Advocate

ISSN 1175-978X

ISSUE 16

Observations, Analysis and Research from NZ AA Motoring Policy

WINTER 2007

In this issue...

Social value of transport...........p3

AA environmental survey..........p5

A new safety ballgame.............p6

Biofuels - sustainable?..............p8

Emissions trading.....................p11

RMA & infrastructure...............p14

On the popular, yet undeserved, Longevity of Govt Strategies...p18

demonisation of your car

Linking MAG to Next steps.....p24
It’s official: Even 62% of Automobile New Zealand’s total Greenhouse Gas
Association Members believe cars emissions. Or to put it another way AA Advocate is produced by AA
are bad for the environment. And 92% of New Zealand’s Greenhouse Motoring Policy. All articles by AA
yet their belief is a long way from Gas emissions come from the other Research Editor, Peter King, unless
proportional to the actual damage sources. stated.
their cars actually do. And believe it or not the same is true
This is partly because every time a when it comes to local air pollution too. fine particulate (PM10) emissions
television journalist or documentary Although Christchurch has the worst come from diesel vehicles and these
film-maker air quality in vehicles currently produce up to 50
wants a Government figures show New New Zealand times more PM10 than an equivalent
symbol of our Zealand’s 2.2 million private cars most of this petrol vehicle.” Dr Kuschel says.
impact on the account for only 8% of New Zealand’s is attributable The same is also true for Volatile
environment total Greenhouse Gas emissions to home Organic Compounds. Once again
they show heating. It is most of the VOC emissions come from
pictures of car exhaust pipes. only in Auckland where transport air diesel vehicles, and in particular heavy
Certainly cars emit greenhouse gases pollution is the most significant source. diesel vehicles.
and exhaust fumes but comparatively According to Auckland Regional CLEAN. This is not to say that
they are not as bad as many may Council Air Quality scientist Dr Gerda improving emissions from vehicles
think. Kuschel air quality in the urban area is not necessary. But for the past 20
Transport’s share of New Zealand’s of Auckland currently breaches years car manufacturers have been
Greenhouse gas emissions is acceptable levels required under the making vehicles cleaner and cleaner.
19.3% according to the Climate Air Quality National Environmental According to the OECD report “Can
Change Office. But tucked away Standards in relation to fine particulate Cars Come Clean” by 2014 most new
on that website is the revelation (PM10), with the key sources of cars will be effectively low-emitting
that household users of cars only emissions in the region being motor vehicles due to increasingly tough
account for 41% of this. The other vehicles (51%), domestic fires (41%), emissions standards in the main
59% is mostly taken up by trucks and industry (8%). But it’s not the manufacturing nations. As that report
and airplanes. That means that New average petrol car that is causing all says:
Zealand’s 2.2 million private cars the problems.
only account for less than 8% of “In the transport sector, 91% of the continues
 
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” explicitly states
livestock poses a greater climate change threat than transport.
Over the last 20 years, tighter standards have led
to progressive improvements in vehicle technology.
Improved engine technologies and fuels have
contributed to significant reductions in emissions
of local air pollutants from new vehicles. New petrol
vehicles sold in Europe from 2000 onwards (and thus
meeting Euro-3 standards) emit around 90% less
CO, NOx and HC than vehicles sold in the 1980s,
and emissions from new diesel vehicles have also
been reduced significantly. This has contributed to
reductions in local pollutants as newer vehicles with
lower emissions have replaced older, more polluting
vehicles.
In most OECD countries, fleet emissions of NOx,
CO and HC were at their highest levels in the early
1990s. Since then, they have dropped significantly
(by 20-50%), despite a continuous increase in vehicle-
kilometres travelled (+25% between 1990 and 2000).
The overall result illustrates that technological
improvements have made a significant contribution
to improvements in local air quality in most OECD
countries over this period.
The current vehicle emission standards have been
tightened further (Tier 2 in the United States in 2004,
Euro-4 in Europe in 2005 and new long-term regulation
in Japan in 2005). After the programmed introduction
of these new standards (and equivalent standards
adopted in other countries), all new conventional petrol
and diesel vehicles that meet these tighter standards will
be extremely low emitters (and therefore “near clean”)
in terms of local air pollutants.
COWS. Strangely enough while cars have been taking
all the rap other significant sources of pollution have
been quietly excused. Take cows for instance.
The average dairy cow emits 2.5 tonnes of CO 2
equivalent per annum. That’s slightly less than the
average medium sized car. But we have more than twice
as many cows as cars. And while there is every prospect
of a technological solution for reducing our transport
emissions to practically nil in the next 50 years there
is far less scope for optimism surrounding agriculture.
Indeed the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the
United Nations has written a report on the topic entitled
“Livestock’s Long Shadow” which explicitly states:
“The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for
18% of [global] greenhouse gas emissions measured in
CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.”
Not only Greenhouse gas emissions are considered. The
report also looks at the impact on water resources and
biodiversity. Indeed the overall picture is not a pretty
one. So while the mythology of vehicle pollution was
formed in the 1970s when, indeed, car pollution was
terrible, since then vehicles have come a very long way.
Perhaps it’s time we started looking for more deserving
icons of pollution that the family car.
 

Counting for nothing? The automobile,

TDM, and the social value of human bonding
What is the value of visiting grandma? From a purely
materialistic or environmental point of view, the answer
is “none at all”. But that’s not the way we as individuals
or as communities, see it. Grandparents generate a lot of
trips but we have no real understanding of how important
these trips are.
It’s often disparagingly called “our love affair with
the automobile” but what this bit of environmental
monocularism fails to appreciate is the value of the
automobile in the “love economy”. What is the “love
economy”? It’s that part of society’s time and energy
expenditure not devoted to making a return but carried
out for, or out of, love.
Land Transport New Zealand’s Economic Evaluation
Manual has an average value for the economic value of
driving around. For those not involved in work this is given
as around $6.90 per hour while pedestrians and cyclists
time is rated at $4.25 per hour. These figures are used to
determine the value of the time saved through roading
projects to the economy and are based on surveys of road
users own values of their time. But they are silent on the
social value of these trips to those being visited. had no value under traditional metrics. In particular issues
TDM. The topic of travel demand management raises this surrounding the raising of children and care for elderly
question of the social value of ‘bonding” trips between parents have gained attention with occasional, but largely
friends and family members. What is the value of a trip fruitless, efforts to quantify the scale of the love economy
versus a trip deferred? How many telephone conversations generally focussing on volunteerism.
with grandma equate to having a nice cup of tea with LOVE. For the social value of love in the economy is easier
her? And should we price road use so that we make more to assess when we consider its absence. Jennifer Roback
phone calls and have fewer cups of tea? What are the Morse in her book “The Laissez-Faire Family doesn’t work”
implications of putting environmental concerns ahead of uses the example of the costs a orphanage raised, love-
social and mental health ones? deprived, individual.
In the literature the issue of “love economics” has been
The disapproval of others does not deter this child
championed largely by female economists who have been
from bad behaviour because no other person, even
quicker to notice that it is often women who are expected
someone who loves him very much, matters very much
to take on more unpaid work out of “love” than their male
to him. He responds only to physical punishment and
counterparts. Marilyn Waring, for example, in “Counting
for Nothing” pointed out that the entire love economy
continues

Where love is at stake the

value of time increases and
public transport is a poor option
 
The role of the car in the wedding ceremony
demonstrates its symbolic integration into
our love lives. Not too many brides would
accept a “bicycle built for two” substitute.
to the suspension of privileges. . . . He lies if he thinks it
is advantageous to lie. He steals if he can get way with
it. . . . As he grows into adolescence, he may become a
sophisticated manipulator. He can charm therapists, social
workers, counsellors, and later perhaps even judges and
parole officers.
This chilling description of a notional individual seems
remarkably close to so many of those who grace the headlines
in this country. Morse develops the argument that only by an
initial offering of trust by one individual that is reciprocated by
another can a society escape the “prisoners dilemma” where
the pursuit of self-interest fails to bootstrap the society into
a civilisation rather than a chaotic collection of rational but
ultimately bestial individuals.
So why is the car so much a part of the love economy?
TIME.The simple answer is what we know instinctively: where
love is concerned time matters. If a child is sick at school it
matters that a parent can pick him or her up before the end
of the school day. When someone needs a hug it’s not a time
to lecture them on global warming. A car connects one place
with another directly and efficiently without the frustration of
making multiple connections, waiting for buses which are late
or finding change which shopkeepers won’t give. Cars make
connections between people easier than any other form of
transport.
The interesting thing about love however is that it can result
in people paying higher prices. In California tolled express
lanes tend to be used by those who can afford them and
women who will spend any amount of money to get to their
children quickly. When love is tested the notion of rational
self-interest can go out the window. It would be cynical in the
extreme in any road pricing scheme however to exploit such
human vulnerabilities to obtain greater returns.
Our love affair with automobiles is linked to our expressions
of care for one another. Cars gain sentimental value because
of the associations we have with them in relation to other
people. Cars are used to convey love in a far more personal
sense than a telephone can.
Mothers are huge users of cars. Certainly the biggest difference
between the number of cars on the road in the 1970’s and the
number today is that a far greater proportion of women are
licensed and have access to a car. And increasingly mid-day
traffic is boosted considerably by mothers with pre-school
children driving around visiting one another. This is a perfectly
normal response to the pressures of motherhood. Indeed
back in the 1970s when fewer suburban mothers
could escape by driving a great many more ended up
“running to the shelter of mother’s little helper” as the
Rolling Stones put it.
The same is true of the elderly. Medical conditions
can mean older people stop walking before they stop
driving. According to the 1999 Travel Survey visiting
friends was the motivation behind half the trips made
by retirees. Those trips are very important to these
people and arguably prolongs life considerably.
Artificially increasing the cost of those trips simply to
ration the road because they have no apparent value
is discount the value of elderly lives.
And then there is the role of the automobile in New
Zealand mating rituals. For most young people a car
is the first place where they can claim a private space
away from the interruptions of family and friends.
Automobility is also an important part of attracting
a mate in that many young men invest considerable
sums of money in their vehicles, not just to compete
with one another, but also to attract young women.
It is doubtful, if this was a complete waste of money,
that they would continue to do so.
SEVERANCE? For while the car has been accused
of creating “community severance” by breaking up
the neighbourhood village (as visibly evidenced in
47 years of Coronation Street episodes) the car also
brings people together again. Every summer New
Zealanders take to the roads in their millions not just
as tourists but also to visit their friends and family. The
commercial importance of friends and family is what
drives retail advertising in the telecommunications
sector. Instead of being geographical communities
we have become networked communities.
Ultimately the issue is the value of social benefits.
And while we have values for social costs of PM10
emissions, road crashes and the dollar value of the
market economy it is odd that we have no social
benefit value for social connectedness, or indeed
love. Placing any kind of value on it is, to say the least,
highly problematic. But to suggest it has no value at all
would be to completely misunderstand the nature of
transport demand, and, the factors that come to play
when attempting to ‘manage’ demand for it.
 
