Railways Bill

National will be supporting the Railways Bill when it goes to the select committee, but can I assure the Government that we will be going over it with a fine toothcomb. We do not have any confidence at all that this Government will have done any work when it comes to railways. I say so because in my hand I have a letter from the Hon. Dr Michael Cullen, Minister of Finance, when I asked him if he could detail for me whom he met regarding Tranz Rail on 11 March, 26 March, 16 April, and what they had talked about when it came to the rail rescue package, part of which will be included in the Railways Bill. To my surprise, he did not have any record of that, at all. When I went to the Ombudsman and asked him if he could intervene on my behalf, Dr Cullen came back to tell me that they took no notes at the meeting, they did not know the financial position of Tranz Rail at the time, and they could not even remember who was at the meeting. It was a complete and utter shambles.

One needs only to look at the debacle that has led to this Railways Bill and Track Co as a rail participant. Not only did the Minister first try to hug Tranz Rail, a company that had anything other than a stellar record, but when Toll Holdings came on the scene, he greeted them with comments like: “They are on a collision course with the Government. Any offer would have to be a damn good one to interest me.” He was not prepared to step aside and be in a weak position if Toll Holdings took over Tranz Rail. Then he said: “I have some considerable suspicions about what their intentions are. Are they really after increasing rail, or getting a trucking company?” Then he gave them a deal that was $200 million better than the deal he gave the company he originally told us was a good one. It only gets better, because next week Genesee and Wyoming and West Farmers are coming over to put their bid on the table. So my advice to them is to abuse the Minister of Finance and they will get an even better deal than Toll Holdings.

We will be recommending the Railways Bill when it goes to the select committee, but we will be keeping a very close eye on it when it is in that committee.

I listened with great interest to the previous speaker. Was that member out of this country when that Government sold Tranz Rail? For him to have the gall and the temerity—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the question that this bill be read a first time. Will the member please come to that question.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that there was a problem with the sound system—I was listening on the radio last night. There seems to be a problem now with a lot of distortion of the member’s speech through the microphones.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I think the member was just speaking far too closely and far too loudly. There was no problem with business last night. I have now discovered that the problem was that the microphone to my left was left on by mistake. I have ensured that will never happen again.

I thank the member for his assistance, but I say that notwithstanding—and I respect absolutely the Speaker’s ruling—I think it is pertinent in the context of this bill to reflect on some of the history surrounding the rail system, and what I believe was the absolute tragedy of the sale of our rail company.

In terms of the first reading of this bill, I just want to take the opportunity to warmly congratulate the Minister and the Government on the introduction of this very important legislation. It recognises the critical strategic importance of this country’s rail network. It is my considered view that the previous Government seemed very much unaware of that fact. I believe that this particular bill is an important step in recognising just how important the maintenance of the rail infrastructure is to the economy and the social well-being of our nation.

I want perhaps to take the opportunity just to restate—for those who are listening to this very important discussion in Parliament—the point and the purpose of this legislation. The fundamental aim of the legislation is to improve the safety regime for all people involved with the operation of the rail network in this country. It is implementing the recommendations of Margaret Wilson’s ministerial inquiry into Tranz Rail, which was reported on in late 2000. It also addresses serious gaps in the current safety framework that have arisen because of recent changes in the rail industry.

I am not a member of the executive—I speak as the member for Hamilton West—but I want to place on record how distressed I am on behalf of my constituents at what has happened to rail in this country over the past few years. I believe that what has happened is nothing short of an absolute and utter tragedy. Tranz Rail, as we are aware, has contracted out its maintenance. It has sold its long distance passenger service, Tranz Scenic. It has sold the Auckland rail corridor to the Crown, and, who knows, it may yet sell the Tranz Metro service.

However, the current law appears to assume that there is one major rail operator only, which will now no longer be the case. The bill seeks to fundamentally improve safety so that rail passengers, workers, and freight will not come to harm. If one compares rail with other modes of transport, particularly road transport, one finds that travelling by rail is pretty safe, but there is always room for very significant improvement.

I stress that I am enthusiastic about this bill. I think it is a very good bill and a really good step forward. It is great to work with people like Paul Swain and Judith Tizard and their team, who are absolutely dedicated to the rebuilding of this nation’s infrastructure. I also acknowledge the work that Jim Anderton does. Jim Anderton will emphasise just how critical a good, safe, efficient, effective rail network is to regional development around our country, and I pay personal tribute to his strong advocacy over the years for the rail network.

As I mentioned, the bill is focused on safety issues. It is owner-neutral and is not related to any proposed sale of the Tranz Rail system. The Government originally planned to introduce the legislation early this year, but delayed it somewhat while it worked through issues related to a number of small heritage operators. It is the Government’s view that they will not be disadvantaged by the bill because they generally have a very good safety record and that requires less intervention. The bill is flexible enough to ensure that safety requirements are tailored to suit the scale of individual operations, and those heritage rail operators will be further consulted over fees and charges under the provisions of the bill.

In the spirit of parliamentary magnanimity, I acknowledge the support of the Green Party, and that this bill is extending rail safety legislation to cover a wider number of industry players. It ensures a clear chain of accountability for safety, and consolidates—which is a very important factor—all rail safety legislation into the one Act. That is a very important part of the work that I believe we must do as a country and as a society, in order to rebuild our rail infrastructure in New Zealand. This bill also introduces a new regime for licensing, documentation, assessments, audits, enforcements, and costs.

This bill is very important for my region, because in my electorate is one of the major rail junctions in New Zealand, Frankton Junction. I am one of the many Kiwis who grew up to the regular sound of—and this proves my age—steam and diesel trains by day and night, as when I was a kid I lived a mile or two only from the major railway junction in Hamilton. As a member for the Waikato region, I acknowledge the critically important role that the Frankton railway junction has played in the economic and transport infrastructure of the Waikato area.

