New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill

As the sponsor, in a figurative sense, of this bill, I would like to remind the committee, firstly acknowledging the efforts of the select committee and taking on board one or three remarks that were made by some of the earlier speakers—Mr McKelvie being one, who demonstrated that he is a student of the Bible, because he exhibited all the features of a doubting Thomas during that speech. But because he is a seasoned member of this House and an extremely able leader of economic matters in his own community, I only hope he goes through a Damascus-like experience and sheds that very narrow view.

However, I just remind the committee that this particular legislation might be described as having empowered a central government, independent body with substantial information-gathering powers. Why is that important? That’s important because there is a valid complaint amongst a number of the members of our civil construction sector: that as one Government is replaced by another, often the casualty is continuity in a pipeline of assured work. Now, all of us as politicians do stand and we defend the manifestos that bring us here, but once we are in the business of the State, information should trump all other considerations. This new independent body will have the ability to reach out and empower itself by drawing information from both local government and central government. Now, there was some concern that such matters might worsen the burden upon local government. Those were exaggerated, and once the law is passed, local government will obey its master, which is the sovereignty of Parliament.

On the question of whether or not there ought to be some exemptions, clause 23 does treat differently what I might figuratively call the spy service and security-related agencies. I think that’s reasonable. In terms of the protection for personal information, that’s beyond cavil. But at a deeper level, with a better quality of information and an empowered central body, we can now plan and Governments can turn to get independent advice. For example—I don’t mind saying this—we are undertaking a review of the defence estate. Some of it is in the area occasionally visited by Mr Christopher Bishop and constantly surveilled by the Leader of the House—that’s up in the Upper Hutt area. It’s not unreasonable that the Infrastructure Commission should provide a perspective as to what the best options are, going forward, if we are to renew and develop new approaches for our defence estate, because if you ask a narrow range of people a certain question, you will get a narrow response, and an independent body with the types of personalities led by Dr Alan Bollard will give us, in my view, a deep and varied set of responses.

In addition to that, Mr Goldsmith—not that I pay any attention to what he says in the ordinary course of events—in a spirit of comity suggested that when we proceed with the options for relocating the Port of Auckland, with possibly some of its activities going to the north, why would we not seek a view from the independent Waihanga body. I think that’s not a bad suggestion for him to have made—a very rare but useful suggestion, inversely related, I might say, to the number of times that he contributes to the House.

So that’s a small example of how Ministers can actually derive some confidence that this body will be relevant. It does not have mandatory powers. It will apply to local government, as I’ve said, but that is important because when one conceives one of the great infrastructure projects that lies in front of us, such as three waters, that’s purely local government and regional government business. At the level of central government, obviously, we are refining how we might deal better at a central government level with the problems that were evinced and became very clear after we came to grips with the awful situation in Hastings in terms of drinking water. So these are some key points, and I look forward to contributions from both sides of the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the formation of the Infrastructure Commission. As we’ve said previously, the National Party is supporting this bill, because it is very important in terms of helping New Zealand and New Zealanders to live in a better place and create the future we want.

Of course, the first part of this bill is about some of its establishment. I think the genesis of this, obviously, went back to the National Party, because we were very keen on supporting it. But I’m very grateful that the Government’s picked up this project and, obviously, with our support, is bringing it through to a conclusion.

I think the key bit is that this commission will be quite independent. I think that’s a vital part or success component if this entity is actually to help with planning infrastructure in the future and how we go about delivering that. I think that as a stand-alone autonomous Crown entity, it will have the powers and the skills—and already the board has been appointed to that—but also the independence to be able to go and do its job properly.