AA Environmental Survey Results
New Zealanders are very concerned about climate change
but have very little idea what to do about it. This is the
main outcome of the latest AA Membership survey on
the environment.The Survey, carried out in March 2007,
obtained 547 valid responses with a margin of error of
4.55% in a demographic spread closely matching the New
Zealand 2006 census.
The survey found that 3% of AA Members had been
engaged in environmental protests or activism in the past 12
months, and a further 14% subscribed to an environmental
group or Party. In addition 19% had once subscribed to an
environmental group. However 52% had never had anything
to do with environmentalism.
Our first objective was to determine (where possible) where
attitudes had changed and what sort of responses Members
had to concerns about the environment. By repeating our
2002 survey questions on motoring concerns and our 2003
question on car qualities we were able to determine that
a definite shift in attitudes had occurred. Where driver
behaviour dominated the 2002 concerns about motoring
in 2007 this had been eclipsed by investment in public
transport, although driver behaviour, investment in roads
and traffic congestion effects were close behind. Curiously
concern about petrol prices itself was lower in 2007 than
in 2002.
BUYERS. When it came to car qualities, however, economy
and safety tied for first place, closely followed by price,
history etc. In 2003 the main concern was whether a vehicle
was the right size to meet the buyers needs. It is clear
that concerns about the safety of New Zealand’s driving
environment still weigh heavily on buyers minds and may
lead buyers to sacrifice some economy for a better sense
of security.
Asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed to
statements about the environment, the overwhelming
majority (87%) were concerned about humanity’s effect
on the environment. Some 52% disagreed with the
suggestion that the Government was overreacting to
climate change while only 22.3% agreed. A significant
majority (62%) agreed with the suggestion that cars are
bad for the environment. That said 75% couldn’t imagine
giving up their cars; 72% disagreed with the suggestion
that the costs for using cars should be increased; and
71% disagreed with the suggestion that the Government
should stop investing in roads.
A slight majority (55%) agreed they would be prepared
to pay more for a fuel that reduced their Greenhouse Gas
emissions.In terms of general environmental consumerism
the only activity that had widespread habitual support
(89.2%) was rubbish recycling. Using permanent shopping
bags (30%) or buying environmentally friendly goods
(38%) were not widespread habits nor was walking or
cycling to avoid car use (15.8%).
ACTION. In response to carbon emissions the most
popular option for action was to substitute one in five trips
with walking or cycling (67%), then came learning to drive
more economically (60%) and switching to biofuels (58%).
Less popular options were to buy a scooter or hybrid car,
or paying for carbon credits.
The overall picture the survey finds is one of a nation of
people who care about the environment and are willing to
do something but are not prepared to be disadvantaged.
People value their personal mobility far higher than any
notional concerns about the planet. They don’t mind
walking or cycling, but only if convenient. They rely
heavily on their cars and would like to see a better public
transport system available. They are also generally well
disposed to learning to drive more economically and/or
using biofuels.
 
It’s Not Working
Needed - a whole new road safety paradigm
2010 is now only two and a half years away. The 2010 Road
Safety Strategy is to achieve a roading system which kills
no more than 300 people and hospitalises no more than
4,500 others by 2010. As of 5 June 2007 the 12-month
rolling death toll was 401 with data on hospitalisations not
available. This is some improvement on the 461 figure for
2003 when the strategy was published but not much on
the 2002 figure of 405 the year previously.
In fact, despite the 2010 Road Safety Strategy, on an end-of-
April annual basis, for the years 2002 to 2007 there has been
no appreciable change in the road toll at all. The figure has
fluctuated around the 400 mark. Meanwhile hospitalisations
from 2002 to 2006 have climbed from 6,500 to 7,500, well
shy of the 4,500 target. Indeed this, if anything, is more
of an indicator of the failure of the strategy than number
killed which is a more random number.
When the 2010 Road Safety Strategy was first proposed
in 2000 it was based on the notion that we would achieve
year 2000 level of world’s best practice in ten years. Seven
and a half years later and we are now even further behind
world’s best practice than we were when we started.
EVIDENCE. To be blunt so far there isn’t much evidence
that the 2010 Road Safety Strategy has really changed
anything. We still operate a land transport system that
expects to kill 400 people every year and hospitalise 7,500.
Over a decade that’s 4,000 dead and 75,000 hospitalised.
Who takes responsibility for this?
One can hardly blame the “average” motorist. Over the
period the percentage of passengers wearing seatbelts has
improved to around 95%, Rural speeds have come down,
such that in 2006 the fastest 15% travel average 103km/h
while the average speed is 96km/h. The number of drunk
drivers killed has remained fairly static at around 60 per
year. The only good news is that the proportion of the
population killed has reduced as the population (of people
and vehicles) has increased.
IDIOTS. Does this matter? Politically the brutal answer is
probably not. After years of Government propaganda the
voting public (who inherently think they are better than
average drivers) believe road trauma is caused by human
error, by other drivers who are socially irresponsible or not
as good as he or she is. It is in the nature of sharing the
road to get irritated with other road users so it is easy for
motorists to imagine that road trauma is caused by the
“bloody idiots” who vex them so often.
The problem is that not all the drivers who are killed and
injured are bloody idiots. In fact a tour of the Crash Analysis
System with the maps set to differentiate between crashes
caused by speed, alcohol or “other” shows that at least
half of the crashes are caused by factors other than the
traditional “bloody idiot” ones. In fact CAS shows quite
clearly that the causes of road crashes vary considerably by
locale. In some spots crashes are linked to road geometry,
in others fatigue is a recurrent theme, while in others again
alcohol is a significant factor.
Up until recently these factors would have been tackled
piecemeal by various agencies depending on their interest.
Thus engineers would investigate engineering solutions,
police would investigate enforcement solutions and road
safety coordinators would chip in with whatever local
authorities could do. But a new approach has recently been
pioneered by Transit in the Waikato which has shown how
cross-discipline teams can have a far greater impact on
road safety than these uncoordinated efforts.
SWATT 2010. The South Waikato and Taupo Target 2010
project has reduced crash costs by nearly two-thirds for a
200 kilometre stretch of road from Piarere to the Desert
Road Summit. The road had a poor safety record, with 803
reported crashes between 1998 and 2002, 118 of which
were fatal or serious.
 
Transit Waikato manager Alan Burkett started the ball rolling
when he made it a personal mission to improve the safety
performance of this area. The team he ultimately collected
included Police, local authorities, engineering consultants,
academics and even comedians.
The cornerstone of the effort was CAS. It showed what the
problems were. In a lot of places – particularly Taupo and
Tokaroa – fatigue was major factor. In others road geometry
and others again speed and run-off-road problems. The
engineering solutions included: 114km of audible edgeline
(“rumblestrips”); better skid resistance on some curves; and
a new approach to signage on difficult corners. But it was
the social solutions which were novel.
In many parts of the route the myth had developed that
crashes were largely due to through-traffic. CAS however
showed that in fact local drivers were a significant part of
the problem. Getting this through to local people took on
a variety of different forms. One of these was to employ
comedian Mike King to educate mill workers in Tokoroa
during their breaks on fatigue issues. Mr Burkett says this
had the full support of mill management and achieved far
higher message retention rates than more conventional
publicity efforts.
ONE-OFF. Despite a BCR of over 7 SWATT 2010 is a one-
off. Although a lot of lessons have been learned there is no
plan to replicate this approach around the whole country.
And it is unclear from the Next Steps process where safety
will fall in the new Land Transport and Ministry structure.
For there is a tendency for agencies to retreat into the core
business they know so well. Take alcohol for example. The
Police campaigns to target drink-driving have probably
saved 400 lives a year since the worst years back in the
mid-1980s. But reliving this past glory by reducing the
drink-drive limit is unlikely to have much impact. A recent
Herald-on-Sunday article showed that even in Northland
SWATT 2010 deployed 114kms of
edgeline. The cost of applying it to
the entire State Highway network is
relatively low. The benefits enormous.
Police have to stop 2,133 people to get 26 prosecutions.
That’s 2,107 drivers stopped for nothing.
More likely to be effective would be introduce a compulsory
alcohol treatment programme for all those on their second
or third drink-driving offence. Recidivist drink-drivers are
generally alcoholics whose illness costs the country in more
ways than road trauma. Tools such as interlocks are useful
but do not treat the underlying disease. In Sweden the
response has been specialist prisons for alcoholics which
have been successful.
Low cost road treatments can also have a dramatic impact
on road safety. A recent study by TERNZ has found audible
roadmarkings can have a profound effect on two of New
Zealand’s most common accident types: run-off road and
crossed centre line. A benefit-cost ratio of around 14 has
been found for a reasonably high volume section of state
highway. The cost of edgelining most of the state highway
network is small compared to the benefits so there is clearly
much to be gained from applying the technology far more
widely than it has been to date
EDUCATION. Finally the Automobile Association has long
held that road safety authorities have consistently under-
estimated the importance of road user education. Indeed
the focus on road safety education has diminished since the
amalgamation of Transfund and the Land Transport Safety
Authority. The example of “Mike King’s” in-the-workplace
education shows that there is more to getting through to
people than a large television advertising budget.
What SWATT 2010 has shown is that if road controlling
authorities are prepared to take road safety personally
and apply best-practice engineering, enforcement and
education the reduction in trauma can be significant. Now
all we need is a structure that can deliver this on a routine
basis to the whole country.
 
