Hello and Welton to on the tiles the New Zealand Heralds Politics podcast. I'm your host, the Deputy Political editor of The New Zealand Herold Thomas Codlin. Today we've got Ollie Lewis from Business Test, the infrastructure of Business Test on the show to talk about the Building Nations Infrastructure Conference and Altum this week, which is New Zealand's big
infrastructure conference. Everyone goes along all the infrastructures post people literally the opposition and people from the sector head along to have a chat about all things infrastructure. Ollie, thank you for joining us.
Cuda. Thomas, thank you very much for having me on the show.
Did you have a good time?
I did have a very good time. I caught about a day and a half of it. By the end of All About Lunch show yesterday, I thought that I had probably heard about enough about inftructures to ask me for the next kind of six months. But it was an illuminating and varying conference. He had people like Francis for Kiyama there, which is really highlight for me. And then the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, delivered a very cantankerous and quite amusing speech yesterday were not like him,
which led to a lot of joking from MCJ. Tams saying, you know, tell us what you really feel about these issues. He essentially told like the nine hundred assembled attendees who are kind of engineers and such professionals, that he didn't really like their work. In many cases it was a very kind of confrontational approach from the mayre, but you know, laying down a bit of a challenge to the sector to do things cheaper and faster, right color.
I mean, I suppose Francis Foam a bit of a left field you know, well known for the the article on foreign policy, I think, and then the lad of the book the End of History and uh this uh kind of top something, theasis on what the end of the Cold War, I guess meant for you know, the world. Why was he there? What was.
It's a very good question, I actually think. I asked Nick Leggett, wo's the CEO of Abstruction of Zealand a while back, how they had managed to get Francis for Kiama to speak and why? And I think that he told me that both he and a policy advisor at the Abstruction Zealand, Martine Marini had been listening to the same podcast, which I think was probably one you're familiar with, The Rest is Politics.
I'm a very good podcast.
Yes, yes, the.
Rest is everything. Now the resis history, you know politics. So I think France is on there. And he happened to mention or discuss infrastructure, and he's been thinking a lot about it recently in terms of it being a challenge to liberal democracies like the United States also here obviously, and his main kind of position seemed to be that we have title sales and knots and these kind of more democratic kind of societies where everyone gets a say on whether or not a project proceeds.
He referred to it as the vtocracy.
And gave a very wishing example about California, which I didn't know about, where essentially any citizen can kind of take a suit or a case and do so anonymously if they want to challenge a project going ahead. So he referred to know the state having kind of forty million veto votes about to them suchually being built, and so not building things funnily enough is bad for economic
growth and bad for societies. So he views that as a real challenge for Western countries like the US and New Zealand.
That's quite an a kind of intervention really in the national debate around infrastructure, particularly as we sort of agonize over the extent to which something like the government's fast Trak bill as a good thing because it's sort of severely good tales. Right.
Yeah, I was just gonna say, that's right.
It's a very kind of prescient message from him, and it really does kind of tie into the debate that we're having around the fast Track and Asructional Minister christ Bishop made similar points that it was just too hard to get things built in New Zealand and as a consequence, we had this kind of looming and such a defficent
that everyone likes to put massive dollar figures to. I mean, who knows if it's a hundred billion, two hundred billion I think was a ASP Bank referred to the trillion dollar figure, which gets a lot of derision from some economists, but there you go.
Yeah, I feel like I've been doing infrastructure for a while, like you and every soft and someone like the Infrastructure Commission a couple of years ago was a two hundred and ten billion dollars of deficit, and then there was another two hundred billion dollars or something of of unmet
of demand that was coming down. So I think we start from the board of two hundred billion dollars behind, and then there's something like two hundred billion dollars worth of stuff that we need to build for the demand forecast going forward. That's right, the trillion dollar figure. Then we had the three Waters figure of one hundred and eighty five billion. Do you know these these numbers are big?
The mind boggles, Thomas, the mind boggles.
What do you think of? How did the the government announcers in the coalition agreements that it wanted to build a new infrastructure agency. We've already gotten Structural Commission, uh so, so there's this is going to be a new infrastructure agency built on top of Crown Infrastructure partners. They talked about this infrastructure pipeline. I mean, like you have been.
