Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:629;Page:1446] 
6.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with his Associate Finance Minister Hon Trevor Mallard’s assurances that the Government will make up the funding shortfall revealed in Transit New Zealand’s 10-year forecast; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It would be more accurate to say that Mr Mallard agreed with the statements that I made in essence to the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Wednesday. 
John Key 
: Is the Government’s commitment one of funding the $685 million shortfall identified yesterday or is it to fund an open cheque to ensure that Transit’s 10-year plan is completed on time irrelevant of the cost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is committed to the proposals around the 10-year plan. We are looking of course at ways in which we can get greater efficiency and value for money in that. I am fascinated that the National Party is now saying it is not committed to those proposals for Auckland’s roading network. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Does the Minister agree with the Auckland Regional Council’s statement yesterday indicating that one of the challenges in funding Transit New Zealand’s 10-year forecast is the decades of under-investment in the Auckland region’s transport system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In 2005 the value of transport projects under way or just completed in the Auckland region was some $1.35 billion. That contrasts with $130 million in the last year of the previous National Government. They are all wind and no puff. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please sit down. I will inform the Leader of the House that in his absence the decision was made to take a stricter approach to ironical statements. So in future there are to be no ironical statements in questions or in answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect I do not think you should destroy unconsciously the character of this place because some lily-livered lounge lizards just do not like people talking about them. For goodness’ sake if one goes around the Western World there is some give and take. What is going on here is that members simply cannot take it but they can dish it out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order as the member knows. I will endeavour to interpret the Standing Orders to enable a free debate in this House but it has been apparent that members do wish a stricter approach to be taken. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect I do not believe that the majority of members of Parliament in this House would want you to take that course. Some do but I think if you were to poll the members you would find that the majority want a bit of give and take in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do appreciate the member’s comment on that and I will certainly bear it in mind in my future rulings. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister also make up the shortfall in funding for the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee’s public transport plan which if fully implemented would reduce or delay the need for some of Transit’s roading ambitions and does he agree that the financial assistance rate which funds 100 percent of State highways but only around half of public transport capital expenditure creates serious distortions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not agree on the last point. We are certainly not prepared to write an open cheque for whatever plans the Auckland Regional Council comes up with in respect of subsidisation of local Auckland matters. That includes for example matters such as electrification of the railway system which I do not believe at this stage has been demonstrated to have sufficient benefits in relation to the cost. 
John Key 
: If we are to accept the commitment he just gave to the House which was one of completing Transit’s 10-year plan albeit he gave a caveat by saying he would look to minimise the cost; can he tell us now what ways he would be looking at to minimise the cost if that does not include either building fewer roads or building those roads over a longer period of time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I also indicated to the select committee last week one of the things we are looking at is the ways in which Transit constructs its tender programme to ensure that there is the maximum level of competition and the maximum capacity for the private sector to take a more creative—at times—approach to the building of roads as opposed to very small contracts that are predetermined in terms of the way in which they are constructed. 
John Key 
: Does he harbour a suspicion that road contractors are engaging in unwarranted price escalation as he seemed to imply at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week; if not does he think that all of the anticipated price inflation now built into Transit’s new proposals is warranted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point at this stage I do not have sufficient technical advice to comment. I have been away on somewhat more important business in the last couple of days. On the former point I made no such assertion to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. In a tight labour market given costs driven by things like oil prices it is not unnatural that there has been some cost escalation in the construction sector. 
John Key 
: When he said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that borrowing is possible for transport decongestion but “I would prefer to see that against an assured income stream” does this indicate that any borrowing required to make up the shortfall will result in tolls; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because as I said “I would prefer”.