New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill be now read a second time.

First I want to acknowledge, on behalf of my colleagues, the efforts expended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in bringing the bill back. I think this is a rare event where both—if not all sides of the House, then certainly the National Party will join with us in ensuring that this bill passes expeditiously. I want to spend a wee bit of time just elaborating and reminding us what the purpose of this bill is, and then I will identify the refinements that the select committee have served up to us. But, as I said, the leadership of the select committee went through a slight change during the course of the bill’s evolution, and I want to acknowledge both of those chairs, given that I too, in the past, used to chair that illustrious, most senior select committee in Te Whare Pāremata, otherwise known as FEC.

The bill enables us to create the commission which will provide independent expert advice on infrastructure so that we can effect better infrastructure outcomes and improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders. This actually follows on from at least 12 years where within Treasury, obscurely located, was an infrastructure committee. Gallons of ink were spilt and energy was spent and verbiage littered various parts of the Treasury environment, but it was not until this Government was formed and a clear commitment was announced to move forward and actually establish an independent infrastructure commission. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition claimed credit for it and said that he was going to—that’s Mr Bridges—deliver on such an outcome. Well, I’ve saved him that problem. I must acknowledge the efforts of the Hon Judith Collins, who—actually it was the Leader of the House, oddly enough, who suggested that I create an opportunity to engage with the other side of the House. The Hon Judith Collins and the Hon David Bennett, they came and met with me and, indeed, they had some sensible suggestions as to who should sit on this body. So it’s not really a matter of gross partisanship.

The challenges are substantial. Obviously, its contested space as to how much additional money we should allocate to building roads, and where those roads should be located. We currently have a small body of work underway as to whether there are more sophisticated ways to meet the fiscal costs of ramping up road construction, but that really is in the area of the senior transport Minister, and at the appropriate time, no doubt, he’ll talk about that. We also have challenges which, no doubt, will be brought closer to home to local government leaders as the Hon David Parker’s water policies are further consulted on—both capital-wise, institutional, and human capital—in terms of dealing with our Three Waters challenges. But for fear of ensnarling myself in a local government election and having to choose sides between John Tamihere and Phil Goff, I see considerable virtues in both of them and downsides in both of them as well. Although I must say, unfortunately for me, it was Mr Goff who had to defend me in a colourful lapse of judgment several years ago, but that’s all in the past now.

During the course of this bill’s development we engaged extensively with the sector. We also took trips to Australia—I certainly took one trip to Australia—and, although I feel slightly awkward saying it, we did borrow from what they have achieved in relation to getting better infrastructure outcomes by having their own independent commission. What the sector told us, and I’m sure they told the other side of the House this as well, was that in the absence of integrated investment decisions across local and regional and central government we are selling ourselves short. There’s a lack of visibility in terms of a long-term pipeline, and the scale of the projects are not well understood. In my view, a number of these projects should be built with a blend of private and public capital. A number, also, should be highlighted and signposted well into the future so that the civil construction sector—which, sadly, doesn’t employ as many of my Māori whānau as it used to and it’s progressively relying in some cases, indeed, certainly with Fletchers, on an enthusiastic group of migrant workers, not exclusively, but largely, from the Philippines. I belong to New Zealand First and I’d like to see my own nephs and, indeed, my Pasifika irāmutu—nephews and nieces—taking those jobs. Hopefully, the existence of this entity will provide long-term planning and the ability of our institutions to serve up suitably qualified men and woman to actually deliver on infrastructure outcomes.

There were a few testy areas with local government but, given that we’re central government and the sovereignty of Parliament trumps local government, they, in the end, were brought to heel. Some of them unwisely thought that they shouldn’t be required to provide information to the infrastructure commission—that was short-sighted and very parochial thinking. That problem’s been dealt to. There were other concerns pertaining to the protection of commercial information and, indeed, the super fund, the Cullen fund, and ACC, they did reflect some anxieties that where they are involved in infrastructure projects they wanted their commercial interests protected. They needed reminding that they actually belong to the Crown. Although the ambitions of their directors and their executives is to stray far from the Crown, the genesis of those organisations is traced back to here. We hold the obligations of upholding the political sovereignty of the nation, not those independent bodies. They are creatures of the Crown so, naturally, they will comply with the law.

So if I just round up by reminding us that at the end of the day, the infrastructure investment decisions that this board will provide advice on—higher quality of surveillance in terms of what’s happening across the economy—it will always rest with Cabinet Ministers. I think that is important. A number of politicians in this House did approach me that are we not usurping the role of democratically elected politicians who end up being Ministers, that they should have the privileges—I suppose—of putting into place their manifestos that they’ve been out and tested through the electoral process. So it’s important that whilst this body has high quality, credentialed people, at the end of the day it’s the politicians that will make the call.

So we will be ably served by Dr Alan Bollard, the chairperson. His name should need no further explication in this House, although he did attract the attention of my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because apparently he was the treasurer, or the Secretary of the Treasury. I tend to regard the Hon Grant Robertson as the treasurer, but for some strange reason he’s not called the treasurer. Jon Grayson, an Australian, he will be the chief executive—a high quality civil servant who earned his stripes over there in Australia. David Cochrane, a well-known senior lawyer who was trained, I am told, by Walter Iles—a paragon in the history of parliamentary drafting and who drafted many a piece of legislation. I first came across him in the days of the David Lange Government where, for a mercifully short period of time, I worked for Geoffrey Palmer. Then Raveen Jaduram, who is one of the best CEOs of Watercare. His name was promoted by a host of Aucklanders and some, unfortunately for me, sit on the other side of the House. Sarah Sinclair is the single person that was retained by the earlier committee. Stephen Selwood—although he has a reputation as being something like a canine creature that barks at every passing car—deserves to be there because he’s been an advocate for better infrastructure outcomes for Aotearoa for a long period of time. We should work with people who may from time to time irk us, but such is the mature responsibilities that lie upon my shoulders. The final person is Miss Sue Tindal, a very experienced banker and someone that I’m confident will continue to enjoy the confidence of both sides of the House. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill in its second reading. It was a good summary from the Hon Shane Jones; I especially like the comment about delivering, because on this side of the House, we do know how to deliver stuff. That’s the important thing: to be able to actually not just have a plan but to actually put it in place—it’s called execution. It’s called actually doing what you say you’re going to do.