I actually attended one of these in person. But you know, since the Infrastructure Commission was set up under the last government, we've been hearing a lot about this pipeline issue. Everyone complains about the pipeline. City Rail Link chief executive. Very good interview with Katie bredvort On Q and a a few weeks ago, City Rail Links chief executive outgoing complaining that you know, there isn't this pipeline. So they bring in all this expertise and then the expertise just leaves
because there's nothing for them to do. I feel like we've been talking about that issue for so long now it's been it's not this isn't new. No one's been surprised by The Infrastructure Commission has been publishing lists of the of of projects, the rough cost and when when they're set to start construction, and you know what sage of planning human construction art. So we've been talking about
the pipeline for a while. Now Chris Bishop comes along and and builds us uh tries to build a bit more on that existing publicly available pipelines with this announcement. How did how did it go down in the room? It was a secret The politician of the opposition clearly that not that.
It was. It was well received. I think.
I mean these this is a group of people who obviously kind of experts in their delivery and consenting and kind of planning of infrastructure, and so they like to hear politicians say that they're going to create a stable pipeline of projects. As you said, Sean Sweeney got a lot of kudos for that interview that he gave around his concerns that there wasn't this kind of ongoing pipeline of kind of tunneled projects in particular I think New Zealand.
So yeah, the room definitely received Bishop's speech well, it was well received. It's as you say, though, it's the
constant discussion and infrastructure. I like to joke about how many times the word pipeline will be kind of mentioned at these kind of conferences and place bets about will be fifty or one hundred or twohndred times, and it yeah, it dominates the thinking from a lot of people in the sector that there needs to be a stable kind of list of kind of forward projects that the governments are committed to funding, and that gives certainty obviously to
the sector to scale up, equip and actually kind of
deliver things. So it was definitely a well received speech from Bishop, and I think there were some there was a bit of positivity as well about the creation of this National Instructure Agency just as kind of retooling Crown of Search Partners and kind of beef it up the real kind of emphasis that the government seems to be placing on this is that it wants it to be a shop front, is how they've described it, so to kind of funnel outside capital, sovereign wealth fund capital and
get those kind of PPP partners in to partner with the government to deliver these kind of roads and other bits of instructure that we that we need.
So, yeah, it was a really interesting speech.
Actually, one of the interesting as you say this is this big attempts on the part of the government sort of has this two track approach to kind of physical management and infrastructure. On the one hand, it wants to be a probe for the structure government, uh and and and to build a lot and to to get a lot of investment into this infrastructure. And on the other hand it is it is trying to position itself as a government of a physical restraint, low debt and and
and reducing reducing, reducing levels of debt. So so it's emphasizing the role that private capital and having building and building a lot of this stuff. And so obviously that the ball is really in the in the court of private capital in terms of this is actually sustainable and can succeed when you look at them when the here. This year we published those estimates from from Wakotahi about what some of the brons the roads of national significance
might cost tens of billions of dollars governments. When you tend to get private capital involved there, do you get the sense from the secret that, I mean, there is there enough appetite for all of what we want to do.
Yeah, it's a very good question.
So I caught up on the sidelines with some people from Plenary, which is an Australian kind of PEPP investor.
They came over for the conference. They've expressed and been very public in their enthusiasm for New Zealand as a possible kind of market for them, and I think there was a remark made that it was kind of one of the busier building nations in some time, and there was quite a large Australian contingent, So I think there's definitely some There's definitely appetite from investors wanting to put money towards kind of insectual projects in New Zealand.
There were some very interesting speakers.
There was the head of transactions at Treasure I think same as Alistir Birchall made this kind of comment that the direction of travel that the government has signaled is kind of moving more towards this kind of user pays or beneficiary pays approach to instructure where the Crown is more kind of seen as a funder of last resort, where you know, perhaps the first kind of point of care would be to se whether or not there are
private investors interested in delivering and building these projects. But as you say, on the other hand, these are very expensive projects. I think that Northern Expressway linking Fuga Day to Auckland, there's been some estimates for that one corridor kind of requiring about ten billion dollars in investment. The government has been very enthusiastic.
It's broad.
You kin of look like nothing.
Well, that's a funny thing actually, Like Bishop likes to do this and talk about projects in terms of their kind of like number of transmission guns.
I've heard this as well. Everything was quitified in terms of multiples of transmissions. I think you've even talked about it as emergency housing was like one transmission gully or something that every year or period of time.
It's like the new gold standard for comparing the cost of projects New Zealand how many transmission galleies. So yeah, I think in this case the Northern Expressway would be about what five or six And so there was a very interesting kind of remark by Karen Mitchell, who is a partner at KPMG, and she has I think advised on like five of the last eight PPPs that we've ever done in New Zealand. She's an expert on the sector.
She I think I read her comments as her wanting a lot more kind of informed discussion around the costs associated with some of these PPPs, because the point was that, and everyone raises this, the crown has a lower cost of borrowing than the private sector. Therefore it's cheaper to
off its own balance sheet. But there are advantages with doing PPPs, namely kind of driving innovation and you kind of sign up to maintaining one bit of road for instance, for like ten twenty thirty years, which were not very good at doing so.
Sermainly benefits.
But what she was saying is that the benefits need to be you need to extract value from PPPs and try and get as much value as the difference between the crown boring costs and the private sector borrowing costs and where you can do that, it might make sense to do a PPP, but otherwise the case looks a bit more shaky for things like hospitals, for instance, or things where there's not a kind of clear revenue tool
attached to them, like holding when it comes to roads. So, yeah, it was it was a very interesting discussion about the merits of PPPs, and the government certainly seems very keen to do a number of them.
It is interesting that that remark you made the government being the funder of last Resorts sort of the key government's experiments with with with PDPs. Well, it did. It did feel, particularly in the road space that they were they were they were test cases for for for what this government might be looking to do, rather than a
kind of full on this. This government seems to have taken those test cases and thought like, well, right, this is our we're going to We're going to fundamentally rethink the way that we fund most significant transport projects to to to to have a private capital is really the first cab off the rank, rather than you know, sort of alio portfolio next.
Yeah, that's right, And like the point that I found really interesting was Karen Mitchell was asked by an audience member just sturing the Q and A about was there a trade off whereas you know, would it be a bad idea to rush into some short term PPPs that might look very good, but does that then kind of constrain future government's abilities to invest in their own priorities. And there's a good example with this, So like the two routing products that we currently have, which is PERO
to walk with and Transmission Gully. I think it's about two dred and twenty six million dollars a year in availability and maintenance payments that come out of the NLTF to service those two roads alone. So Carrie Mitchell said, like some work had been done when the government was looking to get into those contracts around you know, how many kind of pepp arrangements was it feasible to enter into before the nl ETF gets kind of overly or
too overly constrained. And so there was a suggestion that there is definitely a limit to how many you can actually feasibly do and that you really do need to seek the most high value projects to pursue as PPPs where you can kind of extract some revenue back from them because you still have to fund them. You just pay them back over you know, thirty years as opposed to upfront.
Thanks Sali. We've going to quickly hit to a break and then we'll be right back with more on the tiles. Welcome back to on the Tiles. I'm talking to Olli Lewis, Business Desks Infrastructure editor, who was at the Building Nations Infrastructure Conferences week. We were just talking about p p p s and the pressure that they place on the
road funding system. Really making the interesting point that that the you know, the the revenue or the the income that we have from from from the transport system, the revenue we have from the transport system might not be sufficient to pay for the the vast numbers of p pp so we have to sort of prioritize in a very interesting interesting point that the government is. The government also announced it, well I supposed re announced it and announced an acceleration of of some revenue work that was
doing in the in the in the transport space. We've been talking about We've been talking about getting rid of fuel taxes for a long time now, but the government seems to be quite keen to to really bring that about, moving the light vehicle fleet to road user charges as early as as early as potentially twenty twenty seven, and then and then looking at making it easier to begin tolling some some roads to to and and create value capture regimes to create revenue sources, presumably to make it
make it easier for some of these PPP business cases to to stack up. Did you get the sense that I mean, is there what are the numbers sort of look like if you're if you're going if the government sort of goes out to market with with a coroller that it wants to develop into a p p P, they say, look, you know we can we can work out some value capture around this area. We can work out some tolling for this particular road. They seem keen to say, well, if if the business case of torolling
stacks up, then we'll we'll really like tolling. Does that make that's Does that sweet and sweetened the deal for some of these some of these people, some of these providers looking to to do PPPs in New Zealand.
