On the TV programme Q+A this morning there was a debate between the three main candidates for the job of being mayor of the Auckland Super City. You can watch the debate here, or read through the whole transcript of it here.
What I found particularly interesting is the discussion on the CBD rail tunnel, and I have included the parts of the debate relevant to that topic below. For reference, Paul is interviewer Paul Holmes, John is Auckland City mayor John Banks, Andrew is North Shore City mayor Andrew Williams and Len is Manukau City mayor Len Brown:
PAUL Now, let’s talk about the inner-city loop, because this is where all trains come into Britomart. We knock the back wall down on the Britomart, and then we build an underground loop that takes us all around Auckland.
ANDREW And a cross-harbour tunnel to go to the North Shore.
PAUL No, let’s talk about that shortly. That’s another big one, Andrew. But this inner-city underground loop, I understand the hope is that 370,000 Aucklanders can be delivered within the CBD in 30 minutes. All of you want this? All of you are on the same page?
ANDREW and LEN AGREE
JOHN I don’t have a problem with that.
PAUL The government has a problem. The government won’t pay the one and a half billion. So how are you going to get it off them?
JOHN Advocacy. For the first time in history. For the first time in history, one council, one mayor, one voice, one song sheet and a big lobby group to Wellington. We can do it. But it’s not going to be about these issues, Paul. This election is going to be about who is the best-qualified candidate to deliver on the vision with affordable progress, with the most experience around consistent, decisive leadership.
PAUL And the way you will be judged on that is do we the have inner-city loop and do we manage to get it? Do you have the leadership to get that? Len Brown.
LEN That’s exactly right. So it’s just not about rates. It’s just not about taxes. It’s also about the possibility of us issuing significant infrastructure bonds. It’s also about us considering whether or not this is an appropriate project. And other appropriate projects for PPPs.
PAUL Ah, yes, I know. And you’re not opposed to those?
LEN No, I’m not. I’m comfortable for us to go through that process and look at those as one of the four alternatives.
PAUL What I’m asking you— Hang on, Andrew. What I’m asking you all is how you’re going to get the $1.5 billion off Steven Joyce, who doesn’t think he’s got the money.
ANDREW Paul, in the last 15 years, Auckland received $3 billion in its fuel taxes when it gave the government $7 billion in fuel taxes. We were $4 billion underfunded. It’s time that Auckland got a lot of that funding back. And so what we’re doing now— and we’re getting $900 million a year this year from the government. Five years ago, we were getting $50 million for Auckland transport. Finally the ledger is coming right. We’re getting the spending here. And it will happen. But we will have to have private-public partnerships to do, for instance, the cross-harbour tunnel.
JOHN Fixing the train set is critical. We push 18 trains an hour in and we pull 18 trains an hour out of the Britomart. This will give us 36 trains running up Albert St and back to Mt Eden. The train set will work with double tracking, modern rolling stock and electrification. It can be built with economic infrastructure bonds. $600 million has been lost – 600 million – by the people and their savings in shonky finance companies. We can put all of that money into economic infrastructure bonds to build Auckland, where the seniors have their money safe, they get a good return and they’re doing something great. They’re building a greater Auckland.
LEN So, Paul, it’s not just about the issue of credibility. It’s about the issue of trust and believability. Who does Auckland actually believe can deliver on these projects? Who has had strong focus? For example, in Manukau, we have at last the first extension…
ANDREW They’ve got a lot of bus lanes in Manukau.
LEN …to suburban rail in 73 years. So this is about believability and trust. Who do we trust to hold our public assets?
There are a few interesting issues raised above, but perhaps the most crucial thing to note is that all three seem to agree that this project is desperately needed – which is a fantastic step forward. Of course it’s all very easy to support a project when you don’t need to pay for it, but as John Roughan noted in a Herald article yesterday, the Super City mayor is going to be a very very important person, not someone that the government can simply ignore when it comes to their transport demands.
The big question still remains though – who’s going to pay for this? Or more precisely, how will it be paid for, as $1.5 billion is a lot of money. The idea of infrastructure bonds, which both Len Brown and John Banks appear to endorse, it not necessarily a bad idea – as it takes central government somewhat out of the picture – but in the end those bonds are council debt. Furthermore, as it is likely a large chunk of the benefits of the CBD rail tunnel will be to road users, in the form of reduced congestion (at least in terms of how NZTA calculates project benefits) so therefore it seems logical to me that road users, through NZTA, should pay for a big chunk of the project’s cost.
