Genter Julie Anne: Address in ReplyText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Address in Reply[Sitting date: 29 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would like to take this opportunity to talk about two issues that are really at the top of mind for those people living in Auckland and they are transport and housing. I am sure most New Zealanders watching at home whether or not they live in Auckland are aware that both transport and housing affordability are critical issues in Auckland. Auckland desperately needs better buses and trains and safe walking and cycling. During the campaign I was up in Auckland travelling around quite a bit. I travelled on off-peak buses that had 15 or 16 people standing on them two mothers with prams in the middle of the day—completely chocker. The trains have been completely chocker. That has been reflected in the latest patronage statistics which show that in September for example rail patronage in the year to date was up 16.8 percent. This is phenomenal growth and it has actually been increasing month on month—the growth rate has been increasing. So this is happening very very quickly.On the Northern Express busway patronage was up 18.6 percent in the year to date. That is almost 20 percent growth year on year. So Aucklanders are flocking to buses and trains to the extent that they are actually over-full. I note that the new Minister of Transport Simon Bridges is in the Chamber. I would like to invite him to join me for a transport tour in Auckland some time to see just how desperately Aucklanders need capital investment in public transport. The reason that is important is that Britomart Transport Centre our rail network is actually at capacity already in terms of the number of trains that can get through at peak hour. So we cannot increase the frequency of the trains not only to make it more convenient for people to take the train but also to ensure that fewer people are standing on the very full trains as they are already full until the City Rail Link has been built. So we need this critical investment. The Green Party campaigned hard on a positive transport vision that was fully costed for Auckland. I believe that National would be missing a huge opportunity if it did not invest in public transport because that is essential to the future economic development of Auckland and of New Zealand.Of course the other side of this is housing affordability. I have heard the Prime Minister and other Government members make reference to both transport and housing affordability in their speeches at the commencement of this Parliament. Unfortunately I do not think the National members have got it. I do not think they have got exactly what is going on here. We have got the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Building and Housing Dr Nick Smith stating that we are going to tackle the housing affordability problem by freeing up more greenfield lands on the fringe in Auckland. Interestingly this is actually going to exacerbate our transport problem. So although land is cheaper on the fringe of urban areas because it is not where people want to be transport costs are much higher on the fringe of urban areas.We could free up more land for more houses take up the very valuable and productive farmland that is currently used to produce food and cover it with houses as they have done in Southern California and other places that I am quite familiar with. We could do that and people would have mortgages that would be lower and their house prices would be lower but their transport costs would actually outweigh the benefits of the more affordable housing.There has been a good deal of research on that around the globe. Most notably recently there was a research paper presented to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that analysed just this effect for Auckland Wellington and Christchurch. What it demonstrated was that people who lived in households further from the city centre spent less on their rents—rents decline as you move out—but they spent more on their commuting costs to the extent where they were actually spending more overall. So if we achieve the goal of cheap houses by taking up our beautiful greenfield productive farmlands and allowing developers to make a quick buck by developing houses out there those households are actually going to be at risk of significant transport costs to access jobs services education—all those things that they need to access in order to earn a living and to make their households work.So here is the opportunity: if we get the connection between housing and transport affordability right we could actually kill two birds with one stone. This is the challenge that I lay down to the National Government. Actually there are huge opportunities to improve housing affordability by allowing intensification in those areas of the city where land is most valuable. I have to say that land values are highest in the inner suburbs and the central city of Auckland because that is where people want to be. It is true that at the moment the district plan rules do not allow an adequate number of dwellings and businesses to be put in place where those land values are high but that has got nothing to do with the Resource Management Act. Do not be deceived. When National Government members talk about reforming the Resource Management Act in order to achieve the goal of housing affordability what they are really talking about is gutting the fundamental world-leading law that protects our natural pristine environment.I know that New Zealanders care a good deal about our natural environment. They want to protect it. They want to look after it. We can have development. We can have sustainable development. We can have jobs without forgetting the Resource Management Act. In fact changing the purpose and the principles of the Resource Management Act is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve the problem of onerous rules and district plans. The onerous rules and district plans that people really dislike—you know that make it a little more difficult for them to put a deck up or to develop let us say a multi-dwelling unit apartment—have nothing to do with the Resource Management Act. They are rules that have been rolled over from the old district plans that existed under the Town and Country Planning Act. Under the existing Resource Management Act the Government has the ability through a national policy statement or a national environmental standard to change those rules and to free up the land that is the most valuable for the type of development that Aucklanders really want.I would say that it is very clear through their choice at local body level that Aucklanders support the vision of a compact city with good public transport that works safe walking and cycling and a livable community. The amazing thing about this is it actually costs less than what we are currently doing. It costs less but unfortunately the National Government is doing the exact opposite. What it wants to do is free up greenfield lands well to the south and well to the north of Auckland. Rather than the Government investing in good public transport which is what Aucklanders want it is spending the vast majority of the money on a few extremely expensive motorways that will not do anything to reduce congestion.It is interesting because I heard a member—Mike Sabin—mention earlier tonight that we needed to have evidence of a return on investment before we implement policy. Then ironically he was saying how deeply happy he was that the Pūhoi to Wellsford project was going to be implemented when the evidence demonstrates that the Pūhoi to Wellsford project is not the best-value investment; in fact it is one of the worst. It has got one of the worst business cases of any of the projects that this Government is pouring billions of dollars into.Ironically National Government members say that they care about economic development they say that they care about affordable housing and they say that they care about efficient transport but when we look at the evidence of what they are actually doing they are doing the exact opposite. What they are putting in place is going to condemn Aucklanders to decades of terrible traffic congestion just like Los Angeles has with its many motorways. There is going to be decades of terrible traffic congestion and very high transport costs for households. Not only are households going to be forced to own multiple vehicles whether or not they like to and to run those vehicles whether or not fuel prices are increasing but this Government is also putting up fuel taxes to pay for these uneconomic motorways. Auckland is potentially going to have to put tolls on existing motorways to pay for essential transport investment that it should have had decades ago. We are finally getting electrification of Auckland’s rail network now after 80 years—80 years after other overseas cities electrified their rail networks and 60 years after Wellington electrified its rail network.Hon Simon Bridges: It took a National Government to do it.JULIE ANNE GENTER: In fact it was the previous Labour Government in 2007 that finally agreed to electrification once the Green Party’s campaign forced it to.I would just like to say that we have so many opportunities for a smart Green economy for a livable city in Auckland and for affordable housing and transport. I hope that this National Government will actually listen to sense and start implementing sensible evidence-based policy. Thank you.