A pretty rollicking start to the year by the Green Party’s Julie-Anne Genter, criticising the government’s transport policies in parliament’s first day back yesterday:

That speech just reminded me that parliament hasn’t sat since the findings of the City Centre Future Access Study were released. Hopefully there are a few interesting questions about the findings of that study, and the government’s response to it, over the next few days and weeks.

Share this


    1. Can we take it from this that Nathan Guy will rally against pet transport projects? And that he will therefore defer or cancel the RoNS? After all, most of the RoNs were hand-picked by the previous transport minister and then included in the GPS without any consideration for alternatives or the wider transport funding process.

      It’s fairly clear that the RoNs are a $12 billion “pet programme” from a National Government that was not content to increase spending on roads in general (which is actually something that I would support), but had to then go to the next level and actually specify exactly what projects would be funded – even before the benefits/costs had been evaluated..

      As aside, does the appointment of someone like Nathan Guy, who raises his voice and says stupid things in response to a request for engagement on transport issues, suggest that National is continuing to treat the transport portfolio with contempt?

  1. These are great video’s – I love how this blog plugs us into the chaos that is paraliment.
    Julia Anne Genter talks such obvoius sense, I can’t believe the National Party can’t see it

  2. Julie-Anne was speaking to an empty house. Glad you posted the video otherwise it would have been missed in the public domain. As for Nathan Guy, just as well his rant was cut short by the dinner gong – he was sounding like a dork right after he began raising his voice. Many a hypocritical statement from him as the Nat spokesman – criticized the Green Party support for ‘pet projects’ when National are spending billions on their RoNS ‘pet project’. Claimed the Welllngton trains are ‘doing a great job’ yet wont fund any rail dev in Auckland. Talked about how great PPPs are, when overseas, transport PPPs have all been abject failures. As for his statement ‘decent transport infrastructure has little to do with congestion’ – what he said there just doesn’t make any sense at all.

  3. National don’t operate on common sense, more arrogance and comedic sketches. This will all be brushed aside as usual. It’s unfortunate nz do not vote based on public transport.

  4. Yes, Nathan Guy sounds like a right twat – claiming National instigated the Matangi trains (fact: ordered under the Labour Govt)…. and seems quite an idiot.

  5. Obviously Nathan Guy’s ears are painted-on as he didn’t understand a single word Julie-Anne said. If he had just stood up and said ‘nyah nyah nyah’ I would at least have a little respect for him.

  6. What she says makes absolute sense. I’m actually worried about what will happen in Auckland if the CRL doesn’t go through.

    1. Simple – what happens is that we get the CRL. Just 5-10 years later than we should have, and in the meantime, we stew in our juices and Auckland’s development suffers.

  7. I thought Nathan had a point in that motorist sitting in traffic jams on their way to the Kapiti Coast will not be impressed at the argument against building a motorway. However I think the point is that people aren’t arguing against building any new roads/motorways, it’s about having some balance in the transport spend. If you’ve got $10-12 bn to spend, it doesn’t all have to go on roads Nathan.

    But of course it’s easier to indulge in some political grandiosing rather than debating the issues properly, at the expense of nz’s economic development.

    1. “I thought Nathan had a point in that motorist sitting in traffic jams on their way to the Kapiti Coast will not be impressed at the argument against building a motorway.”

      My parents live in Otaki electorate and are pissed off with Guy since they’re anti-expressway. I thought that anti-expressway feeling was going to hurt Guy, but he increased his own and National’s party vote at the last election, while Labour’s Peter Foster who made the expressway his election plank took a hammering. I conclude that the silent majority is in favour of the road.

    2. The saying “If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail” springs to mind. I can’t think of anyone who hasn’t sat in traffic andwondered if there was just one more lane that traffic would be sorted. That doesn’t mean we should suddenly go and spend billions of dollars to ‘fix’ that situation because as we know, it will likely just lead to more cars on the road with no real change in the situation.

      Obi – transport issues just don’t seem to register when it comes to central government elections where other things like health and education tend to get most of the limelight.

      1. “transport issues just don’t seem to register when it comes to central government elections where other things like health and education tend to get most of the limelight”

        That’s true. And in the past there has generally been multi-party support for transport projects regardless of mode. But recently Labour and the Greens have tried to make transport an issue in electorates such as Otaki and Auckland Central. It doesn’t seem to have been a factor in the last election where National won both electorates confortably, which is probably a mix of both indifference and a feeling that the current transport policies are about right.

        1. Not sure you can draw those conclusions; we know the electorate largely hates asset sales but still, narrowly, voted in a an asset selling government. By your logic we should conclude that the government has this policy ‘about right’. A more logical conclusion is that they were voted in despite this policy.

  8. And Phil Twyford’s speech talks about the CRL near the end, as well as quite a bit on housing affordability:

  9. Well reasoned and articulated argument from Julie Ann full of substance. Pity that nobody was there in parliment to hear it and only those of us who take an interest in transport issues will see the video. Nathan Guy just looks like a jackass.

  10. If a Labour/Green combo wins the next election, she HAS to be transport minister.

    She must tear her hair out having to try “debate” with the government. I say “debate” because she’s the only one debating. National just replies with silly statements and insults from what I see and hear.

  11. Pretty obvious who’s delivering “a whole lot of mistruths” between expert Genter or ken-doll Guy. I am really looking forward to a Minister of Transport who knows what she is talking about.

    1. Yes, I did not remember hearing Julie claim that Auckland would be paying for TG “forever”, as Nathan suggested. I thought she specifically said “20 years”, i.e. the term of the PPP (more accurately called a “loan”).

Leave a Reply

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