The Nation: Transport Minister Simon Bridges
On The Nation:
Lisa Owen
interviews Transport Minister Simon Bridges Simon Bridges
does not have confidence in Auckland Council’s transport
plan, saying the city needs “more, less iconic big
projects and more smaller-scale projects that actually deal
with congestion” For the first time Minister gives
examples of what he wants from Auckland’s plan: suggests
cutting rail to the airport and increasing funding for local
roads. Wants Aucklanders to wait for new spending
until the government and council can reach
“alignment” “I think it’s the right thing,
actually, to take some time on what is incredibly
significant to see if we can get better alignment”. Urges Council to focus more on “getting good roads”,
but also says “We’re not prepared to give those [funding
tools] until we see a strategy that deals with congestion
and more effective public transport for Auckland for the
next 20, 30 years”. Says if those roads aren’t
built “we think that it slows down the ability to have
greenfields development and more special housing”. Describes comments by Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse on
stopping Special Housing Area developments where there
isn’t infrastructure as “leveraging” because the
council knows “it is so important to the Government to see
more housing in Auckland”. Insists National is
“doing a huge amount” in Auckland and nothing he says
undercuts the government’s commitment to making the
Auckland super city “master of its own destiny”. Bridges sticks to claim that Auckland Council plans to
spend less on transport compared to the past three years,
although Auckland Council told The Nation that isn’t
correct.
Denies that Government is waiting for Len
Brown and the council to be voted out next year; “what
I’ve been offering, and I know the Mayor is very keen on
this, is the option to actually explore formal
engagement.”
Lisa Owen: The
Government invests around a billion dollars a year in
Auckland’s transport system, and Auckland can’t
introduce tolls or fuel taxes without a law change, what
Wellington says matters. Transport Minister Simon Bridges is
with me now. Good morning.
Simon Bridges:
Morning.
This week Auckland Council voted for
a transport levy. Now tell me – is that a smart move? Is
it the right thing to do?
I think ultimately
it’s for them. We don’t disagree with them doing that,
as I think it is for them. I think what is true, though, is
when you look at it, I suppose what we think is there’s a
disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric. Actually,
what we’re seeing at the moment, for example, is compared
with the status quo of the last three years, a decrease in
spending in the Budget coming up in transport at
least.
Well, the council categorically denies
that. They’ve told us absolutely not is there a decrease
in funding. In fact—
Well, let me give you
the numbers.
In fact, the proposal that they
put up was if they didn’t have this levy,
so—
Well, let me give you the numbers.
Over the last three years, they’ve spent just under $2.5
billion. In the next three years, they’ll spend about 1900
million, $1.9 billion. That’s including about half a
billion from the levy. So overall while they’re getting
more in rates, it is not going on
transport.
But the council says those—
Minister, the council says those figures are based on not
including the levy. Now that they’ve got the levy, the
spend will be the same.
No, that’s
incorrect. That’s my understanding.
So
you’re saying the council’s lying on that
point?
Well, no, I’m not, but I’m giving
you what I understand from the very latest figures in their
budget, which is about 2.4 billion for the next— for the
last three years, 1.9 billion for the three years
coming.
Is it—?
That’s
including about half a billion in transport
levies.
It is possible that you’ve
misinterpreted those figures? Or you’re 100% sure you’re
right on that?
I’m sure about that, but
let me tell you this – regardless of the financial
situation, I think what we would say is we just don’t
think it’s a good enough plan for Auckland and for
Aucklanders. And we say that because we don’t think that
it does move the dial in terms of effective public transport
that lowers congestion, and it doesn’t actually deal
generally with congestion across Auckland in the next 30
years.
We’re going to come to that in some
more detail, but in terms of the levy, do you think it’s
fair for all Aucklanders, rich and poor, to pay the same
amount?
Well, I think that’s for Auckland.
I mean, I think, you know, what I would
say—
What do you think?
What
I would say is if you look at Auckland from a central
government perspective, it is incredibly important that it
succeeds. The demographic change here – three-quarters of
a million people growth in, I think 40 years – means that
we do need to, if you like, fix Auckland transport. The
government’s been investing the lion’s share, as you
said in the intro there, $1 billion that’s been going in
all manner of projects – Waterview, electrification of the
rail, the Victoria tunnel – so I think we’re doing our
bit.
Part of it’s a loan, though, isn’t
it? Part of it’s a $500 million loan. It’s not a free
hit.
I think however you slice it, we’re
spending very significant sums in Auckland. It’s about
40%, actually, of our transport budget and much more than
the council is, and that’s because we recognise how
important the city is to New Zealand.
Okay,
well, you have described the plan that the council has put
out as being ‘not optimal’. Exactly what bits don’t
you like?
