Rail Network Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Rail Network Bill be now read a first time. It is the Minister’s intention to move at the appropriate time that the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, that the committee report by 23 June 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Rail plays a significant role in this Government’s vision of an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system. In order to achieve that vision and secure a vital part of New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure, the Government repurchased the national rail network in June 2004. On 30 August 2004 the rail network assets and responsibility for operating the national rail network passed to the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which is now trading as ONTRACK. That occurred because of the spectacular failure of National’s privatisation of rail. I reassure the House that rail is now safe in the hands of this good Government. That has created a need for new legislation to provide for the rolling governance of ONTRACK and to assist it to operate the rail network more effectively.

Although ONTRACK has been able to operate under its existing legislation with an amended statement of intent, many of the provisions it is operating under are outdated or redundant. The bill repeals the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act, and provides for ONTRACK’s new role as rail network owner and controller. It also provides ONTRACK with modernised governance arrangements, while carrying over some of the existing provisions. In particular, the provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land are retained.

Under the bill the New Zealand Railways Corporation will continue in existence with the same legal name. However, it will continue to trade under its trading name of ONTRACK. The bill also provides for ONTRACK’s new objective and functions, and for some principles concerning how it must perform its functions. It aligns the objective and functions of ONTRACK with the New Zealand Transport Strategy without compromising its commercial focus.

The bill changes ONTRACK from a State-owned enterprise to a Crown entity—in particular, a Crown agent—under the Crown Entities Act. The Government considers that that is the most appropriate structure to take ONTRACK forward, considering its new role, objective, and core functions. While ONTRACK will have a strong commercial focus, return on investment will not be its sole focus. As a Crown entity ONTRACK will be required to give effect to Government policy, in particular, the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the forthcoming national rail strategy. ONTRACK’s objective also reflects the expectation that it will take a commercial approach. I note that the commercial access agreements provide the framework for commitments that ONTRACK has entered into with rail operators for ensuring that the network is operated, maintained, and renewed in a safe, responsive, efficient, and effective manner. In order to contribute to the Government’s aim of a more integrated and consistent approach to land transport funding and management, the bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme.

The bill carries over and consolidates all the provisions from the existing legislation relating to the ability to deal with land held for rail purposes, with the intention of preserving the current position. These provisions give ONTRACK the power to deal with the Crown-owned rail network land that was previously known as land held for railway purposes, including the power—subject, of course, to the consent of the Minister responsible—to dispose of surplus land. In particular, the 1990 Act contains specific provisions that differ from the section 40 Public Works Act provisions for offer back to former owners, which enable railways land to be retained for future rail use. The bill provides for a governing board of between five and eight members to continue to provide it with additional expertise and oversight. The Government has recently strengthened ONTRACK’s board, making a number of new appointments including the appointment of a new chair, Mr Cameron Moore and a new chief executive, Mr David George.

Rail will play a major role in achieving the Government’s vision of an integrated, affordable, safe, and sustainable transport system for New Zealand. For years there has been low and declining investment in the rail network, which has led to problems with deferred maintenance and associated safety concerns, and declining service capability. The rail network has been run down and underutilised. Establishing ONTRACK as an integral part of New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure provides the structure to meet the demanding challenges in its new role of maintaining, developing, and operating New Zealand’s rail infrastructure in a commercial rail environment. It has been established to promote the best outcomes in terms of return on investment, congestion reduction, improvements for business, commuters, local communities, and the environment. ONTRACK requires modern legislation to adapt to its new role and allow it to continue fulfilling this vision. The bill provides the institutional arrangements for ONTRACK that will allow it to do that. I commend the bill to the House.

I say from the outset that the National Party will certainly be supporting this bill to select committee. We understand the need for legislation that tidies up the legalities around what is referred to in the bill as “the entity”—that is, a corporation by the name of the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which has the responsibility for owning and operating the rail. But the National Party also has some quite serious concerns about the detail of this bill, and we will be asking some questions at the select committee and seeing whether we can get either some additional clauses put into this bill or some clauses changed.

