Infrastructure Bill

I ask you to indulge me, Mr Chairman, just briefly, to say how nice it is to see the Hon Tau Henare in the Chamber this evening as part of the Committee. If I link it back to the Infrastructure Bill, I know he has had some changes to his own infrastructure lately, and I know he has 21st century equipment now in that respect. It is quite genuinely good to see him. On this side of the Chamber we will be ensuring his continued recovery by encouraging him not to interject quite as thoroughly and aggressively as he normally does. We will be doing that out of aroha for him, not out of any sense of trying to shut him down politically. I was concerned at various parts of his recovery when I felt that some of his Facebook status updates were getting a little too edgy politically, and I thought he should be focused on his recovery. But it is great to see him here, looking so well, so we extend that to Mr Henare tonight.

We are debating the Infrastructure Bill 2 years after the election of the National-led Government. This is a Government that came into office saying that it was determined to lead a “step change” in the New Zealand economy, and that it was determined to, in fact, “turbocharge” the New Zealand economy, and infrastructure would be one of the ways in which it sought to do that.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: That’s right. We’re doing that.

Mrs te Heuheu says that is absolutely what the Government was trying to do, but the only thing she has been able to turbocharge is the Pacific Economic Development Agency. She sure built up its infrastructure until things got a little bit difficult for her in that particular respect.

This bill has been languishing on the Order Paper. Once it is split through Supplementary Order Paper 152 later this evening, Part 1 will form the new Utilities Access Bill. The largest chunk of the Infrastructure Bill is here in Part 1. It troubles the Opposition considerably that what was meant to be a key part of the Government’s economic programme has sat around for 2 years of this Government’s term with absolutely nothing happening about it.

The new infrastructure portfolio was created for Minister English after the election as part, no doubt, of some sort of power struggle with the Hon Steven Joyce. Mr English insisted on an extra portfolio, and that is fair enough, as he has been burnt often enough in politics to know that it is important to cover one’s bases. When the Minister for Infrastructure speaks, maybe he could tell us why this portfolio was set up. He has had to introduce only one piece of legislation as a result of picking up this portfolio. This bill is it. Two years later we are stuck in the Committee stage on this bill.

We would be very interested to hear from the Minister to what extent this bill is a priority. We are debating it on a day in which the Government has backed down on what was in just February a centrepiece of its economic policy: mining of schedule 4 lands in precious conservation areas of New Zealand. That policy was so important that it was in the Prime Minister’s annual statement to Parliament, but today, of course, it has been completely abandoned halfway through the year the statement was meant to apply to. We would like to know just how critical this is seen to be. It appears to me that that back-down was a political back-down, and not a back-down of principle or a change of decision or philosophy by the Government. I believe that it still believes those areas should be mined, but it has backed away from it on the basis of its political imperatives and the changing political environment. There does not appear to be a lot left to hang the turbocharging of the economy on. The Infrastructure Bill is stuck well into the second year of the Government’s term, and the mining proposal has been mined in the opposite direction.

To the Minister’s great credit, he always opposed the cycleway. The Minister for Infrastructure always knew the cycleway was a complete joke—he knows how to recognise such things—and he never lent any meaningful support to it. Of course, nothing in this bill covers the cycleway at all, but that should not come as a surprise to anyone.

As we open up the debate on the part by part consideration of this bill, we want to know from the Minister for Infrastructure just how important this bill is to the Government. In the 2 years it has been dithering on this bill, turning it into legislation, what significant items of infrastructure development in New Zealand have been stopped or stymied because this legislation was not present? If the Minister could tell us that, it would give us some sense of the urgency of this bill. Goodness knows, the House has been put into enough bouts of urgency since the election, but on not one occasion was the Infrastructure Bill part of those motions. That is despite, I have to say, the Labour Opposition offering to facilitate that bill through its stages in urgency.

We support this bill, with the exception of Part 4, which my colleague Moana Mackey will go through when we get to it. For Parts 1, 2, and 3 there is bipartisan support for this bill because we can see what some of the issues have been with inefficiencies and uncertainties. So we are interested to hear from the Minister why the bill has taken so long to get to this point.

