Minister ignored widespread concern about GPS

Two weeks ago, the Ministry of Transport proactively released two tranches of documents that show the advice officials provided to Minister of Transport Simeon Brown as he directed the shaping of his draft and final Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport.

You can find the documents via the MoT Proactive Releases page; and here are direct links to the two parts. This post focuses on Part 1, which covers the process of preparing the draft GPS to go to public consultation. Part 2 covers the public feedback on the draft GPS, and deserves its own post.

Click to access GPS-2024-Proactive-Release-Documents-1-12.pdf

Click to access GPS-2024-Proactive-Release-Documents-13-27.pdf

As always, this analysis is brought to you by hard-working human beings. If you’d like to support our work – and enable more of it – you can make a donation or sign up to be a rolling donor. We thank our supporters for making this kind of post possible!

The GPS: what’s the guts?

We’ve written previously about how unprecedented this GPS is. How it favours ideology over evidence, overturns normal practice, and dispenses with local partnerships – and the dire implications for planning a nonpartisan pipeline, plus significant risk to climate commitments.

So it’s enlightening (and somewhat reassuring) to learn we were not alone in being concerned by the overreach and disregard for evidence on display in both the draft version and the final policy

The short version: officials didn’t agree with Brown’s proposed reductions for investment in public transport, and walking and cycling (as reported, the latter is down from 4.1% of the 2021-24 NLTF programme, to 1.4% of the 2024-27 NLTF – and that’s largely covering already contracted work).

Officials also sounded warnings about several aspects of his approach, in particular signalling that a a hands-on-the-wheel interest in operational and funding decisions would not sit well with NZTA’s statutory independence.

This feedback came not just from expected quarters like the Ministry of Transport (MoT) and NZTA/ Waka Kotahi (the latter advised that there was a “strong case to increase funding to the public transport services activity class”), but from other parts of government:

• the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) was concerned that deprioritising these categories would “limit action on climate change”
• the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD) were concerned that the reductions “will impact on urban intensification”.
• Treasure and Te Waihanga the Infrastructure Commission, along with NZTA, raised the concern that “some of the language used in the draft GPS could be seen as directive”, i.e. they identified a risk of ministerial overreach into NZTA’s operational policies and practices.

Besides revealing detailed concerns about the Minister’s approach and the impacts on transport, housing and the environment, these documents raise broader questions around:

• Cabinet process and collegiality: How does the Minister of Transport’s policy impact what other ministers are aiming to achieve?
• Leadership: who’s in charge? A large part of the Prime Minister’s role, as the title suggests, is maintaining oversight of how the political programme is being coordinated by ministers and across ministries.
• Ministerial overreach: Is ministerial intervention in the civil service paving a path (or, tarmacking a four-lane mega-motorway) for other parts of government to be just as invasive into what are supposed to be independent agencies?

Below, we look at at a few specific areas. We encourage readers and other journalists to have a good look at these documents as well.

1. MoT officials gave early warnings of costs, climate implications, and risks of ministerial overreach

In the first tranche of documents, the MoT hits the ground running: in a letter dated 28 November 2023, officials note there is a tight time-frame to revise the GPS in line with the new Minister’s policies and priorities, with Regional Transport Committees simultaneously working on their Regional Land Transport Plans.

They signal that the “Transport for the Future Programme” (TFP, aka more RoNS) may need to be considered separately, given the financial implications:

The Agency has developed indicative updated cost estimates for the proposed TFP projects. Some of those estimates have doubled since the last publicly-available figures from 2017. This means that further prioritisation will be required to make the TFP affordable.

On page 11 of the same document, you can see how much those estimates have risen – at least, you could, if they hadn’t been redacted:

The MoT also notes that the Labour government consulted on a GPS shortly before the election, which had these strategic priorities:

And notes that the previous GPS drew this public feedback (emphasis ours):

Public feedback was broadly supportive of the draft GPS 2024. Key concerns were:
• a lack of action on climate change
• a lack of sustainable funding
• the need for increased funding towards maintenance and resilience.
Assuming that there will be significant changes between the previous consultation draft and your new version, you will need to consult again before GPS 2024 is finalised.