As I said before, infrastructure is absolutely vital to New Zealand, so how we procure it, how we deliver it, how we fund and finance it—all those aspects are absolutely essential, and I think that’s why we should, I hope, once this bill passes through the House, end up with a much better result. I think if people look at what’s going on in infrastructure, both at central government level and also at territorial or local authority or council level, it is not clear about what is the pipeline of work coming forward. There’s no real clarity around that, and, of course, we have many different types of infrastructure that’s been constructed. The Minister talked about defence. That’s certainly one issue around infrastructure, but it traverses a wide topic, including schools, education facilities, hospitals, right through to traditional road, rail, and also water and waste water, just to name few. But it’s also things like broadband fibre roll-out, which is just infrastructure of a different sort.

That pipeline means, I think, that people can actually see what’s happening and, actually, contracting parties can get a much better view on when projects are going to occur so they can plan, and that continuity is an absolutely essential part in terms of ensuring that they not only attract the right staff but train them and retain them. One of the issues, and one of the problems, we’ve got is that after the Christchurch bill, because people didn’t see a clear pipeline, particularly in civil construction and those types of infrastructure demands, a lot of our very good people have left Christchurch and actually moved to Australia where there’s an infrastructure boom happening in Victoria, New South Wales. So that pipeline is essential not only for funders and things like that but also in terms of protecting and maintaining those skill sets that are so vital if we’re going to roll out good infrastructure over the years.

I think there are a couple of things around this. One is a strategic and planning role that the commission is going to undertake, and the Minister alluded to it. Initially, the bill was focused purely on getting information from central government agencies. The committee took a view that it should be a wider jurisdiction and should also include local authorities, given that local authorities are significant procurers. By the way, central government normally procures about $43 billion a year, so having visibility around both central and local government provided a much clearer pathway in terms of projects. There was some resistance from the territorial local authorities. They said they issue lots of plans—10-year plans and 30-year plans, and they’re all available—but we didn’t think that that was sufficient. The councils, we believe, should be in a position where they provide the right sort of information to the Infrastructure Commission so they can do their job.

Then, of course, the Infrastructure Commission’s got a 30-year perspective in terms of highlighting projects over that lifespan, and indeed that’s a very, very important focus for long-term infrastructure projects, and they’re going to publish a report every five years that updates it. So it’s certainly going to be very helpful for the New Zealand context going forward.

I’m very pleased to take a call on this bill during the committee stage. It came through my select committee, where Andrew Bayly was, of course, very helpful in sorting out some aspects of the bill, as he usually is. I want to endorse the remarks made by Mr Bayly about the need for long-term planning and long-term thinking around infrastructure, and, of course, the remarks made by the Minister in the chair about our need to get away from short-term stuff—doing things in three-year cycles—and have a look at that long-term plan, and that is exactly what this Infrastructure Commission is supposed to do.

I think, in particular, looking at the first part of the bill, one of the terms that is specified is “community expectations”. It’s a defined term in the bill and will become a defined term in the Act, of course. It says that community expectations “means the expectations of the communities that use, or will use, the infrastructure or the services …” That’s obvious, I suppose in the title itself. But what’s interesting there is thinking about infrastructure not just in terms of a road, a bridge—10 bridges in Northland, or whatever. It’s thinking about it in terms of what the community needs, what the community expects, what the community understands about what the purpose of infrastructure is. It’s not roads for the sake of roads or bridges for the sake of bridges, or—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: It is bridges for the sake of bridges.

Well, it is bridges for the sake of bridges. But it’s thinking about infrastructure in terms of the benefits or the other outcomes that result from infrastructure and services, in terms of how the services are actually delivered and the quality of them. But to me the interesting part of it is the way that the community expectations are built into the understanding in this infrastructure bill—that the Infrastructure Commission will need to understand that and think about it in terms of the way it’s got that long-term planning going on. So that’s a very interesting term to have sitting in what you might think is one of the standard Meccano-set bills we get around infrastructure.