Twenty-nine smoke-free days ago there was a clog in the system. Like any infrastructure one has to get in there, put in a stent, and unclog the arteries. This is what the Infrastructure Bill does. I could not believe my luck when I looked at the notes, and I looked at the bill more seriously than I have for a long time. I saw that it was about unclogging the arteries of what can only be considered an appalling state of affairs. We have a country that wants to get ahead, just like anybody would want to get ahead. It wants to show off and it wants to go out at a rate of knots that will take this country further and faster than it has ever gone before, but it cannot because of the build-up of plaque and the build-up of a clogged system.

I consider this bill to be the economic stent taking the red corpuscles to the tissues of the nation. It is taking the red corpuscles to the tissues of the nation.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Spell it.

T-i-s-s-u-e-s. There we are—“tissues”. It is great to be back. It is great to be back in the fold of those who want to see the arteries of our nation unclogged so that we can get ahead.

💬 Hon Member: Welcome home.

I thank that member very much.

Let us be serious. We are a small nation. I do not want to stand here and tell the nation what happened in the last 9 years of the Labour Government.

💬 Chris Tremain: “But I will.”!

No, I will not say: “But I will.” I will say that unless we have good infrastructure, unless we have a good system whereby people can get ahead—and that is from the smallest business, the one-man operation, to the 200, 300, or 400-person operation—and unless we allow those companies and businesses to succeed, we are not going anywhere. The net effect of having a poor infrastructure can only be a poor future for our children and our grandchildren.

I know it might be funny to use the analogy of my unfortunate experience 29 smoke-free days ago, but it is a serious matter. Unless we unclog those arteries, and unless we unclog the systems that are clogging up business and the airways, I think that we will be in trouble. It is just like me. If I had not had that stent put in to open up the artery, I would have been in some serious, serious trouble. The future would not have been bright for me, my children, or my grandchildren.

I see this matter, actually, as being above all else. We can talk about the foreshore and seabed and about all sorts of things, but, clearly, if we are to move this nation forward economically, then we have to have the tools with which we can do just that and can do justice to our kids and our grandchildren. Without further ado, I say that it is essential—it is essential—that our infrastructure is there and can cope with what will hopefully come in the future: better roads, better rail, better infrastructure, and better utilities for the whole of the nation.

I add my “welcome back” to Tau Henare. It is really good that he is back in the Chamber. We did not miss him a lot, but it is kind of nice that he is here. I have to say to my whanaunga that I was very, very disappointed. I saw his note on Facebook about the 90-day probationary period bill, and being congratulated by—what is his name? From the Hospitality Association—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Bruce Robertson.

Bruce Robertson was saying congratulations to Tau and good on him. I put a little note on saying that I hoped to see him at the protest on Sunday, but I did not see him there; he was probably inside. This is the union organiser of the 1980s, the worst union organiser that we had ever known in the whole of the country. I am being generous here tonight, but I am genuine when I say that I am pleased to see Tau Henare back.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dealt with this bill. I am not going to praise the chair; he has had enough of that—look at him! The select committee that considered this bill took it seriously. I thought that the great speech from the Hon Tau Henare about the infrastructure future of our country was very interesting, but it was also timely, given the considerations and things that are happening right now.

I want to take us back to reality about what this bill does. The bill has been around for a long time, and it has been languishing. It went to the select committee in July or August 2009 and we heard from a whole range of people. This bill sets up a code. It does not build a road or a railway; it does not build anything. It does not do anything. It sets up a code.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Unclogs the arteries.

No, it does not unclog the arteries. Well, it unclogs the arteries of the Utilities Advisory Group. This poor group set itself up years and years ago, under Labour. It has been working away on a code and hoping that the National-led Government would do something about putting it in place. It must be absolutely fed up with waiting. I congratulate the group on being so patient. Let us not get carried away about what this bill actually does. I am sure as we go on we will talk about many of the other things. I am really looking forward to talking in the Committee stage about many of our utilities. Going back to the Utilities Advisory Group, may I say that it is just well it did not have a 90-day trial period because it would have been fired some time ago.

