All aboard the car and trains election
In the last day of Parliament on Wednesday, National’s transport spokesman Chris Bishop asked Transport Minister Phil Twyford: ‘‘Is it fair to say that, in December 2019, the Government has not yet settled on what type of rail will be used for the light rail project?’’
To which Twyford replied: ‘‘No. It will be rail with two tracks that go forward in parallel!’’
Thus, arguably the most pressing issue in Kiwi retail politics – transport infrastructure and where it will be built – chugged along right up until Parliament’s final hours.
It was therefore telling that Twyford put out a press release on Thursday announcing that he would be opening new motorway lanes in Auckland in time for Christmas. Roads matter, and just because the Government might be moving towards more public transport, both population growth and internet shopping are putting more vehicles on the road, not fewer.
Infrastructure – and transport projects in particular – are now shaping as one issue on which the election will definitely be fought. New Zealand has an infrastructure gap that has long needed plugging.
Despite being the most recent government that presided over the gap – with the important exception of a pipeline of new roads projects – the National Party has made hay out of exposing the Government’s fumbling around with Auckland light rail and cancellation of several roading projects around the country.
National’s argument – with merit – has been that the Government stopped building roads and hasn’t starting building anything else.
So during last week’s Budget update, Finance Minister Grant Robertson announced that the Government will pump another $6.8 billion into new transport infrastructure over the next five years, with the promise that new projects will be announced early in the new year. It will be roads, rail and buses. That announcement was significant: it signalled a shift to infrastructure (and public transport) being squarely run by Robertson, not Twyford.
National followed up on Monday by releasing its own transport and
This is good policy for a number of reasons – and could be good politics if managed adeptly. It’s good policy because, as cars become more efficient and electric vehicles become cheaper, more widespread and with greater range, the amount of tax being paid to build and maintain roads will dwindle. Best to get moving before too many car owners become used to paying nothing for using roads.
It also recognises that the current fuel tax is regressive in nature because people with older, less efficient cars pay more, without necessarily using roads more. While this means the fuel tax does have an incentive effect on fuel efficiency, that is not its purpose and there are different means to achieve that from through the fuel tax.
Politically, it could also mean that ditching the fuel tax – some 63 cents of every litre of petrol – reduces the pain at the petrol pump each time, in favour of going online and paying the charge directly to the NZTA and into the National Land Transport Fund.
The fact that this policy is being pushed is a good sign from National, showing a level of policy coherence and intellectual rigour.
UP Grant Robertson
■ Finance Minister ends the year on a high after Stats NZ announced the economy grew 0.7 per cent in the September quarter, far exceeding expectations.
■ Climate Change Minister outlined on Thursday sweeping changes to our broken ETS. It’s the toothiest climate change policy yet.
■ National leader had Parliament chuckling with his adjournment speech on Wednesday. Taking the form of a mock naughtyand-nice list it gently jibed the Government for its ups and downs this year.
Shaw James Simon Bridges DOWN unnamed journalist
■ An guest at the press gallery’s Christmas party who decided it would be a good idea to light a cigarette in Parliament. He was swiftly removed.
■ The which has received just a fraction (roughly 50,000) of the 170,000-240,000 in the country.
■ Deputy Prime Minister wasn’t feeling the Christmas spirit in his adjournment debate speech this year, with typically caustic barbs for the Opposition. We hope he returns next year well rested and in better humour, although we have our doubts.
Government’s gun buyback, Peters Winston
While there were some red meat populist measures in its roading policy – such as a proposal to fine cyclists who don’t use cycleways – the road user charging is a good one.
The other important policy floated was introducing congestion charging – so that motorists pay tolls in more congested areas and higher charges at peak times.
Again, while potentially unpopular, it’s another good way to incentivise people into using public transport, or at least pay for the privilege of using a car at the busiest times of the day.
In fact, the Government would likely not be against congestion charging in principle, but has ruled it out for the time being to inoculate itself against charges of being anti-motorist.
But that brings us back to the other side of the ledger: if people are going to be encouraged out of cars, they need something to be encouraged into – and that means trains, trams or buses.
New Zealand is a frontier economy that needs more infrastructure of basically everything. This is a young country with a long line of people wishing to move here, that cannot and should not wish away a growing population.
The pleasing thing about all this transport debate leading into the end of the year is that both major parties seem to be basically coalescing around this view, but with rather different emphases.
Labour errs towards major public transport projects, while National is more focused on roads. That, of course, reflects in part the different constituencies they serve.
The other big argument – particularly in the wake of the climate of uncertainty over Auckland light rail created by Twyford, with no decision yet made on what it will look like or be – is over which party has the skill set to actually get it built.
National thinks it is on strong ground here. It may be. But it has the same amount of experience building rail projects as Labour has: none. And the NZTA, whose board Twyford replaced this year, doesn’t have any either. It’s the Government’s road builder, regulator and safety cop. The NZ Super Fund-backed proposal – if chosen – may provide a model for other projects, as it will bring in outside capital and expertise.
New Zealand has a long history of being cheap when it come to infrastructure: roads and bridges at capacity by the time they are built. The current global environment of cheap money should not be an argument for building otherwise marginal projects. But both parties have now recognised that more needs to be built. The Government has broken its own Budget responsibility rules in order to finance it.
Now it will have to convince Kiwis which projects they should want, when, and that it is capable of building them.
That’s a big challenge for anyone in an election year.
The Government would likely not be against congestion charging in principle, but has ruled it out for the time being.