Transport may be a perennial political battleground, but with the general election approaching, there is considerably more alignment between the major parties than the campaign rhetoric might suggest.
Across two cross-party transport discussions hosted by Buddle Findlay in Wellington and Auckland, politicians differed on some of the detail – particularly around funding, tolling and decarbonisation – but there was striking alignment on the bigger questions. Better long-term planning, greater discipline around which projects are announced, more investment in maintaining existing assets, and a growing role for user-pays mechanisms all attracted broad support.
The result suggests that, regardless of who forms the next government, New Zealand may see more continuity than upheaval in the overall direction of transport policy. The real differences are likely to lie in how that agenda is delivered, and how it should be funded.
Alignment on key priorities
Panellists at the Auckland event on September 9 were Transport and Infrastructure select committee chair Andy Foster (NZ First), fellow committee members Dan Bidois (National), Julie Anne Genter (Green) and Tangi Utikere (Labour), and ACT Spokesperson for Transport and Infrastructure, Cameron Luxton.
Maintenance of existing road and rail assets over unnecessary expansion was a priority for all parties, in keeping with the National Infrastructure Plan. This suggests there will be fewer big-ticket transport infrastructure announcements in the next term.
All agreed on the importance of better aligning transport spending with demand and forecast population growth, rather than selecting projects to win votes. In the words of Andy Foster: “We can’t be political about our choice of infrastructure projects; we must choose what gives us the biggest bang for buck.”
While the parties will inevitably continue to disagree about individual projects, there was much less appetite for transport announcements driven by the electoral cycle. Instead, the emphasis was on building a more credible pipeline – one where projects have been properly tested before governments commit to delivering them.
Once the discussion moved from principles to individual Auckland projects, clearer political differences emerged.
The new Waitematā Harbour Crossing was a case in point. All agreed on the need for strong evidence that the chosen option would deliver the best outcome, given the project represents the largest infrastructure investment in New Zealand history. However, they differed on the approach. Bidois highlighted the Government’s decision to undertake further feasibility studies, which Utikere felt were unnecessary given the work done to date. Genter argued that the impact of the expected congestion charging on demand should also be tested to inform decisions, including whether it was needed at all. In her opinion, “There’s no point building infrastructure until we understand how that will change behaviour.”
There was widespread cynicism about also needing to investigate the Meola Reef route proposed by Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown.
Asked about priorities for Auckland, Foster endorsed an Avondale-Southdown rail line to reduce line congestion and enable goods to flow more freely through the isthmus, while Bidois promised a harbour crossing and Mill Road corridor in the south.
Addressing funding challenges
If there was broad agreement about more targeted transport spending, there was equally strong recognition that New Zealand needs to rethink how it pays for it, especially as the National Land Transport Fund is already over-subscribed. Bidois highlighted that the Government was paying $9b in costs this year to service current debt.
Support for congestion or time-of-use charging was unanimous, although support for tolling was more muted. Tauranga-based Luxton spoke about how accustomed residents of his city were to paying tolls, soon to have four of the country’s five road tolls in their region. He believed this approach needed to be normalised across New Zealand, saying: “We can’t confuse ‘No new taxes’ with ‘No new charges of any kind’.”
Foster agreed in principle but argued that tolling should only be applied if it could bring a project forward, and that it shouldn’t be used simply to cover cost blowouts. He cited the initial decision to apply a toll to the Te Ahu a Turanga – Manawatū Tararua Highway once it was near completion, which created a public outcry and was subsequently reversed.
There was more contention around the prospect of tolling the new Waitematā Harbour Crossing. Utikere believed it wasn’t justified to toll both the new crossing and the existing bridge. Bidois was uncertain that private equity would want to finance a new bridge if there was a free option. All agreed that the situation would need to be considered carefully.
Allowing local government to capture uplifts in property values resulting from transport infrastructure projects was popular with all panellists. In keeping with the Government’s “growth pays for growth” strategy, this would see those whose land appreciates in value thanks to an infrastructure project contribute to the cost. Genter was also in favour of enabling local authorities to more easily acquire large tracts of land for major infrastructure projects.
Decarbonising our transport fleet
One issue did expose a much clearer ideological divide: how actively government should intervene to accelerate the transition to lower-emissions transport. Genter called for the previous government’s Clean Car Discount to be reinstated to incentivise more lower-emissions imports, whereas Luxton and Bidois argued that there was no need for government interventions as higher fuel prices had already created a shift towards EVs.
Foster believed an electricity system capable of supporting greater electrification was required first, while Utikere focused on Labour’s public transport fare cap policy, which he said would help make decarbonisation overall more affordable without relying on New Zealanders to buy new vehicles.
The outlook beyond the election
For the infrastructure sector, the most important takeaway may be how much of the transport agenda now appears to sit beyond the traditional political divide.
The broad direction looks increasingly settled; greater emphasis on maintaining existing assets, more rigorous testing before major projects are announced, closer alignment between investment and population growth, and a larger role for user-pays funding.
That points to evolution rather than wholesale change after the election – potentially giving the sector greater certainty about the direction of travel, even if there are some bumps in the road ahead.