Auckland’s poor transport outcomes over the years are probably the result of one over-riding factor: that while we vote on transport matters in local elections, local governments don’t have much money, central government holds the purse strings. Yet when it comes to national elections, we tend to have much bigger issues on our mind (taxes, health, crime, education, the economy etc.) than transport when casting our vote. Looking back into the past, we see many excellent transport schemes being floated by the local governments of the day, but ultimately they couldn’t find central government support – so all we got were motorways.

Transport is inherently seen as a local issue – and quite rightly so. The transport issues of Auckland are quite different to those in most parts of the rest of the country. When Aucklanders vote in local government elections, it would seem that they have transport matters quite high in their minds. John Banks lost the 2004 Auckland City mayoral election over pretty much a single issue: the Eastern Motorway. Ironically, he had also won the 2001 election on the basis of promising to fast-track a pile of motorways. Most obviously, it seems that Len Brown’s transport plans played a critical role in his election victory in October last year.

But the vast majority of transport funding comes from central government – because they control how all petrol taxes and road-user charges are spent. Through the Government Policy Statement, each Transport Minister of the day has an enormous say over which projects do and don’t happen. I doubt much of National’s vote at the last election came about because of their promises to throw $11 billion at building motorways over the next 10 years – in fact I can’t even remember hearing much about their transport plans before the election (aside from Maurice Williamson compulsively talking about tolling which eventually got him the sack as transport spokesperson).

This is an uneasy mismatch: the level of government that really gives a damn about transport and has been voted there because of their transport policies can’t do much because they don’t have the money; the level of government with all the money generally has transport policies developed largely insulated from public opinion. There seem to be two main ways of resolving this fundamental problem: either to give local government much more ability to make their transport decisions or to somehow make transport a bigger issue in national elections.

The Regional Fuel Tax enacted by the previous government, and cancelled by this one, is an example of the first option – as the regions take on the political risks for applying the tax, but then have another revenue stream to fund their transport priorities. The proposed changes to the Land Transport Management Act that will abolish the ability of any future regional fuel taxes to be enacted gives us a pretty strong signal about what the government thinks of the possibility of providing local government with greater autonomy to make its own transport decisions.

The other option is to somehow make transport an election issue. While I will probably end up choosing my party vote based on the quality of transport policies – I think it’s a pretty big call to expect many more people beyond transport nerds to do the same. Quite simply, there are bigger issues out there – something that even I can accept. Of course that doesn’t mean opposition parties shouldn’t have better transport policies (not like it’s difficult), but rather that they need to ‘tie in’ the messages of their transport policies to broader matters.

The Green Party has traditionally been quite good at this. They link transport policies into concerns about the environment and into concern about the profligate wasted spending on the various RoNS projects, and the contribution of that to our massive deficit. Labour seem to have struggled with this – and to an extent continue to do so. While they may have good transport ideas, they tend to both not say anything about them and also struggle to connect it in with their broader messages. Providing more transport choices when petrol prices area rising should be a core Labour “cost of living” issue. Similarly, constructing ‘lead infrastructure’ such as the City Rail Link to encourage broad economic benefits and support their environmental concerns.

One huge opportunity that I think both Labour and the Greens have is to play on an issue I’ve discussed recently: that of central government really not understanding Auckland when it comes to transport (and perhaps urban development) matters. It is interesting to note that while National consistently polls around 20% ahead of Labour, last year Auckland elected Len Brown (Labour Party member) as mayor; or that while Auckland Central has a National MP, Mike Lee managed to easily win his seat on the Council in the Waitemata Ward (which is arguably slightly more right-leaning than Auckland Central as it includes Parnell).

Even without trying, it seems that Labour are polling much higher in Auckland than in the rest of the country – at least according to this recent poll:

The gap between the two main parties is now 15.1 percentage points, down from 20.7 points in last month’s poll just after the Budget.

Labour’s support rose 2.4 points to 36.1 per cent and National’s fell by 3.2 to 51.2 per cent of decided voters…

…A breakdown of the party vote suggests Labour’s support has improved among Auckland voters and younger voters compared to the Herald-DigiPoll survey.

Support for Labour in Auckland at 40.5 per cent is higher than its overall party-vote support.

And its support in the 18 to 39 age group is at 42.3 per cent, again a lot higher than its overall party-vote total.