So, as you know, National is supporting this bill, because, as the Minister did acknowledge, the genesis of this bill actually was with National. I think it is good that the House comes together to work our way through this bill as it progresses through the House, because infrastructure is such a fundamental issue for the New Zealand economy. In some ways it’s probably one of the most important issues for Governments, because if you’re talking about economic development, one of the ways to facilitate growth is actually through judicious and careful expenditure in the area of infrastructure—at times we do it well; at other times we don’t. I think this bill and the resulting commission will go some way to doing this.

Just in the context of Government expenditure on infrastructure, we all think about the roading issue. At the moment, one of the most disappointing things is that we spend about $3.3 billion a year, and at the moment we’re about $800 million; so we’re dreadfully underspending our roading budget. But the level of rail investment; water and waste water, which is primarily around local council spend, but huge costs to the economy; corrections; schools; defence; digital; and social investment—and all those things are part of what is under the jurisdiction of Government. I think the way that that’s delivered and procured and funded is absolutely essential towards underpinning a successful economy here in New Zealand.

I think that’s the issue we have at the moment: an absolute lack of clarity around what is the future workflow of infrastructure. It’s interesting, the Minister talked about Fletchers. A little while ago, about 18 months ago, I went to see Michele Kernahan, who, at that point, was running the Fletcher Building construction component, and she was saying how all the people that we—and I say “we”, the construction industry, and largely funded by the Government, of course, a lot of those people have left Christchurch to go to Australia, because there was an overwhelming infrastructure boom going on, and as it is right now, in places like Victoria and New South Wales. And because we did not have a clear pathway of what the new projects were, a lot of those people have already left our shores. Australia’s recently announced a $100 billion infrastructure spend, which, of course, is a flag to every large infrastructure builder and funder around the world that they are serious about doing it and putting in place the right mechanisms to make it happen.

So New Zealand competes in that market place. Financiers, particularly, have an option of where they want to spend the money and where the perceived risks are and where the continuity of projects is. I think that’s what the key part of the formation of this infrastructure commission is about. So the principle objectives are to focus on developing broad public agreement, a long-term infrastructure strategy, enabling coordination of infrastructure planning, and, thirdly, providing advice and best-practice support to infrastructure projects. So that’s all very good, and I think it will go a long way.

But I don’t think we should just blindly assume that this is going to be the panacea for all our ills. Probably the biggest issue with the commission is that it is purely an advisory function; I personally think that’s a mistake. I think the ability of the commission to do its work effectively will require more than just being seen—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Bring forward an SOP! Will the caucus support an SOP?

—as a strong advocate. It is a very important—thank you, Minister—aspect that there are times when this needs to show absolute leadership, and have the ability to monitor and to be able to go back into projects and to make sure that best practice is occurring. I think the sophistication or lack of procurement in New Zealand is quite an issue. So that is a key aspect of that.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge the good quality appointments that have been made. It is Raveen Jaduram, Minister; he is the CEO of Watercare, and a very well-known person. But I think, generally, the board being put in place is very professional. I think that one of the crucial changes that the Finance and Expenditure Committee made was to encompass local government infrastructure in the planning going forward; it was a very important aspect. On that basis, we’ll be supporting the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be speaking in support of this bill. I want to acknowledge the excellent work and the leadership of the Hon Shane Jones in bringing forward this work. It’s good to see that the bill has been able to attract support from across the House.

I think all members will be well aware of the productivity-enhancing benefits of well-chosen infrastructure. I think there are three examples I want to cite: transport, which is a hotly contested area of infrastructure policy right now, but I think we would all agree in this House, no matter our differences about priorities and particular modes, that transport infrastructure can play a key part in not only connecting regions and providing a supply chain for our export and import economy but also well-chosen transport infrastructure can make our cities work and can make them economically efficient.

The three waters are critically important. My colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has got a huge reform project under way, working with local government to tackle long-overdue problems in the provision and delivery of water services across the country. You know, without good infrastructure investment for the three waters, our cities and towns cannot grow. It’s a major impediment to their development if the ability to lay down the pipes for the three waters is not there.

The other really great example, I think, is broadband. There’s no question that the unbundling of Telecom’s old monopoly under the Clark Labour Government and the successful roll-out of ultra-fast broadband has had a transformative effect on our economy. I’m happy to give credit to the former Government for the ultra-fast broadband roll-out. But those two elements—the unbundling of Telecom, and ultra-fast broadband—have led to the development of one of our most successful, fastest-growing, and important industries, and that’s digital technologies. It’s an incredibly important industry for the future of New Zealand.

I want to just also consider for a moment the history of infrastructure provision, which, I think, it’s kind of worthwhile remembering that for the best part of three decades, as New Zealand’s economy went into a decline through the late 1960s, there was some stagnation through the 1960s and 1970s, the kind of crisis of the mid-1970s, the very tumultuous time for the 1980s and 1990s as we went through a couple of decades of painful economic adjustment; all through that time, successive Governments stopped investing in infrastructure as they struggled to get the Government accounts into order.