I go back to the bill. Labour began the work on this bill. In 2006 we agreed on some policy objectives to reduce the costs and inefficiencies arising from the current statutory framework, including avoidable damage to roads and utility networks, delays and disputes, and inconsistencies between statutes and poor coordination. The work was done under Labour. This bill came together under Labour, under the wonderful Ministers we had in the previous Government. I regret, as, indeed, my colleagues do, that it has taken us so long to get to a point where we are not actually unclogging the arteries but perhaps releasing the potential of the Utilities Advisory Group, which, under this legislation, has the right to set up a code that the Minister can approve or disapprove. It is a voluntary code. They will then work together on it, and hopefully we will see some change.

Yes, let us unclog the arteries, by all means. Let us talk about what Labour did to unclog the arteries during its 9 years in Government. I am looking forward to talking about that, as well.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: 9 glorious years.

Labour had 9 glorious years in Government. I regret the fact that this has taken so long for this Government, having been through so many periods of urgency. We have seen the wonderful National Party conference that was held over the weekend. There were the wonderful announcements of a step change. The step change? Where is that? It is the stepladder—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: The plank.

It is the plank; that is what it is. It is stepping off the plank, into the sea. No one knows what the step change means, except that they see it as taking away workers’ rights and taking away their wages.

I echo the thoughts of other members of the Committee in welcoming back Tau. It is good to see him; he made a great speech. The way that Tau outlined the analogy between his physical being and the need for the New Zealand economy to have its arteries unclogged so that it can achieve its full potential—and, in the case of Tau Henare, he can live his life—is something that this Committee should put great store by. We congratulate the Labour and National members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on their work on the Infrastructure Bill.

The Labour members are voting for this bill, apart from the last part, I presume. After listening to the previous speech one would not necessarily have picked that Labour members will actually vote for the bill. I thank the officials as well for their work at the select committee.

There are three basic things in the bill: a change to the access to corridors, which is in Parts 1 and 2; changes to the Railways Corporation, which are in Part 3; and some amendments relating to affordable housing in Part 4. We are on Part 1 now, which relates to utility access to transport corridors. Essentially, for a layperson, that means that if we look at the links between our major cities throughout New Zealand, we see that they tend to be large infrastructure corridors. If we drive along the southern motorway going into Auckland, for example, we can see it is a wide road. There are power lines beside us. It is an infrastructure corridor; it covers a lot of infrastructure. Rail, power, and roading are normally all in very close proximity and follow a very similar line in the important infrastructure corridors of a country. We are trying to make sure that in future those infrastructure corridors are managed in a way that enables the best development of this country and that infrastructure going forward.

What can happen is that areas, companies, or infrastructure providers provide their own infrastructure, to the detriment of the provision of other infrastructure or, potentially, new infrastructure. The Government has made a commitment to the roll-out of broadband around New Zealand. That is a huge infrastructural connection that we need to make through New Zealand, so we want our core infrastructure—for example, around broadband—to be able to travel along those main arterial routes. We do not want that to necessarily be constrained by the existing infrastructure.

Basically, this bill enables the providers and those who are involved in the infrastructure to formulate codes of practice. Those codes of practice will then be taken to the Minister for approval. The Minister will approve them, subject to whatever the conditions are, and they will become regulations that guide conduct in those transport and infrastructure corridors. This is a very important role. It is safeguarding New Zealand’s future economic efficiency by providing those pathways where we can structure and transfer our major infrastructure, whether it is utilities such as electricity, or transport in the sense of roading, rail, and suchlike. That is the general concept of what is being achieved in this bill.