Yeah, it certainly. It certainly helps the government in terms of funding the cost of the PPPs. So for minderstanding, there's a pretty clear prefer from peer partners not to tie their payments to tolling, so they prefer just a
straight availability payment from the government. And the reason being is that they don't want to accept this kind of patronage risk because if you you know, for instance, told this ten billion dollar Northern Expressway corridor, you'd have to set a really kind of artificially high toll in order to kind of make a return on that and to kind of cover the costs of your capital, and so
it wouldn't be used. It's like, it's unfeasible to toll those kind of very very high cost, relatively low patronage roads and kind of cover the costs of the investment. So it makes sense for the New Zealand government to be looking at how does it offset or try and get more revenue from a road that is constructed from the PPP model. But the private partner themselves wouldn't necessarily want any risk associated with the number of kind of vehicles that are willing to pay.
Those kind of rules. So yeah, it's a very interesting area.
Actually that the Inmstry Commission did some work suggesting that kind of you know, tolling was likely to kind of cover the long term costs of you know, less than a quarter of most new roads and the instances in which it would kind of cover those full costs over the you know, a set period. The Harbor Bridge is a good example that kind of covered its face with
tolling over a period of time. As you have to have very significant time savings of like fifteen minutes or more, you've got to have very decent kind of traffic volumes of kind of forty thousand vehicles a day or plus, and for comparison's kind of like the busiest points of the christ Which motorway network. I think bro I'm s right. And you also have to have relatively kind of low build costs, which is quite difficult in New Zealand with
some of the roads that we've seen. I know that you've covered a lot of this Thomas with things like all Tucky to north of Leven. We've seen big blowouts there. PenLink was a recent kind of cautionary tail and that the delivery time has slipped out to twenty twenty eight.
It was meant to be twenty twenty six, and so we seem to have like a hard time to ring roads for you know, relatively affordable prices in New Zealand got for a challenging geography, and it makes it harder to kind of recoup those costs from tolling.
Right and so yes, when you when you think about that, so first of your if, the if the if that's what you're looking for. There can't be many on the PPP or on the runs list many just off the top of my head that would that would stack up in terms of traffic volumes and low build costs. They all seem quite expensive and and and I mean they don't seem incredibly low traffic volumes, but none of them would seem to be a high traffic volumes or to have high trap of volumes to the extent that they
would they would give what a day? Did you say?
Yes, that's right? That so Peinlic's are a good example. Like that's the seven kilometer highway Lincoln kind of set how one north of Auckland to the Fung Peninsula that that has very substantial time saving.
I think it's about fifteen minutes.
It's been talked about as a toll road project since the early two thousands. It's always been kind of thought of as something would only happen if it was told the last government accepted a proposal from NDITTA to toll the road. And I've been quite obsessed with this example because I see it as a bit of a bowe weather in terms of the government's kind of political appetite
to follow through and it's tolling rhetoric. So while the last government agreed to toll PenLink, this government has yet to make any formal decisions around it, despite saying in the GPS that it would accept all recommendations from NDTA to toll new roads. INDITA definitely wants to toll Peenlic.
They're very keen to do that, and they say that if you don't do that, the operating and the maintenance costs that would be covered by tolling needs to kind of come from the that increasingly broken in LTF kind of pool of money that we have to pay for transport. So yeah, I just find it really interesting that the Transporte mister sim Brown has yet kind of make that call.
He just says that there's the reason he hasn't is because there's a delays with the project and that ENTITA currently is a very inefficient kind of system for collecting tolls where I think he said, like thirty two percent of costs of the kind of revenue you receive from tolling as used just to operate the tolling system. And so he wants to see that improved to make it more kind of efficient to roll out tolling more broadly and more widely.
I heard apparently as we get more, as we get more toll roads, that the administration cost can be shared between the toll roads, so as a proportion of the total tolling system, the admin cost would would reduce. That is that your understanding as well?
That certainly makes sense, and I think NDTA has got a bit of a program of work underway to look at that having kind of a more efficient kind of back office tolling function that could be you know, implemented across different roads.
Certainly an interesting as you say that, that is an interesting belt. Whether it's a government that's kind of self consciously positioned itself as pro tolling to an extent that I haven't I can't remember, I told her, I mean,
all charges are unpopular. So governments in the past have been you know, historically really well lukewarm to anti tolling is the first one I can remember that it's been self consciously pro tolling, and as you say, brother, they have the opportunity to about that they are on the fence on.
Yeah, I find it really bizarrely because there's political cover and that obviously the last government, Labor government up to two toll PenLink. And I made the point when I attued to me and Brand about this recently that surely the local residents would want clarity sooner rather than later, regardless of not of whether there's any delayed with the road opening. But yeah, as you said, it's not popular.