By the time of the turning of the millennium, the early 2000s, the Clark-Cullen Government was in power, this country faced a massive infrastructure deficit because of successive Governments failing to invest in the transport system, in hospitals, in schools—you name it. What we saw under Helen Clark and Michael Cullen was that they turned the taps on. As the Government books got back into order, they started investing massively in hospitals and schools around the country. They started—for the first time in a long, long time—investing in the roading network and in public transport in Auckland, with the highly successful Northern Busway and major upgrades to the Auckland rail system.

Now, it’s true that, in spite of our different priorities, the Key Government continued investing in transport; mostly in a handful of very, very expensive urban expressway projects. But I’m not going to dispute the value of some of those projects. The Waikato Expressway started under Annette King, and will be completed under this coalition Government; delivering fantastic road connectivity to the people of the Waikato. The Key Government continued it, and our coalition Government—with a different set of priorities but nevertheless a greater than ever commitment to delivering nation-building, 21st century infrastructure for this country that is absolutely vital to future proof our economy and to set it up for the growth and prosperity that we all desire for it. We have embarked on a huge programme of schools and hospitals investment and a different mix of transport projects, but nevertheless we see the importance of really good investment in transport.

But now it’s time for this country to take a smarter approach to the way that we think, plan, and invest in infrastructure, and that’s what I think is great about the work that the Hon Shane Jones has done in this area. He is drawing on, with this bill and with the establishment of Te Waihanga, the infrastructure commission, the best of international thinking and practice from Canada, from Scotland and other parts of the UK, and from Australia at a federal and state level, where arm’s-length, somewhat independent public agencies have been established to build a policy space for thinking about infrastructure, one step removed from the hurly burly of partisan politics—a bridge to the private sector to try to tap into the creativity, the thinking, and resources in the private sector, to build a long-term pipeline of investment, and to try to build consensus around the strategy and the underlying principles behind a long-term infrastructure plan.

That, I think, is a very valuable endeavour, and I want to acknowledge the very helpful advice and influence that we were able to garner from the Australians: a number of the state—they call them i-bodies—infrastructure bodies, and Infrastructure Australia, the federal organisation, who were willing to share with us their experiences. They’re all structured slightly differently, they’ve got a slightly different mandate, but they all share the goal of having an arm’s-length, non-partisan body to build expertise and to develop the long term strategy for infrastructure investment.

The big tasks, I think, that Te Waihanga will be grappling with: what is the pipeline? As we compete in an Australasian and an international market for expertise, for skills, and indeed for investment, we have to build a multi-year pipeline that gives the market certainty and allows people to plan and allows the firms, particularly in our domestic and Australasian market, to build the capability that they need. We need to strengthen our analysis and sharpen our thinking around productivity. It’s easy to waste vast amounts of money building infrastructure that might sound good or look good or be an attractive option for a politician to announce and cut a ribbon, but we need to be much more ruthless and disciplined about analysing the relative and comparative productivity effects of different kinds of infrastructure. That, in a capital-constrained country like ours, is the most important thing.

The other thing I want to mention that will undoubtedly be part of what the infrastructure commission grapples with is how we get the best out of public-private partnerships (PPPs) and public-private cooperation. The debates of a decade ago about PPPs and whether they were a good thing or not are largely redundant now. Capital has never been cheaper. We can borrow almost at zero interest for 30 years, for 50 years, so there is no need any more to reach for elaborate, complex private sector financing arrangements, because it’s very easy to borrow for the right projects. The challenge that this generation faces for infrastructure is how to generate the revenue to pay off the debt, to service the debt. That is the thing that we have to grapple with, and it’s my hope that the commission will be engaged in that debate. We have to find new ways of generating the revenue to support these kinds of investments, and there’s a number of places where that revenue can come from, but the debate has well and truly moved on from the preoccupation with private financing arrangements that were such a feature of infrastructure policy debates a decade ago.

I’m pleased to hear from the select committee that there was an overwhelmingly positive response to the bill from submitters and a couple of minor tweaks to strengthen the information-gathering powers of the commission, and applying those powers also to local government, because it’s very important that local government and central government—that we aggregate their infrastructure work and see it as one public sector.

It’s my pleasure to take a short call in support of this bill, and while I acknowledge a lot of what the last speaker has just said, I’m not sure the Minister has actually cut too many ribbons in this term because we actually have to build some things. But anyway, this is all about funding, it’s about contracts, it’s about workflow, and as we go through all of that, we should use international experience, and this bill actually does that. I’ve travelled to other jurisdictions and other countries where this is well used, this concept—in Australia, in the UK—and what they found is that it gives enduring efficiency not only in the raising of capital but also in the way that that capital is spent.

I’m pleased to see that some changes have been made in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’m pleased to see that local government has been almost completely brought into this from the information-sharing proposal. There are grounds where it can be refused, and that was covered in the select committee, but it’s important that this is done in a partnership.

If we look at New Zealand, we’re a small country. We have a small tax base by international terms, yet we need infrastructure that’s first class, whether that is in transport, water, and even some of the infrastructure that will be required for climate change adaption into the future. As we do that, we need to make sure that we are getting the best advice, the most independent advice, and we’re making the right decisions.

So for us to reach pretty much universal agreement in the House I think is a mature result for this Parliament and I think will serve New Zealand well into the future. Some of the lurches we may have had from political sways from time to time may vanish, and New Zealand will be the beneficiary. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I’m delighted to be able to report back on the process that happened in the select committee and on what people said to us during that process on this really interesting bill. I wish to begin, however, by a reflection on how well good infrastructure planning serves us, and it comes from my own electorate of New Lynn, with the construction of the transport hub in New Lynn.

