. We have continuing improvement in fuel efficiency in this country. If the member believes that he will solve the world’s problems by shifting people away from their private forms of transport permanently on to public forms of transport, I say that I genuinely think he would be better to focus on improving fuel technologies and improving the fuel efficiency of private vehicles, as this Government is doing.
How can New Zealanders ever have other realistic choices to get around when his transport policy is skewed towards more motorways, more cars, and more carbon?
I simply do not agree with that assertion, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as I said, the Government is investing huge amounts of money not just in public transport subsidies but also in the development of public transport services in Auckland and Wellington, with the current projects in improved passenger rail services in those two cities carrying a price tag of around $2 billion. The reality remains that, according to the last census, roughly 83 percent of New Zealanders travel by personal vehicle to and from work, and another 1 percent by motorcycle, with much smaller numbers travelling by train and bus. Given that that is the reality of our transport choices, we want to invest to improve public transport but also we must invest in improved roads for the country.
How can his transport policy be balanced and equitable when only 1 percent of the transport budget is spent on walking and cycling, even though 10 percent of New Zealanders walk or cycle to work?
It does not necessarily follow that just because a certain number of people walk or cycle, they then need special infrastructural improvements. Currently, to my knowledge, there is not a capacity constraint on footpaths and cycleways, whereas there is a capacity constraint in a lot of areas used by personal vehicles.
Can the Minister confirm that he could have spent several million dollars making walking and cycling safer and more enjoyable in every town and city across the country for far less than the $2 billion he is about to spend on only 4 kilometres of motorway, which will ruin an established community in Waterview?
I point out to the member that the Government is investing approximately 50 percent more in walking and cycling facilities in the current 3-year period than was invested by the previous Government in its last term. I refer the member again to the realities of transport in New Zealand. Frankly, the Government has elected to represent the interests of all transport users, and approximately 83 percent of them in this country are road users through private passenger vehicles and motorbikes. They are entitled to a level of investment in the roading system, which, I have to add, they pay for.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
When the Government decided to change the farebox policy for public transport and thereby increase the proportion that the travelling public pay for public transport fares, did he consult the National Party manifesto on transport policy at the last election, which made no reference to changing the farebox policy—a change that is adding another increase to the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders?
I think that if the member researches, he will find that that part of the manifesto did not make mention of many aspects of our transport policy. Regardless of that, it is important to point out to the member that there must be an equitable contribution between ratepayers and taxpayers—that is, road users—and fare-paying passengers for public transport. After consultation, the Transport Agency has determined that that contribution would be about 50 percent in 8 years’ time, which is down slightly from the current 54 percent.
I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a document from a New Zealand Transport Agency board report that shows that requiring higher fares will result in a $64 million congestion reduction benefit to the Auckland region and only—
Mr SPEAKERI seek leave to table another page from the same New Zealand Transport Agency board report, which states that a fare increase—
This habit of extending the tabling of documents by tabling one page and then another page from the same report—if the member wants to table a report, that is fine; he should seek leave to do it. But let us not have endless pages.
Metiria TureiI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your concern, Mr Speaker, about misusing the tabling process, but my colleague has said that of the three documents he intends to table only two from the same document. It might be wise advice for the House as a whole, but my colleague has sought leave, Mr Speaker. I suggest that it is wise or at least right to put that leave at this stage.
I have not denied putting leave to the member; I am just pointing out for the future—and for that member’s attention, too—that I am not happy about the process of taking more time of the House to try to score more political points through tabling individual pages. Leave to table documents relates to providing information to the House. If the document is vast then it is reasonable to seek to table pages, and I apologise if this is a vast document. Could the member please describe the second item he would like to table.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table another page from the same New Zealand Transport Agency document that states that a fare increase means that patronage will decrease.
I seek leave to table a report from the Greater Wellington Regional Council that states that farebox recovery has nothing to do with efficiency, and the New Zealand Transport Authority provides no evidence to support its fairness objective.