Officials then make suggestions for areas of focus that align with the new government’s stated priorities, which do not include action on climate change or sustainable funding. One out of three ain’t bad?

In the same briefing, this is how the MoT understood the Minister’s intentions re investment activity classes. Note the intention to fund RoNS by reducing investment in public transport by $1.5bn and safety by $3bn. Also: ring-fencing $30m to reverse speed limit reductions.

The briefing also sounds a couple of early warnings on:

1) the legal restrictions on ministerial direction re funding particular projects. (You might reasonably ask if this applies to the Minister’s ground-level directions re types of infrastructure to be funded or not funded e.g. the diktat against raised crossings in particular.)

2) the climate implications of the draft GPS, including the risk of litigation: note that point 67 (and 68 over the page) are redacted:

Related, there’s also a set of caveats around the minister’s intention to shift the horizon of the GPS from three years, to ten – with a view to locking in (and locking cities and future governments into) a longer-term infrastructure project pipeline. Basically, good luck with that.

2. Minister given detailed forecasts of skyrocketing costs for major projects

A document sent the same day outlines cost pressures on the transport programme. There’s a lot in this that deserves closer examination, but a few things caught our eye. For example,  this table showing tunnelled projects are facing huge cost escalations. (Also see the ill-fated Interisland Resilient Connection).

There’s also this table of cost estimates to deliver the Transport for the Future Programme (plus an additional four mystery “resilience” priorities, details redacted – any guesses?). Wanna see by how much these costs might escalate? Of course you do – but alas, redacted.

3. Safety: when did the election promise ‘where it is safe to do so’ vanish from the plan?

Correspondence from 8 December 2023 shows the MoT shaping up the draft GPS. At this point they’ve had feedback from NZTA but have not had time to incoporate it. The section on speed limit reversion contains the key caveat, “where it is safe to do so“. This promise was part of Simeon Brown’s 2023 campaign language – but by 2024, the phrase had disappeared from the both the draft GPS and the draft Speed-Setting Rule.

Where did it go? Who directed it to be removed? Who advised on what this might mean?

We’re noting this here, as it may be a useful thread to follow if there are any judicial reviews of the legality of mandating unsafe speed changes.

NB The search string “where it is safe to do so” didn’t pick up the following paragraph in the first tranche of documents, which means this is a manual job for a patient reader. If you can find references to this phrase in either Part 1 or Part 2, please share the key pages in the comments below!

Updated 1pm 26 September 2024

Thanks to reader Elbear for this:

Regarding “Where it is safe to do so”, that text did appear in the draft GPS in March, see page 20. Was cut in the final GPS.
While the phrase isn’t specifically referenced, the change is documented in part 2 [of the proactive release], pg 41, proposed change number 17. They refer to it as updating the GPS text to align with the draft cabinet paper for the new speed limit rule.

4. Climate clouds on the horizon

The same letter from 8 December 2023 lists key points that need resolving “early in the New Year before seeking Cabinet approval”. These include a risk management strategy, particularly around the climate implications of the GPS, vis-à-vis the Emissions Reduction Plan. Note: this was the same month that Newsroom’s Marc Daalder reported that the government was “quietly defund[ing] transport climate work“, with the Minister instructing Waka Kotahi NZTA to “stop work on policies that would provide transport alternatives to private cars.”

Perhaps related: in March 2024, the Minister’s paper to Cabinet requesting go-ahead to consult on the draft GPS contains a section on Risks that is entirely redacted. This paper is pp 182-202 of the first tranche of documents (Document dated 24-03-05, i.e. 5 March 2024). What’s behind that greyed-out box? Were the risks mitigated, and if so, how?

5. Concerning feedback from other ministries and departments

As the draft GPS moved towards Cabinet for go-ahead, the MoT informed the Minister of feedback from other government ministries, departments, and agencies. Here’s where it gets quite interesting. This is Document 10, p152ff of the first tranche of documents.

