Rudman's city: Political silence is deafening over Auckland's rail network

By BRIAN RUDMAN

We journalists find it second nature to push deadlines. Putting off, until the last moment, one's appointment with the keyboard is one of the basic skills of the trade.

For those less accustomed to the cliff-hanging arts, however, such behaviour can be rather scary. Hence the summons to last Friday's mayoral forum of top Government adviser Chris McKenzie, to please explain what is happening with the Crown's efforts to buy back the lease of the Auckland rail network.

You will recall how, on March 29, Minister of Finance Michael Cullen rejected the three-month-old, $112 million deal Auckland and Tranz Rail had reached on the lease and said the Government would do a better and cheaper one.

Using figures from Government funding agency Transfund, Prime Minister Helen Clark joined in, talking of a starting figure of around half the $112 million. Dr Cullen set himself a deadline of August 31.

Cost was not the Government's only concern. There were also the issues of "linear continuity" and "network integrity." In plainspeak, the Government was concerned about the Balkanisation of the rail network.

They didn't want it being sold off in bits and pieces so that a through-train from Whangarei to Wellington would have to negotiate a way through several different operating fiefdoms.

These are worthy concerns, but not the ones uppermost in the minds of Auckland mayors and their rapid transport advisers. Their concerns are more immediate.

Not only does retiring operator Tranz Rail's Auckland regional passenger transport contract expire in June 2003, but so too, by then, will more than half its clapped-out trains.

Finding a new operator and new trains cannot start until the region's control of the network is assured. For the mayors, the sounds of silence from Wellington are making them decidedly twitchy.

Last Wednesday, Auckland's seven affected councils issued a hurry-up call to the Government. The agreed deadline for a settlement was close, said mayoral forum chair Christine Fletcher, and "we want to see evidence that progress is being made."

"The August 31 deadline is important to us. We don't want to be left high and dry with railway ownership issues unresolved ... We're waiting for the Crown to meet its obligations."

The Crown, for its part, is arguing that everything is still on track. Treasury is now up to speed on the earlier Auckland-Tranz Rail deal, a confidentiality agreement has been signed with Tranz Rail and preliminary skirmishes begun.

Two weeks ago, Dr Cullen signed a letter to Tranz Rail outlining what the Crown hoped to achieve. It also indicated what sort of price he would pay. One of the key reasons for Auckland buying the lease was to get overall command of the network, giving it control over essentials such as timetabling, station placement and additional tracks. As the talks drag on, Auckland officials worry that their Government counterparts might bargain these away.

Government sources insist these fears are unfounded. Auckland, they say, will retain the control of the network it desires - subject only, it would seem, to "network integrity" and "linear continuity" being preserved. That's presupposing a deal is struck. And here we come to the little matter of price.

Everyone's had a stab at that one. Tranz Rail has a price. So do Infrastructure Auckland, the ARC, Transfund, Dr Cullen, Helen Clark and Treasury, to name but a few.

Just over a year ago, the region's negotiators shook on a deal with Tranz Rail for $65 million plus $2.25 million to $4.25 million a year thereafter. Five months later a "better" deal emerged which would cost us $112 million, with Tranz Rail paying us $2 million a year for the next 60.

Soon after, Dr Cullen, who was going to have to pay most of the bill one way or the other, decided to take over. Perhaps he was scared that Auckland would come up with an even better deal.

Now, with his self-imposed deadline fast approaching, it is Dr Cullen's turn to show us Aucklanders how it's really done.

Meanwhile, back at the Automobile Association, Mark Scott is angry at my saying he had been hired to craft new ammunition for the AA's anti-rail campaign. He was hired as acting motoring editor and on arrival was pro-rail. His conversion to the anti-rail campaign came after two months of on-the-job research.