This has been lacking for a long time. As we look at growing a country and taking advantage of potential technology and investment, we need to secure our infrastructure. This bill rectifies an issue that had not been dealt with in the past, and that should have been dealt with. It also safeguards and provides for the future of New Zealand’s growth in infrastructure—those vital pathways. This is a forward-looking bill, just as much as it is a bill that deals with the case in point at the moment. That is why it is so crucial, and shows the Government’s long-term direction in wanting to build a stronger economy. We are providing the building blocks so that infrastructure can take advantage of structures that enable investment and delivery of key infrastructure to New Zealanders, so that we can grow our economy and achieve our purposes.

That is what this bill is about. That is why the Labour Party will support it. Labour members know it is in the best interests of New Zealand, and that is why this bill will pass through the Committee tonight.

I too rise to speak on Part 1 of the Infrastructure Bill. But I want to make a few general comments first. Even though Tau Henare is no longer in the Chamber I would like to acknowledge him, as other members have done. It is good to see him back, and he made a very interesting analogy about the unclogging of arteries. Unfortunately, this bill will not unclog the arteries, as others have said. It is an important bill in so far as it goes, and it makes some very sensible suggestions to ensure that the people who provide utilities and those who control the transport corridors must cooperate. That is sensible, so Labour will be supporting this bill.

But infrastructure is about people, really. It is about providing services to people and those services getting to people, and it is about the movement of people on, for example, transport corridors. I think this is what we really need to focus on here. Certainly in many countries in the world infrastructure projects have been used in the current recession to the benefit of people, both in terms of investing a lot in extra infrastructure and also providing jobs. Of course we have seen the National Government fail significantly in this area. It has shown a complete lack of leadership in the area of job creation. Unemployment in New Zealand is significantly higher than in many comparable countries, as a result of that. That issue too is about people. It means that people are struggling to make ends meet, and in many parts of New Zealand they do not have the opportunity to have a standard of living that we might think is fair and reasonable.

Going back to the bill, I point out that, as others have commented, this work was originally begun under the previous Labour Government and considered by Cabinet in 2007. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which considered this bill more recently under this Government, and it is fair to say it clearly has not been a priority for the Government. This bill, which will unclog arteries, as others have said, has clearly not been a Government priority, because it has been languishing on the Order Paper.

None the less I will talk specifically about the code provided for in Part 1. I note that it is probably a substantive part of the bill, and it ensures that both the transport corridor controllers and the utilities companies have to try to work together on the content of the code. The code has a process whereby others do get to comment on it, and ultimately it is approved by the Minister and gazetted. Quite a lot of changes were made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in relation to this part. I think they were all positive changes. Many of the submissions were quite technical, but they were also constructive in terms of trying to ensure that we did get this right. The officials also had to deal with quite complex matters in order to get this right. [Interruption] The chairperson of the select committee seems to be making funny gestures. I am not sure quite what that means.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He’s about to join Mr Henare.

That is probably true. So this part of the bill provides a code that will, hopefully, ensure cooperation.

The code requires some changes. One change that I thought was particularly important was, as I said, coordinating the work between utilities operators. In many parts of New Zealand we as MPs—and I would say this applies across the Chamber—hear from constituents who are concerned about the lack of coordination. During the second reading of this bill I gave an example from Onehunga of some roadworks that impacted on water pipes and other services, and the complete lack of cooperation and coordination in that case.

In Auckland we have some significant infrastructure needs. We have a fast-growing population, and there are some real deficits there. I am concerned, as an Auckland-based MP, that this Government seems to have focused far more significantly on roading than on the public transport that we require. This trap, which many countries in the world have fallen into, will mean that ultimately we will never properly meet the need to move people around Auckland until we get the necessary degree of investment in transport infrastructure, particularly public transport infrastructure. That is an important area for the Government to consider. It needs to look at improving its game not only in terms of improving transport in Auckland but also in relation to the other real risk for us, which is the super-city structure.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Infrastructure Bill, as well. As my colleagues have said, the Labour Party supports the first three parts of this bill, but the last part, on affordable housing, which my colleague Moana Mackey will talk on later, we certainly do not support.

