Genter Julie Anne: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Genter Julie Anne: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Chair. Tena koutou e te Whare. Do I need to wait? Is my microphone— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry you are going to have use the handheld microphone. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: Tena koutou e te Whare. I rise to speak on the financial review of the Ministry of Transport. I just wanted to start with this incredible piece of work that was released just before Christmas that the Ministry of Transport co-funded and collaborated on which is the City Centre Future Access Study. 
If members recall last year when the National Land Transport Programme for the next 3 years that is 2012-15 was announced I asked the Minister of Transport in this House what new public transport infrastructure projects were planned for Auckland. At that time the Minister could not name a single public transport infrastructure project that had not been committed under the last Labour Government. So electrification station upgrades the new electric multiple units that have all been ordered for Auckland which are highly anticipated and will be very effective—all of that is infrastructure that was committed under a previous Government. There have been no new infrastructure projects. 
At the time the Minister announced—because he was not able to name any infrastructure projects that are planned any time in the next 10 years that will be funded by this Government—this particular study which was co-funded by the Ministry of Transport. Of course the terms of reference were signed off by the Minister himself. This study like the 2010 business case before it and all the very thorough work and studies that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority completed since 2006 stated conclusively that the Auckland city rail link is an essential piece of infrastructure. It is the only way to meet the needs of a growing Auckland. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it isn’t. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: The transport needs of Auckland. It is the only way— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it isn’t. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: —to keep people and goods moving in the Auckland region and to avoid gridlock such as we saw last week in Auckland becoming the norm every single day. 
The Government continues to say no as the Minister is saying right now to this vital piece of infrastructure which the business community knows that Auckland needs. The Government will not even fund half—not even half—of this piece of essential infrastructure even though its own studies show that it is the only way to avoid congestion. So it is very ironic or perhaps wilfully ignorant that the Government claims that its motorways of madness which will suck up the vast majority of transport funding over the next 10 years will somehow reduce congestion or improve transport efficiency when its own studies show that they will do no such thing. 
In the National Land Transport Programme which was announced last year by the New Zealand Transport Agency we see that 87 percent of all the funds on new transport projects is going on road projects and a tiny portion is going on public transport walking and cycling even though those are the most cost-effective ways to meet the growing demand. Of course it is road users and the economy that benefit from investment in public transport walking and cycling because that is the best way to reduce pressure on the roads. It is the most cost-effective way to move more people at peak hour. More road users and the economy will benefit from investment in the city rail link than will benefit from the $1 billion Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” or the $600 million Kapiti Expressway. Very few road users will benefit from these projects which are sucking up the vast majority of new funding under this Government’s policy. 
The Government is going to borrow and put up fuel taxes to pay for its pet motorway projects motorways of madness which will carry only a tiny proportion of daily vehicle trips—4 percent. This is not a good use of road users’ money. Many road users especially road freight will benefit far more from projects that give commuters the opportunity to leave their cars at home because that is the most cost-effective way to reduce peak congestion. Nowhere in the world do you see cities trying to reduce congestion by building a motorway out of the city. That is ridiculous. It is ridiculous and insane that the Government can claim that it is going to reduce congestion by throwing billions at motorways out of cities. 
I would just like to sum up by saying that the Government has to be pretty mired in ideology to not seize the opportunity provided by smart green transport because that is a better approach for the economy it is a better approach for road users it is a better approach for consumers and it is even better for the environment. 
In the responses to financial review questions the New Zealand Transport Agency very helpfully gave me this table which shows the benefit-cost ratio percentage split. That is the benefit-cost ratio percentage of all the different infrastructure projects that were conducted over the financial year under review. One hundred percent of the projects— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is the member taking another call? 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: No.