Minister of Transport Simeon Brown is suggesting Auckland’s councillors could approve the region’s 10-year transport plan.

Speaking at the New Zealand Herald Project Auckland lunch, Brown covered a range of already announced changes he’d see through as Minister for Auckland, Minister of Transport, and Minister of Local Government.

With most of the detail on transport, which he called a “key enabler for growth in Auckland”, Brown ran down a list of plans that had mostly already been detailed in this month’s transport government policy statement.

These include stopping speed limit reductions and building bus links between the east and the west of the city.

But while those promises were already made – alongside some moves that have raised the ire of Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown, like removing the regional fuel tax – there was one indication of direction that has for once pleased the mayor.

Simeon Brown said his Government needed to look at how transport decisions were made in Auckland.

“Auckland is the only region in New Zealand where elected members cannot approve the Regional Land Transport Plan,” he said. “Mayor Wayne Brown has rightly called for change, and I look forward to working with the mayor on how this change can be delivered.”

Wayne Brown has previously bemoaned the complexity of Auckland’s transport funding model and called for an integrated transport plan which would give Auckland Council more authority over transport planning.

It’s a move he prioritised in the five points of his Manifesto for Auckland – a set of conditions put together around last year’s general election that he hoped the new Government would shake hands on.

He called on the Government to allow Auckland to implement congestion charging and fund projects with its share of the National Land Transport Fund, with less red tape.

Simeon Brown’s comments on Thursday apparently went a long way to pleasing the mayor, who depicted the moment as a turning point in what has at times been a thorny relationship.

“This is a big move and one of my first requests of the government when elected,” he said. “It signals a change in the way central government sees Auckland. I welcome the minister’s support for this legislative change that will give Auckland Council control of the Regional Land Transport Plan. Good job.”

Brown called the announcement a commitment to give Auckland’s elected representative control over the transport plan. However, the transport minister’s public comments appear less committed than that, saying he would work through options with the mayor.

Nevertheless, it’s a step towards the fruition of the mayor’s city deal, which could fix a problem he sees as a bugbear for Auckland.

“Auckland is the only region in the country where elected members don’t get the final say on how ratepayer money is spent on transport,” Mayor Brown said.

“Given how much of an issue transport is for Aucklanders, this move will be greatly welcomed. I was elected to take back control of Auckland Transport, and that is what I am doing. I look forward to working closely with the minister on this issue.”

The mayor said city deals work overseas, and these announcements show the Prime Minister is “smart enough to see that”.

“Our size and scope make Auckland very suitable for such a deal,” he said. 

“These deals are about central government working alongside Aucklanders, listening to Aucklanders’ needs. There is no magic money tree for any of us, but city deals reflect a new way of working based on mutual respect.”

In his Manifesto for Auckland, the mayor said the transport funding model was broken and not fit for purpose, and complained of frequent re-litigation of decided-upon projects by Waka Kotahi.

“Waka Kotahi imposes absurdly costly processes on us to access our share of the National Land Transport Fund,” he said. “In the last three years, we estimate that $171 million has been spent on  the Waka Kotahi business case processes alone.”

The mayor also claimed a win for his Auckland Deal following the announcement by Minister of Housing Chris Bishop that Auckland would be given another year’s extension before deciding on new housing intensification rules.

A year-long delay has been granted for Plan Change 78, which would enable up to three dwellings on most urban sites without needing resource consent, along with more flexible development standards.

Bishop said the extension was in part due to last year’s severe weather events (which had already spurred a year-long extension), but also so there was time to determine the status of the former light rail corridor.

Brown’s Auckland Deal had asked for the Government to let Auckland out of the medium density residential standards – a request that fits with the stated policy movements of the National-led Government anyway.

But Brown said this extension prevented the council and stakeholders having to go through a series of hearings in the next few months.

“These hearings were a costly and unnecessary headache for council, and others.

“We estimate that Auckland Council, Aucklanders, community groups, developers, and government agencies like Kāinga Ora were spending around $500,000 per week for every week they were forced to go through with that ridiculous and needless plan change process.”

Character Coalition chair Sally Hughes last week said a lack of clear direction from the Government had left the 60 or so groups her coalition represented preparing for hearings that might not need to happen, at an estimated cost of more than $500,000 so far.

Brown appeared as pleased with Bishop as he was with his namesake.

“Minister Bishop acknowledges this nonsense and has allowed a practical solution,” he said. 

“It’s a pat on the back for him.”

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

  1. It’s puzzling that the Mayor rightly calls out the developers who just want to create new suburbs outside the urban ring, and yet is unhappy with the intensification mandate. Unless there is brownfields development with greater density, how can the city absorb more population except by further urban sprawl, which in turn will have major implications for transport and other infrastructure?

  2. It would be a start but more in that direction is needed: a metro tax component reserved for local usage as happens overseas. The present situation of a substantially land tax only which has now maxed out is dumb. With certain cash flow, councils would then have the means to invest in ( and fix) long term assets using long term financing ( of course- isn’t it obvious?), rather than scrambling about trying to do the impossible with no money.

Leave a comment