Going on from there, although, in clause 3, “infrastructure” means “physical infrastructure that is in New Zealand …”, the Infrastructure Commission needs to focus not just on the creation of new infrastructure—and, again, this is sitting in the definition of “infrastructure project”—but also “the maintenance, upgrading, replacement, decommissioning, or removal of existing infrastructure”. So, clearly, we already have masses of schools and hospitals and roads and the like in our country already, and as it turns out, those schools and hospitals actually need maintaining. This is something that might have escaped some members of the House while they were sitting over on this side in previous years—that maintenance actually matters. But often those maintenance projects are not just short-term issues. They are actually a long-term commitment to ensuring that the infrastructure stays fit for purpose and can continue to be used.

Part of the job of the Infrastructure Commission is to have that long-term focus—not just around what bits of road need to be built in which places, not just around which new buildings or ports or railways or whatever might need to be built in the first place but about maintenance of our existing infrastructure, maintaining our existing hospital buildings, maintaining our existing schools, maintaining our existing bridges and roads and so on. That is actually a really important part of this. I feel as though maintenance of our infrastructure is perhaps something that has been somewhat neglected in various places, but it does need to be considered on an ongoing basis. So I’m impressed, really, that the Minister felt that we needed to think not just in terms of the building of new stuff but also the maintenance of our existing infrastructure, because, of course, if you don’t maintain it, then it loses value and it just results in costly repair jobs or, in some cases, in having to be replaced entirely down the track. So it’s an interesting aspect of this bill.

On this bill here, I think there’s no question that there’s room for improvement in the way that infrastructure is managed and built in New Zealand as a whole. There’s not enough of it, aside from Minister Twyford’s observation that there’s too many roads. There’s not enough of it, it’s been too—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: What nonsense.

He did; he said that we had overbuilt. He said that we had over-invested in roads.

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: That’s only half the sentence. You’re missing out half the sentence.

Anyway, there’s not enough of it, it’s too expensive to build, we struggle to pay for it, and we’ve suffered from an on and off, on and off, cycle in the building of major infrastructure, which has meant that it’s very expensive and inefficiently built. This commission, which we are debating the legislation for, is potentially part of the solution, and so the extent to which we can get longer-term agreement, some measure of independent assessment of projects and some agreeance over long periods so as to develop a more successful pipeline, as a result of this bill, would be a good thing for this country. And that’s why, fundamentally, we are supportive of it.

I would, however, make these observations: of course, the track record of this Government in this area is not very good—the track record is not very good. So the previous National Government, for the first time in the history of the country, got agreement between Auckland Council and the Government on the major priorities for major transport investment and infrastructure. And what happened? What happened? The new Government came along and said, “No, we don’t like any of those.”—boof—“Out they go. Mill Road, out you go! East-West Link, out you go!” And, instead, in comes the light rail. So what we’ve seen is an unwillingness from this Government to stick with any kind of plan, but a willingness instead to cancel a whole lot of projects that were ready to go and to replace them with a bunch of projects that aren’t ready to go and won’t be ready to go for a long time. So their experience on that side is the exact opposite of what we’ve been talking about—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We’re debating Part 1 of this bill—

Indeed we are—indeed we are.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —and so, if the member would like to turn his attention to it.

Indeed, I will. So the point in Part 1 that I’m referring to—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Election period?

Ha!—is indeed the election—is the community expectations of this Infrastructure Commission.

The other slight little kink in the string holding together the threads of this argument in this bill is the way that the Minister himself has gone about the development of a strategy for ports in Auckland. So he sets up the commission, and then, at the same time, out to the side, has a little bunch coming up with a scheme there—which is, again, the opposite approach. So what we want to do is we want to support the development of this commission, but we call upon the Government to be consistent in the way that it approaches infrastructure, and that’s why this is so important.

And then, of course, we do have to recognise that the establishment of a commission such as this is not in itself the solution to all the broader problems that we have around infrastructure. So, yes, to the extent to which we could see a pipeline going out for 20 years of generally agreed major projects, that would enable major contractors to come to New Zealand, more competition, and more investment in what needs to be there in order to build the infrastructure—so that would help. But we also do need to look at the regulatory side of things, which adds significant costs, and we also need to innovate in the funding. So all those three elements are critical to it all—and if we could get that right and make some progress on that and then, actually, be consistent around where we go.