Biofuels – Sustainable fuel?
Before and After. Tropical rainforest “cleaned” (as it is termed there) in Bolivia for soybeans
AA Membership surveys have found that motorists are
generally well-disposed towards the idea of biofuels. The
perception among consumers appears to be that they
are an easy, guilt-free way to do something about climate
change with minimal increased cost and inconvenience.
The reality, however may be something quite different.
There are two main forms of biofuel. Ethanol (alcohol)
distilled from plants, and edible oils, either from plants
or from animal fats. On the 13th of February 2007 the
Government announced it would require oil companies to
increase the quantity of biofuels they sell each year such
that by 2012 they reach 3.4% of total fuel volume (7.25
petajoules). In all cases the biofuels would be blended
with mineral fuels, hence the terminology B5 or E3 refers
to a 5% biodiesel or 3% ethanol blend with mineral fuel.
These appear to be the levels the Government seems to
expect to apply to all fuel sales by 2012.
It was initially thought that this could be achieved by
sourcing biofuels from Fonterra, which manufactures
ethanol as a by-product of casein production, and from
tallow, which is rendered from animal carcasses. There is,
however, no restriction on oil companies on where they
source biofuels to meet this obligation from.
DEFORESTATION. The problem is one of price. Biofuels
in New Zealand are not viable below US$60 a tonne but
Brazil already produces ethanol for US$37 a tonne. The
reason is that producing biofuel requires four main things:
land; labour; sunshine and water. The cheapest land and
labour plus the most abundant sunshine and water is to
be found on Earth’s equator in areas currently covered in
rainforests. And already there are signs that a growing
interest in biofuels in the West is leading to perverse
environmental outcomes.
“ Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of
deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and
Brazil,” Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global
Forest Coalition an environmental NGO based in Asunción,
Paraguay told Interpress Service. Since 2004 Paraguay has
enacted tough anti-deforestation laws in order to preserve
the forests it has left. Other nations are not necessarily so
interested.
It is estimated by the FAO that deforestation is occurring
at 20,000 hectares per day. Since 1999 Palm oil production
in South East Asia has doubled, often through draining
wetlands which then go on to emit hundreds of years worth
of embodied CO2. Although Brazil claims its biofuels are
produced sustainably environmental groups claim that it
has no real control on Amazonian deforestation. While
scientists disagree about the net affect of forest cover in
other parts of the world all agree that tropical rain forests
are a vital global sink for carbon.
Thus the combination of a biofuel sales obligation and
ordinary market economics strongly suggests that the New
Zealand Government could be adding to the problem
of international biofuel demand without necessarily
contributing much to the issue of international biofuel
supply. This raises the whole question of why biofuels are
so attractive in the first place.
UNFCCC. Under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change if one digs up mineral
oil one is not liable for any emissions other than those
associated with refining it. It is not until it is burnt that the
mineral oil is deemed to be released. But if one grows
biofuels they are deemed to be released as soon as they
are harvested. One only has to account for any emissions
if the land is not replanted with more biofuel feedstock
plants. Thus if one imports biofuels one doesn’t have to
account for their emissions at all, because the accounting
must be done in the harvesting nation. Now of course
most harvesting nations are not Annex I or Annex II nations
and have not signed up to reduce their Greenhouse gas
emissions. In other words the Kyoto Protocol itself tacitly
rewards Western nations for replacing their mineral oil
imports with biofuel imports.
The Biofuel Sales Obligation creates an attractive
environment for oil companies to cash in on this loophole.
The Government has imposed a $20-30 million per
Petajoule penalty for each Petajoule the oil companies
fall short of their biofuel sales obligation. The failure to
substitute a petajoule of biofuel for a petajoule of petrol
results in a carbon liability of 67,240 tonnes of CO2e (ie
the burning of a petajoule of petrol). A $20 million penalty
is therefore the equivalent of a carbon price of $297 per
tonne CO2e. This is 27 times higher than the $9.60 per
tonne which the Government uses to account for its own
Kyoto Treaty obligation.
Having created a demand the question is where will the
fuel come from to meet it; New Zealand or international
markets. Hale and Twomey’s “Biofuels Supply Options”
(March 2006) attempted to answer this question.
 
Currently the only industrial producer of biofuel in New
Zealand is Fonterra’s ethanol production from whey. Of
this the report says:
Currently the only ethanol produced in New Zealand is
from Anchor Ethanol, which produces ~ 16 million litres
per annum. Current oil prices landed in New Zealand
would likely attract only about 2-4 million litres of Anchor
Ethanol production to a fuels market because of the
higher realization available for the rest of production.
Anchor’s ethanol production is highly seasonal so this
could be problematic for sales obligations defined as set
percentages of unit sales. Flexibility for Anchor capacity
to process other wastes for a further ~15 million litres
would require investment in handling facilities at site.
Given that ethanol yields 21.2 MJ of energy per litre this
means that 4 million litres of ethanol is only 84.8 terajoules
or 0.084 of a petajoule, well short of the target. However
At current realization some 2-4 million litres of Anchor
Ethanol’s current production could be attracted to fuel
ethanol, although this would still be unacceptable against
the alternative of lactose. For additional production,
i.e. diverting whey from edible lactose production, the
capital and operating costs are about the same for both
lactose and ethanol production, so ethanol would need
to compete against the international price of lactose
(US$800/tonne). This is equivalent to US$1.60/litre of
ethanol (1 tonne of lactose makes 500 litres of ethanol)
New Zealand maize will always be more expensive than Brazilian sugar
PLAYERS. Thus, not only is the volume wrong, so is the
price. But if New Zealand producers are going to enter the
biofuels market they are going to need to start building
plants quite soon. So far the only companies which have
declared a clear interest are Argent Energy, Lanzatech and
Waste Solutions.
Argent Energy is an offshoot of a British biodiesel
manufacturer which has established an office in Mt
Maunganui but has yet to announce the construction of
a biodiesel factory. The British firm has developed in an
environment with a good deal of Government support,
none of which is available in this country.
Lanzatech is a Waikato research and development
enterprise which claims to have developed a biological
process for converting carbon monoxide to ethanol. While
the company has an excellent technical pedigree and a
investor list most firms would give their right arms for it is
not a volume producer of ethanol in any market.
Waste Solutions is Dunedin based company using also
developing biodigestors but its approach is to use
putrifying waste streams. The company has teamed
up with Dunedin district councils for pilot plants. The
company estimates the total ethanol potential of all the
major putrescible waste sources in New Zealand to be 275
million litres/annum (5.8PJ). It is however still, very much,
a research and development firm.
IMPORTS.If the actual availability of biofuels in New
Zealand is not large according to Hale and Twomey the
international market for biofuels is an extremely thin one
as well.
Discussions with market participants indicate traded
volumes of ethanol internationally are around 2.4 bln
litres, of which 1.6 bln litres goes to industrial beverage
markets and the balance 0.8 bln litres to the fuels market.
F.O Licht’s analysis would suggest that virtually all of the
trade flow came from Brazil.That means that as of the end
of 2005 there were only 16.9 Petajoules of fuel based
ethanol traded in the whole world.
Production volumes for biodiesel are much smaller at less
than 5 bln litres. The bulk of production occurs mainly in
the EU and there is little in the way of internationally traded
biodiesel. However like bioethanol the impact of various
policies supporting biodiesel is expected to see strong
growth in biodiesel production as well.
So there was practically no biodiesel market by 2005
either.
But this state of affairs is unlikely to remain for long as
New Zealand is not alone in mandating more biofuels.
According to Hale and Twomey the US will require 4.6%
of fuel consumption to include biofuels by 2012, the EU
has non-binding targets for 5.75% by 2012, and Japan and
Thailand are also setting relatively high targets for 2010.
In other words there will be international demand.
The question then becomes will it be more cost-effective
to develop a New Zealand capability or rely on growing
international supply from places like Malaysia, Indonesia,
and Brazil?
RETURN. The test will come from biodiesel for bioethanol
is simply not in the race. According to Hale and Twomey
even the meanest Northland dairy country is currently
returning $200 per hectare more from dairying than it
would from growing maize. Moreover in “An Estimate
continues
 10
The Government has funded a great deal
of research into the viability of biofuel
production in New Zealand but ultimately its
own business risk exposure is zero.
of the Cost, Energy Ratio and Carbon Balance of Maize
Ethanol in New Zealand ” the author, Dr Henderson,
estimates production of 1PJ of ethanol from maize would
require 9,750 hectares (the equivalent of about 100 dairy
farms). With the current market price ($295/tonne) the
quantity of maize needed to produce 1PJ would cost $34
million. A PJ of petrol at the current importer cost of 77.9
cents per litre currently costs $24 million. This suggests
that maize based ethanol would require either a significant
reduction in the market price of maize or a significant
increase in the price of petrol to be economic.
TALLOW. But to produce biodiesel New Zealand has the
advantage that it already produces 150,000 tonnes of
tallow of which 134,000 tonnes is suitable for biodiesel
production. This is shipped from Bluff (18kT), Timaru (37kT),
Napier (18kT), New Plymouth (18kT), Mt Maunganui (18kT)
and Auckland (25kt). Each tonne of tallow effectively can
be transformed into a tonne of biodiesel.
The logistics question is what size plant or plants to build
and how to integrate these into the diesel supply chain.
This is discussed at length in “Enabling Biofuels – Biofuel
Distribution Options” another Hale and Twomey paper.
Essentially the issue boils down to whether biodiesel is
manufactured centrally or locally and blended with mineral
diesel at the refinery or at oil terminals. Hale and Twomey
calculate the lowest cost option is to manufacture at two
or three $30 million plants and blend at the refinery.
This, of course, is all very well for Government and its
consultants, but there is precious little risk in manufacturing
reports and significantly more in spending real money
to establish a biofuel plant. And the risks and costs are
not necessarily those the Government may want to
consider. For example consent risks may be more than
the Government, which is already struggling with the issue
of consentability in the energy sector, may wish to admit.
Then there is regime change risk. Any investor would like
to think that the biofuel sales obligation would not cease
with the next election. And of course there are commercial
risks. The latest price for edible tallow on the Wall Street
Journal price centre is $900/T which is double the 2006
price and considerably higher than the $700/T upper limit
used by Covec in their 2006 economics study where $700/T
yielded a biodiesel price of 75c/l. The CO2 price on the
EU ETS collapsed months after that study was completed
and this was a large part of the justification for biodeisel.
Mineral diesel import prices have gone from 70c/l to 90c/l
and back down to 77c/l in less than 18 months – making the
competitive price very difficult to assess. And steel prices
(used to assess plant cost) are up between 60-100% in the
Asian region since December 2005 according to MEPS.
Finally, of course, interest rates have increased 125 basis
points since 2005 and show little signs of declining.
RISK. Thus while it is relatively easy for Government
departments to convince themselves that the risk of
investment is worthwhile based on historic data the actual
business of carrying out such investments is somewhat more
fraught. Moreover New Zealand does not have a good
track-record when it comes to private sector investment in
new technology ventures. All too often foreign investors
find our regulations, reluctance to intervene in markets
and local opposition uncompetitive with other nations. The
Government has made much of New Zealand becoming
a centre of research-led development. Biofuels will be
an interesting indicator of the competitiveness of our
sustainability-focused development model compared to
those in Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil.
 11

