11. GARETH HUGHES (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Does he stand by his statement that “the public will have a say on transport matters” and will he allow the Auckland Council to make its own transport funding decisions?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
In answer to the first part, yes, and in answer to the second part, yes, to the extent that they involve council funding streams paid for by ratepayers. There is, of course, an enduring notion that central government is responsible for taxation and taxpayer assets, and that local government is responsible for rates income and ratepayer assets. Therefore, it is understandable that central government might have a view, especially when the proposition is to add new taxes that could be a significant drag on economic growth.
Given that the Government has insufficient funding for projects like the central business district rail loop under the Government’s own public transport infrastructure activity class under its Government policy statement, does he support the Auckland Council investigating alternative funding arrangements for transport projects?
I disagree with the first part of the premise of that member’s question. The reality is that the Government has taken a decision that if there are rail infrastructure projects to be funded—and we are, of course, currently funding very, very significant rail infrastructure projects; the greatest investment since about the mid-1970s—then we will make the decision to do those directly from the consolidated account. We, of course, do support the Auckland Council looking for funding streams, but, again, I think we have to look at that in the context of my primary answer, which was about the distinction between central government taxation and local government rates-generating powers.
Given that the Minister has already ruled out a regional fuel tax, does he agree with Government papers released under the Official Information Act that state it would make sense for the Auckland Council to consider new and innovative approaches to funding and financing infrastructure, including congestion charges?
I think the member will find that that was actually released on a website, rather than under the Official Information Act. There are a number of ways that local government could, for example, consider ways of raising revenue if it did so. There are of course rates, targeted rates, income from its various assets, balance sheet development contributions, borrowing, public-private partnerships, and parking charges. All of those things are within the purview of a local council.
Is it smart to be spending $19.3 billion on State highways when we know that traffic on our roads is falling, petrol over the long term is going up, and rail patronage in Auckland has grown by more than 20 percent in the last year?
I think that the member probably inadvertently provided some of the perils of working in percentages, because even though the rail patronage is growing, it is off a very, very low base, as the member knows. About 1.5 percent of travel in Auckland is by rail, so, yes, a 20 percent increase would take it, by my calculations, to maybe 1.8 percent, versus about 80 or 90 percent currently on the roads. So I think he has to be very careful with percentages, and I suggest he might take that approach.
Hon Shane JonesHow does the Minister think that remedying transport woes in Auckland will be advanced by him antagonising and seeking to publicly daily humiliate the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown?
I think it is a bit rich coming from the member, but I am certainly not in the process of seeking to humiliate the Mayor of Auckland. Can I point out again that it is important we approach all of these projects with a certain amount of logic and detachment, because the project that both members are talking about currently has a benefit-cost ratio of about 0.3. That is the problem with the issue, which they should take to addressing before they address the funding options. In terms of the Pūhoi to Wellsford road, seeing that a member asked, it currently has a benefit-cost ratio of about 1 to 1.3.
Why does he continue to act as if he knows what is best for Auckland, given that yet another New Zealand Herald DigiPoll out last month found that the central business district rail link had more support than his “Holiday Highway”, from both Aucklanders and non-Aucklanders?
I would not, of course, presume to act on behalf of all Aucklanders, because I think that is quite difficult to do, but being an Aucklander myself, I am a little bit aware of some of the issues and challenges faced there. But, again, I think it is important that the member focus on actually establishing which projects will achieve real economic gains in Auckland. The best and the most independent analysis currently of the central business district rail loop suggests that it would take only about 1,500 to 2,000 cars off the road a day. I think that would be a very small return for about $2.3 billion investment. That is probably the sort of work that the member needs to address if he seeks to promote this project.
Why does the Minister continue to show this Parliament only one side of the story, and deny the findings of the actually independent review commissioned by Auckland Council, which was reviewed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Parsons Brinckerhoff, John Bolland Consulting, M.E Market Economics, Beca Group, GHD, Ascari, AECOM, and the University of California Transportation Center, at Berkeley, and how many international reviewers reviewed the Government’s central business district rail link report?
Well, some of those consultants are, of course, known public transport advocates, and others are not.
By the way, Beca’s stuff was actually a policy case as to how it could possibly improve the business case for that project. I think the member, unless he is suggesting something else, would recognise that both the Ministry of Transport and Treasury are reasonably dispassionate observers of this stuff. If members are saying that the Public Service is biased, then they should probably get up and say so.
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge that it was a very long question, but the rub of the question was whether anyone reviewed the Government’s report.
Mr SPEAKERWell, if he had just asked that question, he might have been able to get the answer to that, but, as the member acknowledges, there was a lot more stuff in the question.
Why does the Minister continue to be the roadblock to Auckland’s smart-transport aspirations, and when will he heed the advice of the New Zealand Herald editorial to “Mind your own business on rail loop, Mr Joyce”?
Well, I respectfully observe that the Minister of Transport probably does have an interest in Auckland transport—that is a weird concept but possibly it is true. Can I also say that it is very, very important that when one uses the term “smart transport”, I say to Mr Hughes, one must come up with a better answer than a 30c in the dollar return on a project. That is not smart transport; that is pouring money down a hole.