This week showcased the unfortunately strong case for depoliticising political decisions.
First, a group of politicians in Cabinet made a regrettable call that some of them were clearly regretting as they made it – delaying fuel tax hikes, yet again.
The political case for putting off fuel taxes going up is strong, especially with the Opposition promising it, but Transport Minister Chris Bishop made quite clear that the economic case does not stack up, given construction costs have risen 45% since 2020, while fuel taxes have stayed flat, meaning every bit of politically untouchable road spending has come instead from general taxation or the bond markets. It would benefit these politicians greatly if these decisions could be made by someone else, with Cabinet only intervening to stop rises, rather than create them in the first place.
This would be sensible. The failure to lift fuel taxes means that rather than road users pay for roads, they are being subsidised out of general taxation. I am a believer in user pays. I absolutely understand though the politics of not wanting to increase petrol tax when petrol prices are so high, due to the Middle East conflict.
Ideally petrol tax (and road user charges) should adjust automatically to match road/transport spending. I am quite happy to pay more, if it means we get roads like Transmission Gully, Kapiti Expressway etc.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
4 comments:
No it shouldn't. Plenty of money is raised, the problem is it is then spent unwisely on luxury indulgences that don't relate to transport..
Who would you encourage more stupid spending on non transport related infrastructure?
Sloppy comment Pete. While I agree the National Land Transport Fund is used for more purposes than building and maintaining roads, I'm intrigued by which of the non-road expenditure you consider "luxury indulgences". Dark hints about misallocation of public money are really not good enough without specific examples of what spending you are troubled by. All disbursements from the Fund are made in the context of a formal Government Land Transport policy statement so perhaps you are just unhappy about that policy. But if you have identified expenditure that falls outside the policy you have a public duty to identify it. Not just grumble about ideological differences you may have with the policy itself.
It is absurd how the public expect to be fully compensated for true price rises. The public has to be educated to expect a fall in standard of living when true cost increases occur. Our whole economy needs to be re thought for less emphasis on oil based transport. Traffic is vastly more than twice what it was when the population was half. There is much avoidable running and extravagance. Many vast highly polished utes running about on huge tyres. These are not functional except in some cases as a hobby pursuit;; mere macho statements. Heavy truck cruise speeds have over the last few years crept from a consistent near 90 kph to near 100 kph. Road destruction will be far worse than linear related .
Road construction costs are hampered by ridiculous planning & engineering requirements tied to the Global warming fiasco .
Just reduce the requirements to best practice and leave the disaster requirements in the bureaucracy files.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.