Emissions trading – means, or end in itself?

She can’t help emitting so under

emissions trading farmers must
pay, one way or another.

The Government has announced that it has begun a process price of the penalties is the limit of the price any market
to rapidly develop a greenhouse gas emissions trading participant will be willing to pay in the market.
market for New Zealand. By August this year it will reveal the It should not be forgotten that carbon markets differ
design it hopes to bring before the Parliament. Outlining the to other markets in that they are a tax on a by-product,
principles the market will The only sanction on New Zealand agreed under the Kyoto not a component
operate under Climate Protocol is an increase in liability in a subsequent commitment of production.
Change Minister David period of 1.3 times the outstanding commitment. For example cows
Parker said it will apply to produce milk and
all greenhouse gases and be applied high in the value chain methane as a by-product. To make money Fonterra needs
to corporates such as Fonterra, electricity generators, oil milk, the permits for methane are a tax on the level of by-
importers and the top 15 industrial emitters. On the other product emissions that implies. In the fisheries market the
side of the balance sheet individual forest owners will also right to a level of quota is a licence to sell fish. Without fish
be able to participate. According to the Minister the regime processors have no product. The equivalent to a carbon tax
will have negligible effect on Gross Domestic Product and in fishing would be a tradable permit system on by-catch.
milk solid payouts. This, according to economists however, Thus the obligation to cover emissions is effectively a tax
can only be so if the price of carbon remains fiscally neutral on production based on the level of by-product created
– i.e less than the level of the business tax cuts. by a given type of technology.
TARGETS. The price, however, depends very much on RESPONSE.To reduce this tax a market participant has
the degree of greenhouse gas reduction the Government three main options: reduce production; improve the
targets in each sector. Were the Government to adopt the technology ; or pay for offsets which mitigate the effects
Green Party’s call to reduce emissions to 1990 levels it is of emission (i.e plant trees). In nearly all cases reducing
highly likely that the price would be ruinously expensive. production also means reducing income so unless the
One cannot fit a size nine (88 kilotonnes CO2e by 2012) market price of carbon has reached 100% of a product’s
carbon “footprint” into a size six carbon “shoe” (62 CO2e marginal profit it is highly unlikely a firm will choose this
kilotonnes in 1990) without a lot of gory amateur surgery. option.
The alternative, of course, to paying the market price, The different markets touched by emissions trading are
is to pay the penalty for not covering emissions with the not equal when it comes to the first option.For example
necessary permits. And ultimately it is the scale of these oil importers can import biofuels which do not count for
penalties which determines the price in the market. For the continues
 12
CO2 emissions almost immediately, while dairy farmers
will have to wait several bovine generations for breeds
which produce less methane, and cement sinters have
only marginal technological improvement options for the
process of burning limestone inevitably emits CO2.
Paying for offsets is effectively an indirect subsidy for
forestry. And it is notable that if New Zealand incorporates
forestry it will be the first carbon market in the world to do
so as the European Trading System (ETS) has no plans to
incorporate sinks in the next (2008-12) containment period.
As an industry forestry relies heavily on low value land and
international demand for logs and paper. With depressed
international log prices in recent times, high land values in
the Southern Waikato have led some foresters to pull out
of the industry (partly because they feared Kyoto charges
for land use change) because better money could be
made selling pretty farms than dark foreboding forests.
Until a value for carbon is established in this market it will
not be possible for foresters to know whether to resume
planting or not.
ALLOCATION.The Government has not yet indicated
how it will allocate carbon permits. In Europe this proved
to be the undoing of the first trial market period when
it was realised that more permits had been issued than
were required in March 2006. This led the ETS price to
fall from €25 tonne to €2 tonne in fairly short order. Under
the ETS permits are allocated by EU nations based on
Kyoto accounting procedures to emitting (large) firms
over a certain size. Allocations for the coming Kyoto
commitment period have already proved vexed with Britain
and Germany (which under the Kyoto Protocol already have
over-allocations of carbon because they have switched to
nuclear and natural gas from coal since 1990) complaining
that the other European nations are continuing to seek
to over-allocate ETS permits in order to shield their
industries from the need for Kyoto cut-backs. Naturally
Britain and Germany wish to see more ETS pressure to
reduce emissions on their neighbours so they maximise
the advantage of their Kyoto based over-allocations for a
better price. And equally naturally they don’t want forestry
in the market because it would spoil their advantage.
Minister Parker has indicated that the Government will
allocate permits to sectors on the basis of previous
emissions less a degree of reduction deemed possible in
each sector. An alternate approach would be to place an
overall limit on the number of permits available, create a
legal obligation to have permits to cover emissions, and
simply auction the permits to the obliged parties. This is
the approach being pursued in Britain and advocated by
the Green Party. Econometrists have, however warned
that such an allocation method would produce significant
disruption to real markets.
How far the Government tightens the screws on various
sectors will depend very much on what it thinks the effect of
doing so will bring. And in effect in doing so it is providing
an indicator of the break-points between “encouraging”
the adoption of less emitting technologies until these
become too expensive and simply purchasing sink credits
from foresters. The tighter the screws become the higher
the effective subsidy to the forestry sector.
For motorists the question is how tight will the screws on
the oil companies be? The fewer permits the oil companies
are allocated the more they will have to buy permits in the
emissions market to cover their fuel sales. The tighter the
permit market becomes, the higher the price, and therefore
the more the incentive for oil companies to either import
biofuels, or pay for forest owners to grow trees. But the
money for permits has to come from somewhere, and
it is inevitable that that “somewhere” will be motorists
pockets.
How much money? That depends on how much the
Government thinks the transport sector can improve its
emissions performance by. It has already set a target for a
technological fix through the Biofuel Sales Obligation. This
requires the substitution of 3.4% of current imports with
biofuels by 2012. If the permit level is higher than this it will
have to come from either offsets or volume reduction.
According to “Impacts of Petrol Prices on Consumption
and Travel Demand – New Zealand Evidence” by David
Kennedy and Ian Wallis it would require something like a
30% increase in petrol prices to obtain a 5% reduction in
total petrol consumption. This is the difference between
petrol at $1.60 and $2.00. But to obtain a 5% reduction in
demand by hiking the price 40 cents a litre would require a
whopping carbon price of about $175 a tonne CO2e. This
simply isn’t going to happen.
For long before the price reaches $175 a tonne someone
will be offering forest sink credits. That’s because a forester
could make $150,000 per square kilometre per year at even
$50 per tonne CO2e. Indeed economic consultancy Motu
has found that a carbon tax of $50 per tonne would prompt
considerable land use change all over the country.
SINKS. And its just as well sink credits are available because
if prices could skyrocket our export sector would be in deep
doo-doo. For a dairy farmer the average cow produces
322kg of milksolid and 2.7 tonnes of CO2e per annum.
Fonterra’s last payout was $4.59 per kilo of milk solids. A
$50 a tonne CO2e carbon price would reduce that by 42
cents effectively reducing average dairy farm incomes from
$126,500 to $114,900, the equivalent of a 10% additional
income tax. At $175 per tonne the milksolid equivalent is
$1.47 per kilo equal to an extra 33% income tax. In other
words without forestry under an emissions trading scheme
gunning for motorists would be a fine way to kill New
Zealand’s leading export industry.
And that is one of the problems with any emissions trading
market. It links a series of industries by a tradable tax on
one common by-product. Normally there is very little that
connects the economics of the aluminium market to the
cement market to the dairy market to the forestry market. A
single emissions trading market now means these industries
will be linked through the taxes levels they pay on one
of their by-products. If one industry creates demand for
permits which hikes the price of carbon all the connected
industries will feel the burn.
There is little doubt that the design of the market announced
by Minister Parker will, indeed, be world leading. It will
cover all gases, all sectors and include sinks. No other
market does that. Indeed it is hard to escape the impression
that having a “world leading” market has to a large extent
 13
been an objective from the outset. Some naively hope that
New Zealand can bootstrap itself to become a centre for
carbon trading. But given that penalties and allocations are
limited by legal jurisdiction and unlike stock markets are
integral to the market price it is rather difficult to envisage
how exactly this would happen. Moreover New Zealand’s
market will always be minute compared to those in major
emitting nations.
LINKS. This raises another issue that has not been
determined: the connection between the New Zealand
emissions trading regime and any other emissions trading
regime: in particular Europe’s. To connect the two regimes
would be in effect to import Euro denominated prices
set by European Union allocation systems into the New
Zealand economy. In other words the tax on dairy farmer’s
methane by-product in New Zealand would be determined
by a combination of international exchange rates and
the dubious politics of EU ETS allocations. In most cases
the firms trading on the ETS are far larger than any which
will trade on the New Zealand system. The only possible
advantage is when, or if, New Zealand returns to a carbon
surplus due to forestry, but the danger is that as a nation
we would end up farming for EU climate change credits
rather than the real economy.
The Government already has an indirect link to the ETS
price through the valuation of its Kyoto obligation on the
Crown Account. The New Zealand treasury commissioned
Geoff Sinclair (LSE) and the Allen Consulting Group to
estimate a financial value of New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol
obligation. Mr Sinclair returned a figure of $9.60 per tonne
CO2e. Although this is now enshrined in New Zealand’s
annual financial statement Mr Sinclair points out that there
is no simple market price for carbon as New Zealand is not
a party to any international carbon trading market.
It should be noted Mr Sinclair explicitly rejects the use
European carbon prices are based on
European currencies, EU targets and
relatively enormous firms - importing
them should only be done with care
of ETS prices (on the grounds they would relatively be
inflated) but the prices he refers back to under the Clean
Development Mechanism are ultimately derived from
companies responding to the ETS price. This is simply
because outside of the EU no entity has an obligation
to purchase credits. In short the price being used is a
derivative of the European market.
It is therefore an interesting question as to how the New
Zealand Government will value its obligation if there is a
domestic price under an emissions trading regime. Will it
use this price or the ETS derivative? It is also an interesting
question as to whether there is really any justification for
the Government to target (through withholding permits)
a domestic market price which is any higher than its own
$9.60/T CO2e obligation value. Why should the cost to the
private economy be more than that to the government?
SANCTIONS.In fact the only sanction on New Zealand
agreed under the Kyoto Protocol is an increase in liability
in a subsequent commitment period of 1.3 times the
outstanding commitment. With no monetary penalty for
non-compliance there is, in fact, no real cost of carbon to
the New Zealand Government. In reality the New Zealand
Government won’t owe any other Kyoto partner a bean if
it fails to meet its commitments under the Protocol.
For the moment however, this remains in the realm of
speculation. After nearly a decade of on-again, off-again
proposals, years of analysis, international conferences (that
have added no end to global emissions), careers built and
consultancies launched the Government has now, at the
11th hour, finally made a decision. It believes what it is
proposing will have no effect on gross domestic product.
Only time will tell. At least it is a decision and (politics
notwithstanding) that can only assist to provide one sorely
needed component to the entire climate change issue: a
little policy stability.
 14