This bill is an important bill in terms of coordinating and safeguarding our infrastructure into the future. It is interesting to note the announcements made in the last few weeks, and even today, by the Minister of Transport—for example, that the Newmarket Viaduct was due to open in record time, as was the Māngere Bridge crossing. It is all good news, and they were all projects put in place under a Labour Government. It is gratifying to go around, when invited as an electorate MP, to many of the railway stations that have been upgraded as a result of the Labour Government investing 15 times more in public transport infrastructure than was the case in 1999.

Infrastructure is one of this country’s economic drivers. When we look at transport, in 1999 1 percent of GDP was allocated to transport; by 2008 it was 1.6 percent. It went up under a Labour Government, which said more or less what the National Government is saying today, except that the Labour Government had 9 years to prove and show the difference it can make in infrastructure.

Part 1 introduces a code that enables a much more coordinated approach to the corridors and main infrastructure routes that affect New Zealand. When we look at some of the priorities being set aside in relation to future pieces of infrastructure, and particularly in my area in Auckland, we see that one of the roads of national significance does not even meet the grade, on a cost-benefit analysis, of a dollar for dollar benefit. The Pūhoi to Wellsford road is being pushed through as a road of national significance. It is that sort of wayward—and I would even go so far as saying irresponsible—type of infrastructure that means we are looking at a motorway that is not able to generate the returns and benefits to justify its cost, yet we are putting in $1.6 billion, possibly rising up to $2 billion, to support it. That is a colossal and utter waste of money. Most people in Auckland know that. Pretty much everybody in Auckland knows that this is a road that will really only benefit those people going to their baches in the northern part of Auckland, up in the Warkworth area, at holiday times.

It is an extraordinary waste of money—$1.6 billion. I think of what we could use $1.6 billion for, and I will give members one quick example. Right now Auckland is expanding at the rate of one Wellington City every 8 years. Basically, 180,000 people are being added to Auckland’s population every 8 years. We need to be able to think about transport infrastructure and public transport infrastructure. The railway system needs to be substantially upgraded. The key aspect of the railway system is the inner-city underground loop that runs through the inner part of Auckland. This one project, which we believe will cost about the same amount of money as the $1.6 billion for the Pūhoi to Wellsford road—

I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Infrastructure Bill.

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: We’re happy to hear from you!

I thank Mr Heatley. He will be hearing a lot more from me in the debate on Part 4. Part 4 marks yet another day in the sad, sad history of Phil Heatley, Minister of Housing, but we will get to that in debate on Part 4. As other members have done, I thank the submitters who came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I thank the officials who worked on the bill.

It is interesting that when the Government puts up legislation in the House that has the word “infrastructure” in the title, National MPs think they have solved all infrastructure problems. They kind of think that if they pass it, it will come. The reality is that although this is good legislation—it was drafted by the previous Labour Government—it will not solve all infrastructure problems. This bill does not change the fact that the Government’s focus and priorities in infrastructure are skewed. They do not represent the infrastructure needs, particularly in rail. Where I come from the Government is looking at closing the Gisborne to Napier rail line. We have fought for a long time to keep this rail line open. It was only under the Labour Government that that became a reality, and now the National Government wants to try to get rid of it. It wants to turn it into a cycleway, of course, which is its answer to everything—if in doubt, build a cycleway. The reality is that rail will always be part of the long-term mix of transport in Gisborne. It could be used an awful lot more than it is currently being used; I hope that the Government will see sense on that matter.

Part 1 implements a code. The interesting thing about the code is that when National members were discussing the code at the select committee, they said how important it was that there was buy-in, and that they would go out and consult on it. They then told us that the code had, in fact, already been written and was already there in draft form. The cart was put before the horse in that respect.

It became clear at the select committee that there was an expected and, I suppose, understandable tension between rail operators and road transport operators. It seemed as if the National members on the select committee did not want to acknowledge that there was a difference between the road corridor and the rail corridor. When there is a problem, people need to be able to access infrastructure to do with power lines, gas, and water, but the difference is that when work is being done in a road corridor it is easier to divert traffic. A rail corridor has to absolutely shut down when work is being done. Those who came along and submitted from the rail perspective wanted that point to be understood. It is all very well to say that everything should be treated the same, but the rail corridor is different, and the disruption is far greater when they have to close down the entire line. It seemed as if National members did not want to acknowledge that point, which was a shame.

