By John McDonald, 2024 Hamilton East Ward By-election Candidate

The Ministry of Transport has put a new land transport Government Policy Statement (GPS) draft out for public consultation. The consultation will close on the 2nd of April 2024 and an online survey is available at the Ministry of Transport’s website.

This new coalition government’s draft replaces the draft prepared for the previous Labour government which had public consultation in 2023. By comparing last year’s Labour government’s draft to the new draft created after the coalition government was formed, we can see the changes in policy direction. This is an important document as it aims to shape land transport spending for the next 10 years.

This opinion piece will be a commentary  which compares the new new coalition government’s draft Policy Statement with the Labour government’s draft Policy Statement from last year.

Quick Summary

What has changed?

  • The number of pages in the draft policy statement has been reduced.
  • The photographs have changed, images featuring cyclists have been replaced with images featuring trucks and utes.
  • “Vehicle Kilometres Travelled” (VKT) reduction plans are gone.

  • Funding has greatly increased for “State highway Improvements”.

  • Funding has greatly decreased for “Walking and cycling improvements”

  • Mentions of “Coastal shipping” and “Inter-regional public transport” are gone.

  • “Road-to-Zero” is gone.

  • The phrase “Build Back Better” is gone.

  • The words “transformative” and “transformational” are also gone.

  • Preventing potholes is emphasised and road maintenance funding has increased.

  • Public Private Partnerships are now openly encouraged.

  • The use of Te Reo in the draft has been greatly reduced.

  • Increased Motor Vehicle Registration charges to fund “Investment in Land Transport”

 

What has largely remained the same?

  • “Rail network” funding levels remain at a similar “upper” level, though cross-subsidising from road-users is being stopped.

  • “Local road Improvement” funding levels remain the same.

  • “Investment management” and “Safety” funding levels remain about the same.

  • “Demand management” and “road pricing” are still part of the agenda.

 

What has changed?

 

The number of pages

The coalition’s draft GPS is only 43 pages long, compared to the Labour government’s draft GPS which was 76 pages long. The coalition’s draft is more concise, often getting to the point and cutting out a significant amount of the shallow, corporate-bureaucratic waffle and unnecessary graphics.

The photographs

All the photographs have been changed from the Labour draft to the coalition draft. The front cover of Labour’s draft has multiple photographs which feature one train, one bicycle, one bus, one motor bike, about five cars (with two in the foreground), and plenty of smiling people in city environments. The front cover of the coalition’s new draft GPS, instead features a single photograph of a multilane highway through a rural area with about five utes travelling along the highway with little other traffic.

Four-wheel-drive, double-cab utes are back. Cover of the coalition’s 2024 GPS draft

Solitary trucks travelling down near-deserted rural roads is also a recurring scene in the coalition government’s GPS draft. Regardless of who has chosen these photographs or what their motivations are, it is clear that a message is being sent. It could be the bureaucrats trying to get in the good books of their new bosses or those bureaucrats deliberately trying to inflame opposition. Are these photographs chosen to appeal to those who value rugged individualism and voted for the coalition parties? Were the photographs chosen to trigger a reaction in some inner-city Labour/Green voters based on their fears of toxic petro-masculinity? Maybe both, maybe neither.

[EXTRA READING: This academic article provides insight into the ideologies and worldviews which created terms such as “petro-masculinity” and “petro-patriarchal orders”. Reader discretion is advised as that academic article goes off in many bizarre and “Woke” directions. That academic article also accuses everyone of being a fascist… based on a combination of Freudian psychoanalysis, intersectionality politics, dubious postmodernist thinking, and a disgusting quote from Michel Foucault.]

Looks like clear roads ahead for the trucks. Photographs from the coalition governments’s 2024 GPS draft

 

The last cyclist? The only photograph of a cyclist in the whole of the coalition’s 2024 GPS draft (see page 27).