Looking at old photos of New Lynn, the train tracks run right through the town centre. It was a particularly, sort of, grubby little train station, I suppose, and not much used. But quite a few years ago now, the Auckland City Council and the New Zealand Government got together and worked really hard on what a good transport hub for New Lynn would look like, and spent a fair amount of money doing it. But they sat there and they thought about the long-term needs of the area, about what would serve the area best, and they came up with a plan for transport, which now involves an excellent train service, which is somewhat undergrounded so it doesn’t interrupt the traffic flow, and it’s linked in to a transport hub where all the buses come to and fro from that transport hub as well.

So as a result of good planning—in fact, excellent planning—in the New Lynn electorate, we have bus routes that link into a train station which takes people in and out of town. This transport hub is situated right by supermarkets and the shopping centre, and as a result of this, it’s an area where people want to live. People are very happy about living in apartment buildings near the transport hub, or in quite intensified dwellings, simply because the transport and the infrastructure is there. So it has become an ideal for really good urban planning, as to what can be done when people think ahead about how to design around transport and living needs with really good infrastructure. Having said that, it highlights to us the importance of infrastructure planning and why it is that we really do need to engage in thinking about our infrastructure long term and not just on a piecemeal basis—you know, a road here, a bridge there, a train track there—but, in fact, integrating them all together so that they work for all of us.

It goes even further than that. Building train stations, building roads, building water pipes, building all the infrastructure we need takes an enormous amount of resources. It takes capital, obviously, but it takes machines, it takes workers, and it takes actual physical products like concrete and the like. It takes the expertise and the resources of the construction industry, and that industry has for a long time said that they cannot operate on a boom and bust basis. They need the long-term horizons so that they can plan.

A construction firm that knows that for the next few years it will be engaged on building a piece of motorway but then, a few years after that, they might move on to building another piece of motorway elsewhere—that they can take their skills and move along a planned sequence of projects—is a firm that can take on workers long term, that can guarantee its workers’ jobs, and that can plan its own expansion on an ongoing basis. So as well as serving the needs of ordinary citizens as we use the infrastructure of this country, this bill, this infrastructure commission, will also serve the needs of the construction industry. So it’s a very good idea, and it’s good to see that it’s being supported across the House.

The bill itself has come out of the select committee with very little change. We actually, really, as Mr Yule has just said, did some work with some of the issues around local government. Otherwise, the bill is little changed. So what I thought I might report to the House on is some of what the submitters said about this infrastructure commission. Virtually unanimously, they supported the infrastructure commission. They had issues that they wanted to fix up, they had suggestions, and they had tweaks, but nothing substantive or major. So let me read some of the words that came to us from the people who submitted on this bill.

Watercare, who looks after the water supply in Auckland, said that they were “pleased to have this opportunity to submit on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill … and is broadly supportive of [the] Bill.” They were delighted to see it in place and thought it was going to work well for us. Civil Contractors New Zealand said, and I quote, that “CCNZ strongly supports the creation of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission.” They had some changes, some tweaks that they thought would help, but they were very, very supportive of the overall idea of the infrastructure commission.

The New Zealand Superannuation Fund came and talked to us about the infrastructure commission, and their words—the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation—are that “The Guardians supports the purpose and intent of the Bill and the establishment of the Commission.” They wanted to see this in place, and they thought it would do well for New Zealand. The Property Council of New Zealand came and talked to us as well. They are perhaps not always known for being completely in line with Labour Government policy, but this time they were. They said, “We would like to commend the Government on proposing the introduction of the Bill for the proposed new Infrastructure Commission to take oversight of New Zealand’s infrastructure planning.” So the Property Council was very supportive of it too.

The Employers and Manufacturers Association came to the party as well. They said, “The Employers and Manufacturers Association … Northern has been a proponent of the formation of a New Zealand Infrastructure Commission for a number of years and has supported the efforts of like-minded organisations, such as Infrastructure New Zealand, in advocating for the creation of this organisation.” A little further on in their submission, they say “The EMA is strongly supportive of the formation of the Commission and supportive of the current direction and intent of the Bill.”—and on it goes.

The Auckland District Law Society says that “The Committee welcomes the establishment of a Commission dedicated to reviewing New Zealand’s infrastructure needs.” Transparency International submitted on the bill, and they said, “[Transparency International New Zealand] applauds the infrastructure bill’s establishment of an autonomous entity to co-ordinate, develop and promote infrastructure in order to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders.” Local Government New Zealand said, “[Local Government New Zealand] recognises and appreciates Government raising this issue as a priority and looks forward to further engagement on infrastructure planning and provision.” Infrastructure New Zealand said that they support the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill, and, of course, they welcomed the opportunity to provide feedback—and on and on it went.

As I said, it was virtually unanimous support from submitters for this bill. They had some changes they suggested, some tweaks. Some of those we took on board in the committee, some of them we didn’t, but the overall support for the bill was very, very firmly there.

As other speakers have said, the one substantive change we made to the bill as a select committee was to bring local government into the information-gathering powers. It’s really important for the infrastructure commission to be able to get information from the entities that it’s going to be interacting with to be able to understand what local governments are planning on a long-term basis, to be able to understand what central government is planning, and from there the infrastructure commission itself can develop its own plans and its own recommendations for what New Zealand should be doing in terms of developing infrastructure.

We’ve been quite careful about how we constructed those provisions, because, of course, there are times when some entities do need to withhold information, but that is in a very limited set of circumstances—the sort of circumstances that might be covered by the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. It’s trying to strike a real balance between protecting the needs of local government but also ensuring that the infrastructure commission can actually do its job.

