A couple of of months ago I wondered whether transport can be made into an election issue. Traditionally national elections are fought over issues like the economy, unemployment, health, education, taxes, crime and so forth. In fact, pretty much everything except transport – aside from transport nerds such as myself I doubt too many people choose their vote based on transport policy. This is something of a problem as most transport funding comes from central government, yet most of the time people voting on transport matters do so in local government elections.
Of course this is not to say that transport can’t get wrapped into other issues that people do vote on. Like ‘sensible’ economic policies, like environmental concerns and so forth. The current transport ‘stoush’ between Auckland Council and Central Government over priorities – with the council making the City Rail Link its top priority, whereas the government is more interested in motorway building – potentially represents an opportunity to make transport an election issue, in terms of creating a “the government doesn’t care about Auckland” line of discussion.
Already, it seems that opposition parties are polling a lot better in Auckland than they are elsewhere in the country, suggesting that there may be some discontent out there about these issues (especially as Auckland is typically quite politically neutral overall). Here are the results of a recent poll for the whole country:
Labour’s support dropped among decided voters by almost two points to 31.5 per cent – its second lowest since 1999.
This follows a three-point drop the month before. Its lowest was in July 2008 when it polled at 30.8 per cent.
National remained steady on 52 per cent in the poll of 750 eligible voters – enough to secure it 65 seats in Parliament and govern without requiring support from other parties.
But compare this to Auckland:
Labour does get some good news amidst the pre-election gloom of the poll – it made up ground among Auckland respondents where it had 38.6 per cent support, a four-point lift.
The gain was at the expense of National, which dropped from 52 to 47 per cent in Auckland.
While the creation of the Auckland Council was, in my opinion, an undoubtedly good thing, it has annoyed a lot of people who were quite attached to their old councils. So perhaps it is something of a “last straw” for some that the government now seems dead against working with the council. To some extent that obviously overplays things, as National is still ahead of Labour in Auckland, though the gap between the two is far far less than in the rest of the country.
It seems that Labour might be waking up to this fact that, at the very least, they may be able to get a good result in Auckland. There are three key electorate seats they have a chance of winning back: Auckland Central, Maungakiekie and (perhaps least likely) Waitakere. So it was interesting to see a line of questioning from Labour in parliament today on this “Auckland versus Government” issue:
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: Does he endorse the transport elements of the draft Auckland Plan; if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : It is not appropriate for me to endorse or otherwise any aspect of the draft Auckland plan at this time. The Auckland spatial plan is the Auckland Council’s plan, and the council will be consulting the community on it. The Government strongly endorses the process, but its role is to provide input, not to formally endorse it. With regard to transport elements, the Government will continue to consider individual projects on their merits if the Government or its agencies are called on to provide funding assistance. In this context it is important to remember that central government is currently contributing over $1 billion a year towards Auckland’s transport needs.
Phil Twyford: Can he confirm the New ZealandHerald’s report that he and Ministers Hide, Smith, and Heatley, at their 26 August meeting with the Auckland mayor and Auckland Council, could not stop browbeating the councillors over the draft plan’s commitment to urban intensification in a way that was “intimidating and small town”?
Hon Tony Ryall: What’s wrong with small towns?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I do not know that we should be picking on small towns. I point out that that was a view of a prominent left-wing politician from Auckland, who might have a slight conflict of interest, and it was reported by a prominent left-wing columnist from Auckland, who might also have a certain interest in this matter: a certain Mr B Rudman.
Phil Twyford: Does he accept that the alternative to a compact city supported by a modern public transport system is an Auckland that sprawls endlessly and a traffic jam from the harbour bridge to Whangarei?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not know that I would want to make too many comments on the Auckland plan at this point, but I would say that we on this side of the House believe strongly in people having the right to determine where they live and the way in which they want to live. We think it is an important principle, provided, of course, that they meet the cost of those decisions. I think that is an important point to make. I understand that Mr Twyford might have a strong view that everybody should live on top of each other, but others might disagree.
Jacinda Ardern: Is the city rail link his No. 1 transport priority for Auckland?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, it is not, actually. The current priorities for Auckland are many and varied. They include the Waterview project, which the Government is building currently, the Victoria Park Tunnel project, the electrification of the rail in Auckland, the Newmarket Viaduct, and a number of other very important investments in Auckland. Currently, the central business district rail link has a benefit-cost ratio of about 0.3, and I think that we can all say that it probably needs to have an improvement in that before any responsible Government would seek to invest in it.
Phil Twyford: Why did his Government go to the trouble of creating a unified Auckland when it is very clear that the Government is determined to undermine and block Auckland Council’s plan for a world-class transport system and a compact city?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is simply incorrect. It is an important project for a unified Auckland. I think it is a very important project, and Auckland Council is currently consulting on its new spatial plan, which is a very important part of the unified Auckland process. I think it is great that it is doing so and that people are getting the opportunity to comment.
It does seem rather ironic to bring all of Auckland’s councils together so they could stop bickering with each other and get on with things, only to have nothing happen because now it’s central government bickering with the new council.
Processing...
Labours questioning seems pretty poor which makes it easy for the minister to swat away which means that most people will never hear about it. Instead they should have asked something to the effect of
“Will the government accept the councils priorities, what ever they are, and work to find ways of funding them or will they only fund things they agree with?”
or
“The governments submission on the Auckland Plan says that the region only gets about 31% of the total national funding when it makes up about 33% of the countries population and is growing much faster than elsewhere, what is the government doing to address this funding shortfall?”
I agree Labour needs to improve their questions, but it is good to see that they’re now starting to at least ask questions on these issues.
Ah the ‘choice’ argument, one minute Joyce pontificates how people have the right to chose how they want to live, next he berates the idea that anyone would want to live in an apartment.
Nick, it’s the NZ dream to live on a 1/4h acre paradise. Anybody who thinks otherwise is clearly mad and doesn’t deserve to be able to think for themselves.
I’d choose either a high quality apartment within walking distance of trains and ferries, or I’d choose acreage away from the neighbours, but a 1/4 acre block in a street full of 1/4 acre blocks (especially with the appalling air quality in suburban NZ) no way. I’d go stark raving mad.
Matt I wasn’t being entirely serious. However there are certain people in the community who do seem to think like this. The Herald in particular seems to roll out the 1/4 acre dream from time to time.
The lawn mowing alone would put me off a 1/4 acre section (both having to do it and the endless drone throughout the weekend of those also doing it)…
“Already, it seems that opposition parties are polling a lot better in Auckland than they are elsewhere in the country, suggesting that there may be some discontent out there about these issues (especially as Auckland is typically quite politically neutral overall).”
Is this bias because of solidly Labour voting South Auckland? After all, Labour and ex-Labour MP Phillip Field took 18,000 votes between them in Mangere last time while National managed a dismal 3,000. If so, I suspect their overwhelming support for Labour is not based on transport issues.
IPredict is firmly in favour of Nikki Kaye taking Auckland Central, with 74% probability. I’m surprised. I thought the very fact Ardern wasn’t Judith Tizard would be enough for her to swing what is a natural Labour seat.
Obi, my understanding is that while South Auckland definitely votes very strongly for Labour, other parts of Auckland vote very strongly for National. Many of the seats where National got the highest proportion of the party vote (Helensville, Hunua, Rodney etc.) are in Auckland. Overall it’s a pretty bell-weather city – I think that for most of the past 40 years the party which has won the most seats in Auckland has ended up winning the election, even under MMP.
Just be aware, that you entire premise that labour has better support in Auckland than the rest of the country is based on one poll,
There was a Farifax poll taken the day after and it showed Labour’s support in Auckland at 20% significantly below that for it in the rest of the country,
http://thestandard.org.nz/who-to-believe-2/
I am not saying that either is right, ( they will be different samples using different weighting methodologies), just that polls are only a snapshot in time, and it is the trends that are more useful rather than the absolute numbers….
The irony of a man who will say this on the record “I think it is great that it is doing so and that people are getting the opportunity to comment” and then listen to no one.
Yep nothing wrong with small towns everyone knows they have best lifestyle, just look at Kaikohe -it’s bloody paradise. Joycie is right here it’s a slippery slope, first they start builidng apartments instead of houses and then before you know it you are at a checkpoint and a guy in a fur hat with a kalashnikov is forcing you to take the train to work with hordes of smelly losers.
Thank god we have champions of freedom like Steven Joyce to protect us from what Paul Holmes rightly described as the “megalmaniacal” 30 year draft plan. Joyce just wants us to have the freedom to choose to live the way any right thinking person would- in the suburbs far away from anything remotley urban (yuk!) and preferably far away from having to have any close contact with other people (double yuk!!).
They always seem to forget there are already several hundred thousand quarter acre suburban homes in Auckland that aren’t going anywhere, or do they think that building some terraced houses by a rail station requires all the surrounding houses to be destroyed?
It’s a bit like the reactions from some corners when you propose a rail line be built: apparently building one means all the motorways will be dynamited and drivers dragged from their vehicles at gunpoint.
Spot on mate. Even the RGS still envisioned 70% of Aucklanders in detached housing by 2050…yet somehow the strategy removes Joyce’s supposed ‘default’ choice of a detached house? Choice means more than just detached houses. The smaller families get, the more singles, couples, students etc, the more we need alternatives to detached houses.
there are more people living in the parts of Auckland that vote strongly Labour (i.e., the south and West) than there are in the parts that vote strongly National (i.e., North Shore, Rodney, Franklin, South-East and Eastern Bays).
This is pretty much why Len won the election – he won the West and South.
“opposition parties” – actually you’re just talking about Labour here Josh. There are more than opposition parties than one 🙂 Why, for example, there’s a party that has campaigned on better public transport for years and years, rather than just the last year when they suddenly realized it might get them some votes. Now I wonder who that could be??
Ha, it is indeed ironic that the Government created and supported a unified council only to fight with that council over… er, the projects and vision for Auckland that the new super city mayor and council were elected for! Whaaaaat?
Well said Matt, it is also highly ironic that Joyce supports comment but listens to no one. The majority of Aucklanders voted for Len and his vision, not Joyce and his motorways. I think the city rail link and wider transport and spatial planning for Auckland CAN be made an election issue in an “Two million Aucklanders VS the the Government” sort of way. People are fed up with having a sprawling, sub-par city with transport that does not really work. It is holding us back economically. It’s making it difficult to develop the CBD to its full potential. It’s making our city less livable, less attractive, and less sustainable by forcing us to rely on roads. Stupid thing is, if the government stopped bickering and stalling and got on with it, we have the skills, knowledge and overseas examples to give our a city world class transport system – and the city rail link is just the start.
No he only says he supports giving the public opportunity for comments. I don’t think from his actions he actually meant what he said. National Party politicians are masters of it. Go have a look at the BlueGreens manifesto/policy document/glossy promotionals, to see that the National Party is prepared to say things that seem perfectly acceptable, but really they mean the exact opposite from their actions and intentions. They know that rational human beings would actually detest the National Party and their policies if the secret got out to their true nature. They are banking on being believed when they lie and the general ignorance of the public to get their hands on the power levers. A 2nd term National Party government with unbridled power is something to fear.
You can’t trust National, and you certainly can’t trust Steven Joyce.
That last comment of mine might read a little partisan. I’m not into some cheap point scoring thing. I just genuinely believe that what people actually want and what they are going to get from the government are really far apart and even opposites, and it is very much true on transport and urban policy. I do think the average mug punter is held in contempt by the current lot in the Beehive.
By the way I think Steven Joyce is unfit to be a Transport Minister as he has had 2 serious driving convictions and misled parliament by conveniently forgetting about one of them. See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10674071
My purely anecdotal evidence is that support for PT is weak on the shore and gets weaker the further north you go. However, south of the bridge support ofr PT is high in most areas and you find a surprisingly high level of support for a decnt PT network even in higher income and age groups. Without doing a major attitudinal survey, I would guess that PT is weakest in areas where the old-school cities-are-evil mindset still rules and highest in areas where people have travelled, or actually use PT a lot.
The question about whether or not PT can be an election issue really hinges on if it is an issue THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO CHANGE HOW YOU PLAN TO VOTE.
Hmmmm, true (I think I misinterpreted), and yes it is important to give people the opportunity to comment (though I’m not sure this government would actually listen to those comments if they didn’t line up with their existing plans)… but it is also important for the government/Joyce to give value to the views and vision of the city council that those people voted in! Yes, at this point what people actually want is looking rather removed from what they’re going to get from the current government.
I’m no fan of Steven Joyce. Point scoring or not, I think it is hilarious (in a really awful way) that he has two serious driving convictions (careless driving causing injury…!?) and forgot one of them!
I see the Hon minister is blaming admin, among others, for enabling the Labour party to finally get to grips with his dissembling, evasions, half-truths, manipulations of data and bare-faced fibbs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rT81AvDs_o&feature=player_embedded. Keep up the good work; it’s working!
I was shocked to learn today about Steven Joyce’s convictions. I wrote a piece on my blog. I think there are some questions that need answering. Especially why the media didn’t ask enough questions last September.
http://wellingtoncycleways.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/steven-joyce-should-resign/
Matt… You say twice that he was convicted of dangerous driving, but then you list the convictions and they are both for careless driving. These are two distinct crimes with different levels of culpability, like manslaughter and murder. What is the actual situation?
I’m also confused by “NZ parliamentarians had to get up in the Beehive and admit to their criminal pasts”, and then talk about misleading parliament. But, the debating chamber isn’t in the Beehive. Who was making them recite their criminal records? All of them? That’d be a lengthy process. Ruth Dyson was convicted of drunk driving while a minister but was only stood down for 9 months. Trevor Mallard was convicted of assault while a minister and didn’t lose his portfolios at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if dozens of MPs had convictions in their past. Gareth Hughes was famously arrested while dressed as Ronald McDonald a few years ago, and I don’t think that disqualifies him from being a minister in the future. Convictions 20 years ago aren’t going to worry anyone, unless you’re a hypocrite like Garrett was.
Okay – I’m not a lawyer and didn’t know there is a distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving. Linguistically the meaning of careless and dangerous are the same thing in a 1.5 tonne piece of metal.
Beehive. Cake Tin. Pooey. I’m Australian and been here 3 years. I remember a South Australian transport or police minister or something very similar resigning when it was exposed that he had criminal convictions for dangerous driving. Same thing in my eyes.
I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about his convictions, but I really think that a Transport Minister should not have any criminal convictions from being on the road. At least he needs to explain the nature of those convictions to us so we can understand if they were trivial or serious. He was 25 or 26 when he got them too, so he can’t explain them away as youthful hijinks. How badly did his driving hurt the motorcyclist? Have we got a dangerous rev head for a transport minister, and he is hell bent on spending the nation’s treasure on building further racetracks so he can continue to drive in a careless or dangerous manner.
Careless driving is a fairly minor crime. You’d don’t have to show up to court and the penalty is likely to be a fine of a couple of hundred bucks, or nothing if you offer to go on a defensive driving course. This web site even gives an example: http://www.communitylaw.org.nz/Careless-Driving.314.0.html
On the other hand, dangerous driving is intended for people driving 150km/hr on a suburban street, or similar crimes. There really isn’t any similarity, regardless of your contention that they’re linguistically the same thing.
“At least he needs to explain the nature of those convictions to us so we can understand if they were trivial or serious.”
Not to me he doesn’t. They were minor crimes committed over 20 years ago. We might as well get every MP to front up and explain their parking tickets, experiences with a bit of weed, visits to the pub before they were 20 (before the drinking age was lowered), or loud parties they’ve attended.
Careless driving causing injury seems to be non-trivial.
I think that Steven Joyce with his policy of RoNS is guilty of yet another, even more serious crime – Conspiracy to lead New Zealand back into the 1960’s.
Getting back to the original point of this post, I too would like to know how do you make transport an election issue? That’s really the crux of the matter for the ‘sustainable transport’ lobby. If the Nats get back in come November, then that puts all the sensible PT projects further out of reach, and more of the RONSense projects will get up and running. Obviously the Nats are banking on everyone being distracted by that big sports tournament with the funny shaped ball, and then they quietly slip in a sneaky referendum on ditching MMP, since they obviously want to go back to first past the post. So, are there any big ideas out there on how you can make transport an election issue? And how do you get through to the ‘uninitiated’, I mean all the people who aren’t aware of the issue? What about leaflet campaigns, celebrity backing, hunger strikes, civil disobedience? How do you get transport into the news? Just wondering, that’s all, so I know where to start.