Electric cars, roads and our infrastructure

- can we build it fast enough ?
If the Ministry of Economic Development is correct in
about 23 years time the majority of cars on our roads will
have a choice of three types of fuel: mineral fuel; biofuels
or electricity. The technology shift is already underway.
Already enthusiasts are re-jigging hybrid vehicles with
larger batteries so that they can be recharged as well
as refuelled. And where customers are leading car This is where it begins.
manufacturers are following with plans to make “plug-in” The Chinese-made Xebra
hybrids a reality by the end of this decade. low cost, all-electric car on
The advantage of a fuel-electric drive-train has been the streets of New York.
known since World War Two. At first technology restricted
diesel-electric drive to submarines and ships but this was
rapidly followed by locomotives. Now trucks and cars
are joining the revolution and already manufacturers are
experimenting with the weight and control advantages
one-per-wheel electric-drive motors could have for
vehicle control, safety and efficiency.
But it goes further than shiny new technology. Given
a litre of petrol is the equivalent of 9 kilowatt hours of
electricity the Ministry of Economic Development has
calculated that at 16.7c/KWh the retail cost of operating
a plug-in vehicle is the equivalent of paying only 40
cents per litre for petrol! This includes an efficiency factor
of 25% which is actually relatively conservative as even
electric retrofitting of existing production cars achieve a
better efficiency factor than this.
CHEAPER. If the cost of buying electricity is low the
cost of producing it is even lower. An extra KWh of drive vehicles goes from around 20% to 60% of the national
electricity is estimated (using East Harbour Management fleet. Can we build power stations quickly enough?
Services figures) to be around 6 cents per kilowatt hour. That depends what sort of power stations we want to build.
Thus the cost of producing electricity for transport (by According to the 2006 Energy Outlook:
the same formula) is 13.5 cents per litre equivalent of
“The available evidence suggests there are three forms of
petrol. Not only is electricity a cheaper alternative option
generation – coal, gas, and wind –that are available in large
for consumers than the projected US$60 a barrel for
quantities and cost about the same. They are so similar in
mineral fuels or indeed for biofuels it is also cheaper for
cost that relatively minor changes in assumptions in our
producers. This has significant implications not only for
model can produce very different generation outcomes.
transport but also for energy. It means that there will be
This closeness in costs suggests that government policy
considerable new demand for electric energy from the
could have a great deal of influence over the decisions
transport sector.
that will be made.”
Current annual residential demand for electricity is 45
petajoules or 12.7 Gigawatt hours per annum. Current BASELOAD. It should be pointed out however that wind
demand for petrol is about 100 petajoules and diesel energy does not provide baseload capacity because it is
is another 100 petajoules. However according to MED not reliable. Essentially wind capacity substitutes for fuel
electric drive vehicles are roughly 33% more energy (including water in storage) when the wind is blowing. But
efficient than petrol vehicles. So even if we assume that it can be assumed that motorists will wish to recharge their
half of all vehicles will continue to burn fuel instead of vehicles whether the wind is blowing or not. Essentially it is a
recharging (either because they are too old or too heavy) preferred option at dispatch time but does not contribute to
we are still potentially looking at about 66 petajoules total capacity. The next cheapest form of renewable energy
of additional electricity demand for transport in 23 is geothermal which does contribute to baseload. According
years time. That’s 18.6 Gigawatt hours in electricity to East Harbour Management Services geothermal energy in
terms, or around 50% of today’s total national electricity the 6-8 cents per KWh is a significant resource. The reason
production. it has not been raised however is due to the problem of
Worse, even using MED’s estimated growth rates that gaining resource consents.
demand rises very rapidly over the ten years between The principle constraint on new electricity supply (as
2020 and 2030. During this period it is predicted electric estimated by East Harbour Management Services) was
 15
consentability under the RMA. To date New Zealand has
shown itself to be a relatively benign regulatory environment
for coal, gas and wind but a relatively hostile environment for
hydro and geothermal. Indeed although 3,500MW of new
generation has been installed since 1991 only 17% of that
has been from renewable sources – all wind.
As the RMA National Policy Statement reference group put
it in “The Merits and Potential Scope of National Guidance
on the Management of Electricity Generation under the
RMA”
The Reference Group suggests (based on a review of
recent trends and assumptions about the nature of new
generation projects) that major growth in new generation
might face greater resistance through the RMA processes
than past generation projects have faced. That is partly
because most post-1991 projects have been gas-fired
thermal stations located on or adjacent to existing
generating stations. A shift to coal, to greenfield sites and,
in the case of wind, to more highly valued landscapes,
might result in greater environmental risk (actual or
perceived) and heightened community sensitivity.
RMA. In short the Resource Management Act, a law widely
praised for enshrining sustainability, is the reason most of
our new electricity generation comes from unsustainable and
carbon intensive sources such as natural gas and coal.
The Reference Group ultimately did not agree that a
National Policy Statement would add much value to the
existing environment. This is, perhaps, more a reflection on
the efficacy of National Policy Statements than the need
Wind farms substitute for
stored fuel (water, gas or coal)
used to generate electricity
but do not increase the reliable
capacity of the grid to meet new
demands such as those from
electric vehicles.
for energy sector policy which makes renewable energy
projects more buildable. As the Reference Group itself
points out (p7: What NPSs may and may not contain),
an NPS:
• must promote the Act’s purpose (the promotion
of sustainable management of natural and physical
resources). An NPS cannot be used to promote the
purpose of other legislation or to promote ease of RMA
administration or uniform RMA practices per se;
• cannot be used as a de facto method of changing
or redefining either primary or secondary legislation
(for example they can’t be used to “clarify” particular
sections of the Act in such a way that limits other lawful
interpretations);
In other words the objectives of an NPS cannot
overcome the fact that our predominant planning
legislation is innately inimical to development for the
purpose of economic advancement. Only by sliding new
developments in on the coat-tails of old ones has the
electricity sector managed to add new capacity at all.
Now in addition to its need to keep pace with New
Zealand’s electricity demand the industry is coming under
increasing pressure to provide to do so in a manner
which does not involve environmental impacts that are
perceived to be negative at both a local and global
level. For although projects may actually have positive
environmental consequences what is killing them is the
continues
 16
perception that they don’t, stirred up by those who have
objected to new generation and transmission lines but have
failed to stop projects based on existing sites.
PARALLELS. The growing contradiction between the
objectives of Government energy policy, the legislation
as it is used, and the objectors will seem all too familiar to
those watching progress in the road construction sector.
In this sector the costs associated with development
are becoming very high indeed compared to those of
similar projects in other jurisdictions. So much so that the
Government appointed a task force to find out why it is
that despite spending ever increasing sums of money on
construction so little is built so slowly by comparison to
other nations.
The Ministerial Advisory Group on Roading Costs was
created because the Government is beginning to recognise
that a development process which has failed to deliver on
plans which are now 50 years old (in some cities) is actually
an enormous waste of money. As other nations deliver
larger transport projects quicker and for significantly less
the unsettling truth is about New Zealand high costs is
beginning too obvious to ignore.
Interestingly the Advisory Group (which reported back in
August 2006) has not called for a National Policy Statement
for transport but a land transport planning document which
fits between the principles outlined in the New Zealand
Transport Strategy (NZTS) and the National Land Transport
Programme.
GAP. The Advisory Group believes that there is a strategic
gap between the NZTS and existing strategic and planning
processes that needs to be filled. The development of
a national strategy for land transport, together with a
more detailed roading strategy, is required to provide
better direction for the agencies, with clearly defined and
measurable national objectives against which roading
projects can be evaluated. This framework would enable
better alignment in the planning and decision-making
processes between the agencies and regional and local
government. The strategies would take account of the urban
planning context and the roading network considerations
that will influence all major roading projects in the future.
The “next steps” review of governance structures in land
transport following upon the report has led to yet another
large-scale restructure in the sector - the third in six years.
But the big question not included in its terms of reference
of the review team was whether the New Zealand Transport
Strategy, the Resource Management Act and the Land
Transport Management Act are as much part of the problem
as the structures under review.
CONFUSION. As more than one observor has noted the
MAG report recommendations differ to the outcomes of the
“Next Steps” review. The “Next Steps” recommendations
increase Government’s control over transport purchasing
agencies but do not seem to address core issues over
value for money and the workability of transport and
environmental legislation found by the MAG to have caused
cost escalation.
For example as the MAG report noted the Zealand
Transport Strategy does not provide for the kind of trade-
offs needed when investing in transport. Its aim is to meet
all economic, social and environmental objectives. This
is scope change at its very core.Until the advent of the
NZTS transport’s sole objective was to provide a safe and
efficient land transport system. To add on new social and
environmental objectives and not expect costs to increase
is somewhat optimistic. Had there been more consultation
on this foundation strategy (as there have been with the
Energy Strategy) such issues might have been ironed out,
 17
but in the effort to establish the strategy the NZTS was
never exposed to this sort of public scrutiny.
But the real problem goes beyond the shortcomings of the
New Zealand Transport Strategy, the consent-ability issue
in the energy sector or even the Resource Management
Act. The problem is one of a lack of integration.
INTEGRATION. The New Zealand Government has not
connected the dots between the implications of migration
policy, efficiency and effectiveness of local government,
economic policy, land prices, energy policy, climate
change policy, and transport planning. During the 1980s
“reforms” government adopted a philosophical mindset
that “development” was a task for the private sector,
and set about readying all its development agencies for
sale. Ultimately many sales never happened but the legal
framework was enacted. This draws no distinction between
government owned state owned enterprises (be they Transit
New Zealand or TransPower) and a private company. The
whole notion that there is a level between macroeconomic
settings, and microeconomic behaviour, in the form of
national development agencies was effectively lost.
Now government is beginning to realise that national
competitiveness does rely on competitive infrastructure and
that in a nation as small and as isolated as New Zealand
the government has a crucial role in enhancing national
productivity. The problem is the philosophy that underpins
the legal framework has gone but the laws remain.
There is a serious need for the Resource Management Act
1991 objectives under sections 5 and 6 to be amended.
Instead of Sustainable Management section five should
Auckland’s congestion is
simply a symptom of a
deeper malaise - a lack of
integrated planning
Section five of the RMA should adopt the UN’s
more anthropocentric definition of sustainable
development while section six be amended
to allow for a whole-of-government National
Development Plan as a matter of national
importance.
refer to the UN defined notion of Sustainable Development.
This would essentially make the Act anthropocentric
instead of ecocentric and allow for development which was
sustainable rather than focus on management of natural
and physical resources. Moreover there is a need for the
Government to incorporate under section six reference
to an agreed national development plan as a matter of
national importance. This national development plan
should be a whole of Government plan for the delivery of
specific infrastructural outputs to achieve specific goals by a
specific time. Components of the plan should be required
to meet National Environmental Standards and National
Policy Statements.
The gap between the rate of change in the private sector
transport market and the provision of infrastructure has
been growing steadily. That gap will become increasingly
expensive by 2030 when electric cars may well be 30%
of the fleet. There is time to do something about it but
every year that we drift on, making do with what we have
will cost us more and more productivity, and ultimately
competitiveness.
 18