Perhaps one of the best lines in politics though is “talk is cheap”. It’s easy for politicians to promise rail to the airport and rail to the North Shore (even though the Shore has a pretty brand new busway, go figure) when they expect the government to foot the bill. But what would actually be more insightful is finding out which politicians will oppose the holiday highway because it’s poor value for money (and the money saved on that project could construct the CBD rail tunnel), which politicians would support the expansion of bus lanes (well sign-posted of course) to improve public transport cheaply and quickly for the 80% of PT users who catch the bus? Which politicians will have the guts to say “hey, the North Shore has a decent busway, the southeast of the city doesn’t have anything” and prioritise a southeast RTN rather than a North Shore railway line (which the RLTS didn’t think was needed until 2040)? Which politicians will put a stake in the ground and guarantee that the Waterview Connection is the last motorway ever built in Auckland?
That’s what I’d be interested in finding out. I’m pretty sure it isn’t John Banks, especially on the holiday highway issue.
The mayor’s position has been talked about as being the second most powerful in the country. There is a degree of hyperbole in the claim, but it is going to be nothing more than a joke if the job involves nothing more than being the city’s chief lobbyist while all decisions are made in Wellington. There needs to be some sort of devolution of powers and funding to the city… and Auckland needs to step up and fund the tunnel itself (or decide that there are higher priorities) out of devolved funding without having to beg from central government.
As for the candidates: Williams is a boozed up clown and a national joke. Brown is a head slapping trougher who takes the piss out of Maori culture. Banks wants to blow $50bn or more on an Olympics. Surely someone competent, ethical, and realistic is available to enter the race?
Obi, so you’d support the reintroduction of a regional fuel tax then? Mr Joyce cancelled that remember.
An additional tax? No. In general I would support distributing existing fuel taxes to regions. However central government would need to maintain national transport links, and I’d want to be sure that regions with small populations (like the West Coast) would be sustainable.
So the status quo then? Or are you saying that the regions should choose how to spend the existing petrol tax dollars that NZTA spends now?
Regional government should be given the money to pay for their own transport projects. Which they would prioritise. Except for national projects which would be planned by and paid for by central government. I’m not completely sure how to define a “national project”… state highways and non-commuter rail would qualify, but would international airports, airlines, and coastal shipping? I’m inclined to think they should be considered national infrastructure, but it doesn’t matter because they tend to pay their own way rather than be funded out of taxes.
@obi
In Williams’ defence he has probably done the most out of any politician of decrying the corporatisation and privitisation (which public transport would feel the effects of) motives of the Super City process.
In respect to Len Brown’s “head slapping” incident, the Maori gesture association was a creation of his campaign manager and media sensationalism, and one which Brown has spoken out against (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10656407). Also consider that his wife was diagnosed with cancer that same week, it must have been a very stressful time.
I find public debates such as this one, in which the candidates can debate the most important issues such as transport policy, much more insightful than the tabloid journalism of a certain Sunday Star Times journalist.
In the other important mayoralty approaching, Jim Anderton has just announed his transport policy (http://www.aucklandtrains.co.nz/2010/08/01/anderton-light-rail-a-fantasy/). Not very inspiring but he has some valid points, although it would be wise to at least reserve some corridors for future light/heavy rail options.
“the Maori gesture association was a creation of his campaign manager”
I feel bad for the campaign manager. Brown’s breakdown was the strangest thing in NZ politics for very many years. His continued refusal to say who he been with at the $800 meal (I suspect he was with family and doesn’t want to acknowledge that he’d charged his birthday party to the ratepayer) must have caused his staff problems. They had to say something and it isn’t surprising that they came up with an explanation that was a bit odd.
I think the Mayor is going to need some gravitas. I can’t imagine Williams pissing in the street one day and putting a case for a billion dollars to John Key the next. Once people figure out that you’re a clown, everything you touch turns in to clown shoes.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10652692
I don’t like any of them, or the other candidates for that matter, but I do think Andrew Williams came off the best from this debate. He was probably the most specific with his vision, even though it was mainly focused on improving things on the north shore his points generally made sense. At the other end of the spectrum John Banks was so vague on everything, I think he is scared to commit to anything so in 3 years time people can’t say, “you haven’t done what you said you would do” which is probably a sign he has been in politics to long.
The problem with Williams is that it sounded like he wanted the job of North Shore City mayor, not mayor of all Auckland. North Shore rail should happen before a road tunnel, but all that shows is that neither are needed immediately.
