Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Twyford Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 05 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1737. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
10. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Have Treasury officials reviewed Ministry of Transport calculations including projected traffic volume growth per capita change in volumes over the last seven years and the alignment with GDP and if so is he satisfied that the currently planned transport spend is good value for money? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am advised that Treasury has discussed information of this sort with the Ministry of Transport in producing the National Infrastructure Plan. The Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency have the expertise to review the specific data in this area. As part of Treasury’s ongoing work with the Ministry of Transport and other agencies it attempts to understand the economic case for all investment and in fact is working hard to set high standards for agencies to make the case for more investment. I do expect the transport spend to be good value for money as we expect with spending on behalf of all taxpayers. 
Phil Twyford 
: What is the projected growth in State highway traffic volumes used in calculations of benefit-cost ratios for the roads of national significance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer the member’s question. 
Phil Twyford 
: What has the per capita rate of change in vehicle volumes on State highways been for the last 7 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer that question either. 
Phil Twyford 
: I seek leave of the House to table a table from the New Zealand Transport Agency that shows a 1.2 percent decrease in vehicle traffic in the last year and that vehicle volumes have been stagnant since 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Twyford 
: As Minister of Finance does he endorse the Minister of Transport’s statement in the House today that the member should not get too caught up on the cost-benefit analysis when his Government is spending billions of dollars on State highway projects supposedly on the basis of benefit-cost ratios and does this reflect his Government’s commitment to value for money? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course the Government pays a good deal of attention to the cost-benefit ratios. I suspect the member is somehow taking the long way to getting to talking about the central business district rail tunnel and I must say the Greens do a much better job of that than Labour does. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister of Finance whether he endorses his colleague’s statement in the House today. He did not address it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What he said in answer is that the Government is interested in cost-benefit ratios for transport initiatives and I think that was a pretty clear answer for the member. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree that spending on this scale—$10 billion over 7 years on projects with such poor predicted economic return—puts it right up there with Muldoon’s Think Big scheme in the 1980s and could this poor quality spending be the reason that this country continues to lag so far behind Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with that. The roads of national significance projects do have significant economic benefit and I invite the member to try to shut down some of the motorways that have been built if he thinks they are a bad idea. If the member is going to focus on evidence and cost-benefit ratios he needs to understand that quite a lot of the favourite public transport projects have extremely poor cost-benefit ratios and negligible or negative economic benefits. 
Dr David Clark 
: What does he say to angry taxpayers in Dunedin and in all southern provinces who know that they are paying money hand over fist for the roads of national significance projects of dubious economic benefit when not one of these projects is south of Christchurch? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Taxpayers in Dunedin and regular visitors such as me are very pleased to see that— 
Hon Members 
: Visitors! Ha ha! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well Dunedin is actually 150 miles from Dipton. They are very pleased to see the Caversham—[ 
Interruption 
] The Labour Party would not have a clue about the geography of the South Island because it has no members down there. They are very pleased to see the Caversham multi-lane project going ahead. It is the first significant roading project for a long time in Dunedin and the member should be supporting it not criticising it.