I do think that a “Vote for Auckland, Vote for Labour” style campaign could be quite productive. The formation of Auckland Council was largely designed to avoid the age old problem of nothing happening because all the old councils were too busy fighting each other. Yet now we find ourselves in a situation where there’s still a big fight going on about what should happen in Auckland – but now we are seeing Auckland Council on one side and central government on the other. In effect, we potentially have the same problem – and it appears reasonably unlikely that the ‘step-change’ investment that Auckland requires will eventuate as long as the big difference in opinion over Auckland’s vision for the city and the government’s vision remains.

Not only could Labour sell themselves as the party that will “work with, not against” Auckland Council, they could also play off the very real situation that it seems the government really doesn’t understand Auckland as a big city has very different needs to the rest of the country. In its spatial plan vision the government still sees Auckland as an overgrown town, rather than a real city. In its transport vision you could argue the same thing – more motorways works for smaller areas, so they think the same thing can endlessly work in Auckland. Traditionally I’m not sure the extent to which Labour has “got Auckland” either, but they seem to have a number of younger MPs coming through who seems a bit more ‘urban’ in their outlook and think of Auckland being a big city as a good thing, not a bad thing.

Overall, I think the trick to making transport an election issue is through associating it with bigger picture issues. How transport policy links to “smarter spending”, “being on Auckland’s side” or “giving choices at petrol prices rise” will be the key issue. I’m yet to see much evidence from Labour that they’ll be able to meet this challenge, though they still have a bit of time up their sleeves to do so.

Share this

33 comments

  1. I would very much like to see a more aggressive election campaign that pushes people to vote for what they believe is a better choice rather than trying to keep everybody happy and not differentiate.

    Actually, played smartly, the “Vote Auckland, Vote XXX” could (and perhaps should) be picked up by almost any party.

    I came across a vaguely related note about London’s future, air quality and urban plan:

    http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/07/10/help-us-defend-your-right-to-breathe/

  2. Great post Josh, I found myself agreeing with every sentence.

    I make no bones about the fact that I hope National lose the next election. But the main issue I have with National is not their transport policy (even though it’s terrible). It’s their poor economic management. The “tax switch” favoured high income earners, which is a bad way to kick start the economy. But I was willing to let that slide because – in the long run – I do agree that it makes sense if the top income tax rate is aligned with the company tax rate.

    What I cannot let slide is two key decisions: 1) National’s rabid opposition to as capital gains tax and/or a land tax and 2) National’s refusal to consider changing the rules around universal superannuation. These two positions, on their own, are enough to consign NZ to substandard economic performance for several generations. The only people who win from these decisions are older, well-heeled voters; basically it’s a blatant sop to National’s baby boomers.

    So getting back to your post: I completely agree with you that National are at risk of “losing” Auckland, and not only because of their obstinate “we know best” attitudes to transport and spatial planning (when they clearly do not know much at all). It’s fairly obvious that their economic decisions are not going to help young people (who are struggling to buy their first home). And young people are over-represented in Auckland.

    Taken together, I think National’s economic dithering and Labour’s new found mojo could see Auckland go red (and green) in November. Fingers crossed that’s enough to carry the day.

    1. The problem for you then is 1) Labour refuse to change the super rules too, and 2) the Capital Gains tax wont apply to property investments purchased by the baby boomers (and others) prior to its inception. So “National’s baby boomers” are effectively unscathed under either government (based on those two issues alone).

      But I agree, the CGT should be imposed, and I do think National could lose the election if there is a revolt in Auckland over, among other things, local transport and planning issues.

      1. But worth noting that Labour’s position on the age of entitlement is not as “hard” as National’s, even if Labour do not have any plans to change the age as yet.

  3. Transport policy, where it’s known, seems to be something of a proxy for other party policies. National’s transport policy – bigger trucks, more roads, less public transport – is the policy of a party that subscribes to Maggie’s “There is no such thing as society” dictum. Decisions belong to the individual, and the market, and the government’s role is to enable as much individual-level commerce as possible whilst otherwise getting the hell out of the way. That’s seen in their welfare policy (Pull-ya Benefit’s catch-cry could as well be “I got mine, youse all can bugger off!”), their policies around market regulation (as little as possible, please), around taxation (we’ll let you decide how to spend your money, and we’ll take as little as possible even if it means we have to borrow), the environment (the district councils should decide their own water quality metrics, with the councils being the lowest-level-possible proxy for “the individual”), and so on.