The Government is very, very quick to roll out its transport mantra just about everywhere that it can. It wants it to be “an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system”. I do not think that there is anything wrong with those four things, but they go nowhere near enough to put realistic limits on the bill. For example, what we are creating here, and what members need to understand we are creating here, is actually a monopoly: a business that can provide access to the rail track—but it is the only one. For many years I have asked why there is only one monopolies commission, actually, and I have never had a sensible answer to that question. But when it comes to rail—and Harry Duynhoven may laugh—I understand why there may be only the one operator of the rail track and a whole lot of rolling stock operators gaining access to it. I can live with that.

However, just like the fact that I can live with there being only one Auckland airport and a whole lot of aircraft operators in the name of airlines using it, there have to be some rules about what these entities can charge. I mean, who is to stop the entity from seeking monopoly rents from the users of the rail track? There is nothing in this legislation that states: “Now, you are the only owner of the railway line. Charge what you will.”, because if Toll Holdings does not like it, it would be a matter of bad luck unless there were some quite severe limitations about the use of monopoly rents and the ability to rack-rent.

I also notice that there is some stuff in this bill about the returning of land to the original owner under the Public Works Act of 1981, and I think that is a perfectly sensible thing. But it also gives some exemptions and I wondered why that was, and then the penny dropped for me as to why. I guessed that if the New Zealand Railways Corporation owned a very thin sliver of land that was only the width of a railway track between two quite large blocks of privately held land, it would be a bit of a nonsense to go back to the original owner and say: “You can own this nice little wee thin strip of land, but you cannot get access to it. It lies between two private sections of land.” I notice that there are some provisions in the bill for not having to offer the land back to the original owners where the entity is getting rid of a very small piece. I think it states that it is something to do with its size, shape, and structure, and the entity may not have to force the land back.

So overall, yes, there is a need to have a proper legislative framework for the New Zealand Railways Corporation to act under. Secondly, I am staggered that the Government is so reluctant to ever put the words “economic efficiency” into anything. It was the same with some of the road legislation, when we were talking about the Land Transport Management Act. The Government fought tooth and nail against having the words “economic efficiency” in the legislation, and I cannot understand for the life of me why. Other than the Greens, who do not believe in economic efficiency, I do not know of anybody in this House who would not want New Zealand Railways to run on an economically efficient basis. I will certainly be moving some amendments either at the select committee stage or when the bill comes back into the Committee of the whole House so that we do not only seek, as the bill states, that the objective of the entity is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to “the aim of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system”.

Well, those are lovely words. Those are like mother’s milk, apple pie, and so on. But those words do not actually talk about how this entity would operate in the commercial world, and this is a commercial entity—a business that will charge people to use it. There are no powers fettering its monopoly position as far as I can see. We have in the airports legislation some restrictions about how those airports can either use or misuse their monopoly powers. I would like to put in some words about economic efficiency and to also have some limitations on the abuse of a monopoly power.

Having said all that, though, the bill is necessary and the National Party will not do anything to hinder its passage to a select committee that will hear the necessary submissions and make what we hope will be some constructive suggestions for improving the bill.

I rise to support the bill; to thank the National Party for its support of this bill, and to say I look forward to its contribution when this bill reaches a select committee; to thank my colleague the Minister for Transport Safety for his erudite opening remarks; and to say that this bill marks the end of an era that began when the then National Government sought to privatise the railways, which was arguably the worst act of privatisation in New Zealand’s privatisation era. I have a great deal of pleasure in seeing the rail track—indeed, a monopoly provision—not only returned to State control but also, under this legislation, having statutory identity.

I want to take a call pending the return to the House of my colleague Peter Brown from the Business Committee. Perhaps he will be given the opportunity to say a few words shortly, because, from the sound of things, I am sure there would be no objection to New Zealand First having two calls on this bill. [Interruption] I can tell the member that without rails, they would not run. As we know, this Rail Network Bill provides for the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which has responsibility for owning and operating the national rail network following its purchase by the Crown. As the previous speaker indicated, the preceding National Government has a lot to answer for. Now I can resume my seat, because the person who knows everything about this bill has come into the House, and will be only too pleased to take the next call.