I suppose the difficulty that we have is that, notwithstanding this commission, if you do have Governments that are driven by blind ideology when it comes to transport—and a blind hatred of car fascists, on that side [Gestures towards the Green Party], and a blind assessment that we’ve over-invested in roads, on that side [Gestures towards the Labour Party]—then it does make it difficult to get consistency over time. So we’ve stood for a pragmatic and balanced approach to investment in infrastructure, and we just wish that this Government would adopt a similar policy. Thank you.

Well, it’s a great pleasure to be able to follow on from that member, Paul Goldsmith. I want to make some comments about the definition of “community expectations” in Part 1. But, first, just let me say how much I appreciate the work that the Hon Shane Jones has put in, bringing this bill to the House. There’s been a lot of policy debate over the last two years, some very productive exchanges with the Australian colleagues from the federal and state infrastructure bodies whose work has provided much of the inspiration for this, not to mention similar enterprises in Canada and Scotland and elsewhere.

I think, probably, where we all agree in this House is that smart investment in quality infrastructure is absolutely critical to support the lifestyles and the prosperity that we all aspire to. After that, we start to get into some interesting debates. I wanted to respond to some of the things that Paul Goldsmith said in talking about the community expectations about infrastructure and what we hope the commission will do.

So in relation to the benefits that we might get from infrastructure and services, we’ve had some interesting debates in this country over the last few years. Just to give the committee an example: one of the things over the last two years has been our Government’s view that when we’re thinking about investing billions of dollars in infrastructure, particularly for our cities in the case of transport networks and three waters, instead of taking kind of a random project-by-project approach to thinking about infrastructure, we should look at the whole region or the whole city as a complex system and ask ourselves what kind of city do we want to shape and leave for the next generation, and then what kind of infrastructure do we need to deliver on that vision.

That’s the approach that our Government took with the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, where we inherited, from the former Government, a 10-year plan for Auckland that had a $6 billion funding hole in it. What we delivered, in partnership with Auckland Council, was a fully funded 10-year transport plan with $28 billion worth of funding, a truly multimodal transport plan designed to support the kind of economic growth—particularly, urban intensification around transit corridors. That’s a very different approach to funnelling all of the available money into hand-picked motorway projects, which was the predominant way that the former Government thought about infrastructure.

So that’s a very different approach, and it’s my hope that when we think about the added value that the Infrastructure Commission can bring to this area, about the benefits and the outcomes that we want from investing in infrastructure, that’s precisely the kind of thinking. It’s really about productivity. That’s the lens through which we should be viewing potential infrastructure investments. Yep, infrastructure can be a great stimulus for the economy, but we should be thinking about what kind of infrastructure will give us the best bang for buck in terms of making the economy work better, and delivering the kinds of communities that our people want.

Let me give you another example—again, under the “community expectations” in clause 3(a) of Part 1: the question about how infrastructure is built and maintained. Well, we saw, under the last Government, a classic example of a Government that loved to build big concrete things that it could announce and point to, right? But in order to devote 40 percent of the annual transport budget to these new expressway projects, they starved every other part of the transport budget, including road maintenance. Folks, that is why when you drive around our local roads and State highways around this country, they are in a terrible shape. It is because that Government sweated the asset—they sweated the asset—until the asset almost died, because they were more interested in building fantastic new concrete monuments to their hubris that they failed to actually invest in the massive roading network that we have inherited from former generations and that we have an obligation to maintain and look after.

And that’s not a sentimental thing; that’s an economic imperative. When you’ve got these big State assets that are vital to the economic wellbeing of the country, you have to invest in them, you have to maintain them, and you have to look after them. Otherwise you incur huge economic losses. I’ll leave it there.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on Part 1 of this bill. The Green Party absolutely supports the Infrastructure Commission. We think it’s incredibly important, and a great initiative from my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, to do this work that will give us independent and objective analysis and advice that can allow the country to prioritise the long-term infrastructure needs of the country. It is really important.