    Contrast with the Greens, who are very much in favour of regulation, collective spending, and generally pushing parts of, or even the whole of, the population in particular directions to achieve their stated aims. They don’t accept the dogmatic position that the market makes the best decisions, grounded fairly heavily in the copious evidence that frequently all the market does is push for the lowest-cost solution to a short-term problem and damn the long-term consequences. It’s very much short-term vs long-term thinking when compared with National.

  4. Well put, Matt – the classical left-right divide. And I have long held the opinion that National under John Key is a MUCH more RADICAL agenda party than people realise. He’s just such a friendly, open-faced chappie… he can mind the store for us, nothing’s gonna happen…

  5. “I do think that a “Vote for Auckland, Vote for Labour” style campaign could be quite productive.”

    Only if they made sure noone South of the Bombays heard the message 🙂

    The problem is Auckland is an electoral grouping that is hard to vocally support, because non-aucklanders wont like it. As opposed to families/elderly/students and other more “worthy” groups.

    I think Labour would actually be better off signalling that they support Auckland by puliclyh supporting “cities” or some such.

    1. “Vote for economic growth, Vote for Labour.” Because nothing that National is doing, or has done thus far, has demonstrated any economic growth effect. We’ve gone nowhere in the last three years, B’linglish’s grand plans to the contrary.

    2. Yeah the Vote for Auckland, Vote for Us would have to be a pretty Auckland-focused message. Goodness knows why the rest of the country hates us so much though.

  6. I’ve suggested this before in the blog but transport can be an election issue even if most people at this stage believe National will win easily (it will get closer to the election, it always does). But voting only for a transport friendly candidate in your electoral seat and then the party of your choice in the party vote. Enough people doing it this way will send the message that the current archaic thinking in the transport area of the national party is not welcomed in Auckland.

    And remember there are plenty of people who will vote National in this election (myself probably included) while not wanting to have a bar of the insane road building that is currently suggested by this party (does anyone else see the parallels between think big and this suggested waste of money? Is Northland not currently the economic powerhouse of the country only because there is two lane road heading up there?). There is no point arguing this point- this will happen. Providing an option for them to do this while enabling them to register a protest vote of sorts is important. Imagine the message that is sent by say a majority for Jacinda Arden of 5000 in Auckland Centre while National picks up a majority of 4000 of the party votes.

    1. Auckland Central, Maungakiekie and Waitakere are all somewhat marginal seats that went National’s way last time that have railway lines running through them. It would be interesting if National lost all three of them.

      1. Auckland Central was as much about the Labour candidate as about the party affiliations thereof. Jacinda has, I think, a far better chance of winning this year than does Nikki Kaye, not least of the reasons for which will be that she’s vocal about her support for public transport instead of Kaye’s meek and mild toeing of Joyce’s line.

        Maugakiekie (in which I now reside) and Waitakere have large pockets of people who’re very definitely in the working classes and will have been hit hard by National’s policies. I don’t think it’s at all a slam-dunk that National will retain those seats, especially when the Waitakere candidate is Pull-ya Benefit and thus responsible for some policies that are very unfriendly to a lot of her electorate.

    2. Given what you’ve said about economic/transport policies I can’t understand why would you vote National? Especially when they will probably end up working with the dysfunctional/unpredictable ACT party.

      If those two parties get control of the government benches between them you will see transport slide backwards at a rapid rate. I don’t like many Labour/Greens policies but can’t help but feel that they’re less destructive than National/ACT.

  7. “It’s the economy, stupid”: Transport is seen as a minor portfolio; however, the underlying problem is our economy and how we reboot it. While government agencies struggle to trim ‘fat’ from their budgets, $9 billion of RoNS projects (most with benefit-cost ratios around 1:1 or less) remain on the table. Overseas research shows that sustainable transport projects generate more new jobs than road construction; even the much-maligned NZ Cycle Trail is producing more jobs per dollar than the RoNS programme. Our most expensive import sectors are motor vehicles and fuel. A car-focused programme does nothing to reduce this reliance and help balance our deficit.

    The opposition parties should focus on the economic implications of the current transport policies and they might get some traction.

