Railways Bill

I think that we now have a process we could follow that will make this stage go quite quickly. I can give the Government and the Minister an assurance that National Party members do not intend to take too much time on this, if we could get just one thing from the Minister. I would ask him to take us through some of the key parts of Supplementary Order Paper 353.

In particular, the amendment that I am very concerned about is to clause 51. It reinserts paragraph (a) to regulate the use of railway lines, and so on. I understand that the clause is in Part 2 and that we are doing this part by part, so Madam Chairperson may want to rule me out of order. But all I can say is that the Minister knows very well that Oppositions can delay bills for a long, long time if they want to. We do not want to. We want to work cooperatively; we really do. We think that we got this pretty well tidied up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I ask the Minister to take a call to give us a brief explanation. It does not need to be earth-shattering, thunderous, or something that will make the front page of the newspaper tomorrow—we just want a little bit of a description.

Some of the amendments are so obvious, it is not funny. Of course, one would want to change the definition of “Authority” from the Land Transport Safety Authority to Land Transport New Zealand. That is correct. Then there are other things, such as amending clause 92(1)(b) to omit the unneeded cross reference, for example. Of course, there will not be any political concern about that amendment. But, I repeat, some things that the select committee, after intense discussion and consideration, had agreed to take out—for example, clause 51(a)—have now gone back in. The Minister may have a perfectly logical explanation and say that that paragraph had to go back in because it did not stay in, so I will make it clear now: we will cooperate. There will be hardly any speaking from us, at all. We will go with this bill as it is, if the Minister could give us a very brief explanation as to what is going on.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Shortly, I will do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that Part 1 be agreed to, but first of all we have the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 to be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This might be a sneaky little trick, but I hope it is not. I have made it clear that the Opposition will cooperate. All we are asking for is a very brief explanation as to why this Supplementary Order Paper is back here at the last minute. Members might remember that this bill was reported back in August 2004, after extreme cooperation from the parties. A brief explanation is all that I am asking for, which is a very reasonable request.

If we have to start voting on the Minister’s amendments, not only will we vote them down—probably unsuccessfully, because of our numbers—but we will also start speaking on them and haul down a team from all the other busy operations, and we will take this bill through every damn clause and part that we can. But I am sure that the Minister will have a good explanation for us.

💬 Hon Harry Duynhoven: Perhaps I can help.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ask whether the Committee wants to deal with Parts 1 to 4 as one question.

My understanding from Mr Williamson is that the Minister has indicated he will make a contribution prior to the question being put on Part 1 only. Presumably because you have put the question, members will need to seek leave for the Minister to make a contribution prior to that vote being taken. If that is the case, I seek leave accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have not completed putting the question.

I assure Mr Power that I would have immediately taken the call, had he not risen to seek leave and used some time in the Chamber.

The Hon Maurice Williamson has made a very good contribution, and I thank him for his offer of cooperation. I am aware that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee debated the issue of clause 51(a) and, with the officials, agreed initially that it was probably not needed in the bill and should be struck out. However, the New Zealand Railways Corporation has sought the reintroduction of this enabling provision in the rule-making powers to enable better management of the network, and to ensure that the overall management of the network can be thoroughly achieved. It is an enabling provision. It allows for changes to be made as needed. It may be that for a period parts of the network shall be controlled in some way—restricted due to operational requirements or other matters, perhaps. They may even be the sorts of matters that Mr Brown raised a while back about track maintenance. For whatever reason, the New Zealand Railways Corporation, which owns the tracks as the former Minister will be aware, has asked for this clause to be re-included. The officials, having heard the case, have recommended that that is the case. That is why the clause is back on the Supplementary Order Paper.

I will take one quick call to ask the Minister to give an explanation—and this will be very cooperative, I promise members. I thought that stuff would be covered under the Rail Network Bill, in terms of the New Zealand Railways Corporation’s ability to close track when there were issues about safety, such as bolts having been taken out. The Rail Network Bill would have allowed for that sort of regulation. If the clause is also needed in the Railways Bill as a belt and braces I will live with it because it seems a halfway reasonable explanation, but we did not think it was necessary to bring it back into this bill. If the Minister could explain, that would be fine.

The Rail Network Bill is about the role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation as an entity. The Railways Bill is much more about the corporation being a participant in the operation of railways. So this provision might be needed for operational reasons. There might have been a slip, or something of a temporary nature, which means that the speed on the line needs to be regulated. Or there may be some subsidence around bridge footings, which is the type of situation where conditions could lead to the need to provide some sort of restriction, or maybe even to close the track temporarily. They are operational issues rather than network ownership issues. That is the best explanation I can give the former Minister. I am sure that as a former Minister he will realise the practicality of these issues.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 4 be agreed to.

I do not think that there will be a great deal of debate on this bill. By and large, I think the whole Committee is supportive of it. I seek leave to take the whole bill as one part from now on.

Leave is sought to take Parts 2 to 4, including the schedules, as one question. Is there any objection? There is not. That is agreed to.

Parts 2 to 4 and schedules