Across the photographs in the Labour government’s draft, I can count seven cyclists. For the coalition government’s draft, I can only find one cyclist in a photograph, with the individual above riding among cars in what appears to be inner-city Wellington. Whoever chose the photographs might have gone too far when they decided to replace all the images of smiling cyclists in Labour’s GPS draft with images of trucks and utes. Expect such imagery to help mobilise a backlash from the ‘pro-cycling’/’anti-car’ lobbyists.

“Vehicle Kilometres Travelled” (VKT) reduction plans are gone

Labour’s draft had “urban light VKT reduction” as a major target of the Emissions Reduction Plan. This plan had local governments in major cities partnering with Waka Kotahi, to work towards this target.

“Reduce total vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) by the light fleet by 20 percent (relative to projected growth) through improved urban form and providing better travel options, particularly in our largest cities”

Page 18 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

VKT reduction plans are not part of the coalition’s draft GPS. This change should influence city councils around New Zealand and reduce the amount of anti-car polices and automobile-hostile infrastructure being implemented.

Funding has greatly increased for “State highway Improvements”

This is major in the forecast funding for 2030-2034. Labour’s draft forecasts $200-500 million per year after 2030. The coalition’s draft forecasts $1500-2400 million per year after 2030.

The “Roads of National Significance” program has returned with the coalition draft prioritising certain highway building projects.

Funding has greatly decreased for “Walking and cycling improvements”

The funding levels in the coalition’s draft are close to the funding levels in Labour’s draft for the 2024/2025 year, only dropping to $135-250 million from Labour’s proposed funding of $160-330 million. After 2025, the coalition draft proposes approximately halving the annual “Walking and cycling improvements” funding, fixing the annual funding in the $70-130million range until 2034.

“Coastal shipping” and “Inter-regional public transport” are gone.

These two line items have been removed from the funding table and the phrases are completely gone from the coalition’s draft. Together, both line items were only allocated $35–70 million per year in the 2023 version of the draft GPS. Labour’s draft did not clearly explain why “Coastal shipping” is included in the land transport general policy statement, beyond “Improving mode choice” and “achieve decarbonisation and safety outcomes”.

“Road-to-Zero” is gone

The Labour’s government’s draft had the “Road to Zero Safety Strategy” as a priority. This strategy has caused the installation of “traffic calming measures” such as “raised safety platforms” in many towns and cities around New Zealand.

“‘Road to Zero’ is focused on making our roads safer, by providing a map for change, with a vision of a New Zealand where no one is killed or seriously injured on our roads. Road to Zero sets a target of a 40 percent reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2030 (from 2018 levels). It charts a path to achieving this with a focus on infrastructure improvements and speed management; vehicle safety; work-related road safety; road user choices and system management.”

Page 31 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

The new coalition draft is completely free of the phrase “Road to Zero”.

The phrase “Build Back Better” is gone

The coalition government’s draft is completely free of the phrase “build back better” which could reflect that the phrase is no longer trendy among politicians and bureaucrats. Alternatively, it could be indicative of a change in what policies will be implemented and where those policies originate. The Labour GPS draft used the phrase “build back better” multiple times, a phrase with deeper meanings in an international context.

“Waka Kotahi will need to carefully consider the most effective ways to “build back better” so the transport system is optimised to support future expectations, be fit for purpose, and be resilient to future system shocks. “Build back better” has several dimensions but generally means upgrading rather than just replacing. This may, for example, occur as part of routine maintenance activities, when replacing flood-damaged structures, or when proactively constructing an alternative to a route that has been identified as fragile.”

Page 58 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

The phrase “Build Back Better” was often used in the speeches and policies from many politicians and organisations during the COVID era. The phrase was used by Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, Boris Johnson, and Joe Biden, as well as World Economic Forum “Global Shapers”.

In September 2020, UK-based network, called “Bond” representing 400 organisations (charities and NGOs) and a group of UK politicians urged the UK government to “build back better” for achieving the UN 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)…

“The UK Government now needs to back up these positive statements with action by using its domestic policies and influence abroad to ensure the SDGs are placed at the heart of the recovery from Covid-19.