As you might expect with such a united view from submitters, the select committee itself was fairly united in its views on this infrastructure commission. I enjoy chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the delights of the committee is that even when some members of the committee may not agree with the policy intent of a bill, they will nevertheless grapple with the nuts and bolts of it and try to make it a better bill. In this case everyone agreed with the policy intent of the bill. The submitters agreed with the policy intent of the bill. It is a fantastic bill, and I look forward to the infrastructure commission being established to support development and wellbeing in New Zealand.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I’m happy to take a brief call in this second reading debate on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill. While I’m no longer part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I was during the initial consideration of this bill.

The previous speakers are right: National does support this legislation, and why wouldn’t we? It’s our policy. It was in our policy document for the last election, and this Government is so bereft of ideas that, two years in, all they’re doing now is recycling our policy, our legislation, and this infrastructure commission bill is just one of them. How typical of this Labour Government. They had no ideas of their own, no infrastructure projects, so they’re trying to hide behind setting up the commission—which is a good idea, but it isn’t a substitute for actually building infrastructure. That’s what this Government is failing to do.

So by all means set up the commission—we support it; it makes good sense; it was our policy—but, for heaven’s sake, build some actual infrastructure. Build some fibre. Build some roads. Build some irrigation. Build some water systems. Build some actual infrastructure. Don’t just talk about it, don’t just announce intentions, don’t just set up bureaucracy; actually get on and do it. That’s my message to this Government.

How interesting that here we are, two years on into this Government, and they are still filibustering their own legislation—that we support—because they are so bereft of actual ideas, actual policy, and actual plans. They have nothing to do, nothing to talk about, but steal our ideas and set up bureaucracy. So this is good as far as it goes, but it is not a substitute for building the infrastructure that New Zealand needs and deserves.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to follow the Hon Amy Adams, absolutely off the leash there with her criticism, saying how typical it is—the freedom of the back bench to be able to say what is on one’s mind—of this Government to put in place policies of the last National Government. How typical it is of the Opposition to not have put in place their own policies in the nine years when they were in Government, leaving it instead to us to do it, because they, frankly, did nothing over the nine years that they were in Government.

This is a policy that has been around for a while—this proposal for an infrastructure commission has been around for a very long time and it was ignored by the previous National Government until the point when it appeared that they were about to lose power, at which point they adopted it. So it is up to us to put it in place and I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Shane Jones and all of the background work that he did with agencies to develop this proposal and to bring it to the House to get it through first reading and some of the changes that have come through in select committee.

I just wanted to start by coming back to the problem definition: why it is that an infrastructure commission is important. Partially this is in response to some of the things that Amy Adams was just saying about, on the one hand, it was a National Party policy but, on the other hand, why bother, somehow. It is because we do have an issue in New Zealand with construction companies bouncing from project to project without a great deal of predictability, without a good sense of what’s coming down the pipe and therefore not recruiting permanent workforces, not investing in those workforces, not developing the capability, leading to the kinds of situations that we’ve seen over the last few years where you had construction companies actually falling over during a construction boom—one of the strangest phenomena ever. A time of just tremendous activity in the construction sector and you would have companies falling over. Part of that is because of the nature and unpredictability of the sector. So it is really important that we seek to address that, and that is one of the key reasons why we’ve got that.

That has also, of course, led to higher costs than necessary, because with that lack of predictability companies have been focusing very much on the near term, maximising their immediate revenue because they don’t know what’s coming next. At least with this idea of having a 30-year infrastructure strategy, it does allow all players in the sectors to start to build up that capability but also to get a forward sense of what their revenue is going to look like, so we hope that that will lead to some stability in prices as well. I think that one of the key things that this infrastructure commission will be developing is that 30-year strategy and the pipeline that comes with it and that ability to plan for this sector.

Now, I wanted to respond to something that Andrew Bayly said in some of his comments earlier. He referred to the fact that the commission is advisory and felt that it should have a bit more grunt and a bit more independence. I just wanted to say that it is important to retain the principle of parliamentary supremacy and the idea that actually there is still a role for Parliament and for the executive to have a say in where this comes out. There’s a parallel actually in the Climate Change Commission that we’re also developing, where there is a very strong move from the Opposition to make sure that that is an entirely advisory body as well, for much the same reasons. So I think that if we’re setting up two commissions, a Climate Change Commission and an infrastructure commission, you need to, sort of, say “Well, you’ve got to have some consistency between those in terms of the advisory versus executive nature of the powers of those commissions.”

I just wanted to draw attention to one of the clauses that has come through in the bill, which I’m really delighted about, and Lawrence Yule in his contribution made a point about it. As we build the next generation of infrastructure over the course of the next 30 years, we need to be mindful—and this is particularly important for local government where Mr Yule has a strong heritage—of the need to build infrastructure that is adaptive to the effects of climate change and also helps us to meet our emissions reduction targets.

I want to acknowledge again the honourable matua Shane Jones for having included, in the bill, clause 11 where it says, “When … advising on current and future infrastructure needs, or the priorities for infrastructure, the Commission”—and then it moves, under paragraph (b), “must have regard to long-term trends that impact on, or are impacted by, infrastructure, including (but not limited to) … (iii) matters relating to the mitigation of the effects of climate change (including through reducing emissions of greenhouse gases) and adapting to the effects of climate change;”. So it’s actually expressly written into the bill, which I think is a very important clause, because what it means is that as we’re developing this forward strategy we’re not going to create a new generation of hard infrastructure assets that will ultimately become actually, quite literally, sunk assets, because we will need to be mindful of things like threats, like sea-level rise, coastal and river basin inundation, and other changes as a result of climate change. So I wanted to say that this is important because it futureproofs the commission and the kinds of decisions that it will be suggesting to Government as it goes about its work. I do again just want to acknowledge the honourable matua Shane Jones for his foresight in having included that part in the bill.

So, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Green Party, we have supported this proposal. It is not a new proposal. It could have come around a bit earlier and maybe some of our construction sector would be in better shape if it had. But, as they say, the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best time is today, and that’s what we’re doing when it comes to the infrastructure commission. I commend the bill and I commend the Minister for his work on the bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Madam Speaker?

💬 Ian McKelvie: Oh, Benno, you take it.

Sorted?

💬 Hon David Bennett: Yeah, I think so.

The Hon David Bennett.

OK, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to acknowledge the Minister as well. I think Shane Jones has done an excellent job with this bill. He has been very open with the other parties in this House to look at the board that he is putting on that infrastructure commission. So I’d just like to thank him for the way that he has conducted that. I think he’s done a pretty good job of keeping it bipartisan around the committee for that board, and I think that’s a good start for the bill.

The bill, basically, is just a replication of the New South Wales legislation in this area. The Labour Party has just photocopied it really and brought it to this House—[Interruption] Oh, the New Zealand First Party, but that’s probably pretty good for them to actually photocopy something and bring it to the House. It’s probably a step up from their usual antics in their usual legislation. But, you know, it does have one problem, in the bill, and, as was talked about by that last member, he said “parliamentary supremacy”, you know. That, basically—to all those people out there that aren’t Greens supporters and aren’t of that ilk—means that this room, basically, can override the rules that are in there, just for their own political convenience. You may say, “Oh, who would do that infrastructure? You know, this is something we all need for everybody.” I’ll give you a great example and I’ll give you one example, and this is a great example to show you what a failure this bill would be under this Government. That’s the Waikato Expressway

I just want to start off with that. The first thing I want to say is that we heard on the other side that their Annette King started the Waikato Expressway. Now, I was a new member of Parliament, and when I first came into this House one of the first things I went to was actually a cutting of the ribbon on part of the Waikato Expressway that was up the north, up there by Rangiriri. They had to do it probably about three times afterwards, but they still cut the ribbon there. Annette King cut the ribbon and she said, “This is a great thing for the Labour Government. Look what we’ve done.” I thought “Yeah, I don’t know if the Labour Government actually did do this.” So I went back and it was actually started under the previous National administration, because anybody that has driven that road knew that it took about 10 years to build it. It’s like the Southern Motorway going into Auckland, which should have been finished last year and still hasn’t been finished, and that’s what happened up in Rangiriri. We had this part of the road that actually had started under National. There was no Labour involvement at all apart from cutting the ribbon at the end. The Labour Party couldn’t cancel the road either, because it had already been started by the time they got in. So that was what happened.

Now, let’s take a step—about three years after that, the National Government is elected and we promised to finish that road, which is the four sections and the $2 billion promise, and we delivered it. We delivered that road. We have done that, but it gets worse. The Labour Party came in and stopped the next stages of that road. The road from Cambridge to Piarere was actually approved by the board of the New Zealand Transport Authority in July of election year 2017, and the Labour Party came in and told the board to revoke that decision. They used political impropriety to go in there and change the decision of that board. That is what happened, and that road was gone. But we’ve got this magical train which carries 160 people and costs $90 million a year as a result, and everyone is very happy in Hamilton for that crazy train that’s diesel and is going to make a big difference, isn’t it, to 160 people. It’s actually $570,000 per person if you add it up. We could buy them a house in Auckland each instead of having to get them on that diesel train, which takes two hours to get you to Papakura, which is going to be really helpful when you actually want to go into the central city. So that’s a great investment!

But that’s what happens when you get lefties running infrastructure, because they take away the good stuff and they put in a lot of silly ideas, and that is what is happening with this bill. All the infrastructure that had been started through New Zealand has been stopped, and because of parliamentary supremacy, we’re going to see this continue, and this bill will be a white elephant under that Government, because all it’s going to do is sit there and wait for this magical train in Auckland that they’re trying to build that they can’t even work out how to contract, let alone start. That will create what I call—if you want to do big words like, what is it, parliamentary supremacy and all that—the infrastructure development deficit that will come to this country in the next two years. What is going to happen when all those roads finish in 2020, which is when the Waikato Expressway was due to finish but because of these lefties in there it’s now 2022 and lucky to finish then—[Interruption] No, it’s true. All the workers have left and the companies are holding back because they know they’ve got nowhere else to send their staff, so they’re dragging them out, and it’s going to be 2020—

💬 Hon Meka Whaitiri: Rubbish!

Oh, it’s not rubbish. Go talk to Waikato-Tainui and see what they say. The reality is that that is what is going to happen under this bill. It will get lost as just a blanket bill with no actual infrastructure development, because over that side they’ve taken away the next level of infrastructure that was planned and approved in New Zealand and put in place one gleaming, big train in Auckland which they can’t even get off the ground.

The next call is a split call. I call Tamati Coffey.

Thank you—[Member’s microphone malfunctions] Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thankfully, I know how to work a microphone. It pleases me greatly to be able to stand here and take a short call, albeit, on the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill. This is the second reading of this bill. It’s a necessary piece of legislation. It’s been sitting on a shelf for a good nine years, so under this Government we’ve decided that we’re going to take some action on that, and for that reason it came to our Finance and Expenditure Committee. We’ve been sitting through the submissions for it, and I want to thank all of the people that submitted to it as well.

Just glossing over the reason why we’re doing it, it is, obviously, to create that autonomous Crown entity which is going to coordinate, develop, and promote an approach to infrastructure and services that result from infrastructures that will improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders. At the moment we’ve got a bit of a haphazard approach, and for this reason, that was why the submission that I listened to the most actually came from the New Zealand Māori Council, who came forward with their submission and said the Māori economy is big and it’s growing, and for Māori to be able to properly participate in this country, we need the support of infrastructure to be able to make things work. So Māori being landowners—we own water, we have rights to airspace—we actually have a vested interest in making sure that the pipeline of infrastructure is working for us as partners in this land.

