NZTA's position on GPS 2021
Frustrated by the NZ Transport Agency/Waka Kotahi's failure to give effect to the Government’s priorities for land transport (GPS 2021) in preparing and approving the National Land Transport Programme for 2021-24, Movement lodged a Statement of Claim for Judicial Review
A summary of key points from NZTA's legal submissions:
Giving effect to the GPS:
NZTA downplays the role of the GPS by claiming it is "expressed in aspirational terms" (para 60.1), consists of “broad statements of policy” (para 165.3), only a "guide" (para 167) and "phrased in high-level and aspirational language" (para 175.1)
In relation to GPS strategic priority of reducing emissions:
NZTA claims the "the Climate Change Strategic Priority does not create something akin to a “bottom line”" (para 20), and "nor do either the GPS or the LTMA prescribe emissions reduction targets to be achieved by the NLTP alone" (para 16), "neither the purpose of the LTMA nor the GPS required Waka Kotahi to undertake the formal quantitative analysis" of emissions (para 132).
The GPS requirement for funding applicants to assess against the results set out in Section 2.6 of GPS 2021:
"The GPS does not require assessment of approvals for funding against the 31 progress indicators" (para 283). NZTA's approach conflicts with the Ministry of Transport's advice dated 12 November 2021 :
"Section 2.6 of GPS 2021 sets out the indicators for how progress will be measured.
Paragraph 89 requires that each applicant (meaning the funding application for each
activity and its business cases) shows how it has considered alternatives, and how they
compare against the indicators. The purpose for including this in GPS 2021 was to
ensure that at a project level, funding applicants had carefully considered the alignment
of their project (and alternative options) against GPS objectives.”
NZTA's position is that the LTMA does not require consideration of the environment nor emissions:
"The inclusion of reference to the “public interest” in the purpose statement [LTMA, Sec 3: Purpose) was not "to retain, using different terminology, environmental responsibility and other “wellbeings” as mandatory considerations." (para 149).
GPS timeframe means NZTA doesn't have to give affect to the GPS strategic priorities now:
"The results stated across all [GPS] strategic priorities relate to a different time frame (ten years) to the NLTP (three years)" (Para 216.3)
The GPS requires NZTA to use the Ministry of Transport’s process when it prioritises activities for inclusion in the NLTP and considers funding approvals for the programme (para 92 of GPS 2021):
NZTA claims "The GPS also does not prescribe how Waka Kotahi prioritises investment." (para 25)
NZTA's Investment Prioritisation Method ignores the GPS requirement for "Effectiveness: To what extent does the investment achieve priorities of the GPS" (para 89 of GPS 2021) and substitutes it with "Scheduling. (para 88.2):
See how this was done in NZTA's IPM Board paper (detailed in Attachment 2).
Benefit Cost Ratio
NZTA fails to recognise there could be any problems with using the BCR calculation: "There is nothing in the “efficiency” principle to suggest the relevant BCR calculation should be anything other than a standard BCR calculation." (para 262)
A summary of key points from NZTA's legal submissions:
Giving effect to the GPS:
NZTA downplays the role of the GPS by claiming it is "expressed in aspirational terms" (para 60.1), consists of “broad statements of policy” (para 165.3), only a "guide" (para 167) and "phrased in high-level and aspirational language" (para 175.1)
In relation to GPS strategic priority of reducing emissions:
NZTA claims the "the Climate Change Strategic Priority does not create something akin to a “bottom line”" (para 20), and "nor do either the GPS or the LTMA prescribe emissions reduction targets to be achieved by the NLTP alone" (para 16), "neither the purpose of the LTMA nor the GPS required Waka Kotahi to undertake the formal quantitative analysis" of emissions (para 132).
The GPS requirement for funding applicants to assess against the results set out in Section 2.6 of GPS 2021:
"The GPS does not require assessment of approvals for funding against the 31 progress indicators" (para 283). NZTA's approach conflicts with the Ministry of Transport's advice dated 12 November 2021 :
"Section 2.6 of GPS 2021 sets out the indicators for how progress will be measured.
Paragraph 89 requires that each applicant (meaning the funding application for each
activity and its business cases) shows how it has considered alternatives, and how they
compare against the indicators. The purpose for including this in GPS 2021 was to
ensure that at a project level, funding applicants had carefully considered the alignment
of their project (and alternative options) against GPS objectives.”
NZTA's position is that the LTMA does not require consideration of the environment nor emissions:
"The inclusion of reference to the “public interest” in the purpose statement [LTMA, Sec 3: Purpose) was not "to retain, using different terminology, environmental responsibility and other “wellbeings” as mandatory considerations." (para 149).
GPS timeframe means NZTA doesn't have to give affect to the GPS strategic priorities now:
"The results stated across all [GPS] strategic priorities relate to a different time frame (ten years) to the NLTP (three years)" (Para 216.3)
The GPS requires NZTA to use the Ministry of Transport’s process when it prioritises activities for inclusion in the NLTP and considers funding approvals for the programme (para 92 of GPS 2021):
NZTA claims "The GPS also does not prescribe how Waka Kotahi prioritises investment." (para 25)
NZTA's Investment Prioritisation Method ignores the GPS requirement for "Effectiveness: To what extent does the investment achieve priorities of the GPS" (para 89 of GPS 2021) and substitutes it with "Scheduling. (para 88.2):
See how this was done in NZTA's IPM Board paper (detailed in Attachment 2).
Benefit Cost Ratio
NZTA fails to recognise there could be any problems with using the BCR calculation: "There is nothing in the “efficiency” principle to suggest the relevant BCR calculation should be anything other than a standard BCR calculation." (para 262)