    1. This is what is so frustrating about Shane Jones. He’s a Northland local. He should slicing National to shreds on Puford. 1. It’s not in Northland. 2. It will not transform Northland’s economy. 3. Here’s the better programme; upgrade the existing road to safe standards, add so passing lane to SH16, spend a chunk of the balance of the $2bil+ on actual Northland projects that will employ northlanders and increase economic activity in Northland, rail line rehab, and extend it to the port , tourist route enhancement.

      My bet is that some fat contractors have bought him some beers and told him how great it’ll be for Northland, ie them only, so he hasn’t got any fight in him over it.

      Get to work Shane or give the portfolio to someone with some fight in them and who can join the dots between these road projects and the economic life of the people

  8. Auckland Central, Maungakiekie and Waitakere will be interesting, and at the other end of the island my prediction is that National are going to lose Otaki because of the Kapiti Motorway.

    Whilst Kapiti ain’t going to be stuffed up quite as much as the doomsayers say it will be, and as far as the RoNS go it is slightly less stupid than some of the other RoNS bits (ie the very stupid Transmission Gully), and a lot of the protesters have taken the curious position of wanting another road that is unneeded as a foil to the motorway they say they don’t need, I can help channel the locals indignation into less votes for National. There’s now signs by the highway with Steven Joyce’s and Nathan Guy’s mugshots. I’d take some photos this morning, but it is curly-as weather. I especially like the one with Joyce saying “we can smell the diesel on your breath from here”.

    I hope the Labor and Green strategists are circling knowing the best places to pick the National incumbents off.

    My prediction is that National will lose a bit of their party vote, and lose at least a couple seats on transport issues. Act may be gone (although never underestimate the stupid vote). The Maori Party may be gone. It might be enough to change the government. Fingers crossed.

  9. Joshua,

    I would be looking at the bigger picture. National are a low tax party that refuses to look past November. Already they are running a $16B deficit and they don’t want to cover that deficit through taxation. They think 4% economic growth is going save NZ from their own fiscal stupidity when oil prices are likely to depress economic activity even further. They also think a one off sale of power companies and Air NZ (which will cause us to lose future dividends FOREVER) will cover the cracks. Does anybody believe this combination of policies is likely to allow us to invest in PT?

    We won’t have any money to fund Nationals spending priorities (roads, roads, tax cuts) let alone stuff they have no interest in. The only chance NZ will ever have to get its infrastructure back up to scratch will be to elect a government that is prepared do something about our government debt.

  10. It’s interesting reading some of the stuff around the US debt crisis, and how the Republicans are refusing to countenance tax increases – the Democrats are prepared to slash some fundamental programmes (like the health insurance programmes for seniors and those living below the poverty line!) dramatically, but there’s no movement on the other side – and comparing it to National’s strident rejection of any suggestion that we might need to increase our taxes (and Kiwis pay a lot less in tax than people in the US) in order to target our deficit.

    Given that the Republicans are demonstrably destructive, the comparison with National is quite scary. At least we don’t have a gun lobby worth a damn, or any significant fundamentalist Christian lobby, or we’d really be in the excrement.

  11. Essentially its a problem when you get a total disconnect of the social structure from the political. A lot of those Republicans appear happy to see a second recession. Given their support base- it helps their chances of re-election. Raising taxes to support social programs or infrastructure renewal that can be equally shared is simply not on their agenda.

    In the end though the destruction of the US social structure will result in the destruction of their economic base and potentially their democracy. Have a look at California’s disasterous decision not to authorise any new taxes years ago. The state is bankrupt. Its about time NZers stood and said they do not want the same thing to happen here.

    Its not just PT that will be in the firing line of these ideologies.

    1. In California’s case, they passed a law allowing voters to veto tax increases. The outcome was entirely predictable, and it has come to pass. I have no faith that the NZ public is any less thoroughly stupid and self-interested, but at least our politicians are largely against binding referenda – Act are the exceptions, but they’re also the ones who want to impose taxation caps that would lead us down the path of states like Arizona that have gone from having one of the best state-funded education systems in the US to having one of the worst.

      1. Well the really interesting thing here now is Labour’s bold tax move, and how it has panicked the smug white men in office. It won’t take much movement to get a Labour/Green co-lab over the line, and Labour desperately need the spark and new-think coming out of the Greens right now.

        TV3 had National looking smug on 55% to Labour’s 30% and Greens 10%…. 55 plays 40, looks hopeless, But I don’t buy it, I see Labour getting to the mid 30s, and the Greens? what if they pulled off 12-13% [more young voters], No Plodder Dunne, 1, 2, or zero ACT corpses. Maori vote a confused cocktail of Maori/Mana/Labour….. Could get very close.