Although the impacts of Covid-19 undoubtedly present challenges to delivering the SDGs, it is also true that the recovery from the pandemic presents an opportunity to build back better by using implementation of the SDGs as a ‘ready-made’ roadmap.”

Bond and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development”, Building Back Better: SDGs as a roadmap for recovery, 14 September 2020

In 2021, the White House put out a press release, President Biden Announces the Build Back Better Framework, which used the words “transformative” and “transformational” seven times.

Various parts of the UN bureaucracy and its corporate associates are also keen on using the phrase “build back better” and aligning it with the UN Sustainable Development Goals…

“UN chief António Guterres, has warned of an “unparalleled economic shock”, as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. So, going forward, can the private sector “build back better” to reorder the post-pandemic world, or, might the UN’s vision of a sustainable future be relegated to a low-priority aspiration? We put these questions to the CEO of one of the world’s largest conglomerates, who is working with the Organization, towards a better future.”

UN News “What does ‘build back better’ really mean? One of the world’s top CEOs give us his take”

People with concerns about groups of unelected, UN bureaucrats having too much influence over policies in our cities will cautiously welcome the removal of the phrase “build back better” from New Zealand’s transport policies. When UN bureaucrats use the following description of “build back better” while forming themselves into “Mastermind Groups”, it is a move unlikely to ease peoples’ concerns that local policy is being heavily-influenced by an arrogant technocracy based in distant UN offices.

“Then Covid-19 hit in full scale, amplifying the need for transformative change and leadership even further. As the Secretary-General subsequently highlighted in the Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020, “the effects of COVID-19 are imperilling progress towards the SDGs and could set back years of development gains.”

As the world begins planning for a post-pandemic recovery, it is therefore crucial to seize the opportunity to “build back better” by creating more sustainable, resilient and inclusive societies. But this is easier said than done, and we at the UN System Staff College recognise this challenge; particularly for those whose job it is to turn the ambition of a sustainable future for all into a reality. Building back better requires us to actively pursue strategies to win for people and planet. There is no time for complacency; neither on substance nor on process. Sustainable development isn’t an option, it is a necessity, and we don’t need incremental change but transformation.

To support executive level leaders in sustainable development we therefore designed a new peer-support initiative, the UN Mastermind Groups.

The new initiative, open to a carefully selected group of alumni and resource persons focuses on professionals who are ‘centres of influence’ to discuss, brainstorm, share knowledge and explore solutions related to effective UN country team and/or sustainable development work. UN Mastermind groups are all about “putting leading minds together for a common purpose, i.e. sustainable development”. They promote the highest level of systems thinking, collaboration, innovative mindset, transformational change, and diversity.”

UN Systems Staff College, Bringing leading minds together to build back better, 26 June 2020

The words “transformative” and “transformational” are also gone.

These words are associated with drastic (often also unpopular and dysfunctional) changes and were used in a number of places in the Labour GPS draft…

“We are also investing heavily in mass rapid transit projects, rail, and walking and cycling pathways to ensure people have options in the way they move around, while also driving down emissions. The draft GPS 2024 includes a Strategic Investment Programme, which provides a view of some of the most significant sections of the transport network that require intervention and is expected to guide Waka Kotahi’s consideration of projects. Signalling the importance of these projects alongside our commitments to road maintenance and public transport services will ensure that we deliver transformative changes to our transport system, without compromising its core functions”

Ministerial foreword, Page 1 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

The new coalition draft is completely free of the words “transformative” and “transformational”. Those words were associated with “build back better”, and hopefully their removal is more than simply a cosmetic change.

Preventing potholes is emphasised and road maintenance funding has increased

Given the state of New Zealand’s roads in recent years, prioritising funding to fix potholes and prevent potholes is going to be a popular and welcome policy change.

The coalition government has added extra line items for “State highway pothole prevention” and “Local road pothole prevention” to the new draft GPS. This change effectively splits the funding for both “State Highway Maintenance” and “Local Road Maintenance”, by creating new sub-category line items of “operations” and “pothole prevention”. Despite the splitting of funding into the sub-categories, overall funding for local road and highway maintenance has been increase when compared to the Labour GPS draft.