As it has been in the past, there’s been a lot of confusion, as was pointed out by the New Zealand Māori Council’s submission, about exactly where infrastructure sat. Sometimes, you might find Māori landowners or organisations, entities, going to the council. Sometimes, they get told that, no, it’s not council; it’s actually regional council. Sometimes, they show up to the Ministry for the Environment thinking that they’re going to the right place to be able to do their developments, but, actually, the place that they should be going is the New Zealand Transport Agency. So anything that can help to simplify what infrastructure looks like in New Zealand and that pipeline, to create certainty by creating that commission, is going to be of great benefit to Māori.

There was a submission that they put forward as well to actually have a Māori commissioner involved in the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission. We talked about the idea of it, but it actually didn’t make it through, not for want of trying but the feeling around the room was that the commission would be able to look after Māori interests. I guess this is something that we will monitor as the commission evolves, and as it moves forward we’ll be making sure that, actually, it is responsive to the needs of Māori landowners and incorporations as well that are very active in the economy, albeit the Māori economy as well.

In the past, there’s been a severe lack of integrated investment decisions across central and local government. That’s what’s led us to this place now. The lack of visibility, the lack of pipeline, the lack of scale—all of these things have left us in a worse place and actually encourages the work that is being done.

The bill is establishing the commission. It’s been designed to address the flaw in the current approach to infrastructure in accordance with those from the infrastructure sector, and I probably should do a little shout-out to all of those people that work in infrastructure around New Zealand that do do the hard yards that came and presented to the select committee as well. There was a lot of work that was put into this, not least, actually, the establishment of the commission and the commissioners as well. It was on 21 August that the infrastructure Minister Shane Jones actually announced, at the Building Nations conference in the geothermal paradise that is Rotorua, who exactly the new board were going to be. So Dr Alan Bollard as chair, Jon Grayson chief executive, David Cochrane, Raveen Jaduram, and Sarah Sinclair will be pioneering this work—sorry, also two more, Stephen Selwood and Sue Tindal. I wish them the best of luck in their endeavour. This is a good bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve had my lunch cut twice on this already tonight, so I won’t need to say very much, but I guess one of the interesting things I find about this is that I’ve lived through five—well, I was going to say five Labour Governments; haven’t got to the end of this one yet, but it won’t be long, and five National Governments, and I’ve never seen one of them take a blind bit of notice of a recommendation of an infrastructure commission. Interestingly, having said that, I then listened to Shane Jones, who spent his whole speech talking about how these infrastructure commission recommendations—they’re wonderful, but, of course, we’re elected and we’ll do what we want when we get here. I then listened to James Shaw doing the same thing. So I’m a little cynical as to whether this will work.

I certainly support this. I think it’s a very good piece of legislation, it’s a very good idea, and it would give some stability in New Zealand to a contracting industry which, frankly, is fragile, has always been fragile, and has never had a constant stream of work in front of it. So I think the greatest advantage of this bill will be to give that contracting industry a stream of work in front of it and give our communities some stability when it comes to what it should expect of its infrastructure going forward. In other words, I think if it was to work properly—and it won’t—it would preclude Governments from constantly changing the direction that happens in New Zealand.

We’ve seen, interestingly, the Local Government Act 2002 try to do exactly the same thing to local government—made not a blind bit of difference because, effectively, the Parliament kept changing its mind about how the local government bill should work. So whilst we set a train or a path in place for local government, we then kept on changing it. So you get no certainty in life, and our poor old ratepayers and taxpayers get no certainty in life either, and one of the great advantages that this sort of piece of legislation, were it to be adhered to, would create for us is some certainty in life for the people that pay the bills.

I won’t speak for long. I think this bill is a good bill. I think a lot of what was talked about in the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been talked about tonight. Deborah Russell, as she always does, gave us a very complete view of the world from the infrastructure commission’s perspective and, in fact, summed it up pretty well. So whilst I certainly support the bill, I’m extremely cynical about the potential for it to work—in fact, I don’t think it will. Thank you, Madam Speaker. That’s my lot.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. Kia ora e Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, and I’d like to first of all acknowledge and thank the Hon Shane Jones for all of his work in making sure that this bill has reached the House. As I say here tonight, I heard from the Opposition, talking about how this is their policy, and how this, apparently, is their work. But the Opposition were in Government for nine very long years, and, even if it was their policy, they did not implement this New Zealand Infrastructure Commission within that time. What I’ve read, in terms of the select committee report, is that industry have been saying for a very, very long time that this is an idea, having an infrastructure commission, is something that we should implement.

What I’d like her to say is that we, on this side of the House, have listened. We’ve heard industry. This bill will deliver to the sector what they have been asking for for a very long time, which is to have an infrastructure commission. So this bill will establish Te Waihanga—the infrastructure commission—and it will provide independent, expert advice on infrastructure. It is really important to have these functions, because, right now, we are looking at a lot of infrastructure deficit. We only have to look at our roads, and, especially if you live and work in Auckland, just how congested the roads are. If we had had an infrastructure commission like this a number of years ago, and if there had been a strategy, a vision, and a plan, we shouldn’t, actually, be where we are in terms of our roads.

If we’re also to look at housing, there are a lot of places where we should actually be building a lot of houses, but we know that before houses can be built in certain places, they need the infrastructure first. So again, this is why this infrastructure commission is so vital. I’m glad that there is agreement that this work is needed, and that we should have the plan, and the structure that this infrastructure commission will do in terms of a strategy. But this is something that should have been done, and this is, of course, through successive Governments. It is not just the previous Government that hasn’t had this vision to implement this infrastructure commission. But I’m glad the Hon Shane Jones has taken it on, and is moving forward with this infrastructure commission.