I think when ZTA consulted on PenLink it was like sixty percent opposition I think for local residence or more. We're going to see later this year the Transform Minister's announced it's going to be ant consultation on three additional kind of North Island toll road proposals. One of them is Awtucky to North have live in. So it makes a lot of sense as a way of kind of funding your kind of cost of doing the road and the maintenance and operating cost of running them, but people
don't really like them. It's if you ask someone would you rather a free road or would you rather pay three dollars to travel on the road. It's pretty hard to build a case with that. And so I think the transformentis has been very clear that he wants to kind of make sure that any kind of toll road has very demonstral benefits for the traveling public. They have to see a return and a reason that they are getting charged money to use it.
I just kind of shop with them with these changes to the revenue system, so moving to moving to moving like light vehicles away from fuel fuel excise duty to rucks, and and I suppose I just just covered off the tolling tolling stuff. I mean there are obviously this is as you said before, the review system is broken. Is struggling with with with with with the amount of revenue that that that the system is generating at the moment.
But you know, no silver bullet in terms of moving millions of vehicles to road user charges for some concerns that that that the WA which is you know, struggling struggling to which has struggled to roll out this national ticketing solution for for for people who use public transport. You know, that's that difficulty enough with that, I mean to say nothing of of creating the system whereby millions and millions of of of light vehicle drivers will will
will need to buy road user charges. I mean it feels it feels like there's a reason why there's a reason why governments have been so keen to well, I have been so tensative to move in this direction because it seems like a sort of no overpay waiting to happen.
Yeah, it's a good reference there. I mean, it's very complicated about it, and so I was. I think the most new bit of information around this revenue action plan that the Transport Minister announced yesterday was the date.
So as you say like it's.
Been in the works for a long time, I think under the last government there was a review initiated of the Land Transport even news system because both parties except that the kind of current system is fundamentally broken. I think of the twenty two billion in spending in this GPS, only about thirteen point eight billion of that comes from FED and Rock. So it's no longer the kind of user or cost recovery system that was meant to be.
We're continuously plugging the gaps with kind of Crown loans and grants, and as the instuct Commission sees that as actually that very scarce crown capital could be applied to other priority areas like health or education. So you start to kind of see that direct kind of competition for scarce resources getting sucked up into the transport system, which is meant to be user pays yea with moviehead and moving all of the fleet from I'm not sure if it was from twenty seven or by twenty twenty seven.
It was a slight ambiguity around the way it was phrased, but I mean to me, that seems an incredibly ambitious target. If it's to transition the fleet by twenty seven, even if it's from twenty twenty seven, it's a huge administrative kind of exercise to do that, and it's going to be a logistical kind of I don't want to say nightmare,
because I think it's a good direction of travel. It's not a night mirror situation by any means, but it's going to be incredibly difficult for the government in the ZTA to achieve those kind of time frames and to get public buy in for it as well.
Yeah, it would be very it would be. I mean for millions of people who aren't used to fill going online and buying a rock and then you know, what do you so do you as you say, you know, one can't imagine that the entire one can't imagine on one July twenty twenty seven that that that you just flick a switch and it's all gone. I would imagine a transition period of some kind, and so what do you what do you do? You fill up and then you claim and exam you know, do you claim it back?
Yeah, that's right, because I think you wrote about this. It was a good piece, by the way, referring to the increase or the planned increase in kind of fuel excess texts from twenty twenty seven. Obviously, this government attacked the previous government and it's GPS for wanting to put up few exercise charges to kind of cover that, you know,
increasingly large gap between revenue and expenditure. They're now saying that actually we do, we do very much want to use existing kind of funding tools to kind of increase.
Revenue.
And so one of those was increasing fuel taxes from twenty twenty seven I think twelve CENTI letter. So yeah, it's going to be a very tricky balance. I think to kind of price ruck at a good enough level and then to have that kind of certainty of revenue in as you transition the system whilst you've got some very expensive bills to maintain.
So it's going to be a very inting balancing act.