I think it comes down to two
things generally. Firstly, if you look at the council’s
own figures, again what you see, as compared with their
basic model, which clearly they didn’t want, you’re only
getting about a 1% increase into the 2040s in public
transport; you’re getting a 40% rise in congestion. So at
a big-picture level, it’s not solving the problems that we
think Aucklanders want to. And then I think to answer your
question directly, you get into the mix of projects
and—
So about that mix of projects –
that’s what I want to drill down into, because that’s
what people want to know. Which bits of the projects do you
not favour?
Well, I think firstly what
we’ve got to say is I want to engage seriously with
Auckland, the Government does, to actually go through and
test assumptions and have some give and take on that. So,
actually, we’re forming, if we can, some sort of alignment
on the projects. But let me answer your
question.
Yes, please.
I mean,
I think what we’re talking about here is in broad-brush
terms and open for testing is a view that we need more, less
iconic big projects and more smaller-scale projects that
actually deal with congestion and that mean, for example,
that the 85% of commuters who aren’t commuting to their
jobs into the CBD are getting good public transport and are
getting good roads to get to their work.
So
what are the iconic projects that you think are a waste of
money?
Well, I’m not saying they’re a
waste of money. There’s any range of projects that if you
had the funding, you would do. But let me give you an
example - $1.8 billion, half of the new public transport
spending for the next 20, 30 years, according to this plan,
to go on the rail link to the airport. Well, you’ve got to
test that, I think, actually – is there enough
infrastructure and investment going to busways and so on to
get most people to their work each day?
So
perhaps that’s one thing you would not spend money
on.
I think that’s an example where it
needs to be very seriously tested, certainly in light of
limited funds, a decreasing budget from council and the need
to get the optimum sense of prioritisation of
projects.
So you said less iconic projects and
other smaller projects. What are you talking about, then?
More arterial roads?
Well, I think, for
example on that front, we’re talking about only 15% of the
budget that Auckland’s put forward going into- an increase
going into local roads. If we think we’re building the
highways, if we’re doing those things, we need to have
effective local roads. We’ve seen that debate, really, in
relation to special housing areas. We are- You need to make
sure you’ve got the supporting infrastructure. We think
that's very important, and we don’t necessarily think that
we see that in this plan. In fact, we think that it slows
down the ability to have greenfields development and more
special housing.
I suppose the conundrum here,
though, is that didn’t we get a supercity? Didn’t
Auckland get a supercity so that it could be the master of
its own destiny so it could make decisions for itself? Well,
it has made the decision. Maybe you just don’t like
it.
Well, I don’t think there’s anything
that I say that undercuts that. Auckland, I think, as Len
Brown said, can go ahead-
How can you-? Excuse
me, sorry, I just have to stop you there. How can you say
that? Because you’re telling them you don’t like the
project; you’re not going to allow fuel tax or tolls. So
how are they the masters of their own
destiny?
Because they’ve ultimately put up
this budget. They’ve approved it; it’s what’s going to
happen according to the council. They can do that. What
I’m saying, though, is that if they want more funding than
the very significant funding that they’re getting from
central government to really back Auckland, Government needs
to see a plan and a strategy that it’s confident in, that
it thinks does the job for Aucklanders that does a good job,
and we don’t see that now. But it’s not all negative.
Actually, we’re prepared to work with Auckland on
that.
Minister, they’re not asking you to
hand over some money. They’re asking you to allow them to
use a certain set of tools to raise the money themselves. So
they’re not asking you to dip into your pocket. They want
you to let them to go to their constituency and get money
from there.
You’re right. In a broad
sense, they’re asking for funding tools from central
government. We’re not prepared to give those until we see
a strategy that deals with congestion and more effective
public transport for Auckland for the next 20, 30 years. We
just don’t see it. By the way, it’s not just
us.
Doesn’t that bring us back to the same
problem, though? ‘You’re the masters of your own
destiny, but, oops, so I’m not going to allow you to use
these funding tools to get money.’ They’ve chosen that
plan – they’ve put it to the vote.
And
they’re doing what they think is right. They’re
increasing rates; they’ve got a transport levy. As I say,
actually, if you look at that, the transport portion of this
higher rates is not increasing. You’re not seeing more
money going on transport. But they can do that. From our
perspective, though, it’s just very clear – and I’ve
been clear with Mayor Brown – it’s got to be funding
following good strategy, not just an open chequebook on the
funding before we get a strategy that does the right job for
Auckland.
Isn’t that funding to follow the
strategy that you approve of? Because that’s basically
what you’re saying, isn’t it?
I think we
all – whether you’re a council, whether you’re Len
Brown, whether you’re Simon Bridges – need to see an
Auckland that’s moving, that’s got excellent public
transport, because we back that and we’ve shown in our
record. It’s about how you get there. And as I say, I
don’t think I can be clearer – we’re not going to
approve funding tools that we’re all already pretty
sceptical of, unless we see a strategy that’s right for
Auckland, because it is so important to Aucklanders but also
to New Zealand.
You’ve said you want to talk
some more; that you want another year of consultation.
