United Future
Larry Baldock

Baldock: LTMB committee stage speech in Parliament

Then we had the Labour Party that was formerly opposed to tolls, and the Greens who are opposed to roads.

It is a jolly good thing United Future arrived on the scene, so that we could have coming into the Chamber today this bill that will provide some alternative methods of funding for New Zealand’s roads.

We do need alternative funding. Since coming to this House I have made frequent points about the diversion of funds from the petrol excise tax, and I take Peter Brown’s point.

Some people think that I have gone quiet on this, but I have given the Government a chance, according to its word, to give an explanation as to what the money is used for.

I believe there will be some good reasons why some of that money is spent things other than roads. Most New Zealanders are not so much concerned about the money not being spent on roads, but about the lack of accountability and the lack of transparency.

If Treasury can make a good account of why that money is spent on health, or on other aspects of the Budget, then most New Zealanders will be prepared to put their hands in their pockets to pay for the roads that we desperately need.

If we do not see that explanation coming forward very soon, I will again join my voice with others in this Chamber who want that accountability and transparency.

But the facts are that we do need alternative funding to get our roading network built. We need it in Tauranga, which needs $500 million worth of roads built within the next 10 years. If we consider that Tauranga’s population is 100,000, we have as big a challenge, if not bigger, than the one Auckland faces, with a population of 1 million and it needs $5 billion worth of roads. We have the same challenge in Tauranga.

I am pleased to hear the member from Auckland, John Key, say that he would toll almost anything in order to get the roads built. That is very different from the member for Tauranga, who is now campaigning against tolls, in order to try to shore up his support in the city and appeal to a small minority of Tauranga residents.

Most residents in Tauranga want our roads fixed. They see this bill as providing something very practical in order to get our roading infrastructure moved forward.

I love going to Germany and driving on the Autobahns, but the reality is that the German people pay heavily for that facility. We in New Zealand will have to face up to the facts of what it will cost us to build a 21^st century roading infrastructure.

This bill provides one of the mechanisms for that alternative funding, through tolling, and it will invite some public-private partnerships. Unlike the member who spoke before me, I do know of some companies, some investors, who are very enthusiastic about this bill.

All the hype has been coming out of the Opposition about how useless this is. They have read the bill for themselves, and they have seen the changes that have been made during the select committee process. They are very satisfied that this bill now provides a mechanism for them to get involved and invest in New Zealand’s roading. I look forward to that developing in the years ahead.

Gerry Brownlee: Make a profit?

LARRY BALDOCK: They will not enter into it unless they make a profit; the member can be assured of that.

Many people said at the beginning of this bill that it was useless, and I have to agree with them, in terms of many of its complicated parts, but I believe that the select committee has done an excellent job in listening to the submitters.

The bill has changed, particularly the parts that relate to alternative funding, which is the part that United Future has taken most interest in, because of our agreement with the Government. This is now a workable bill. It is not the total answer.

This is not a silver bullet. We need further alternative methods of funding. As I have said before, I look forward to working with the Minister to see these provided so that Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington, and even Southland can have the kinds of roads that we should have in this country, as a developed nation in the 21^st century.

I rise to address a couple of amendments I have in a Supplementary Order Paper that deal with clause 70 and clause 79 where I want to see the word “efficient” inserted in the objective of Transfund. I believe that it would be best for the objective of Transfund to allocate its resources in a way that contributes to an integrated safe, responsive, efficient, and sustainable land transport system.

That is the kind of system I believe that New Zealanders want, and one that this Government ought to be committed to delivering. We have had a great deal of discussion this evening about efficient and what it will mean. Members have talked about getting our money’s worth out of the system when it is put in, whether we put it in by road user charges, petrol excise, or tolls.

However we may contribute, not only do we want the money to be spent efficiently but we want a good outcome from our expense. I believe that the outcome New Zealanders want is greater mobility.

As I said earlier, efficient mobility, but we will take out the word “efficient”. We want to be able to get around without being stuck in traffic.

If we choose to be on a train, as the speaker before me said, and ride on public transport, get there quickly and cheaply, that is a choice New Zealanders have, but most New Zealanders want to be able to travel in their automobile.

Gerry Brownlee: No, who told you that?

LARRY BALDOCK: It is a stunning comment, I know, but it is true. Most of us want to move around in our automobile, because we consider it to be the most efficient way to get around this country, given that we do not have huge populations that will sustain the kind of train network we can see in other countries, particularly in Europe.

The member who spoke somewhat earlier is still committed to the fact that all the money for Transfund and Transit should come through by means of a fuel excise tax. He considers that to be an efficient way of collecting the money, and completely rejects the user-pays principle for people. I am astounded by that.

I still do not understand how he considers this bill to provide for what he calls generic tolling, so that somehow tolling schemes will spring up all over the country, when most people have been commenting about how difficult it will be to get a tolling scheme under way.

There is a huge contradiction in that. The whole point of the bill is about giving communities choice about how they meet their roading needs, and I support that principle.

I particularly support it for Tauranga, where the Tauranga people will be able to have a choice about how they solve their roading network. I have some sad news for the member who spoke earlier.

His party leader may well be finished as the member for Tauranga. While he is running around telling Tauranga people right now that tolling is a terrible rip-off, he will have to turn around to explain to his supporters in the retirement villages around Tauranga that they will have to pay another 30 cents per litre on their fuel, when they do not even go across the bridge more than once a week.

They have plenty of time to be able to avoid it and go around the alternative route that will be provided. I think he might find that some of his support base, which he has relied upon for a long, long time, may begin to dwindle away.

I think he should wake up and realise, as the other member of his party who lives in Tauranga should do, that in meeting the problems of the city we have to have many different tools in the tool bag.

They are not all delivered in this bill, as we have said earlier, but they are coming. They will be delivered, for communities to have a choice about which particular tool they pick up to meet the needs they have.

Bill Gudgeon: Far short of Route K’s expected numbers.

LARRY BALDOCK: It is doing just fine. Once the bridge is built, Route K will be a marvellous way of getting across the city and across to the other side of the harbour. Clause 79 also discusses Transit and its objectives.

Again, I believe that, in the objective of Transit, it should have inserted the words “integrated, safe, responsive, sustainable, and efficient land transport system.” I fully support that Transit should be the lead builder of highways in New Zealand.

I believe that Transit does an excellent job, and I believe that the requirement now for Transit to give a 10-year programme for its new State highways is an excellent move forward, so that people will have more certainty. But it becomes painfully obvious to everybody that the funds that will be available to Transit to build the land transport system will be limited.