There was a time not long ago, possibly 10 years ago, when we heard that the railways were to be ultra-modern, that they were to go into private hands, and that they were to be a world example. I think they were set up for sale by the Labour Government, of course. I think Richard Prebble as Minister of Transport had set them all up some years before, and when National came to power in the 1990s—[Interruption] The member says we would not have a railway. Let me just say that the year after Richard Prebble set it up, the railways made a profit for the first time ever. Up until that time the taxpayer carried the whole thing, paid for the redundancies and what have you.

Then the Government—and I am sure the member will correct me if I am wrong—employed a couple of consultants from Fay Richwhite, to arrange the sale. A few weeks before the sale, they sort of jumped ship and became part of the purchasing team. As a result, I think that organisation made a lot of money out of New Zealand Rail.

💬 Dail Jones: $300 million.

It made $300 million. What did the country get? It got a rather run-down railway track and railway service, to be honest. And only a year or so ago this Government was forced to purchase the network back—a network that was in a dilapidated state in many, many areas.

In Tauranga I was invited out by some concerned residents who asked me to look at a railway track and see what was holding it in the ground. I went there and I found that it was literally easier to pick the bolts out than to pull pins out of a pincushion—and it was not just one bolt; there were quite a few.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: So what did the member do about it?

The member rang the honourable Minister Harry Duynhoven, who I know likes to get his hands dirty and is not afraid to get some action around the place. After that meeting with the residents and seeing the state of the track, I had gone home thinking that I now had to do something about the situation, because if anything were to go off the rails that night it would be on my conscience. That railway track runs along an embankment between rows of housing, so if something went over it would go right into a house—and God knows what would have happened.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: What did Harry do?

Harry Duynhoven got straight on to the case. He went up in my esteem enormously. There was no mucking around. He got straight on to it. I understand that he had quite some debate to get action. But, fair go, he did get some work done on that railway track in rapid order.

Having said all of that, I have to say that our railway tracks need a fair amount of money put into them, and I hope the Government is aware of that. I think it is programming $200 million, but that is not enough. I do not believe it will be enough. I think it is programming $200 million over 5 years, and I do not believe that will be enough.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: We’ve already put $80 million into it.

I say to the honourable Minister that I think he has to have a good deal more money than he has probably budgeted for. This country needs an efficient railway service, because it is long, skinny country separated by Cook Strait, and the railway could play a very important part in our economic well-being. I am not only talking about it carrying passengers. It is obviously important in areas like Wellington and Auckland that it does carry passengers, but it is also an ideal system for carrying long-haul freight. To my mind and to the minds of my colleagues, it is essential that we get the railway system built up to the appropriate standard in short order.

New Zealand First has always believed that this country would be better served if the tracks were owned by the taxpayer and we allowed operators to operate on the tracks—exactly as the roading system works. We have advocated that for many a year, and we are very, very pleased that the Government has picked up that idea.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Probably Duynhoven’s policy.

I have given the Minister enough credit for one day. I think I am going to claim a little bit for my colleagues here. New Zealand First has advocated that the tracks should be owned by the taxpayer and that the operators who use the tracks should pay rail-user charges, in exactly the same way as trucking companies pay for using the roads. I do not think I need to express any more concerns about that, except—[Interruption] The Minister Pete Hodgson, who is on his feet, is a little bit premature.

I want to know why this bill is being sent to the Government Administration Committee. We have in the Hon Mark Gosche a very competent chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He is well-served by the members on that committee, and they are very keen about transport matters. The Minister, in sending this bill to the Government Administration Committee, is doing a disservice to the transport-minded people who work so diligently on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

💬 Dail Jones: They want it back by June.

Then the Minister had better send it to the professionals, to the guys who really have their finger on the button, and not to the Government Administration Committee. With due respect to the members on that committee, when it comes to trains I do not think they would know the front end of a train from the back of a bus.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s a patronising comment!

I think I have my answer, and I will quit while I am ahead. But I ask the Minister to rethink which committee he sends the bill to and send it to the correct one.

I am curious too as to why this bill is going to the Government Administration Committee. I presume it is because it is legislation that deals with the administration of the rail network. I actually agree with Peter Brown, who has just spoken, that we have a very good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and an excellent chairman and that we do have the time to get through legislation like this. Although ACT is supporting the bill going to the Government Administration Committee, I am disappointed that it will not be to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, because one of the reasons for that support was that I was very interested to see the submissions on it.

