Trains and Rail

It might seem silly to think of this as an election issue, but trust me, it is. If you need some convincing, here is the reason you should care about this in one paragraph.

The Government spent $690 million (including associated costs) to buy back the existing New Zealand rail infrastructure earlier this year - this is after it was privatised in the 90's. Rail has always made a loss in New Zealand. We're very hilly, we're long and for the last 50 years petrol has been cheap enough that trucks were the most effective method of getting goods from Point A to Point B. This however, is changing. Petrol prices are up, as are labour costs and a train can move the equivalent of 60 trucks worth of goods for a third of the energy. From both an environmental and business point of view, rail is a great option for moving goods. Unfortunately, there has been a significant amount of neglect inflicted upon our network over the past 15 years and in order to get the newly formed KiwiRail working well and to capacity, it needs to be upgraded - to the tune of about $400 million.

So, to put it in a sentence - you should care because it cost us a lot, because it's good for the environment and it's probably the most cost effective method of moving goods around the country.

The main things I looked for when researching this article were

• How does the Party regard the recent acquisition of KiwiRail and would they keep it if they got power?
• Does the Party recognise the "green potential" in rail?
• Is the use of rail as a form of public transport in centres such as Auckland and Wellington addressed?

The biggest problem I have with Labour right now is the fact that all their policies on their website are for 2005. Obviously once they get updated we'll update our articles but for now we'll report on what they promised to do last time.

Looking at their Transport Policies, Labour have pledged to upgrade rail networks - particularly the Auckland rail network. They've also invested heavily in the Wellington network - and, of course, they bought the rail back in the first place.

Labour are committed to using the rail network so I'd say their next set of policies will involve keeping the network in the hands of the public and to keep pouring money in for upgrades and perhaps even some extensions.

Try as I might, National doesn't mention anything about the railroads within policy. Points to remember here however - National was the party who sold our rail overseas in the first place in order to grant tax cuts back in the 90's. They then didn't regulate maintenance of this infrastructure, effectively letting it fall into a state where it's going to cost $200 million to fix. While John Key has said there will be no asset sales in the first term, rail is a target for asset sales which would be quite a step backward given how much it could make in the future, how much it cost to buy back and how good it is for the environment (not to mention the pressure it takes off our roads). To keep things in perspective, the NZHerald has reported this interesting John Key quote:

"National's made it clear we won't be selling assets in our first term," he said on Radio New Zealand. "If there's any change to that position ... we will go and seek that mandate by going out and asking the voters of New Zealand whether they support a particular policy or not."

New Zealand First has quite a cracker of a Rail Policy. Simply put, they figure now that we have them, we should keep them (making it impossible for the tracks to be sold at any point in the future), ensure that the tracks are maintained, and provide an incentive for companies to use them as a means of shipping.

As you might imagine, the Greens have a high level of support for rail infrastructure which is outlined in their Transport Policy. They would like to see more people travelling between centres by rail (although, as an environmentally-conscious voter myself I'm not even entirely sure I could do the 12-hour (if you're lucky) journey between Wellington and Auckland ever again), but also want to drastically increase funding via a moratorium on new motorways or highways. The Greens state they'd like 'integration' of public transport but don't indicate what that means or how that stacks up for city rail systems.

The Maori Party lacks in policies so I went on a hunt to see what kind of statements they've made in the past. There's this fantastic speech from Pita Sharples about how rail can be used to decrease Auckland congestion. No mention on how rail can be used in the transport of goods or it's green potential.

Peter Dunne is going to hold onto the rail network. He's said, quite recently, that "We do not support asset sales as we believe the majority of New Zealanders, having experienced the rash of such sales in the 80's and seen their consequences, do not want to see more taxpayer-owned enterprises flogged off".

As far as what they want to do with the rail network, United Future mention it in two of their policies - the Transport Policy and the Business Policy. United Future want to investigate the possibility of competition on the rail network and they "support the continued use and upgrading of commuter [...] rail" - although they don't say exactly how they're going to "support" it.

United Future make mention of improving the rail infrastructure and will give priority to areas where "rail investment constraints are holding back economic growth and development". They do not seem to consider the environmental aspects of rail.

Act are all about tax cuts. One look at their website and "20 Point Pledge" shows that, so I did some more digging and found this speech by Rodney Hide in reaction to Michael Cullen's tax cut announcement earlier this year. A particularly interesting part of the speech is below (I've added the emphasis).

The only thing that is a bit disappointing is the fact that the tax cuts are a bit small - but it is a long way for Dr Cullen to come in order to give us a tax cut.

I will, however, pick up on a point that Dr Cullen made and that the Prime Minister referred to. It was about how, when times were getting tough, the National Government sold assets. But the Labour Government — and apparently this is a good thing — has bought back assets. That is to say, it has taken assets held in private hands and brought them in to be owned by the Government.

The example that we have here is rail. We heard Dr Cullen say that buying back rail was great because Kiwis wanted to use rail. Well, the interesting thing about that is that if that is the test of what the Government should buy back, what would we leave to be run by the private sector?

If the fact that people wanted to use services is the justification for State ownership, we should perhaps buy McDonald's, Woolworths, and Foodstuffs New Zealand. Of course, if Kiwis did want to use rail and pay the price, how come the Government has had to step in and buy it? And I ask Dr Cullen how smart it is to take $665 million of taxpayers' money and give it to Australia — to the Australians? How does that make New Zealand richer? By taking $665 million from Kiwis and giving it to Australians, the only thing that has changed is that the railway now supposedly belongs to the Government.

I'll let you decide how to take Mr. Hyde's comments.

RELATED LINKS
Steel backbone to an economic lifeline (New Zealand Herald, 09/08/2008)