        Norman for deputy, yay! Good-bye RoNS, hello CRL and the SouthWestern…..

        Still this election will be a poison chalice economically, National are just kicking the can down the road, living cycle by cycle, as Topcat points out above the short term thinking in the asset sales is extraordinary, but then these guys have very short horizons… plenty of grateful corporations with room on their boards for those see it as time ‘to pursue other challengers’ and ‘spend more time with the family’.

      2. California cannot be compared to here. They have binding public ballots (‘propositions’). And of course they ballots don’t have to balance the budget. So property taxes are set low by ballot. And then various costly measures can be set by ballot. It’s a bit like opinion polls that ask things like ‘would you like lower taxes’. Not ‘would you like lower taxes but have to pay for more services like going to hospital or sending your kids to uni’.

        1. By good luck, not good management. The wet dream of Roger and his Act-olytes is very definitely something like California, or Arizona, where taxes can never be increased and everything that possibly can be (and many things that probably shouldn’t be) gets contracted out to the private sector.
          Don’t think that we could never end up like California, because Act would like very much indeed for that kind of “taxpayers have the final say” situation to eventuate in NZ.

        2. Matt, I think it would be fair to say they will never be a major political force in NZ despite their despite attempt to get the ‘maoris get it too easy’ crowd. Despite being a small party they have major internal splits over this approach- the fiscally active crowd doesn’t necessarily agree with the ‘NZ for NZers’ and ‘Lock em up and throw away the key’ approachs.

  12. Matt, re your comment “Act may be gone (although never underestimate the stupid vote)”: I’m afraid they will be back as the Nats will make sure Banks wins Epsom. As a resident of that electorate I can vouch for the fact that its voters definitely fit into the stupid vote category. What did we do to deserve Richard Worth, Rodney Hide and John Banks?

  13. “California cannot be compared to here”. Now I’m pretty sure ACT are keen on a provision to outlaw all tax and rate increases except by popular ballot. Given that they may be 1/2 the government after the election, its not that far fetched.

    1. On current polling they’ll be 1.5 seats. So that will be John ‘Eastern Highway forever except when I’m desperate to win the super city mayority’ Banks and maybe Don ‘That wasn’t me calling for Capital Gains Tax’ Brash at a stretch.

  14. I’m changing my vote from National to Labour solely due to their transport and urban planning policies. To me it has unfortunately illustrated National have no vision and are driving us in to a ditch not closer to Australia. My only concern is that transport and urban planning is being sold as a “greenie” thing. This is not what it should be about. I see it as the way forward for economic development.

  15. Issue of National Significance.
    The National Party’s policy on the provision of transport infrastructure continues to completely ignore the strategic implications of the recent announcement from the International Energy Agency that the demand for oil has been outstripping production since 2006. i.e. we are now in the Post Peak Oil Age.
    National’s policy on the the provision of transport infrastructure is completely predicated on the assumption that the price of oil will stay as affordable as it is at present – when the IEA has just warned that it is not going to and that consequently, governments urgently need to reduce their dependence on and vulnerability to fossil fuels.
    Development of strategically appropriate responses that are consistant with the IEA’s best available advice on energy matters is a responsibility we all, including our government must acknowledge and act upon.
    Prioritising the provision of alternative infrastructure that is less/or not at all dependant on fossil fuels would be the most appropriate response to the IEA’s advice.
    Dropping the focus on inappropriate infrastuctural projects such as the roads of ‘National’ significance which will only further entrench our dependence on and vulnerability to fossil fuels will free up the funding that needs to be spent on guaranteeing that our region has resiliance over the long term.

    1. “recent announcement from the International Energy Agency that the demand for oil has been outstripping production since 2006”

      I don’t understand this. Supply and demand must equal each other by definition, and both demand and supply are a function of price. If demand “outstrips” production then the price will rise until demand equals production. That’s fourth form economics.

      If you ignore price, then is there any commodity or product for which the statement isn’t true? I suspect everyone wants a giant plasma television, would buy one if they were really cheap, and factories couldn’t manufacturer enough. Pricing takes care of this so that the number of giant televisions produced exactly equals the number that are installed in people’s living rooms. You don’t worry about peak plasma, or plan for a post television world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *