Julie Anne Genter was been back in action in parliament yesterday asking questions of the government, this time around what it plans to do about future shortfalls to transport funds that are being predicted by the Ministry of Transport. The answers are quite frankly shocking and reveal that the government really care about the future impact the current expenditure as long as they get the roads built. In essence it is a pretty clear case of doing what they feel like, with no evidence to themselves up and leaving it for future generations to have to sort out.
And a transcript is here:
Processing...
Brownlee is truly terrible shame most people don’t take notice of this. He is just woeful.
Well at least Brownlee is now (finally) talking tough about taking NZ Bus “off the run” if they don’t get on board with HOP this year – according to the Herald this morning.
Time will tell on that one.
Meanwhile lets hope that at least
someone of the Governments Transport ministers’ decisions can undo some of the earlier damage their predecessor caused with meddling when it was not required.It certainly would be nice (for a change) to see the Transport Minister meddling where it is required.
It’s funny that the RONs business cases are predicated on oil prices being 20% lower than the MED’s forecasts, while the IMF is predicting a doubling in prices in the next decade. None of this seems to wash with Gerry. And that there is already a huge funding shortfall in the next decade, but Gerry pretends like it’s a long way off. Maybe he’s assuming that he will be in opposition by that point so it does not matter? This National Government is becoming more Muldoon-esque by the week. Short-sighted and self-interested are the two characteristics that spring to mind.
Love the little dig that Russell Norman gets in at the end there.
God this government is woeful!
I don’t whether to cringe or just cry over Brownlee’s answers to Julie-Ann Genter’s questions particularly that last answer he gave. Oil has everything to do with transport seeming 99.9999999999% of our mechanised transport fleet uses hydrocarbon based fuel and will most likely do so for a very VERY long time to come. So what is Gerry up to – a case of pray and hope that he is not around post 2021?
What Gerry should be doing if he had an ounce of political nous on him is work with the Minister of Energy and make sure our hydrocarbon fuel supply can withstand supply shocks from overseas long enough until our transportation fleet has switched over away from hydrocarbons as the Fuel Source. Marsden Point is about to go through an upgrade so it can refine 60% of our petrol needs, and probably needs an expansion so it can hit 100%. All that is left in the puzzle is making our domestic supplies being ready and able to rock and roll to cover our fuel needs when Oil goes right back through the roof (most likely around 2021 😛 ).
Yes I am calling on synthetic fuels to cover our butts over the medium term but I have an idea in 50 years cars and trucks will be still running around of hydrocarbons. Yes there will be transitioning to electric (which just moves the problem) and with some luck Hydrogen Fuel Cells but not to the extent some are hoping for. I shall see if I get vindication or vilification in 50 years time.
Just one question to Julie-Ann; 2021-2032? Why did that get mentioned? That sounds straight plucked from The Auckland Plan with its 10 year plan blocks 😛
Well its no secret that we have less than 20 days of fuel storage nationally – under international agreement we are suppose to have 90 days – we count the approx 70 other days of supply as fuel/oil on route to NZ. It there was a major international incident in one of the world’s major oil production areas (and noting that the fuel stock for Marsden is based on importing thick Arab crude) we would be in serious trouble.
We also rely on oil stored in other countries, each the UK and the Netherlands. But then if the sh*t is really hitting the fan we can’t hardly depend on getting it (even if there is the political goodwill to send it us, we would still have to charter tankers etc).
But is it not true that under the current Petrol tax regime, if the price of oil/petrol doubles, that the tax take will double too, without the Government doing a single thing?
Of course, if oil doubles in price you can be sure the volume of private (petrol driven) traffic will reduce, but I can’t see transport (PT or otherwise) use of oil dropping significantly in the next 10 years unless oil triples or more in price.
Of course, that kind of transport uses Diesel which is subject to RUC not fuel taxes.
In any case, as petrol cars get more and more efficient the tax take per Km of travel will drop.
But I’d bet that Brownlee is secretly
hopingbetting that the rising petrol tax take will fill most of the funding gap, and any shortfall will see a reduction in traffic and hence the need for the roads to built at all.I’d bet Brownlee hasn’t even thought about it at all. You’re giving him far too much credit.
I’m not sure I’d count on petrol cars becoming more efficient.
Any rise in efficiency seems to provoke installation of more powerful aircon/gps/dvd players etc, neutralising the gains.
On the positive side many cars now have up to 4! coffee cup holders which is useful.
Re: Julie Anne,- bringing up the $180M NZTA shortfall they CURRENTLY have (and are hoping to borrow from Auckland Council) might make the issue seem more urgent than it does presently?
Geoff,
Hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius do get better litre-age for each 100km driven – thats why so many taxis these days use them.
I expect that there will be more vehicles in the next 10 years that use Hybrid technology, and they alone will have an impact on reducing petrol use in the petrol fleet, before we even get to full electrics when they hit the mainstream.
But I take your point, in general I have read that many US cars today are not that much more efficient in terms of MPG than decades ago because as the engines efficiency has improved, so have more and more features (some safety related, some marketing related) have been added on to them, which has kind of nullified the effect of the engines better fuel consumption. So the efficiency in terms of “MPG” is not much better.
All up then the Government has a hole in its transport funding, maybe they’re hoping that during the tunnelling for the CRL and Waterview they hit oil along the way?
Check out the Jevons paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
But also how hard it actually is to make further substantial improvements in efficiency. Small problem of the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/100-mpg-on-gasoline/
Having said that we are using less fuel but that is because we are driving less. That’s what the numbers say.
This government sure won’t be tunnelling the CRL, they have absolutely no vision at all, not even tunnel vision : ). They’re after anything that can make them a quick buck – coal mining (which isn’t going down well with the public), offshore oil drilling (which is getting about the same reception), and they’re trying to turbocharge dairying, with the environment at breaking point in places. Short sightedness seems to come naturally.
There are no quick bucks for NZ in deep sea oil. There will be bucks but they will be neither quick nor ours.
Come on Patrick, we’ll get about 4% of the net bucks from the deep-sea oil. Which, of course, means zero bucks because, as with Hollywood’s accounting practices, the mineral extraction industry can very creatively find ways to have no net profit.
The GST will increase, yes, but the various excises are fix cents-per-litre figures. A doubling of the pre-GST price of petrol will see the GST increase by about 75%, but the excise component will remain at 59.129c/L. And the increased GST income will be more than offset by the dramatic decrease in fuel consumption.
Greg, I think at least a good part of the fuel taxes are cents / litre, NOT a percentage. So therefore lower fuel consumption DOES hurt the government’s coffers, even if the person at the pump still spends the same, say $100 he did before.
“I’m Minister of Transport not an oil speculator for the futures market, therefore have no comment on that”
*facepalm* and/or *headdesk*
Could that be Gerry’s head into a desk, please.
So: Brownlee thinks we should spend billions of dollars that current funding mechanisms won’t provide, on roads that make little sense when subjected to scrutiny. However, this is okay because roads lead to growth.
Um, yeah…
Brownlee is either stuck and won’t /can’t back down on the RONS (can’t because of something external, trucking lobby?) or do he’s a total muppet. I’ve just returned from 7 years in London and am staying in Botany. And the traffic volumes, amount of roads are crazy. Ameti is on it’s way which is going to be a real turn around for the area and I hope this doesn’t get cut because a road needs to be built now for a truck so Brownstain can get preferred treatment from the trucking boys, or a pat on the back from someone involved. My generation X should be all over this as it’ll be us in the future having to pay for electric trains when an oil shock comes around on top of the already spent transport budget. Go Julie-Anne you good thing you have my support the whole way.