Duty to research alternatives to infrastructure problems

National’s ‘Ethical Duty’ to research alternatives to NZ’s infrastructure problems

With the Minister for Internal Affairs admitting that New Zealand has the worst debt in its history and is borrowing $1.5B per annum, how will spending $2.2B on a road that loses 40c for every dollar invested be justified? Investing in roads will help stimulate the economy, according to Nathan Guy. But it is only the freight and infrastructure industries which will profit and therefore feel at liberty to continue to promote and finance National’s electoral campaigns.

Packed platforms at the newly opened Waikanae Station indicate the necessity of increased rail funding and according to Nathan Guy, ‘12,500 people travel by road to Wellington everyday from Paraparaumu alone’. Providing the public transport that is so desperately needed would immediately alleviate roading issues and increase profits for the kiwi-owned Kiwi Rail. However, the government’s answer to transport issues is to sell off the family jewels, in the form of crown owned services such as Telecommunications and Energy companies.

At present Guy says there are no figures on how much of the stock will be ring fenced for just New Zealand investors nor how much will be allowed to go overseas. The 100% New Zealand owned slogan may have to be changed to ‘49% of profits go abroad.’ And when the money from the short-term fix of selling off half of the state assets is gone, it is a small step to selling off the rest of the state owned 51%, which then changes the motto to ‘Proud to be 100% FOREIGN owned’.

This explains some of the reason why Nationals’ investment in rail is only 10% of that for road, even though the John Bolland report showed rail transport of freight and passengers to be more efficient, more economic and more environmentally beneficial than road transport by $200M to $500M per year. Interestingly, the report which was commissioned by the government to investigate the relative costs of road and rail was never publicly released because the findings contradicted the government’s goal to cater to the trucking industry.

Additionally, the initial SAHA report commissioned by government to determine the economic assessments of the Roads of National Significance was superseded by a second SAHA report which grouped the seven RoNS and included the unrelated Victoria Park Tunnel project even though there are no linkages between them. By grouping the roads, those which have a higher benefit to cost ratio (BCR) can ‘boost’ those which have a low BCR such as the Kapiti expressway (which has a BCR of 0.6, or 40c lost for every dollar spent).

Over 4000 people have signed a petition to request NZTA reconsider the environmental impact of pollution, noise, disruption to local lives, increased risk to cyclists, the division of the community by a motorway through the heart of residential housing and the lack of connectivity for local transport that the Sandhills Expressway will create. All issues that were addressed by NZTA themselves when describing the Western link route as the worst option for an expressway.

With the world’s decreasing oil reserves, the demands to decrease fuel emissions and the effect of increased motor and freight usage on future generations, the future lies in the researching of alternative, cheaper solutions to infrastructure problems We need solutions that will be environmentally sustainable yet economically profitable such as rail transport for freight and commuters. Ethically, we have a duty to pursue that which makes us the ‘clean, green 100% pure’ country that John Key claims we are and capitalise on the eco friendly reputation we have with nations around the world. The question is; are Mr Key and the current government doing that? I think we already know the answer.

Dr Adele Cherrill
Ethics & Human Rights Lecturer
Cardiff University

ENDS