Here is a copy of two of my questions, which are identical to the rest except they deal with different motorways.

7354: Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Transport (11 Oct 2011): What is the most recent cost estimate for the whole of the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance project, as well as for each constituent part?

7353: Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Transport (11 Oct 2011): What is the most recent cost estimate for the whole of the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance project, as well as for each constituent part?

For those of you who don’t know about QWAs, they are a tool that MPs have to hold Ministers to account. We can ask Ministers written questions on any reasonable topic, relating to their portfolios. Legally, if the House is sitting the Minister is obliged to respond to our question within 7 working days.

That’s the theory. In practise, of course, Ministers are often very busy and don’t answer all their QWAs on time. The Minister of Transport, has a particularly bad track record. Also, unlike most Ministers, he seems to treat QWAs as a game where the goal is to avoid giving any meaningful information.

In this particular case, the Minister actually never responded to my QWAs at all because he was late and when the House rose for the election all QWAs are cancelled.

I didn’t want to make a big deal out of this because I appreciated the Minister was dealing with the Rena clean up at the time. I am sure we will certainly be asking for this information once the House sits again in February.

After all, there have been rumours that the cost of the Wellington Northern Corridor will far exceed expectations and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same was true of the second section of Puhoi to Wellsford due to the challenges of the terrain up there (as reported by the Herald). The business case for these motorways will be even weaker if their cost increase.

However, even if we can ask again for this information in February I think it shows the Minister’s disdain for democracy and open government that he didn’t bother to give us this crucial information before the election.

There was another blog post about the Minister’s undemocratic practises recently at the Standard. This covered how the Minister of Transport recently decided (in secret, against the advice of several government departments) to try and restrict the powers of the Auckland Council to be involved in transport  planning.

Instead he wants those powers to be devolved to the (unelected) board of Auckland Transport, a CCO. What’s more, 5 of the 7 board members on Auckland Transport were appointed by the Minister. Auckland Council is fighting back against this decision and I hope they’ll be successful.

Over the next 3 years we will keep up the fight to try and keep the government’s transport  planning and funding decisions transparent and accountable. But I think it’s going to be an uphill battle. What do you think?

A  discussion document that will in part inform the Spatial Plan will be launched this Wednesday. The Spatial Plan will play a major role in determining  Auckland’s future development. Much of what we know so far about the  vision of the mayor and our elected council is forward looking and could help solve many of Auckland’s challenges.

By contrast the government’s papers carry a much more reactionary message.   For example :

“until now, the Government has played a relatively passive role in Auckland’s urban planning, having left these decisions to local government….Auckland’s governance reforms and the advent of the Auckland spatial plan provide an opportunity for the Government to change this approach, and to positively engage with the Auckland Council on urban form issues.”

And this:

“The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires the Auckland Council to
prepare an Auckland spatial plan … The Auckland Council must involve central
government and other significant decision-makers throughout the preparation and
implementation of its first spatial plan.”

The assault on democratic process that bulldozed the so-called Supercity into being was ‘justified’ by a claim that Auckland must speak with one voice. What is now clear is that Key, Joyce, Hide et al intend that their voice should be louder.

It is evident that what the government wants is radically different from what most Aucklanders voted for when they elected Len Brown and a majority of councillors, who talked about sustainable urban design,  improved public transport, stronger and more resilient communities, a 21st century EcoCity. 

The transport papers for example suggest the government will not be able to afford any more investment in public transport projects over the next 10 years (apart from ongoing projects like electrification of rail and integrated ticketing), but can find money for motorway projects within or near Auckland. The message is clear that Auckland Council should continue to favour private vehicles and motorways as the key to meeting our mobility needs, despite petrol prices at record level, congestion, peak oil, climate change issues, etc…

The papers around urban design and housing send a very clear message that the government wants council to abandon metropolitan urban limits and allow more  sprawl around our city. This is quite explicit, e.g.:

“The Government understands that the new Council is likely to continue to support a quality compact urban form…..The Government would support a move from the Council to consider other urban form options in its discussion document. This should include the option of a well-planned expansion of the urban area beyond the existing footprint,”

So expanding out from the periphery, link the parts together with motorways while under-investing in public transport – where have we heard that before, and where did it lead us?

Funding documents actively encourage the council to consider using private-public partnerships as an alternative way of generating funds.  There is of course an important role for the private sector in infrastructure development, and in implementing any vision of an Auckland that retains the best of the past and plans for a sustainable and socially cohesive future.  But trying to impose, in advance of the visioning and design work, particular funding models (especially those that have been found wanting in other cities) is not helpful.