💬 Darien Fenton: They don’t like railways, really.

They do not like rail; I think that is the point we came to. We had a little bit of insight as to why a number of infrastructure and lines companies were quite keen to turn rail lines into cycleways when that point came out. I often wondered why Eastland Infrastructure was so keen on turning our rail track into a cycleway until I started to read the submissions on the infrastructure legislation and realised that it would probably find it far easier to access its lines if they ran along a cycleway rather than a rail corridor. I think that that is where it is coming from, which is a shame, because—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: They haven’t seen how fast Mr Mallard would cycle down it.

That is right. We would have to put out a special warning if Mr Mallard was on the corridor on the cycleway.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You know that Mallard is an engine, don’t you?

I did not know that the Mallard was an engine. That is extremely interesting.

The other part I will speak about in this bill, which is very important, is the definitions. Labour members were very concerned about the definitions relating to waste and waste water infrastructure and about who would be considered to be the utility operators. Paragraph (d) of the definition of “utility operator” in clause 4 originally stated: “in relation to water and wastewater infrastructure, a local authority as defined in section 5 of the Local Government Act 2002”. The National members on the select committee added these words: “or any person acting on behalf of a local authority in relation to that infrastructure:”. When this amendment was flagged at the select committee, it was raised as being just a small issue so that we could have flexibility.

This issue is clearly intended to pre-empt the future privatisation of the infrastructure services in waste water and water. We accepted that Auckland has already gone part of the way, and that we need to make sure that the situation in Auckland is covered by this legislation, so we suggested alternative wording that would have captured the situation in Auckland whilst not opening up the door holus-bolus to the privatisation of waste water and water infrastructure. That suggestion was turned down by National members, which clearly indicates to us, in relation to the debate that is going on with regard to the Auckland super-city, the National Government’s intention for the future privatisation of these services. It wants to make it as easy as possible to privatise these services.

There were other ways to word the definition, and submitters came along and suggested wording that would have captured the situation in Auckland with the council-controlled authorities that are already there, but would not have allowed the definition to open up as widely as it has. We did not really get any answers from the National members on the select committee on this matter. Clearly, they were told what they needed to do, and that is the way that they voted. But it was an issue of significant concern for a number of the submitters who came along. It seems like such a small thing, but the difference that those 10 or so words can make is enormous when it comes to our infrastructure services.

Another interesting thing about the code is the exemptions—that is, where it does not apply, as much as where it does apply. I think we will have to be very, very careful and keep a close eye on this area. It would have been far simpler for us to design a situation that ensured a total buy-in from all the parties, but that is not what we got. That work had not been done at the very basic level. The Government wanted to get this legislation through, and its overarching intention was that its focus was purely on roads and it was not very fussed about all the other types of infrastructure that this bill deals with, so we did not get to that situation. That is unfortunate. We were basically told that the code had already been drafted. Despite the fact that the legislation states that it is yet to be drafted and that there was a whole process of consultation to go through, we were told categorically that it had been drafted. Lots of people do not agree with it, and a significant number of those in the infrastructure sector do not agree with it.

💬 Darien Fenton: Who’ve dropped out.

Yes, they have dropped out of being a part of it. I think that that fact really undermines the very basis of this code and the purpose of having it. The reason for having a code was that we could not get agreement on when people could access the transport corridors. This legislation is still before Parliament and has not even been passed, and already parties are dropping out and do not want to be a party to this code. I think that it speaks to the process that this Government has taken in getting the legislation to this point. We can understand people’s frustration when we hear big words and big speeches about the fantastic process that has been set up, yet the select committee was told that the code has already been drafted. We were told that the code was already there, and that we could basically take it or leave it. The Government did not see any point in going back and relitigating it with the sector. Well, that runs contrary to Part 1. As I said before, it puts the cart before the horse.