As the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, said, it’s actually because previous Governments—the National Government in particular—really politicised the funding of transportation infrastructure that we currently have a bit of a crisis and a deficit. I mean, arguably, the problem started before that, because there was a really ideological approach that separated investment, for example, from rail and from roads, so we couldn’t invest in the rail network to help take pressure off the road network, when logically they’re part of one integrated system.

So investment in the rail network benefits those who use the road and vice versa. Investment in the rail network is incredibly important for the future economic productivity of the country and it’s also part of how we will improve safety on our roads and will reduce the cost of moving freight around—obviously the cost of moving freight by rail or by sea is much lower per container than it is by road—and there are some times when road is absolutely necessary

But the point is that on this side of the House we understand and welcome independent, objective evidence and advice about how we can make our infrastructure systems best serve the country. And I think, sadly, members opposite—based on their speeches—are suffering from a bit of projection where they imagine that we are the ones being ideological when, in fact, the exact opposite is true. When I was working in the transport sector before I came to Parliament in 2008, when there was a change of Government everyone in this sector was really quite shocked to find that the incoming National Government had already chosen seven roads of national significance and they wanted to, post hoc, come up with some sort of economic justification for spending the vast majority of new capital expenditure from the transport budget on just those projects.

And I note that ten years later those seven projects have not even been delivered. So in nine years, they failed to deliver seven projects that were chosen entirely for ideological reasons, not based on evidence about—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Can I ask the member to come to Part 1 of the bill—Part 1.

—what would move people and goods better, and that’s why this Infrastructure Commission in Part 1 is very important because the Infrastructure Commission, as laid out in this bill and, particularly, in Part 1 where we look at the interpretation, is all about having that objective, long-term pipeline. I think this Government is bringing, finally, a sensible, balanced approach, setting up institutions that will give us independent advice. Actually, I’m quite shocked to see the National Party support it because they did not support the suggestion of an independent policy costings unit, which would give all political parties the ability to get independent costings. It doesn’t serve their interests because their entire political approach is to mislead and I find it incredibly irresponsible. But, fortunately, this coalition Government is responsible, focused on the future, and absolutely supportive of investing in infrastructure that is going to protect our climate and enable future generations of New Zealanders to thrive.

It’s my pleasure to speak to this bill and I congratulate the Hon Shane Jones on getting it to this point and to the committee of the whole. The National Party, as we’ve heard, is a promoter of this and is happy to support this bill. Personally, I’m also a promoter of this and in my experience in local government I saw lots of things that could have been done better.

💬 Hon Chris Hipkins: How’d the water go?

The water was good, thank you—many years ago. Now everything’s sorted. But I think the real issue here is it’s more in the detail and we’ll come to that later on in other parts.

But, effectively, I want to challenge some of the commentary that’s been given, particularly by the previous speaker actually, the Hon Phil Twyford, when he was in the Chamber, where he talked about community expectations, because community expectations vary. If I go and ask some people in my own electorate, they are interested in four-lane highways and getting freight from A to B. The businesses want to get freight to the port. They want to get freight to the port. And actually in my own electorate, I would argue that the local roads are in good shape: they’ve been well looked after and invested in properly. So there are always priorities.

There are priorities whether you spend money under the ground in water and waste water, on the ground in roads, in information technology, broadband—those types of things. Every community will have a different priority. So when it talks in here under Part 1, clause 3(a), about “means the expectations of [a community]”, that’s the community expectations. And then it goes on to include in clause 3(b) “expectations in relation to—(i) benefits and other outcomes that result from the infrastructure and services;”. Once again, that’s a bit of a moving feast and it depends on who you ask. So the importance of this Infrastructure Commission really is to provide whatever Government’s in power with some independent advice on a long-term basis. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves that this is going to stop political priorities from one party to the next, but it should be able to give us some independent advice.