Bonds will probably have to be the way to go if this project is going to go ahead in the near future. Central government will not touch this project with a fifty foot barge pole, that much is pretty clear.
None of those three candidates appeals to me. However there is even worse out there:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10662519
He is definitely worse, his main focus seems to be around leaky homes which isn’t really the most pressing challenge facing our city. Also why he hasn’t released a transport policy I see that he does support the ANZAC bridge proposal, which I don’t agree with.
In the debate, Williams was pretty clear about wanting tunnels but the other two didn’t really commit to anything, I wonder what their view actually are. I also agree with Obi, the man is an absolute clown and I think a bit of a bully to. This is definitely making the decision hard, who is the lesser of the evils.
Yes, to date the choice is pitiful. However at least they all seem to support the cbd loop. Regarding transport, it will be interesting to see how the central versus local government relationship ensues. It seems to have escaped the attention of the media that whilst the last government was criticised as being a nanny state, transport is now very much a top down approach, with government dictating to NZTA the outcomes it wants including delivery of ridiculous RONS such as the holiday highway because of their supposed ability to deliver economic growth benefits. There is no evidence to back up this claim. The absolutely marginal BC makes this even more of a joke.
All I can say from stumbling across Q&A this morning while getting ready to ride – I forgot just how much I hate Paul Holmes as an interviewer.
The man has a severe case of FIGJAM and interruptus rudus.
“state highways and non-commuter rail would qualify”
Obi, seeing that in the Auckland Region, most state highways are essentially local routes (I would say the region-region-element of Auckland’s state highway use is probably less than 10%), why should government retain it’s cast-iron hold on the how and when and where here? Mind you, I like the idea of giving the regions more power on how to use central government funds – but that isn’t going to happen, ESPECIALLY not with state highways.
“An additional tax? No.”
Obi – so now it will come out of Aucklander’s rates (remember that Joyce only gave us a loan for the trains). Money has got to come from somewhere. “No more taxes” was always a fake promise, unless you also starve the state’s expenses. And Joyce certainly isn’t cutting back transport expenses – he’s just reshuffling it contrary to good sense and Auckland’s own wishes.
“He is definitely worse, his main focus seems to be around leaky homes which isn’t really the most pressing challenge facing our city.”
Matt L – tell that to me again when you get your massively increased rates bills in the coming years. This is a HUGE (if very unsexy) issue. $11 to 23$ BILLION cost for NZ? That is enough money to build 10 CBD rail tunnels – and a good share is going to come out of our local rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaky_homes_crisis (with lots of newspaper and government references)
So I don’t really think highlighting the issue is foolish at all (though it’s not going to win Williams any votes)
Karl… I believe that national roads must remain a central government responsibility so that regions aren’t able to disadvantage other regions. For example, Auckland shouldn’t have a veto over people wanting to move between Northland and the Waikato.
As for leaky homes, I can’t figure out why the taxpayer should be liable for all but a small number of cases. This has been a well known problem for a long time. Anyone who has purchased a home since the issue was first raised in the media should have done their research before they purchased and I don’t think they should be bailed out. Anyone who still owns a home they bought or built before the issue was first raised will have benefited from 10 years or more worth of real estate capital gains. The house itself might be worth less than it was originally, but the land value will have grown a lot. Maybe by a factor of two or three. These people should be able to use that increase in land value to finance the repair of the building. If government bails them out it won’t be a case of fixing leaky buildings, but of insuring capital gains.
“I can’t figure out why the taxpayer should be liable for all but a small number of cases.”
Actually, in my view that is the very issue which was at stake right at the start – whether the market will cure these ills. I think excessive market freedom and a “hands off” attitude by government played a major part in fucking it up in the first place. You list a couple of reasons why the market is already dealing with this, in your opinion. I ask – what does that have to do with the issue of who is guilty and who should pay?
The argument that people have gained from real estate capital gain in the meantime, whether or not the house is shot is also pretty much a false argument, because it is totally UNRELATED – if someone rams my car old car on the way home, should I just ignore the damage because despite the dinged bodywork it may still appreciate as an vintage car nonetheless?
Furthermore, moral arguments aside, there is a very big LEGAL and ECONOMICAL issue here, which isn’t just going away because we discuss it with different viewpoints, or because some people think it isn’t an important point for the mayoral elections. It is. Because of compensation claims to Councils, and because quite a few Council-owned buildings are leaky as well. It may end already be the elephant in the room that few people will talk about, because who wants to discuss Council services being cut or rates being raised? That doesn’t get you elected!