There has been a lot of talk about the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation in terms of owning the national rail network. There was a lot of lobbying in 2002-03 by what became known as the “big four”. I think it was Solid Energy—and I can see the Minister racking his brain, as I am. Four big companies wanted the Government to buy back the rail network so they could have the exclusive use of it. Of course, that would never have worked, because rail is not like a road, where there are passing lanes, etc. We opposed this buy-back of the rail network. One of the biggest mistakes that Richard Prebble ever made was not selling the railways. He is always accused of selling the railways. In fact, he never did sell the railways. One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that Richard Prebble sold the railways. Had he sold the railways, had he privatised them, we would have had a successful privatisation, like Telecom—and I do not see this Government moving back to buying back Telecom and turning it into New Zealand Post.

Peter Brown mentioned the fact that the railways used to lose a lot of money. In the year 1979-80, the railways lost $90 million of taxpayers’ money. It was an appalling situation. We saw this move by the Government to buy back the network as a retrograde step.

There has also been talk about buying back this network as a sweetheart deal with Toll Holdings. That is why I would be interested to see the submissions to the select committee—the submissions that will inevitably come in from New Zealand transport operators who will have a lot to say about this legislation, which has appeared to favour an Australian mega transport company that is trying to swallow up New Zealand transport companies. Peter Brown advocated that his party has always foreseen a situation where the taxpayer owned the rail network and the companies, such as the trucking companies, used it—as a parallel with the roading network. Does he not see what a disaster we already have with the roading network? Yes, the trucking companies do pay massive road-user charges to use the roads, but what do they get back in return? They get nothing like what they pay. They get nothing in terms of goods and services commensurate with what they pay for.

If it is estimated that $200 million a year is what is needed to be spent on the rail network, we will never achieve that. We cannot even achieve it with the roads, let alone with a rail network. What people always forget when they criticise the run-down state of rail in New Zealand is that the geography of New Zealand is such that it makes it very, very expensive to maintain a rail network. People always talk about Britain and America, but we have a totally different situation here. Whenever there is talk about a line closing down—an example was the Napier to Gisborne line—all these sentiments come out. People have this emotional attachment to the rail networks—“Save Rail”. How many of those people actually use the rail? They want it for a once-in-a-lifetime scenic trip that they may take, but it is a cost to the taxpayer. If we go back to the time when we spent $90 million a year on our rail network, the cost to the taxpayer was just exorbitant.

The other issue that comes up is rail safety, and how the Government should have ownership because private ownership never takes care of safety. In 2003 I went to a really interesting conference in Britain. It was a conference on how the media report disasters. There has been a lot of reporting in Britain about how privatisation of rail networks in Britain led to a decrease in safety standards and bigger disasters. This conference actually showed that when one compared like with like—if one compared all the equivalents and eliminated things—and compared roading with rail, road travel was far more unsafe than rail. It is just that when there is a rail disaster it is a big one, and it is a shocking one. The media report it and blow it up. Everyone is really interested in it and says how ghastly it is and we have all these tales. Every day that number of people, and more, can be killed on the roads in Britain, and no one takes any notice. So it is all about perceptions. There is no evidence to show that private ownership of any rail network automatically leads to a decline in safety standards.

The Government was not forced to purchase back the rail network. Yes, I agree that the privatisation of the rail network was badly handled. But that does not mean to say that it should be one or the other. It could have been fixed up, or improved, instead of going back to a situation where the taxpayer now owns and carries the risk of running, maintaining, and pouring more and more dollars into the national rail network. As I said, we are supporting this bill to select committee. I am disappointed it is not going to our select committee—the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—but we will support it and see what happens when it comes back to the House.

I am pleased to stand and speak in support of the Rail Network Bill. The legislation is necessitated by the buy back of the rail-track. I might add that the Greens have advocated the buy back of the rail-track for many years, and we are pleased to see the Government adopt the strategy and actually buy it back—and, I might add, get a bargain—and put ourselves in a position to establish a comprehensive transport strategy that includes rail. We are pleased to see measures long advocated by us actually happen. But the rail network development plan that this bill requires has important implications for the energy and conservation future of this country, and it also has important implications for the travel future of this country.