Central government will naturally make a contribution to funding Auckland’s future development, as it has a role in every city and region.  Central government’s role should however be to support and complement the direction preferred and aspired to by Auckland’s citizens and their elected representatives, that will meet our needs for the next fifty years.  The government must not use the purse strings to impose a model that replicates the errors of the last fifty.

This graph shows the  growth in traffic on state highways over the last 20 years as reported by the transport agency. The pink line is heavy traffic (trucks) and the blue is all traffic. As you can see it grew pretty steadily up to about 2005. It then plateaued, dropped a bit in 2008 when oil prices rose and still hasn’t returned to 2007 levels.

This graph is taken from the cabinet papers on the Auckland Spatial Plan. It shows the changes in transport funding over the last years. You can see the incredibly sharp increase in funding towards state highways since 2007-2008. This has continued under the current National government.

And finally, here’s a graph showing growth in patronage on Auckland’s public transport system since 1990 from a report to the Regional Land Transport committee.

Hat-tip to Jarbury for them all!  Now, aren’t you glad the government is taking such a balanced approach to transport funding?

It really is becoming hard to believe the Transport Minister’s staunch commitment to the ‘Holiday Highway.’ The earthquake gave him an opportunity to downsize this uneconomic project without losing face. Given its poor business case and the soaring oil prices it seems logical he would have grasped eagerly at the chance.

Maybe it’s the lack of joined-up thinking?

Bill English, in response to my questions in the house, has indicated he’s happy to let the market sort out New Zealand’s dependence on oil in the absence of developing a Government plan.

I find it a little rich that he doesn’t want to put even a little bit of strategic thought into it, when he acknowledges our significant economic vulnerability to volatile and high oil prices but is prepared to sign off on billions of dollars of motorway spending, furthering New Zealand’s oil addiction.

The fastest way we could reduce our dependence on oil is to re-direct the massive motorway funds to a balanced transport budget that invests more in public transport, car-sharing and active transport.

If you were Finance Minister for a day what project(s) would you cut to re-direct transport funds?

Auckland Projects

• Waterview & widening of SH16 – construction meant to start at end of this year: approx $2 billion
• Victoria Park Tunnel – in progress: $360 million
• Newmarket Viaduct – in progress: $225 million
• Puhoi to Wellsford – Construction would start in 2014. However, the Government has already put a significant amount ($100 million) into planning the project: $2.1 billion.
• Penlink – likely to start in next few years. Much of the funds for this will come from Auckland Council, however: $201 million.
• AMETI – this project requires a mixture of Auckland Council and government funds. Currently in progress: $430 million over the next 10 years.

Outside Auckland

• Widening Waikato expressway – This project is ongoing until 2019. Some parts have already been built, others are being designed: $2.4 billion.
• Wellington Northern Corridor: $2.4 billion (Transmission Gully – Construction proposed to start in 2014: $1.025 billion)
• Christchurch motorways – this project is obviously going to change substantially due to the earthquake. Cost will likely be at least $400 million
• Tauranga Eastern Link – construction will start in 2011: $455 million

The proposal is for a tolled walk and cycle way. The project would cost $14 to 16 million to build and it would be paid off over 15 years through tolls. The walk and cycle way would be fitted under the bridge using a design that’s been successfully used in Canada to retrofit a bridge.

The proposed tolls would cost $3.90 return for people using their new public transport smart card. (Aucklanders are expected to have these soon as part of the integrated ticketing project. )

However, for tourists or those wanting to just make a one off trip and pay by cash, credit card or EFTPOS, the cost would be $10 return.

Does anybody think it’s a little crazy we’re going to charge people $10 a pop to walk and cycle across the Bridge when it is free to drive? This is a project that would have massive economic benefits for Auckland – including for tourism, congestion, the environment, and for our health.

So long as the Transport Agency thinks that this proposal is technically possible and won’t weaken the bridge, I think the government should just fund this project outright and make it free for everybody. What do you think?

First, we hear there are plans to link funding for tertiary institutions to the pass rates of their students from 2012. This is a terrible idea.

It could actually make the problem the Government is trying to fix – supposedly “poor quality” courses and “low standards” – worse, by encouraging funding-starved insititutions to pass everyone in order to secure their funding. Universities are starved of funding enough as it is, without creating a perverse incentive like this.

It could also make institutions wary about accepting students who are “less likely” to pass, like Maori, Pacifica, and adult students without previous qualifications, creating a serious equity issue around access to education for these groups.

