KEY POINTS:
The truck drivers' protest today underlines the truism that no one likes a tax rise. So it's unlikely that Aucklanders will be out celebrating the power granted to regional councils by Parliament yesterday to introduce a fuel tax for new transport projects.
But with no other proposal on the table for funding new electric rolling stock for Auckland's passenger rail service, what other choice was there?
Hopefully, Parliament's decision that Aucklanders are grown-up enough to spend $500 million of our own money on a new train set will not stop there. There are many who believe it's time we were once again allowed to run our own bus system as well.
Buried in the secrecy of the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee, is the Public Transport Management Bill, which could, if the parliamentarians follow the wishes of the Auckland Regional Council, return to Auckland the power to plan a bus service for the benefit of the community that pays for the service, rather than one created to maximise the profits of the private bus operators. What is clear is that the present system needs improving.
Since our publicly owned bus service was forcibly privatised by Parliament 15 years ago, the region has experienced the worst bus patronage growth of any city in Australia or New Zealand, down 34 per cent relative to population.
In the year just ended, private bus operators pocketed $93.3 million in public subsidies (half from ratepayers, half from taxes). In the current year, ARC ratepayers alone will pay $51.4 million in subsidies. Yet as the law stands, the ARC cannot inspect the operators' books to check whether or not they're gouging the system. We have to take their need for a subsidy on trust.
As ARC chairman Mike Lee has wryly observed, "No wonder the main bus company is owned by an investment company!"
In a letter to Minister of Transport Annette King on May 19, Mr Lee noted that "overall bus patronage is down nearly 5 per cent compared to four years ago. Expenditure on bus services has, however, increased by 90 per cent between 2004/05 and the current financial year. It would appear that the private bus companies in Auckland are much more interested in increasing bus subsidies than increasing passenger numbers".
There are many other obstacles to creating a modern, user-friendly, multi-mode, public transport system. For years, the competing operators have refused to introduce integrated ticketing, enabling travellers to change from bus to train or ferry or bus again, using one ticket.
As for routes, bus companies can cherry-pick, selecting the most popular routes and times as "commercial", leaving public authorities to call on the privateers to fill the gaps with subsidised services. As for the linking of bus, train and ferry services - that's more a matter of chance or profit, than good planning. ARTA has little ability to enforce standards, timetables - anything.
Before the select committee, the ARC vigorously campaigned for the right to introduce a fully contracted system of passenger services. This would involve ARTA designing an integrated public transport system, then calling for tenders from private operators to operate the various services for a negotiated price. Backing Auckland have been submissions from regional councils across the land, including letters of support from Wellington regional chair, and former mayor and MP, Fran Wilde and Environment Canterbury chairman and former Speaker, Sir Kerry Burke.
Threatening to throw their buses out of the cot has been Infratil, the Wellington-based investment company that owns Auckland's main bus and ferry companies. It threatened to quit the business and has been furiously lobbying MPs and transport bureaucrats against the ARC proposal.
The original draft of the bill was a wishy-washy compromise that tried to appease all sides and pleased none. It appears that Labour now supports the ARC's contract model, while National is opposed. The heat within the committee is now on New Zealand First deputy leader, Peter Brown, who is sitting on the fence. His party could hold the balance when the bill is reported back to the House around August 4. Like other committee members, he refuses to comment.
Maybe I could sway Mr Brown with the thought, his party is responsible for the recent Budget handout of half-price fares on off-peak public transport for all oldies. Would he be happy with the large subsidies of public money involved in this gesture ending up lining the pinstriped pockets of Infratil?
