Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'll just respond to two quite different contributions from the members in the debate just there. The first was the Hon Julie Anne Genter and I thank her for her ongoing consistency of advocacy around the importance of transitioning our transport system to be a carbon-neutral transport system. It is one of the biggest challenges that we face as we try and move towards a pathway of net zero by 2050. The facts that have been put in front of us by the independent climate commission are pretty stark. The transport sector produces 47 percent of New Zealand's carbon dioxide emissions and regrettably the trajectory in transport over the last 30 years has pretty much been the worst of any sectors. Emissions have increased by around about 90 percent when other sectors have had small increases or small decreases over that sector. That speaks to us having to really look at this sector in a very very different way and to some extend it goes to the debate that's been playing out in questions that I've been fielding today. I think what is enormously positive in response to the member's question is that from 1 July this year we have a new Government policy statement on transport which is coming into play. Of course this debate relates to the 2019-20 review but of course that was developed during that period—and the member herself had a role in that—and it puts front and centre that one of the objectives of Government policy in transport is to focus on reducing our emissions. So here we have a policy framework in which Waka Kotahi will be explicitly tasked with developing up a transport network that takes heed of that particular direction from the Government. So I think that's going to put us in a much better place than we have been in the past. The member asked about cost overruns in the sector particularly in relation to roading projects. This has been an ongoing feature of our transport system over a number of years. The member is correct in identifying a number of recent roading projects that we have experienced that with. Transmission Gully is one. The roads of national significance programme was originally costed at around about $10 billion and it cost $12.5 billion. These projects have a long history of that. We are particularly experiencing that pressure now as are other parts of the infrastructure sector. Some of it's to do with increased costs to the sector because of the strong economic performance here in New Zealand but also notably in Australia where often we're competing for labour materials and that kind of thing. Some of it is additional costs around property acquisition which is an important part of many of these projects. Obviously that very significant lift that we've had in property costs—particularly in metro areas—in recent times has had an impact there as well and that is something that we're looking into. But there is another part of it and I go back to the member's very striking and appropriately sized graph. Yes there is a significant roading spend there. Part of that is on new State highway build. A part of it I assume is the maintenance spend which is mixed in—Hon Julie Anne Genter: No it's just capital. Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In fact that's just the new road. The same issue applies to the maintenance spend as well and one of the things that we're experiencing there is that actually a lot of the good things that successive Governments have been building in—higher environmental standards better safety standards—as well as the additional costs that we're experiencing mean that effectively every 100 metres that we're looking to build or maintain is costing us more. I think it is a real question for us as Government and for the agency and there's some work that we have planned there to be delving into that because we need to manage the cost as well as we can. The member noted on the graph that the relative rail investment there is small. Of course we have recently produced the New Zealand Rail Plan which for the very very first time sets us on the path to having a 10-year strategic view of what the kind of investment should be in rail to build a resilient and reliable network. So it's my expectation that across the National Land Transport Fund and across Crown funding we will see appropriate levels of investment going into rail. There's also the significant progress that has been made—I note the member would like to see more—in terms of a good uplift in terms of our walking and cycling infrastructure. Again we're experiencing cost pressures there and effectively getting less delivered for the money that we might have thought three years ago. So that's an area that will be of continued focus. I can assure the member that I continue to work very closely with Waka Kotahi to ensure that we do have our funding applied that is within the funding bands for different categories. That is a mechanism that we have in place. We don't have a mechanism whereby the Minister or the Government of the day pinpoints a particular number. We identify a range in the Government policy statement and I'm very clear in my guidance to Waka Kotahi that they need to work with that and I convey my sense of ambition in terms of active modes in public transport for them to be meeting those as well. Mr Bishop asked a range of questions around the New Zealand Upgrade Programme baselining process and I do note that that baselining process itself does fall a little bit outside the annual review process that's in question but I do like to be open and engaging so I'll indulge him on this occasion. Again I'd just comment that I think this is an appropriate—[Interruption] No the baselining process has occurred in the first part of 2021; so it is outside the 2019-20 annual review period. I think that's just important to note but I'm answering the question anyway. I think it is an appropriate process for us to work through the nature of these significant infrastructure projects—not just these ones but any—which tends to be that the true costs aren't fully understood until significant design work is done until geotechnical work is fully understood and until matters of scope are carefully worked through with the professionals that we bring in and with the local communities that we work with. It's only once those matters have been worked through that we tend to get to really really accurate figures around costs and I don't think that's unique to the New Zealand Upgrade Programme as well. Again I'll point the member back to previous examples that we have had of these significant transport projects where we've had those kinds of cost escalations; so I think a good baselining exercise helps us to get there. In terms of how we intend to move forward with that programme again I repeat my comment that the Government remains committed to really good transport outcomes for the communities that we have identified within the programme. We've a lot of work that's under way. There will be further announcements in the very near future but I think it is appropriate and prudent that we work through the baselining exercise with the agencies so that when we've done that we can give absolute certainty to the communities that I know the member does want to see good transport outcomes for. I do note that he was somewhat critical in his comments that those improvements to the Wellington rail network were included in the programme. I mean that to me was really important. It was about trying to have a more balanced portfolio of investments—Chris Bishop: I agree. Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well the member didn't seem to be agreeing in his questioning. So we're moving forward with that as well. I think what the member does also need to be aware of is that in the estimates that the Government received at the beginning they were priced at P50; so they're reasonable estimates of cost that we were given as Government to inform that decision making. P50 for members who aren't so familiar means that on average we could expect the costs to fall above or below a little bit about 50 percent of the time. That was a reasonable basis for the decision making that occurred there but the baselining is what we now do to get a really clear appreciation of the costs.