And what if you're what if you're a car someone who's you know, paying for ruck, you've sort of got it. I mean, these households don't actually don't really have the time or the energy to sort of be buying ruck and then claiming back fuel excise that they have paid, you know, especially if it goes up by twelve cents a letter, that's that would be you'd be giving up to close to ninety cents. I think by the if it was twelve CENTI leader, there would be just under
ninety cents. I think that's a lot of that's a lot of money to have to be out of pocket buy until you enclaim it back. Of that sort of system. If that's what a transitional system looks like, I don't know, if it's just it just seems to be, you know, that's I'm not sure that many people will be will
be there grateful one. But as you say, maybe that maybe they'll do something around pricing rock competitively, I suppose you get into a situation where where that doesn't really help you in terms of the long term sustainability of the land transport fund.
Yeah, and I mean there are technology providers like e road who offer technology solutions to make the payment of ruck a lot easier. I imagine that any transition to this new system will have to have a technology component. I think the Transportenis was pretty clear that the existing system where you kind of log in or go in, where do you go.
To buy a rock and person?
I have no idea.
So probably know that, but yeah, he mentioned that it was very clunky.
It's very kind of.
Old fashioned system that was kind of revolutionary when it was in Tuose in the sixties, but were now in the twenty twenties. So there will definitely have to be some kind of back end tech to support this transition.
Road just for listeners, this list is like a GPS style system that models is how far you're driven and what you are.
Yeah, that's right.
So they provide into listed company, they provide technology solution for largely for trucking fleets and so that's kind of like an in vehicle kind of transponder uses GPS technology to kind of calculate, you know, your distance traveled and then automatically kind of purchased ruck for you.
It's very clever.
Actually using satellite tech means that you don't pay ruck for traveling on private roads for instance like Forest Street and States, et cetera. You only pay for the use of public roads.
Something that infrastructure builders actually use this because when when they're driving on roads they have not yet been built, they shouldn't be paying for you know, it's you're not using a piece of publicly fundel infrastructure which hasn't actually when it hasn't actually been built yet.
Yeah, So a very nerdy and interesting kind of area the use of this like GPS kind of style charging, and like I think Singapore is a really good example. They have now enabled with their electric road Pricing two point zero system, there's kind of transponders and receivers in every single car. I think it's mandated now, but even they have not yet moved to a GPS tracking style of charging because there's I think there's a lot of kind of reservations from the public around privacy concerns and.
National opposition, where Judith Collins was very hot on the privacy issue and she was leader.
Yeah, that's right, because I mean some people who are perhaps more kind of anti government or anti authority wouldn't want the government to kind of have any kind of detailed records of their movements, et cetera. So it's going to be a very interesting kind of like logistical and privacy minefield to kind of to transition to this new system and then to actually have it getting enough revenue to fund out increasingly kind of perilously broken transport funding system.
As you can imagine the years we've had with the controversy over the vaccination rolled out there and how that went. Any government mandating tracking in people's cars is probably going to be quite cautious about the way that it does, given the pushback something is sort of benign as vaccination, as vaccinations generated.
Yeah, that's that's right.
And I think obviously, like the first iteration of this wouldn't be kind of GPS tracking. It'd be kind of as the existing rock system does. You just kind of pay for a pre determined amount of kilometers and then your odomesa or you're kind of is checked or kind of made sure that you are paying for what you
you are. But there's something kind of set of reforms that the Transmit Minister is kind of pushing ahead with at pace, and it's going to be very interesting to watch how it plays out, given that we've got some very big bills coming up each of us in transport.
And because well hopefully there's enough money to pay them. Ali, thank you so much for joining us and none the titles this week. I hope you hope you had a good time at the conference, and you're off traveling soon, so I hope you very much enjoy your travels.
I thank you so much as for a real pleasure to be here. It's been fun chatting in Strucure with you.
It's always fun chatting. Infrastructure that was on the tiles for another week. I have a quick correction to make about something that was on the tiles a couple of weeks ago. I was talking about the Green Party constitution and the way that the constitutional changes of a couple of years ago relatively disempowered some of the networks and empowered the lived experience networks. Actually they have not literally, they the changes empowered their lived experience networks, but they
did not literally disempower the non lived experience networks. They only relatively changed in the level of power. I'm very grateful to Eagle led Green Party listeners who pointed that out. They guard their party constitution jealously and fair enough. Everyone should care about this sort of stuff, So thank you very much of it. And that was on the tiles for another week. Thank you to Ollie Lewis the infrastructure, we different businesses for joining us, and we'll be beating
next week. Look for more on the task. Thanks again for listening. Ethan Sills as always as our producer