It is now 12 years since our rail system was disastrously privatised and allowed to run down. The $200 million and 10-year capital improvement programme that this legislation facilitates will provide New Zealand with an essential component of a sustainable transport system. The bill is good news for motorists, who have seen their safety undermined by the proliferation of road freight. In view of the fact that road freight operators meet only 56 percent of their roading costs, and rail pays 82 percent, this bill, and the $200 million commitment, is an overdue redressing of an out-of-kilter transport system.

The bill is good news for rail commuters in Wellington and Auckland as well. As our summers get longer and hotter, the new owners of the rail-track have a responsibility to see that the track stands up to the pressure without inconveniencing passengers as rails buckle, as they have in the past. With peak oil charges and a pressing need to deal with climate change, New Zealand needs the fuel efficiency that rail offers for the movement of freight and people. There is no doubt that oil will become more expensive. There is no doubt that climate change is looming. Rail is an important component in providing both sustainable and affordable transport and reducing carbon emissions, thereby helping us to comply with our Kyoto Protocol commitments.

The bill gives effect to New Zealand’s transport strategy to expand the role of rail. There is much that needs to be done to restore rail, and the communities and the workforces along the rail-track are likely to get a lift as a consequence of this bill. It is critical that rail is integrated with the other transport modes so that commuters and freight operators can mix and match their transport options. One of the things that was discovered in surveys of local communities was that they wanted to be able to put their bikes on the trains so that they could do part of their journey by cycle and part of their journey on the train. It makes good sense. It is simple for cyclists to carry their bikes on the trains, and that will improve patronage. It is also important that parking adjacent to railway stations, urban railway stations in particular, is provided, so again, users can mix and match their transport options. Peter Brown asked what New Zealand got. He suggested a rather dilapidated rail-track. I would suggest New Zealand has an opportunity to have a comprehensive transport strategy.

I hope new rail-track will be laid. I live in Nelson. The Environment Court recently turned down a request by the city of Nelson to build a 2½ kilometre road—a third highway into the city—that would cost $20 million - odd. I asked Tranz Rail some time back what it would cost to build a rail network, and it said something like $1 million a kilometre. I cannot remember who it was—maybe it was Deborah Coddington—who said that rail is great for long-haul freight. I would suggest that it has a role for short-haul freight as well. Nelson’s main road—a lovely scenic road—runs around the waterfront, and it gets clogged with very large lorries. Traffic on the road is actually overcapacity most of the day. Certainly if it is not overcapacity, it does not take much for it to grind to a halt. A rail network into the city is something that should certainly be investigated. In the past I have asked for something to be done. So far people have said: “Oh, we don’t build rail any more.” Well, I would suggest that with peak oil prices, along with climate change, it is one of those things that needs to be investigated. It would certainly make our port road a whole lot more enjoyable as a scenic road, and a whole lot safer for motorists.

Deborah Coddington mentioned the inefficiencies of rail. Well, could I say that the efficiencies will improve as freight volumes and passenger volumes increase. She spoke also about an emotional attachment. Well, it is an emotional attachment that would be good to see renewed and revived, because, in fact, rail plays a really important role, I believe, in the slowing-down movement that is advocated all over the world these days. As I see the mist roll in over Wellington harbour yet again today, it may well be that rail will become more reliable in the future, and it may be even faster than using aeroplanes.

It is interesting to see the successive rail works marketed. It is not enough simply to put in the infrastructure; we do need to market it. We have a very attractive product, but there needs to be somebody out there, saying to folk: “Go and catch the train. Go and see our country. Go and enjoy it.” Of course, visitors to New Zealand like the Tranz Scenic train journey that goes from Canterbury to the West Coast and return. It is a lovely trip, and, of course, we have scenery like that all over the country. Having rail in place so that scenery can be explored and enjoyed by more New Zealanders, and also overseas visitors, makes eminently good sense. The Greens are supporting this bill. It is another piece of legislation that is the result, I like to think, of the close relationship between the Government and ourselves on transport, and it promises a much more enlightened transport future for New Zealanders.