Finally, it totally fails to take into account the fact that there are numerous factors influencing pass rates. As I blogged when John Key hinted at this in his speech a few weeks ago, included among “failures” could be people upgrading from a sub-degree course to a degree course because they learn that they are up to the challenge, or people moving out of education and straight into work. I would argue that scenarios like this actually constitute “success”, not failure. But linking funding to pass rates is too blunt an instrument to take this into account.

We also learned that the Government wants to review and reduce the number of tertiary qualifications on offer. This shows that they just don’t understand what higher education is all about.

Higher education is not only about churning out the type of “work-ready” graduates that industries say they want. It’s also about teaching life skills, critical thought, research, and other skills which enhance employability in any industry.

We can’t predict now what skills industries will demand in two, three, or five years time when people graduate, so we’re better off focusing on quality higher education that can be adapted to different jobs. I mentioned this in my last blog on tertiary issues too.

While its good to avoid replication of qualifications that are substantially the same, it’s important to remember that a diversity of courses reflects our diverse society, skills, and needs.

With these latest announcements, Stephen Joyce has shown his failure to grasp these key concepts.

Per capita is based on an assumption that all schools have equal access to resources and similar needs. Anyone who has visited the range of schools knows this is totally untrue. Some schools need a lot more help for a range of reasons to do with the fundamental and growing inequity in our society.

Some children are born with access to many educational resources and some are refugees, second language speakers or living in acute poverty. It is not rocket science to target the greatest need. So what’s driving this not very sporting approach to funding?  Could it be ideology masquerading as fairness?

If the increase in sports funding is about our children’s health and fitness the Government might like to re think the school food guidelines and listen to parents and teachers who are calling for healthy food. Healthy food not only helps with fitness but teachers tell me it increases learning and concentration. How serious are we about the well being of children and equity of education?

A Government which cuts healthy food programmes, Enviroschools and ACE classes then gives $35 million to private schools, and then  introduces a per capita model  for school sports is sending some interesting messages. The reinstatement of physical therapy for children with special needs in 23 schools was a response to public outcry so perhaps we better keep asking the Minister “Are you playing fair, or fast and loose?”

Interestingly Winston’s $80,000 donation from the Spencer Trust now shows up on the party donation returns to the Electoral Commission for 2007. And when you go to look for it you also get to see the $230,000 that the Labour Party took from lawyers representing undisclosed clients and the $500,000 that the National Party took from anonymous sources including the Ruahine and Waitamata trusts. 

An integral part of the Electoral Finance Act was to let the public know who was funding parties’ campaign before the election took place.   The public is now running out of time to find out who is financing Labour and National this election and decide whether it is going to effect their votes.

So which groups is Exxon dropping? According to Reuters, gone from the funding list in 2008 are the George C Marshall Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Frontiers of Freedom… and others.

These groups are what you might call the “engine room” of the climate denial industry.

But even Exxon’s walking away from them now.

The company started dropping groups in 2006, with the Competitive Enterprise Institute being the first to go. Last year, it dumped the Heartland Institute, which organised the biggest denial conference for a long time, in New York in March.

The other groups were all co-sponsors of the Heartland conference which concluded, surprisingly enough, that global warming isn’t happening.

Now, hopefully any propaganda funding of climate deniers that inhabit our part of the world might also start to dry up (notwithstanding of course proper scientific scepticism). We might even be able to fund some more real research based on finding solutions rather than preventing action.

Which is why this morning when I sat down to think about things to write about, the topics that came to mind were the China Free Trade Agreement, which is more important to the state of the New Zealand economy than even the largest of donations from the wannabe honorary consul to Monaco. Oh, and the proposed irrigation of the Canterbury plains, which could destroy huge swathes of the Canterbury environment in the name of industrial dairy. Excuse us if we’ve got our priorities wrong. I guess it is the same mistake we made last year when we spent our time talking about the actual environment rather than the work environment within the Ministry for the Environment.

That hardly seems a level playing field for John Key’s favoured voters on Mcgehan Close.   A resident there might also like to donate $250,000 to helping Key win the next election just too, but well you know what, her share portfolio ain’t performing too well this financial quarter.

Yes, the electoral finance bill is flawed. Yes it needs some serious changes. Yes, it deserves some very public scrutiny from the media.   But let’s not forget the millions of dollars of anonymous donations from the Ruahine Trust and the Waitamata Trust, with their shared post office box, and the Exclusive Brethren.