Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak about infrastructure. After the historic Paris Agreement which occurred in Paris at the end of last year I attended an OECD conference on green growth. The keynote speaker there raised a really important issue which is that the outcome of this historic Paris climate agreement is that all of the countries in the world agreed that we have to do something to limit dangerous climate change and in order to do that we have to reduce carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas pollution. What the keynote speaker at the OECD conference I attended said was that he and his colleagues at Oxford University had crunched the numbers on what would be necessary to achieve the limits to pollution that were agreed to so that we could get to that agreed limit to global warming in time. In order to do that basically every piece of new infrastructure we invest in from next year—that is 2017—has to be carbon-zero. That means that we cannot continue the status quo of increasing carbon pollution or emitting it further at a lower rate. This is a reality that this National Government has completely failed to engage with. There is nothing in Budget 2016 in transport infrastructure in particular that is going to enable us to achieve this goal. In fact it is quite the opposite. We are continuing the same pattern of increasing spending on road transport as opposed to offering the complements to the road network which are what is needed in New Zealand to reduce carbon pollution and to get better economic outcomes. Here is this incredible opportunity an opportunity to get better outcomes for the climate and for the economy and yet this National Government is completely neglecting it. Why would it do such a thing? The only reason I can think of is that this group of people who are currently in the National Party particularly the most influential power brokers are just very wedded to the status quo out of touch with reality and backward-looking. That is the only explanation that I can see except for of course where the current Minister of Transport Simon Bridges appeals to an as yet completely unproven technology that will somehow save us like driverless buses. In this Budget in the Estimates—it is quite clear—92 percent of the transport budget is on roads. When we raise questions about that the answer we get back from this National Government is that if you think that less than 92 percent in the budget should be spent on roads you are completely against roads. I have news for them—92 percent is nearly 100 percent. You could still spend a considerable amount of the budget on roads and spend two times three times four times five times as much on the complements to the roading network like the rail network like passenger transport like more coastal shipping for freight. That way we get better outcomes for those people and goods that are able to use that new infrastructure to move around and we take the pressure off the existing road network. It is not rocket science. It is not that difficult. The Green Party is here to actively campaign on clean fast modern transport that will make it easier to get where people need to go. In fact this type of balanced transport investment is far more cost-effective than what the current National Government is doing. So here is an example. We recently launched our campaign for rail for the North Shore. It is very popular. The vast majority of Aucklanders support it. In fact a tiny minority would support the Government's proposal of a road-only crossing. It makes sense because it will move three times more people than the road-only option while costing $1.5 billion less. I am not even including the enormous cost on the existing road network of dumping an additional 20000 cars on it or needing to find parking somewhere in the city centre for 20000 cars. If we had a rational approach to transport planning and funding one that did not limit itself to considering new highway expansions and had instead asked What is the most cost-effective way to move the next bit of people and goods and how can we do that in a way that meets our agreement in Paris and reduces carbon pollution?" we would come up with some fantastic answers. They are all right there in the Green Party's positive plan which will be better for the economy better for people better for cities and better for the climate."