The bill will be introducing a new regime of licensing. In fact, all existing rail operators will have to relicense, as will those that provide access to the track. Everyone who is part of the rail sector must be covered by a safety case provided by either an operator or an access provider. Documentation is very important. Enforcement of the safety criteria is also very important, and I acknowledge the work that the regulator, the Land Transport Safety Authority, will play in that.

Finally, I welcome the introduction of this bill and its referral to a select committee. I believe that it is a very important step on what I believe is the long road back to recreating a safe, efficient, and effective rail transport infrastructure in this country. I wish the committee’s members well in their consideration of this important bill.

I would like to continue the theme developed by that member. We all have a nostalgic affection for rail travel, steam engines, and such things, but we have to face the reality that more people in New Zealand want to use their cars than go by rail. It is always very interesting to me that the very people who advocate the saving of the rail for the sake of our social well-being and the building of our infrastructure are often those who do not even use rail, but who want to force everybody else on to it.

The explanatory note of this bill states, in the general policy statement section, that it was introduced because the rail system was going from “a vertically integrated industry with 1 major operator to an industry with a number of separate operators”. I wonder, given the way that things are going now, whether that will continue to be the case. We did go from having one major operator, and those of us who had to travel by train in those days can remember it as being an appalling way to travel around New Zealand. When the Government owned the railways, it was an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money. In the last year that State-owned rail was in operation, in 1979-80, it lost $90 million. That was $90 million of taxpayers’ money. At the moment, taxpayers have the option of investing their own money in rail if they want to. They can go and buy shares; there is absolutely nothing to stop them from buying shares in Tranz Rail. So why does the Government want to force them, by taking the money off them, to go and buy into rail?

This legislation has been brought in as being very rail-specific safety legislation. We heard from the Hon Jim Anderton the other day the gruelling tale of Morgan Jones, and no one would argue against that. It is very difficult to argue against safety measures. Who wants to take the unpopular line, and argue against safety measures? But sometimes legislation has to be looked at with an analytical eye. That is what we have done with regard to this legislation, and that is why we will not be supporting it going to the select committee. It is far too prescriptive, and there is far too much detail in it.

When we have very industry-specific legislation like this, which comes in on top of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act, which we just brought into law in May, we have two major effects. One effect is that blame and responsibility are sheeted home to the Minister. So in this bill the Minister of Transport is to be held directly responsible when accidents happen. If we bring in this very specific safety legislation so that accidents will not happen, when an accident does happen people will ask why the Minister could not have prevented it. That is just one issue that needs to be looked at. I think that ACT is the only party that will be voting against this bill, so it will go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am on that committee, so at least I will have the chance to look at the bill clause by clause and to try to reduce some of those overly prescriptive provisions.

The other effect that we have to look at is—[Interruption] If those members listened to what I was saying, instead of gossiping to each other, they would not have to interject. There is a lot of myth about the safety of rail since privatisation, especially in the UK. A report that came out today from the UK states that the Rail Regulator, Tom Winsor, has reported that Network Rail’s costs have “exploded out of control, with the result that upgrading of the network will have to be delayed.” Why is that? One of the key reasons for the loss of control of costs has been the replacement of rail track—no accountability to shareholders by a not-for-profit organisation.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Ha, ha!

The member laughs. Of course, he would not understand that shareholders like to have a return on their investments.

A new report in the UK for the Rail Safety and Standards Board has shown that there have been fewer deaths on the railways since privatisation. I will repeat that: there have been fewer deaths on the railways in the UK since privatisation.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: There are no trains running.

I was in the UK just recently. I used trains all the time; they run very frequently. I can assure that member that the trains run all the time, but they are very expensive. The new train warning system that they are trying to bring in, in the UK—and this is the very point I bring members back to in this bill, and which I want to get to—will cost ₤10 million for every life saved, compared with traffic-calming measures that would cost only ₤100,000 for every life saved. Do members see the point that I am trying to make?

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: No.

I will repeat it for that member’s benefit. I will say this very slowly. There are costs and benefits that have to be weighed up.

Nobody wants to have an unsafe rail track, or unsafe roads. But when there are limited resources to spend on issues like that, the costs and benefits have to be weighed up, and one must look at the cost. For instance, in New Zealand if we put in, as this bill seems to suggest we will, warnings at every single rail crossing—that is, where the track goes through farms and private land—what will that cost, compared with spending the money on improving a curve in a road, for instance, to make that road more safe? [Interruption] That is an interesting point; the member says that the railways carry the freight. I wonder, if the Government does pursue its obsession with renationalising business in New Zealand, how it will protect freight on the rail network. Will we go back to the 40-mile limit? I can remember, as a little girl, helping my father to load wool bales on to the back of a truck in the middle of the night, so that he could drive around the back way to the port at Napier, because by law he had to take that load to the Waipukurau railhead. That was the result of the 40-mile limit; I am old enough to remember that. Will we revisit those days, so that the Government can protect freight on the rail network? Those are the points I am trying to make.

As I said, ACT will be voting against this bill, which has been pushed by the unions. It is on top of the Land Transport Management Bill, which is already going to strangle transport in this country. An economic survey has recently shown that one of the biggest costs to economic development in this country is the strangulation of transport. What do we have now? We have a Land Transport Management Bill that is being pushed by the Greens. Another member thanked the Greens for that bill. We have a taxpayer member of the Green Party, an unidentified staffer, who is out there lobbying for support for that bill. Those people have very little understanding of the costs of rail safety. So this Government will be legislating for itself, and will itself be caught by this legislation. It will be hoist by its own petard.