Joyce Steven: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
Joyce Steven: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3791] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 There are no easy options in respect of the Waterview Connection of course unless the member Darren Hughes is now telling us that the proposal of the previous Labour Government whereby 160 houses would go is not on the table. At the end of the day the difficult thing for all of us unfortunately is that these things are measured in monetary terms. It is an important time to think about that given that this week is Budget week. 
I actually have some questions for the Opposition around the issue of Waterview; I have a couple of questions that I think members opposite need to answer. They can say what they like about the Mt Albert by-election but this Government has been upfront with the voters of Mt Albert and it has said: “This is what we can afford to do. We understand the costs it imposes. We are going to be upfront with you. We are going to talk about Waterview before the by-election so you get the opportunity to make your choices.” 
Of course Opposition members are not taking that approach. They are saying everything is possible and the expenses are not real. In Budget week that is a particularly ironic thing for them to be saying. They have criticised the Government policy statement. They have criticised the new Government’s changes to the policy statement that the previous Government put together which put more investment into the State highway infrastructure. That for the benefit of my learned—and I say that advisedly—friend Mr Hughes is why we can build this particular project from within the National Land Transport Fund. 
Here is the first question for the Labour Party. Its members have been criticising intently the Government’s changes to the National Land Transport Fund. Are they now saying they would endorse those changes? They have to say they would endorse those changes before they would be able to even begin to build the Waterview tunnel. Let us get that clear. I invite the next Labour speaker to advise us whether that is something Labour is planning to do. If Labour is not planning to do that then we know it is all complete puffery and a Labour Government would have to borrow the $2.77 billion or the $3.2 billion. As the Prime Minister pointed out today the cost of borrowing money for and building twin three-lane tunnels is $3.2 billion and that is the direct comparator with building a three-lane option in each direction from within the National Land Transport Fund. Labour members need to tell us whether that is what Labour is proposing to do. 
They need to tell us that as well in terms of the Budget this week because the $3.22 billion or the $2.8 billion if we go with the non - future-proofed option would have to go on top of the Budget spend this week. Whatever debt the Government turns in in its Budget on Thursday would be added to by whatever amount these people say they would spend in order to build Waterview. That is what the country has to face and that is the difficult part. Members can sit there in Opposition and say they will do this that and everything but we find that nobody believes that is what they will do. Voters will look at those members in 3 years’ time and ask whether they can trust them with the Government finances—with taxpayers’ money and with taxpayers’ income. If those members persist in saying that a Labour Government would spend that amount of money on Waterview regardless of the economic situation in New Zealand then I am sorry but they will never get voted back in in this country while they have that attitude. It is simply not conscionable for anybody to make those sorts of statements in a financial sense. If Labour takes that approach that is fine. Will Labour members also say that a Labour Government would find a way to build the central business district tunnel in Auckland and that it would all be costless or that it would build a train line to Manukau out to the airport and that it would all be costless? 
Perhaps the Hon David Cunliffe who has just entered the Chamber would be prepared to answer these questions as the Opposition spokesperson on finance ahead of the Budget being delivered on Thursday. I think Labour members owe that kind of honesty to the people of Mt Albert before they vote in the by-election. Are Labour members really saying that in the current economic environment a Labour Government would go out and bore the deep tunnels at Waterview particularly when this Government has identified an option that addresses a large number of the issues in the Waterview community? It does not address all of them; I am completely open about that. It does cause issues with regard to the Alan Wood Reserve. The only thing I can point out with regard to that is that at the end of the day it is a railway reserve. I know that option is not the whole answer from the people’s point of view. But the questions that Labour members must answer are whether they now endorse the Government policy statement on transport and accept that the Government’s approach is the only reasonable approach to building the Waterview project in Auckland. Thank you Mr Chairman.