Protection or opportunity
The Government is developing 50-year transport and energy strategies
to be its lasting legacy. But do they take political cycles into account?
It comes down to this: do New Zealanders want Government
Provence may seem
to provide opportunities or do they want it to provide
idyllic but it is proudly
protection? This is the question that underpins all others
nuclear powered.
as the Government asks “where are we going in 10,25 or
50 years?”
For over the past 12 months Government has been asking
itself about transport policy, energy policy, climate change
policy, and road safety. Each has had exhaustive consultative
documents, chock-full of high-level information making just
reading them a major under-taking. Put together, however,
the issues of energy and transportation largely define
what sort of nation we can potentially become in the 21st
century.
Taking a step back to look at such major issues, rather than
scurrying around the three-year political cycle like mice
on an exercise wheel, is always a useful endeavour and
the Government should be commended for encouraging
all sectors to undertake this kind of review. It does not
happen often enough. But it is one thing to encourage
thinking and yet another to encourage public debate. For
despite the effort put into obtaining a mass of views few
of these exercises have demonstrated a process which anthem) and – from its economic indicators - achieves it as
results in a debate. The suspicion becomes that like so well. And while our retiring middle class may aspire to some
many consultative efforts those consulting already have a kind of Peter Mayle lifestyle “en Provence”, in fact, France is
view of what they are going to do anyway. as much a nation of superhighways, aerospace industry and
CONSENSUS. And while nobody can argue with the need nuclear power as it is one of 4-day working weeks, lavender
for leadership, the more these issues are discussed the fields and curious cheeses. The French, like the Japanese,
clearer it becomes that there is a great need for a broad treasure their traditions and countryside but keep pressing
political consensus on development. Such a consensus the accelerator of progress flat to the floor.
cannot be achieved by a few officials doing sums in In these cases, plus others like Ireland or Finland, there is
Wellington. It requires a better understanding of the deeper a clear distinction in the popular mind between national
economic and political drivers at work in this country. pride in nature, and national pride in development.
For officials should know (by now) that politics trump This is the difference between foreign notions of
analysis every time. By its nature analysis is based on sustainable development – where the emphasis is still
assumptions but if these are out of step with the electorate very much on development – and the RMA’s emphasis on
the analysis will not survive one electoral cycle let alone sustainable management, where the focus nationwide is
a dozen. To project into the future not only do we need on conservation.
to look at the physical realities of changing technologies CONFLICT. As such the RMA merely reflects New Zealand’s
and international economics we also need to look at the inner conflict. We want to take pride in our natural
political tides which underpin the assumptions on which environment. Under the Act five nesting dotterils can hold
our analysis is based. up a multi-million highway while five hundred nesting
Thus, it is not sufficient to blame our failure to build new dotterils being disturbed by dogs and small children next
energy or transport infrastructure over the past decade and to a holiday camping ground are ignored. The Act is about
a half on the vagaries of the Resource Management Act protection not development. But like it or not development,
1991. The Resource Management Act did not come from like growth, is key to maintaining our lifestyle.
nowhere. It may place emphasis on subjective objections It all comes down to our balance of payments, i.e the
but it is not in itself the source of those objections. Those value we buy from the world and the value the world
objections come from a deeper well in the psyches of this buys from us. The more we consume without producing
generation of New Zealanders. commensurate exports the more we ultimately end up
How do we know this? Well, mostly by contrast. Although borrowing from the rest of the world to pay for it all. While
similar Australian culture is far more comfortable with the Government or public international debt is now at a very
notion of progress (its even written into their national low level compared to GDP, our private international debt
 19
The 2.5km long Millau
viaduct over the river Tarn.
Built for NZ$631 million and a
lasting source of French national pride
is at shockingly high levels. As of December 2006 New
Zealanders net international liabilities were $143 billion
against a GDP of $125 billion. Worse the high levels of
international private debt have mostly been to borrow for
the privilege of owning property ($142 billion) that we used
to own previously (without as much foreign borrowing),
or to buy consumer goods from overseas ($4 billion
outstanding on credit cards as at December 2006) which
are depreciating through technological acceleration at an
ever increasing rate.
BUDGET. If this continues it cannot end well. Ultimately it
can only lead to greater foreign ownership of our country
and increasing impoverishment of our people. The
Government’s budget 2007 is, aimed at addressing these
issues. First it is attempting to improve New Zealanders
savings rate (reducing the need for offshore borrowing)
through the Kiwisaver scheme, and it is investing in
improving New Zealand’s productivity by investing in much
needed infrastructure. If there is any quibble with such
measures it is only that they are long overdue.
But what the Budget can’t do is get through to New
Zealanders that the fundamental problem at the heart of
our culture is that we think we can get rich without building
anything. This is based on reminiscences of the 1960s
when New Zealand was among the world’s most wealthy
nations on a per capita income basis and its environment
was apparently unsullied. We were rich and “clean and
green” without even trying.
But take away the rose-tinted spectacles and it soon
becomes apparent New Zealand was only relatively wealthy
because the rest of the world was only just recovering from
the most destructive period of warfare in human history.
And our environment, while unsullied by Giardia or Didymo,
was still being cleared of bush and swamp and being
regularly doused in huge quantities of organochlorides.
Even after Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” there remains
a national conspiracy not to mention anything that might
sully our national image.
MYTH. Much of the national self-image founded at
this time is pure myth. In fact the 1950s and 60s were a
period of rapid expansion for New Zealand, both in terms
of infrastructure and industry. And it was this period of
expansion and development which funded the childhoods
of the baby-boomer generation as they grew up. However
like all self-obsessed teenage generations the boomers were
oblivious to this and found fault with their “development-
crazed” forebears eventually galvanising the nation with the
“Save Manapouri Campaign”. This was the most popular
expression of conservation over development during the
1960s – incidentally delivering Labour the 1972 election
after 12 years of Holyoake’s National government.
Thirty-five years later, older and wiser, and the baby-boomer
generation has begun to recognise the importance of
generating wealth. But to maintain its integrity with its
political origins this has become “economic transformation”.
This vague term effectively means generating more value
while reducing our impact on the environment. It’s about
all the clichés of “working smarter not harder”, being
“sustainable” and all those good things which nobody can
argue with, but which are embraced more enthusiastically
by officials in Government than they are by industry.
continues
 20
This notion of economic transformation is what is
underpinning the National Energy Strategy and the
transport strategy revision. And while it is good to look
ahead it is difficult to have too much faith because to date,
our officials haven’t done the economic “vision thing”
particularly well. Indeed New Zealand’s development seems
to have been driven forward while looking in the rear view
mirror as other nations zoomed past.
STRATEGY. During the 1980s Japan demonstrated that
a nation with a relatively coordinated, research-driven,
export-oriented, economic policy and a huge pool of
domestic savings could readily compete with open,
consumer-oriented economies such as those in the United
States and Europe. New Zealand spent the 1980’s and
early 1990’s engrossed in extracting itself from the debt
and energy intensive, political-economy of “Muldoonery”
(as The Economist termed it) through the somewhat naïve
Rogernomics-era of state amateur auto-neurosurgery and
corporate kleptocracy when merchant bankers bought their
own fiefdoms from the state.
As Japan’s economy faltered in the 1990s (essentially