Which other government departments were consulted? Quite a few:

The key themes of their feedback are described as:

• a need for direction on climate change
• providing a greater priority for resilience
• the level of direction in the GPS to NZTA
• concerns over the reduction in funding for public transport and walking and cycling.

And, here’s the summary of their feedback – with some interesting redactions around concerns on climate, resilience, and ministerial overreach. Note: all three screenshots below are from the 20 February 2024 note to the Minister, titled “Cabinet Paper for Lodgement and Departmental Feedback”, p152ff in the first document tranche.

6. Pothole focus brings unintended consequences for maintenance of local roads, footpaths, and bike lanes

By 19 January 2024, the MoT was clarifying that a reduction in funding for overall walking and cycling funding was pegged to a reduction in maintenance funds for local roads.

The Ministry was also seeking guidance on what the new “Pothole Prevention” activity class would mean for maintenance funding for footpaths and bike networks, as well as local roads. This is a good question, and has major implications at ground level for local councils in particular. There’s a lot of back and forth on it in these documents.

This section of the Aide-Memoire to the Minister on 19 January 2024 (pp 123-125 of the document release) explicitly notes the “carving off [of] footpath/ cycleway maintenance into the W&C [Walking and Cycling] activity class would be problematic.” It also goes into detail about the rising risks of climate for road maintenance and resilience. The minister can’t say he wasn’t told:

Climate change is a significant game changer for road maintenance and demands a paradigm shift in our approach. Core asset preservation is key. This will require increased frequency of cyclic maintenance, greater focus on preventive maintenance, more proactive intervention criteria, increased capacity in the stormwater drainage system, increased planting to secure slopes and embankments, etc. The effects that will need to be addressed include:

• Rising sea levels – inundation, coastal erosion.
• More intense wind and storm events – greater risk of damage and disruption.
• Greater rainfall intensity – overloading of road drainage and natural water-courses, higher ground water levels and more flooding.
• Extreme heat – increased risk of wild-fires and asset degradation.
• More droughts – ground level deformations on soft subgrades, reduced water supplies and impacts on rural land-use.

MoT to Minister 19 Jan 2024 advice re proposed activity class split 1/3

MoT to Minister 19 Jan 2024 advice re proposed activity class split 2/3

MoT to Minister 19 Jan 2024 advice re proposed activity class split 3/3

A week later, the Minister was being offered options to solve the maintenance quandary; which was done effectively by slashing the central government funding share for fundamental local government work like footpath repair.

This angle (dubbed the “footpath fatwa” by journalist Russell Brown) was picked up by Newsroom in March this year, under the headline “Dead end for cycle and walking paths in new transport budget.”

The real world implications in towns and cities are only just starting to hit home:

• in Waikato, “missing funds would have mostly paid for road, footpath and safety improvements in Hamilton, as well as some public transport infrastructure”
• in Masterton, “a drastic drop in government funding has forced the Masterton District Council to slash its footpath renewals and maintenance programme,” halving the number of footpath repairs below what’s required simply to keep pace with maintenance, let alone improvements.

This emerging chaos underfoot should be headline news. A Minister for Local Government who’s scolded councils to focus on “core issues”, and campaigned under the political banner of getting “back to basics” in transport, so ordinary New Zealanders can “get where they’re going.” What could be more basic, and more essential to getting where you’re going, than a footpath?

A few other details in the document release that caught our eye

1. The kerfuffle over the name change for Waka Kotahi

A Yes, Minister/ Thick of It/ Utopia moment in February 2024, when a note from the MoT points out that the official name for Waka Kotahi the NZ Transport Agency is still up in the air,  pending advice from the Public Service Commission, so in the meantime they’ll need to be referred to as “New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA)”.

2. Safety vs pothole repair

This vignette from the November 2023 Briefing to the Incoming Minister, explaining what’s slowed down the work on filling potholes: the new safety requirements that protect the workers doing it. Draw your own conclusions.

3. Three graphs that didn’t make it into the draft GPS

What to make of these? Three graphs that were proposed to be inserted in the draft GPS for consultation, but didn’t make it in.

Share this