Activity class funding ranges for road maintenance. Page 29 of the coalition’s GPS draft from 2024

Activity class funding ranges for road maintenance. Page 48 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

Public Private Partnerships are now openly encouraged

The Labour draft GPS rarely mentions public private partnerships, with only a “Debt and PPP repayments” line item which totals $9.6 billion over their 10 year plan. Otherwise, public private partnerships are not mentioned anywhere in the Labour government’s draft.

The coalition draft GPS is instructing the Ministry of Transport and NZTA to consider public private partnerships and private financing…

“Delivering the Roads of National Significance and public transport projects will require the

use of alternative delivery models, and a broader range of funding options and financing models. The Government expects public private partnerships, and other opportunities to use private expertise and finance, will be considered for all major projects.”

Minister’s Foreword, Page 5 of the coalition’s GPS draft from 2024

The use of Te Reo has been greatly reduced

The Labour draft uses far more Māori language and often puts the title in Māori before the title in English. This starts with the draft’s title which reads “Te Tauākī Kaupapa Here a te Kāwanatanga mō ngā waka whenua | Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024/25-2033/34”. In contrast the title in the coalition government version is simply “Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024-2034”.

Page 72 of the Labour draft features a series of values under the heading of “Ngā Uara Te Manatū Waka Te Manatū Waka Values” and these are now gone in the coalition government’s draft. Personally, I think it is good that these are gone on the grounds that these corporate values are likely shallow, tokenistic, and insincere. I suspect that Te Reo was being used in an attempt to make these corporate values appear sacred and beyond criticism. I have no major problem with the use of Te Reo as an additional language in government documents. Māori is an official language of New Zealand, and interestingly English is not considered an official language in NZ legislation. The Labour government’s choice to systematically give priority in official documents to Māori, a language which most New Zealanders (and visitors) are not fluent in, demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice functionality for virtue-signalling.

Ngā Uara Te Manatū Waka Te Manatū Waka Values” words and phrases collected from page 72 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023 [Note that no images have been copied from the Labour draft as that document specifically forbids such copying]

Increased Motor Vehicle Registration charges to fund “Investment in Land Transport”

An increase in motor vehicle registration fees to contribute to the land transport funding is a new feature of the coalition government’s draft…

“The GPS 2024 proposes funding this increase through:

  • Two $25 increases to Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) charges in January 2025 and 2026.

  • A return to regular increases in Fuel Excise Duty (and equivalent increase in Road User Charges) from January 2027.

  • Additional Crown funding and financing will be considered for all major projects – the Government expects public private partnerships, and other opportunities to use private expertise and finance.”

    Draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024-34: Summary at a glance – Strategic priorities, March 2024

The Labour government’s draft GPS did also propose an increase in petrol taxes and road user charges, although the Labour government appeared willing to bring these increases in sooner (rather than wait three-years until after another election).

“We’re proposing a two cent per litre increase in petrol taxes and equivalent increases in road user charges for the first six months, another two cent increase the following six months, then four cents a litre more in each of the following two years.”

Ministerial foreword, Page 2 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

What has largely remained the same?

 

“Rail network” funding levels remain at a similar “upper” level.

Funding for the rail network was somewhat higher in the Labour draft at the upper level where they peak at $620 million per year, compared to the $580 million per year peak in the newer GPS draft from the coalition government. The lower level of possible funding has dropped considerably and this is linked to a plan for rail track user charges to pay for track infrastructure rather than rail maintenance being cross-subsidised by road users.

“While rail freight network investments will remain within the GPS, rail infrastructure will no longer be cross-subsidised from revenue generated from road users. It is unfair to ask people using the roads to fund rail infrastructure. Rail investments will continue to be supported and funded through the Rail Network Investment Programme, as agreed by Cabinet. Track User Charges paid by rail users will be used to support these investments.”