I am pleased to support the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. This is yet another piece of legislation that this Government has put into place that adds to its record of revitalising the transport infrastructure in New Zealand. I remind members in the House that this Government is about to spend $18.7 billion on transport over the next 10 years, to fix up the terrible mistakes of the past—as Peter Brown indicated in his speech—that saw our rail system almost at the point of extinction. We have picked it back up and bought it back for $1. We are putting in $200 million to fix up the rail system, which was badly neglected by the private sector.

It was extraordinary to hear Maurice Williamson say the National Party wants to remove a monopoly from the situation. Is National proposing to build another railway line next to the current one, so that there is choice? Anything is possible with the National Party, and, of course, that is the kind of nonsense we would expect from it. The competition is transport on the roads and transport on the sea. Rail has to be a vital part of transport competition. That is why the Government has stepped back in—to make sure that we have a rail system. We know that in some circumstances the roading system would cost a lot more to fix up than the rail system. The options have to be left open.

It is also extraordinary to have the ACT party saying it is opposed to international investment, in the form of Toll NZ, coming in to help fix up the rail system. Toll NZ will be scratching its head, wondering whether the ACT party is the party that is supposed to be for private enterprise. One of its members criticised Richard Prebble; well, I criticise him for everything he has done in his time in Parliament, but I would not be so ungracious as Deborah Coddington, one of his mates, has been in doing so.

Anyway, this is a good bill. It is very necessary. The Government Administration Committee is a wonderful committee that has always considered this type of legislation. I am sure that all those members who want to be part of the consideration will be able to get on that committee if they wish.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Rail Network Bill. We welcome this bill into the House. It will make very positive progress in the re-establishment of our rail network throughout this nation.

The bill sets out to update the legislation under which the rail network operating authority, ONTRACK, operates. It repeals the outmoded New Zealand Railways Corporation Act of 1981 and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act of 1990. It also provides ONTRACK with the necessary modernised governance arrangements, and allows for carry-over provisions relating to the holding and disposal of rail network land with the intention of preserving the current position.

I am particularly interested in the provisions that allow ONTRACK to acquire new land for expansion of the rail network, because I believe it is important that, as we develop new motorways in this nation—which United Future is very keen to see happen—some forward-thinking people anticipate the possibility that there may be, at some stage in the future, an interest in expanding our rail network alongside those motorways. I am pleased that the bill will make provision for that.

This bill can be seen as a significant step towards restoring and properly developing rail as a key part of New Zealand’s freight and passenger transport networks. The fact that this bill will also require ONTRACK to prepare a 10-year capital development programme is testimony to the fact that the current thinking is in line with the long-term strategy thinking, which is encouraging. We must plan better for not only our rail network but our road network in this country, and have goals that will provide the infrastructure we need for an effective economy in this country. The rail network is far too important for any Government to sit idly by and watch it deteriorate, as others have done, and I must congratulate this Government on taking the bull by the horns—so to speak—stepping in and reclaiming the rail network in this country, and being prepared to invest in it. It is never ever a good idea to watch infrastructure sit and rust away and investments made in the past be wasted.

For us the preferred option is not just pouring money into infrastructure but offering—and this is met in this bill—a sensible balance between extracting a return from an investment and still ensuring its sustainability. That is sound logic, and United Future always errs on the side of logic, as members of the House have come to know over the past few years. Calling for greater investment in infrastructure is a hallmark of United Future’s policy planks that we have been pursuing during this term of Parliament. This bill represents such a position with regard to our nation’s rail network. It offers prudent and necessary measures, and as such we will be pleased to support its passage at the first reading.

We had a very lucid address from our member the Hon Maurice Williamson, who made a very good speech. He indicated some changes he would like to see happen at the select committee. We are pleased to support this bill. We subscribe to his view that we should support this bill through to a select committee. We will be doing that. The bill will go to the Government Administration Committee, of which I am a member, so I look forward to receiving it there. However, one thing we will vote against is the resolution by the Minister that would have that committee meeting at any time. We certainly will not be supporting that, although we support the bill.

Bill read a first time.

, on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Rail Network Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration, that the committee report by 23 June 2005, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area on a day the House is sitting, despite Standing Orders 191, 193(a), and 194(1)(b) and (c).