11. GARETH HUGHES (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Transport
Has he read the recent American report Transportation Funding and Job Creation, which shows that each stimulus dollar spent on public transport yields 70 percent more job hours than motorway spending, and in light of this, will he review his Government policy statement, which spends the largest part of our transport money on new motorways?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) Link to this
I have had a quick look through the document, which I have to say is a reasonably flimsy read. It is also written from a partisan approach that, it has to be said, is not a million miles from the philosophy of the member. It seems to suggest that spending on transport projects should be based solely on the number of people who work on the project. Not surprisingly, the Government takes the view that spending on transport projects has to be focused on the results each project achieves, particularly building stronger economic growth, which is a big focus of this Government.
Can the Minister confirm that his Government policy statement cut funding for all transport classes except for new State highways?
No, it actually grew for most of them, just not at the speed that the previous Government, which of course was highly influenced by the Green Party, was proposing. That would have led to dislocation in the wider transport sector.
Can he confirm that his Government policy statement had average cuts of 26 percent for walking and cycling and 50 percent for public transport infrastructure over the next 10 years in order to fund new State highways?
They were not cuts, as I said. I am quite proud of the fact that this Government has reoriented its investment in transport infrastructure to reflect the actual means by which New Zealanders move around and freight moves around. I do not think there would be much disagreement from the public for that.
Based on those old trends—for example, the Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway is based on 2006 commuter data and out-of-date oil projections—is this not just like investing in a CD store just before the iPod comes out?
No, and I should point out—seeing as the member has raised his favourite roading project—that that project between Pūhoi and Warkworth carries more people per day than the entire Auckland commuter rail network. The difference between projects that carry traffic already and projects that might carry traffic one day is that we have to look very carefully at the assumptions of those that might, whereas the reality of those already carrying that sort of load is in front of us today.
Given the Government’s focus on jobs, why did his Government policy statement cut funding for road maintenance when expert analysis shows this creates more jobs than new motorways?
The difficulty I have with the member’s analysis is that if we take it to its logical conclusion we should basically just hire a whole bunch of people with scissors to cut the grass beside roads and railway tracks. It is not about how many people we can get to work; it has to be about the outcomes we can achieve. I invite him to consider that.
What is the Minister’s response to Northland Regional Councillor Joe Carr, who said this week: “I think we need to say to the government that they’ve shafted rural communities,” regarding cuts to road maintenance and sealing?
That is not correct. I point out to the member that at lunchtime today I coincidentally met with a number of members of the Northland transport community, including members of the Northland Regional Council, the Kaipara District Council, and also the Whangarei District Council. They were all united in their approval for the Government’s project for Pūhoi to Wellsford and asked us to complete it as soon as possible.
Will he, as the new Auckland super-city council has called for, review the cost effectiveness of the new motorway north of Auckland?
The member seems to be of the view that it is a fantastic idea, as the previous Government did, to bring three lanes of traffic north of Auckland to a halt in a paddock outside Pūhoi with one lane after that. I do not think that it is. I think that with the established demand created it is necessary to provide an alternative route. On that basis, we will be proceeding with the project, provided it stacks up on the standard business case analysis.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a clear question: will he review the cost-effectiveness, which the Auckland Council has asked for? It is a simple question.
Dr Russel NormanThe only dinosaurs around here are the Green Party members, who seem to think that the answer is that if we all worked with spades we would all be a heck of a lot more productive. No, we will not be seeking to do that. The project will be going through the normal process. We will seek a review of the business case for the central business district rail tunnel, because it is crucially important, when one is talking about notional future demand, to make sure that one has it based in fact.
I seek leave to table this graph produced by the Green Party advisory unit, which tracks the transport activity classes and the previous Government policy statement versus his Government policy statement, which shows big cuts for sectors except State highways.
Mr SPEAKERI am becoming a little concerned about this trend to seek to table documents prepared by political parties themselves. That is not the purpose of the Standing Order regarding seeking leave to table documents. The next step would be to seek leave to table the member’s own notes on something, which is totally outside the purpose of the Standing Order. So I will not be putting leave for that purpose.
Leave has been sought already for that purpose today, and I think in the interests of fairness I should be given that opportunity as well.
I am going to give a clear ruling to the House on this matter. The purpose of tabling a document is to inform the House. It is not an opportunity to make a point. Debate is the time for members to express their opinions and make political points. When seeking leave to table a document a member should give the source of the document and the information it contains. The document tabled must be an authentic source. It is not acceptable in this House to seek to table members’ own views of the facts, or documents annotated to substantiate those views. I make it clear to the House that documents prepared in parties’ own research units or documents prepared by members are not the material envisaged by Standing Order 368.