Page 15 of the coalition’s GPS draft from 2024

“Investment management” and “Safety” funding levels remain about the same

The coalition’s draft policy statement allocates about $500-650 million annually to “Safety”, closely matching the funding levels found in Labour’s draft policy statement. The coalition’s draft focuses on education, roadside drug & alcohol testing, and more rumble strips on highways.

At about $65-110 million annually, “Investment management” funding levels have largely been kept the same from the Labour draft to the new coalition draft.

“Local road Improvement” funding levels remain the same

The coalition’s GPS draft is very similar to the Labour draft in keeping annual funding in the proposed range of $150-430 million per year from 2024 to 2034.

“Demand management” and “road pricing” are still part of the agenda

Both the Labour draft and the new coalition draft promote “road pricing” and “demand management” schemes, although there are some changes in terms of the stated reason why such schemes should be implemented.

“Making better use of existing assets by allowing time of use charging or the use of

dynamic lanes in main cities to manage demand.”

Page 21 of the coalition’s GPS draft from 2024

“Waka Kotahi, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Kāinga Ora and other Crown agencies partnering with local authorities as they develop their Future Development Strategies and VKT Reduction Programmes demand management tools, including greater use of road pricing and parking management”

Page 27 of Labour’s GPS draft from 2023

“Road pricing, such as tolling and time of use charging, will play a key role in the delivery of the Roads of National Significance programme, as part of a wider package of transport revenue and investment tools. Tolling provides an opportunity for an additional source of revenue and will support infrastructure which provides reduced travel times compared to alternative routes. Time of use charging will improve travel times and network performance, reducing overall costs for freight businesses and their customers.”

Page 10 of the coalition’s GPS draft from 2024

“Road pricing” is likely a reference to schemes similar to one being considered in Tauranga where existing roads are effectively turned into toll roads using technologies such as automated number plate recognition cameras.

Conclusions

The new coalition government’s draft General Policy Statement is generally an improvement over the Labour government’s draft. The new draft is more straightforward and concise. Much of the tokenism and virtue-signaling is gone. Key policy phrases from United Nations and World Economic Forum documents are also gone. Hopefully the real-world consequences resulting from those phrases will start disappearing as well. Phrase such as “Road to Zero”, “Vehicle Kilometres Travelled”, and “transformational change” were causing the installation of raised platforms on our urban roads and the removal of carparks under the Labour government. The coalition government allocating extra funding for pothole prevention is welcome, given the deteriorating state of our roads and highways.

A future of “demand management” and “road pricing” schemes has remained in the draft General Policy Statement despite the government changing from nominally centre-left to nominally centre-right. Such “road pricing” is currently unlawful and is a threat to our country’s rights-based traditions regarding freedom of movement on public ways. Road pricing and other automated revenue-collecting schemes are also concerning due to their use of advanced surveillance technology and their goals of managing people’s travel behaviour. As previously covered on CityWatch NZ, road pricing schemes are regarded as highly divisive with public opposition known to be effective at stopping these schemes in many international examples. When road pricing and demand management schemes are marketed to a left-wing target audience, expect a narrative of creating an environmentally-sustainable, low-carbon, safe, kind, and equity-focused transport system where biking and use of public transport are encouraged. When road pricing and demand management schemes are marketed to a right-wing target audience expect a narrative of efficiency and productivity gains, along with public private partnership opportunities and expected benefits to those commercial road users who can more easily absorb the extra ‘user-pays’ costs.

Another aspect of the coalition’s draft that is concerning is a planned move away from the largely “pay-as-you-go model” for funding transport infrastructure. The replacement model sounds like one that will take on greater levels of debt and leave the country burdened by ongoing repayments for public private partnership agreements into the future. Increasing debt, and specifically accumulating large quantities of intergenerational debt, seems to be a dominant policy direction for both centre-left and centre-right politicians, as well as government bureaucracy generally. This policy direction can be seen across the Three Waters reforms, transport spending, and other local government issues.

 

[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]