I’d also like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the chair of the select committee Deborah Russell for her work, as well as all of the hardworking select committee members. I’d also like to thank the previous chair of the select committee Michael Wood, who began this work.

💬 Michael Wood: Good speech.

Ha, ha! Thank you. But I also would like to say what some of the select committee submissions have actually said. Infrastructure New Zealand, for instance, they said, “We are pleased with the degree of scope provided to the Commission to provide advice on the full range of issues and opportunities facing New Zealand infrastructure over the long term.” Infrastructure New Zealand supports this commission, and the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill. We also have Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) giving their full support to this legislation. LGNZ, I quote, “recognises and appreciates Government raising this issue as a priority and looks forward to further engagement on infrastructure planning and provision.”

Another example is from Beca Ltd. When they made their submission, this is some of the things that they said: “The Bill clearly outlines how the infrastructure commission will bring strategic focus to New Zealand’s key future challenges and opportunities, as well as provide leadership in prioritising infrastructure and services that improve the wellbeing of all New Zealanders.” I really look forward to the work that this commission will do. One of the things that it, actually, also will do is, first of all they’re looking at strategy and planning, and then they’ll be looking at delivery. The other thing that this commission will do is it will also be listening to the Minister in terms of directions from the Minister. They will publish their long-term capital infrastructure plan, and we will then have the opportunity to look at what the commission is doing, have our comments on it, and this is something that is sorely needed by Aotearoa New Zealand. I really commend the Hon Shane Jones, and the select committee, and this Government for their work on this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Most of it’s been spoken about tonight. I’ll just take a brief call, but I just want to acknowledge my previous National member’s contribution, Ian McKelvie. Ian, I’m not cutting your lunch tonight. I’ve only been here a couple of years, but I know not to cut someone of your standing, of your stature—I am not cutting your lunch, and you’ve been doing an excellent job, and I appreciate all the personal support you’ve been giving me, and the farmers out there, Ian.

Just three points I’d like to make this evening. Firstly, you only need to look at the Waterview Tunnel to see how important infrastructure is. I don’t particularly spend much time in Auckland, but, when I do get there, if I’m not visiting my colleagues, my hard-working Auckland MPs, I like to get out of there reasonably quick, to get on the plane back down to Southland, back down to those wonderful farmers down there. But you only need to look at the Waterview Tunnel, how well that’s been working, and all the taxi drivers I do talk to when I’m in Auckland tell me how appreciative they are of the previous National Government, of what they did there, how it’s just speeding up traffic. A little concerned about the Labour members’ contributions that they believe in infrastructure, yet they’ve stalled seven projects across the country. They’ve introduced petrol taxes in Auckland, yet the Minister’s not saying or determining how those petrol taxes are going to be spent.

Also, I want to acknowledge one of my colleagues Tim van de Molen. The Waikato Expressway goes, mostly, through his electorate. He’s been doing fantastic work in this space, launched a wonderful petition, but it’s incredibly disappointing that the extension of that expressway has been cancelled. It’s incredibly important that, for farmers, for producers of this country, we can get their goods to the market as quick as possible, especially if it’s goods like crayfish, or goods that only have a certain shelf life.

Thirdly, I just want to acknowledge the panel members that have been appointed. Some of them have made some very good comments in the media, especially around PPPs—public-private partnerships—and why they work. If you look at evidence across the world, they do work. They deliver projects on time, to high quality, and for a lower price, because they’re held to account. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak last on this bill, and a special pleasure because of the great cross-party support we’ve got for it. It is a great piece of legislation that the National Party didn’t quite get round to passing in their time in Government. But the good thing about it, really, is it’s one of a raft of measures that this Government is taking that’s looking out beyond three years and, in fact, here 30 years. Along with the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill, the zero carbon bill, all pieces of legislation that are looking out not just three years, not just 10 years, but out for generations to come.

I heard only today on the radio Infrastructure New Zealand talking about the pipeline effect. What this does is stops that kind of chit chat, that kind of oppositional approach saying “The Government needs to fund more infrastructure.”, and says “Let’s give it to an independent body who will actually tell us what the pipeline is and whether this lobbying is accurate or inaccurate.” We don’t want to be making big decisions about New Zealand’s infrastructure simply on the back of what is essentially political game playing

There’s $42 billion that this Government’s committed to five years, and that’s fantastic, but we need to be able to plan out 10 years, 20 years, 30 years as well to give certainty to the industry, to give certainty to our vocational training so that we make sure we’ve got the people on the ground, the expertise, the resources, but also to stop bottlenecks. I’ve seen bottlenecks in Christchurch. What they do is they escalate prices, and there’s profit taking, and it’s not good for anyone but a very small group of people. We want to make sure we have great infrastructure, and we spread that around.

So this really is about wellbeing. It’s not just about roads. It’s about water, but it’s also about things like digital infrastructure as well, to make sure that our communities are well connected, not just in the cities but right across the country, right down the West Coast, Haast, all of those all nooks and crannies of the country, to make sure that everyone’s well connected.

It’s great to see the improvements that the committee made to the bill under the great chairmanships of Deborah Russell and Michael Wood. Also, drawing in information-gathering powers of local bodies so that the commission can be as well-equipped as possible to look at the information and make careful, considered decisions, balanced decisions that aren’t short-termist, aren’t dictated by political cycles, aren’t dictated by the Government of the day—I recognise the cross-party support for this bill—but will look out for generations so that the infrastructure upon which this country is built, upon which the wellbeing of its citizens is built, is well-planned, well-funded, and well-built. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Bill read a second time.