drowning in money), smaller nations such as South Korea,
Singapore, Taiwan, Ireland, Finland and to a lesser extent
Malaysia, Thailand, Denmark and Israel, followed the
Japanese formula and found (after tweaks to attract foreign
multinational direct investment) it worked very well for
them too. While these nations developed industries New
Zealand’s high growth in the late 1990s came from importing
800,000 new citizens, mostly from Hong Kong and Asia. Of
course we weren’t ready for was their demand for roads
to drive on or energy for their homes and businesses, so
Shanghai, home of one fifth of the world’s
construction cranes. The mega-economies of China
and India will re-balance economic power away
from Europe and North America over the 21st
century. As an economic culture we have not fully
come to terms with this new reality.
Auckland has experienced on-going transport and power
failures. Would we have done better if a 20-year energy
strategy or a 40-year transport policy had been written in
1990? It’s impossible to say.
FARMING. Where we have been deliberately successful is
in expanding our agricultural marketing into Asia. Demand
for food, and in particular quality food, has kept our
agricultural prices relatively high. Nevertheless this is a far
cry from the low-carbon high-knowledge economy sought
in “economic transformation”. Agriculture is inherently
energy and transport intensive whether the goods being
exported are low or high margin. And while the British may
rail about “food miles”, their once crucial market is being
eclipsed by the stampede to provide goods and services
to Asia, and in particular, China.
For today the Chinese “Dragon” economy (which has been
bootstrapping itself since the mid-1970s at the astonishing
rate of over 8% per annum) has become dominant
everywhere and there is now every indication that China’s
economic power will eclipse that of the United States by
the middle of this century. India’s growth too, though not as
spectacular indicates that this mega-economy too is going
to catch up with the first world sometime this century.
For the average New Zealander the emergence of these
mega-economies has simply meant huge reductions in
the price of clothing and consumer durables. Only now
are we beginning to see the slow collapse of domestic
manufacturing as the Asian ‘black hole” sucks in enterprises
which until recently could afford to employ New Zealanders.
Eventually this too will include information based industries
as Chinese and Indian engineers and artists bring their
 21
formidable talents to bear in cyberspace.
This brings us back to the question of New Zealand’s best
long-term strategy and what that means for investments in
energy and transport today. For either it will be transport
and energy intensive or it won’t be. And the questions we
have to ask ourselves are what futures are we excluding
today because we have developed a kind of national
consensus against them?
NUKES. Whaling and nuclear energy are easy examples
of this cultural decision-making. New Zealanders have very
little general interest in resuming whaling or exploring
nuclear energy options. We have reached a reasonably
strong nation-wide consensus that we just aren’t “that sort
of nation”. Of course, these are relatively trivial examples
economically speaking. Whale meat is hardly a burgeoning
market (even in Japan it reminds people of wartime
rationing) and nuclear power is uncompetitive against our
other energy options anyway. But there are less obvious
examples of futures foregone because “we aren’t that sort
of nation”.
Minerals are a perfect example of this. Where Australia
is mining its mineral wealth as fast as Chinese buyers
can write cheques New Zealand’s minerals remain largely
buried under our “iconic” landscapes. GNS Science has
conservatively estimated that New Zealand has at least
NZ$86 billion worth of metallic mineral resources in known
and undiscovered deposits. Moreover, some of our non-
metallic minerals are valuable, niche materials such as
zeolite, perlite and diatomite. They can earn valuable
export revenue and some can be used as the base for
developing innovative materials such as sophisticated
New Zealand has mineral wealth
on a very significant scale but
we would rather import the
results of other’s mining than
dig up our landscape.
ceramics. It would be possible to build roads and ports
to extract them. With the right legislative and investment
climate, the minerals sector had the potential to grow from
12,000 to 20,000 regional jobs and from $1 billion to $2
billion in annual turnover GNS estimated in 2000.
THAT SORT OF NATION. The problem: most of these
minerals are in our National Parks and we don’t want to
dig them up. Why not? It doesn’t stop the Australians. It
is because as a nation we have developed a view about
mining, particularly in National Parks, which means that we
just don’t do it. We aren’t “that sort of nation”.
What about genetic engineering? The Royal Commission
on Genetic Engineering did a sterling job in examining
the potential risks, rewards and cultural issues involved in
employing the technology. Its findings exploded myths and
provided valuable insights into the future of agriculture,
forestry and medicine. And yet despite the millions it
spent in patient analysis its views were totally eclipsed
by a tiny minority spouting the same Luddite phrases the
Commission had dismissed. The hysteria over “corngate”
only added to the impression that GE is a political non-
starter. Once again political passion trounced informed
debate.
Currently there is limited political or economic interest in
minerals or GE. But consider coal. New Zealand has about
700 years worth of coal, mostly in Southland. Coal is one
of the cheapest potential sources of energy there is in New
Zealand for both electricity, and from about 2030, transport
and has to be considered a serious energy option. It is also
very dirty. One of the big questions in the National Energy
continues
 22
The disconnect between liberal indulgence of protest and demand
for a better standard of living is based on a deep sense of civic alienation.
Strategy is, “is New Zealand a nation that ‘does coal’”? Or
do we, like the billions of dollars worth of minerals, buried
under our national parks, just leave it in the ground? Are
we “that kind of nation”?
The National Energy Strategy process certainly asked the
question. But in the context of the political environment
it is hard to interpret it as anything other than rhetorical.
For it seems clear that the current “consensus” is that New
Zealand is not a nation that “does coal”.
WHO SAYS? But let’s look more closely at where this
“consensus” comes from. In almost every case it starts
with a small and determined group with strong views. This
group of activists carries out newsworthy actions in order
to draw attention to its concerns and generally simplifies
complex issues down to easily remembered slogans. The
activists begin a symbiotic relationship with the media
who are naturally drawn to the drama of the conflict.
Thus journalists end up reporting the protests of activists
and then balancing these against the pronouncements
of “the establishment”. The public is then invited to
adopt a middle position between the activists and the
establishment. Through repetition this process hauls the
rest of the community along to the activists point of view.
Over time it tends to mean that the so-called consensus
view in New Zealand is only slightly more conservative than
that of activist groups.
Is this the kind of process that will deliver an energy and
transport strategy which will allow New Zealand to maintain
a sustainable economic position as the mega-economies
of China and India come to dominance? Is it the kind of
process that will deliver a country with improving terms
of trade?
WHO LEADS? Because if we aren’t going to “do coal” what
are we going to do? Natural gas? Arguably less sustainable
than coal. Hydro? Not consentable. Geothermal? Not
consentable either. Bioenergy? Currently uneconomic
except as a by-product. Wind doesn’t count because it isn’t
reliable. Tidal? Still experimental. Nevertheless demand is
growing, and from 2020 may grow very quickly indeed. We
seriously need a consensus on what kind of environment we
want and how much energy we need because we cannot
rely on Greenpeace to manage our energy needs over the
next few decades for us.
Then there is transport. Even as we move to spend huge
catch-up sums on transport costs escalate and Green Party
pressure increases for more public transport systems and
less roads.
The public has bought the need for better public transport
but remains sceptical about the “less roads” part of the
equation. It is easy to see why people like the idea of public
transport. Most New Zealanders travel. When they do, they
see public transport systems that meet their needs and
remove the stress of driving in a foreign city. Because fares
rarely meet the full cost of P.T systems tourists find them
inexpensive and convenient and think how nice it would
be to have one back home.
The difference is between being a tourist and living abroad.
In most places long term residents want a car. Back in New
Zealand 90% of the population don’t use public transport,
nor do they intend to. Even in Wellington with the highest
