On Tuesday this week, the Minister Chris Bishop tabled the Infrastructure Commission’s much anticipated National Infrastructure Plan in Parliament, or NIP as it is known amongst Wellington types.

The NIP is bringing a much overdue adult conversation to infrastructure. And like adults do, it is telling us we need to pull our socks up and tuck our shirts in.

The spoonful of medicine delivered, without any sugar, was that we can’t afford anywhere near our full shopping list for infrastructure, we need to spend within our means, look after our existing assets first, go after the affordable projects that deliver the biggest bang for buck, get better at planning, cut red tape and spread the cost more fairly.

And probably get a haircut while we are at it.

So far so fair enough.

But nestling quietly among the 121 pages was an apparent incendiary device if you were from media, or from Auckland’s sunny north shore, or both. The Commission opined that “a $9 toll on both new and existing [Auckland Harbour] crossings could raise up to $7–9 billion”.

The media took the bait, and lots of outraged conversations followed.

I was asked to go on Heather du Plessis-Allan’s show on Newstalk ZB, and talk about what impact a $9 toll could have to road freight.

First things first, there’s no question we need a second crossing across the harbour, just in case our elderly first bridge has a senior moment and falls over, heaven forbid.

Which means we need to pay for it.

The question is who is we? And how much should “we” pay?

The Commission’s view is the users of the bridge, applying the user pays principle.

The good people of the north shore probably beg to differ.

And they may have a point.

User pays works fairly when local infrastructure delivers local benefits. But an Auckland harbour crossing is a nationally significant asset, that unlocks housing, productivity, exports and all sorts of other useful things like Saturday morning rugby for school children.

It’s reasonable that users aren’t asked to foot the entire bill, some funding should be shared, probably with the poor old taxpayer.

And yes, that $9 does sounds a bit steep. Even if it is the same as the 20c I used to throw in the hopper at the yellow booth when I was a kid, adjusted for inflation.

That’s $90 a week for a daily commute, or for a truck doing two turns a day, over $28,000 a year.

And that $28,000 isn’t paid for magically by the transport operator, no – it gets added to the cost of goods, and is paid for by you and me when we buy them.

So getting the price right on infrastructure matters a lot. National Road Carrier’s view is we want infrastructure that drives productivity, not inflation.

So a spoonful of user pays and a dollop of other funding might be the right recipe to help the medicine go down.

But as far as the Commission is concerned, job done, we are all now having an adult conversation about infrastructure!

Justin Tighe-Umbers, Chief Executive, National Road Carriers Assn