Isn’t that the problem? Aucklanders are fed up with
talking. They want some action. The longer you leave this,
the worse it’s going to get.
My view’s
pretty clear. We could get on right now and they could build
the roads and the big public transport projects that they
want, but they may very well be the wrong roads and the
wrong public transport projects. I think it’s the right
thing, actually, to take some time on what is incredibly
significant to see if we can get better alignment. To be
very clear, it’s not going to be easy, actually, because
there are differences. They’re not on personalities, and
they’re very well with the mayor and the other leaders in
the city, but they are in terms of-
Because
the outside perception is this looks like a staring contest,
Minister; that you were trying to stare down the council who
have taken this plan to their people and have voted it
through. Is it just that you’d like to work with someone
else other than Len Brown’s council?
No.
We’ll work with whomever the mayor and the council are.
It’s about the fact this is so important that we need to
get it right.
But are you actually working
with them in a meaningful way when you say, ‘We don’t
like your plan. We’re lukewarm on a levy; we’re not
going to give you permission to use tolls, and no, no
regional fuel tax.’ That’s not working with them in a
meaningful way, is it?
Working with
Auckland, I mean, our record speaks for itself. The hugely
significant projects; the money we’re putting in; money
talks, and we’re showing that; the projects and the
investment going forward. So I think we are. And what I’ve
been offering, and I know the Mayor is very keen on this, is
the option to actually explore formal engagement. That’s
not just talk. It’s about priorities; ultimately,
projects.
The underlying message there,
though, Minister, is, ‘Wait. Auckland, wait.’ You’re
OK for Auckland to wait?
Well, it’s not
waiting. Because actually, if you look-
But if
you’re not doing anything and you’re just talking some
more, then you’re waiting.
We’re doing a
huge amount. I mean, you talk about Waterview; a $1.4
billion project opening some time in 2017. That will hugely
move the dial for West Aucklanders where we’ve had the
special housing issues and talk in the last few days. So
we’re doing a huge amount. I mean, compared with $500,
$600m from local government, we’re at about $1b. So
we’re doing that, but while that goes on, I think it is
right that we get together and we do talk it out. By the
way, that’s what AA wants; that’s what the Employers and
Manufacturers Association wants; that’s what most of the
very serious submitters who submitted in process
wanted.
I just want to look at one example in
terms of waiting. Projections show that the Britomart rail
hub is going to reach full capacity for trains and
passengers in the next few months. We understand that the
council’s looking at putting security guards down there to
cope with the numbers. That sounds urgent, doesn’t it? It
sounds like it needs action now. Not in a year’s time; not
after some more discussion.
Look at the City
Rail link. We are going to fund it.
I’m
asking about this problem. So we’re already reaching
capacity. They want to get ahead with the plan; they’ve
chosen it. Why not let them?
That’s right.
And if you’re talking about that, I think what Len Brown
would say if he was here, or many of the councillors, would
be, ‘What we need is the City Rail link.’ And if you
look at that, actually, we’ve brought funding forward for
that by a decade. It will start in 2020.
With
some riders.
That’s right. Because
actually, in regards to your question, the numbers quite
clearly aren’t at the level.
They don’t
want piecemeal as well, Minister. They want to get on with
the whole plan, not just a little peck at a
time.
Exactly, and that’s why I think
seriously exploring formal engagement is so important. Right
now, we’re not talking about a week’s time. We’re
talking about the next 30 or 40 years, when three quarters
of a million people are coming to this
city.
But the reality is, the transport issues
that Auckland is facing that’s affecting us now, even last
week, the council has put the brakes on certain special
housing areas because they say they need more roads and
infrastructure. So now, you’re stalling the building of
more houses in Auckland as well.
Well, I
think what we’ve got, understandably there from the deputy
mayor, is some leveraging going on, because they know it is
so important to the Government to see more housing in
Auckland, and we’re trying to—
But the
houses aren’t getting built. They’ve put the handbrake
on it because of the transport
situation.
And I think that’s an example
of the rhetoric and reality point I made earlier. I don’t
think we can be blamed there in the sense that we really are
pumping in the investment in that West Auckland part of
Auckland, along that State Highway 16. And I’m willing
very much through this formal process I’m talking about to
engage with them on particular projects.
Okay,
so very quickly, because we are running out of time.
You’re talking to the council about a transport accord. A
housing accord speeds up consents. What would a transport
accord do exactly?
First and foremost,
alignment. It would mean that— I think the questions
you’re asking me would be answered. We’d have a sense of
agreement on the problem, on the congestion numbers. We’d
have a sense of the priorities and what we’re trying to
achieve. Is it that fewer big projects, more projects around
the city, or what is it? And then it’s that mix of
projects that at the moment we don’t
know.
All right, thanks, Minister. We’ve got
to go. Alignment – that sounds like more
talking.
Transcript provided by Able. www.able.co.nz