I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Infrastructure, what work he is doing to try to make sure that all the parties who should be signing up to this code will be brought on board. A code becomes somewhat redundant if all of a sudden people are dropping out all over the show. We end up in exactly the same situation that we ended up in before, which is that someone going in to do work on a transport corridor has absolutely no idea where the infrastructure is located, because that information is not being supplied. The council plans may be 2 or 3 metres out, so people may dig somewhere that they think is safe, but suddenly they hit a water main or a—

💬 Hon Phil Heatley: It’s madness.

Well, Mr Heatley would know. I will take it from an expert.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He knows how to dig.

That is right. Phil Heatley certainly knows how to dig, so I will take it from an expert in that regard.

I think all members of this Committee acknowledge that we are in an untenable position with regard to access to these corridors, but I ask whether this is the best way to go about it. I ask whether we will actually resolve anything when affected parties are basically being told to take it or leave it, that this legislation will implement a code but that the code has already been drafted by certain elements of that sector, and that if they do not like it, that is just tough. The fact is that we have been in the position of telling people to take it or leave it before, and it has not worked. That is how we have ended up where we have ended up. Part of the problem has been the Government’s refusal to acknowledge that rail is different from roading and that the implications for carrying out work in the transport corridors that involve rail are different from those for carrying out work in the transport corridors for roading. It is far easier to do work on roading and to leave the road open than it is to do work on rail and leave the rail line open.

The Opposition is surprised that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Infrastructure—it is the first time we have ever had that portfolio in a Government in a formal titular sense—has not seen fit to take a call during the Committee stage on this bill and explain his legislation. Many members have asked questions or have raised issues that came up at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and the Minister has not seen fit to speak to his bill. This is the Infrastructure Bill. It is a bill that we were told formed a critical part of the Government’s economic programme. The Minister for Infrastructure also holds the portfolio of finance, so presumably he is interested in the Government’s economic programme, and I would have thought that he would take the chance to explain to us why, after 2 years in Government, the bill is still languishing at the point where it is. He has chosen not to do that, so maybe he will answer a few questions about different clauses in Part 1 to enable the Committee to move forward.

Obviously the Opposition is supporting Parts 1, 2, and 3, but we are trying to engage in a debate that the Minister said was serious for the New Zealand economy. He said that if we could sort out infrastructure matters and remove roadblocks, or whatever the other Crosby/Textor road-tested phrases were, then we would be able to achieve nirvana in New Zealand. But such is his enthusiasm that he has been reading all manner of reports. I am surprised the Minister has not taken a call. He has probably been reading the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly to check out the engagement of Kate Hawkesby and Mike Hosking. He is not that interested in the Infrastructure Bill. I saw him with a magazine over there before, but I am not sure what it was.

One of the points that has been raised by the Opposition tonight is in respect of the definition of “utility operator” in clause 4(d). Government members on the select committee insisted on the words “or any person acting on behalf of a local authority in respect of that infrastructure:”. My colleague Moana Mackey made that point. The commentary on the bill states that “not all water and wastewater utility operators are local authorities.” I wonder whether the Minister could speak to that and let us know the Government’s philosophy in respect of those assets. I ask whether the Government in wording the legislation in that way is signalling that part of its approach to infrastructure is that it wants to see more private provision of water and waste-water services in the community. I think that is a reasonable question. It is either something that the Government is open to and enthusiastic about, or it is something that it is closed off to, but wants to make sure that no one is not caught who is currently operating in that space.

It seems to me that if there is a Minister for Infrastructure being serviced by a National Infrastructure Unit, which is part of Treasury, then he should be able to answer my questions. Before the election, the problem was too many bureaucrats; after the election, Bill English has been able to accumulate all manner of taxpayer-funded resources. We will not go down the particular path of what all of those have been, but he has his own National Infrastructure Unit, or NIU, which is anything but new. I would like to know from him what advice he has received on whether that is an area for further infrastructure exploration and development, and whether the Government wants to see more private provision. I think that would be a pretty straightforward issue for him to address for us.