PT share in the country the commuter share is only 23%
- leaving 77% to other modes. And commuting is declining
in its share of total trips. Do we want to spend 50% of our
transport funds on 10% of the trips? This is where the public
 23
New Zealanders notions of
development are based on
dog-in-the manger politics
(sometimes shamefacedly) votes with their wallets for the
car, but votes in opinion polls for public transport and then
sit in their cars cursing the congestion!
CONFIDENCE. The problem with all of these issues of
consensus is a general fear of foreign opinion. We fear
the British may think less of us for not being committed
to climate change and boycott our cheese. We fear the
Germans may not maintain their myth of New Zealand as
a South Pacific paradise and stop visiting. The only people
we don’t mind annoying are the Americans and Australians
– even as we emigrate to their nations in ever increasing
numbers to seek fame and fortune! Despite this back home
we nervously ask tourists their opinion of our country and
flinch at every criticism. By contrast the Australians and the
French can’t imagine why tourists wouldn’t come.
Thus we have a cultural conundrum. New Zealanders seek
reassurance from the good opinion of other nationals.
The media rely on activists for material. Business and
Government need the approval of the populace to get
consents. The populace is concerned about its own
welfare but is happy to waste the money of business and
Government. Politicians need the populace and the media
to be elected. All of this puts activists in the box seat to set
the national consensus and waste the money of business
and government – hence “scope change” in transport and
project frustration in energy.
OPPORTUNITY. The fundamental failure of communication
is that New Zealanders appear to be alienated from notions
of development and opportunity. They generally see
development as something that enriches a few by taking
away those natural or cultural benefits that they previously
got for nothing. This leads to “dog-in-the-mangerism”. The
tendency to use planning law to extract maximum benefit
from those who would develop.
Law changes that simply make development easier will not
alter this fundamental alienation. What is needed is not
only better law but a greater sense of national opportunity.
A sense that opportunity is not restricted to newcomers
or robber barons but one that is in our air, as it is in the
United States.
And ultimately this comes down to our philosophy of
government. Since its establishment government in
New Zealand has swung between philosophies that
stress government-for-protection and government-for-
opportunity. Under a protection oriented government
regulation increases and the wings of the powerful are
clipped. Under an opportunity oriented government
regulation is relaxed and to date, a favoured few make
fortunes. Neither is associated with any one political party.
The 1984 Labour government saw itself as a government-
of-opportunity while the 1978 Muldoon government was
a government-of-protection.
Politically protection is welcomed at first, but as its coils
strangle opportunity it quickly wears out its welcome – just
as it did in 1984. Long-term New Zealanders need a greater
sense of opportunity and less need for protection. This is
essential because no amount of protective legislation will
maintain our balance of payments in a world dominated by
the mega-economies of China and India. And if we don’t
become a nation of entrepreneurs and opportunists we
will end up a nation of wreckers, living beyond our means,
and forlornly trying to lure investors on to the hidden shoals
of our planning laws.
CYCLICAL. There are already signs today that the tide of
political mood is turning. Just as the public appetite for
opportunity replaced protection in 1984, and protection
replaced opportunity in 1996, so now the era of protection-
led government is coming to the end of its 12-year
electoral cycle. This does not have to mean a change of
ruling coalition as Jim Bolger demonstrated in 1996. It
does however mean that the electorate is beginning to
feel more frustrated than protected by protection-oriented
legislation and is seeking to remove the self-restraints to
opportunity.
It is probable that this transition will create a new form of
consensus although it is difficult to know what form it will
take. The anti-nuclear consensus has survived numerous
changes in government and the activist-media symbiosis
is unlikely to dry up quickly. Environmental protection is no
five-minute wonder.
However whoever wins the 2008 election will need to be
very mindful that the public seeks change and it will need
to be more than cosmetic. It is unlikely that a series of
strategies and plans that don’t recognise this transition will
survive much past 2008, let alone until 2050.
 24
From MAG Report to Next Steps
Is taxpayer value-for-money still driving the process? Give
MAG Report Findings (August 2006)
The roading sector has been subject to much change
in recent years. The introduction of the New Zealand
Transport Strategy (NZTS) and the Land Transport
Management Act 2003 (LTMA) in particular have
established far wider transport objectives.
Several of the case studies commissioned by the
Advisory Group indicate that changes in project scope
through the investigation, design, and, to a lesser
extent, construction phases have been the major
contributor to increased cost forecasts.
The Group noted that time pressures appeared to be
a major factor in the ready acceptance of increases
in project scope; in order to overcome potential
opposition to a project. It would have expected a more
robust process of scope evaluation, similar to that
demonstrated for some other smaller projects.
While commending the objectives of the NZTS and the
LTMA, the Advisory Group considers that to achieve
value for money, there needs to be a strengthening
of the focus on cost efficiency in the evaluation of
projects.
The Advisory Group believes that there is a strategic gap
between the NZTS and existing strategic and planning
processes that needs to be filled. The development of
a national strategy for land transport, together with a
more detailed roading strategy, is required to provide
better direction for the agencies, with clearly defined
and measurable national objectives against which
roading projects can be evaluated.
The Advisory Group also recommends that value-for-
money indicators should be incorporated into the
performance monitoring system. Land Transport NZ
should take an enhanced role in evaluating major
projects and monitoring scope and cost. Collaborative
leadership in an environment of partnership between
the Ministry of Transport (the Ministry) and the transport
entities is also essential.
Ten-year forecast maintenance expenditure levels have
been increasing significantly faster than inflation since
2003/04 for both local roads and state highways. The
reasons for increases in forecast expenditure primarily
relate to higher forecasts of heavy commercial vehicle
growth.
If you are interested in responding to the Advocate, or joining our circulation list
please email AA Research Editor, Peter King (pking@aa.co.nz)
Next Steps Findings (April 2007)
This Report concludes that a lack of sector collaboration
and integration underpins many of the issues present
in the sector. The lack of role clarity, sector leadership,
and common expectations about how the sector should
engage has helped perpetuate a fragmented sector
culture.
More explicit guidance on the Government’s funding
priorities would be provided for the land transport sector
through two published documents: “Implementation of
the New Zealand Transport Strategy” - currently under
development by the Ministry and due in March 2008;
and a Government Policy Statement with a six year
outlook and a three-yearly update process;
All land transport plans would be produced every three
years rather than annually;
Regional councils, probably through their Regional Land
Transport Committees, would become responsible for
prioritisation of all land transport activities, including
State highways, within their Regional Land Transport
Programmes; separate consideration could be needed
for Auckland; and
All consultation on activities that would be funded
through the National Land Transport Programme would
take place at regional level.
All revenue raised from Fuel Excise Duties would be
directed into the National Land Transport Fund - this
would usefully demonstrate to road users that road
charges are being used for, or match the level of
transport investments.
The Review … on balance .. recommends the more
significant structural change to disestablish Land
Transport NZ and Transit NZ as separate agencies and
merge their new functions into a new statutory Crown
entity (which would retain the statutorily independent
functions currently held by Land Transport NZ).
A Few Questions
Will this structure make the necessary changes to stop the
scope-creep issues raised by the MAG report?
How will local communities influence road construction in
their areas between 3-year cycles? Via their MP?
How will national organisations be consulted on national
safety issues such as state highway edgelining?
How will Regional Councils be accountable for local
roading issues?