I turn to clause 9(b), which requires operators to keep disruptions to a minimum. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that particular phrase. It seems to me that if we are talking about big infrastructure works in New Zealand, it would be useful to know whether the Minister believes those are just words, or whether it is an achievable measure. There can be major change to infrastructure, and somehow it can be passed off that disruptions will be kept to a minimum. There can be a variety of different projects under way, and we would like to know what the Government means by that requirement. If the code is very literal about keeping disruptions to a minimum, it may extend the time frame for projects. The Government is saying that everything is so quick, and that we need to build all this infrastructure now. Of course, that has not followed through to the speed of this bill. It has been sitting around for 2 years. However, the Minister might be able to comment on clause 9.

Clause 6(3) states that operators do not have to comply with the code if it is inefficient or if it would be too costly to do so. I think the Minister really does owe it to the Committee to go through the provision in clause 6(3). It seems preposterous that we are going to all the effort to come up with a code, and the people whom the code covers can opt out of it at any stage that they like, simply by invoking an argument of inefficiency or cost. I think the Minister could very quickly address that issue for us, so that we have a sense of the Government’s thinking on that, if the main part of Part 1 is to include a code.

Clause 10(2) provides for the ability for different applications of the code, depending on geographic locations. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on how he sees that operating in practice, because one of the things we all know as members of Parliament is that whenever each of us advocates for a case, the example in each area is “very unique”—that double saying that makes no sense. That “very unique” example is separate from everywhere else in the country. We can see that that provision could be absolutely rode roughshod over by operators who did not want to comply, by arguing for some special feature of their geographic location. I would like the Minister to offer some comment on that. He must have advice on that. His failure to engage in this debate raises a lot of questions about what advice he is getting, if he is not able to share any of it with the Committee. He has set up a whole unit to help him, so none of these are challenging questions for him.

Clause 10(1)(d) talks about the managing of conflicts of interest. We could easily see a conflict of interest happening between the various operators and the corridor managers. The clause states that the code must contain a contact, which outlines processes for how one would resolve those conflicts. It would be good to learn from the Minister where he sees the priority of where the interests should fall as those conflicts are resolved. We know that conflicts of interest are matters that are often on the mind of Government; it is just the way things are. They have to be managed. In this legislation, the Minister is writing it into a code, but it is not clear from the reading of it how that would be managed and where the priorities would fall for the different players.

Finally, clause 11(2)(a) talks about consultation with utility operators and corridor managers who are likely to be affected by the code. But it is silent on the matter of consultation with local government. That issue may well have been explored at the select committee, but I was not a member of the select committee, so I am not sure whether that was covered off there. But there are different references to local government, and I quoted a clause earlier relating to additional parties being added because there was a recognition that not everyone involved in certain services were local authorities. But it seems to me that if the code has to be written once, and it has been consulted on with utility operators and corridor managers, then where is the role for the local authority in respect of where that access for utilities services is needed? If the Minister could comment on those things he could prove to the country just how important it is to have a stand-alone Minister for Infrastructure, rather than one who is giving all the appearances of being mute on these very important macroeconomic reforms to the New Zealand economy. But I have failed entirely to even attract the Minister’s eye throughout the Opposition debate, as he has worried himself away on other topics, and I wonder whether he might be able to show some courtesy in respect of this crucial legislation. He picked up on Amy Adams’ voice because it is very distinctive, and I can see how it could interrupt the inner peace of the meditation that the Minister, up until that point, was ensconced in. The piercing tones of the member at the back of the Chamber cut right through.

💬 Amy Adams: That’s the nicest thing you’ve said to me in weeks!

I have said many nice things to the member. In fact, I have said lots of nice things about the member behind her back, and that is very rare in politics. That is a very useful observation for her to have.

If the Minister could be minded to answer some of the points that have been raised, I think that would be useful, especially seeing as he is enjoying some pretty broad support across the Committee for his bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments relating to utility access to transport corridors