It then goes on to talk about how the services are delivered. And later on we’re going to look at the Local Government Act in another bill that’s coming before this House and we’ll look at some changes that are going to be made here.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You’re not meant to be talking to bills that haven’t arrived yet.

My apologies—other bills that are in consideration. But anyway we’ll get to that later.

So what I’m trying to say here is this bill is good in principle. But what we’re going to get to in the next parts of the bill, from Part 2 on, does need some polishing or some refining, and I hope that the Minister will allow us or indulge us to at least have a reasonable attempt at doing so.

I do acknowledge that the Minister has travelled widely to look at this. In my previous speech on the same topic I said I’ve been to the UK, to Hong Kong, and other places, and I’ve looked myself. There is absolute merit in doing this. In Australia it has transformed some of the infrastructure. But I do want to challenge some members in this committee who believe this will solve everything. It won’t. But if we do it properly it will provide us with an independent set of analysis. We will have to make decisions on the quality of service, because the quality of service is fundamentally influenced by how much money you spend.

So everybody wants the best. In my experience, when I was the mayor, everybody wanted asphalt cement on their roads—black, smooth, really quiet, looks great—but it was three times the price. It was three times the price of normal chip seal. So you actually have to balance these things up and I don’t think this Infrastructure Commission should be expected to fix all that.

Then it goes on to how the infrastructure is built and maintained. And for me a lot of conversations in New Zealand are stymied by the fact that we think the public sector needs to build everything. The public sector doesn’t need to build everything. There are lots of other contracts and available options where companies can build things, they can provide really good services, and I want the Infrastructure Commission to look at that.

In closing, I make one observation—last one. When I went to London recently I looked at the Battersea Power Station development. The council and Government had tried to build that, failed twice, and a Malaysian company with Hong Kong infrastructure providers have now got it sorted and it’s moving. The houses are built—first-class infrastructure. We shouldn’t be afraid.

Before I call Tamati Coffey, I want to encourage members of the committee to actually speak to Part 1 of this bill. If we can’t contribute to Part 1, maybe we should have the vote and go on Part 2, because most of what I’ve heard is about Part 2. Tamati Coffey.

Thank you, Mr Chair. And also thank you to the Minister for Infrastructure for bringing this bill to the House. This is a combined effort, of course, from the Minister for Infrastructure, Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, and also of the Minister of Housing and Minister for Urban Development. This has been a collaboration.

💬 Andrew Bayly: And the National Party.

This has been a collaboration between all parties in the House and, as someone that sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we pored over the bill and it’s widely accepted not just throughout the practitioners out there in the field but also around our committee room table that actually this is a really good thing and it’s a positive thing for New Zealand.

Can I say we’re a little bit late to the table. Why—because our Australian cousins got there a wee bit before us. Infrastructure Australia was set up in 2008, Infrastructure New South Wales in 2011, Infrastructure Victoria in 2015, Building Queensland in 2015, Infrastructure South Australia last year, and Infrastructure Western Australia is expected to be set up this year.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): None of which is in Part 1.

That’s OK. What the community expectation is is that we are better than our neighbours. We’re better than our Australian counterparts. So there is that expectation that we deliver when it comes to infrastructure.

And what is infrastructure? Well, in Part I, clause 3, “infrastructure means physical infrastructure that is in New Zealand or that results in services in New Zealand”. What’s an infrastructure project? It includes the creation of new infrastructure, and the maintenance, upgrading, replacement, decommissioning, or removal of existing infrastructure. Isn’t that good? It basically means that infrastructure is this huge gambit, really. There’s a lot that falls under the umbrella of infrastructure projects—everything from roads, to ports, to airports, railways, energy, education, our hospitals, and our social services as well.

Infrastructure is something that Māori absolutely need to be consulted on as this process happens, as this commission goes forward. Everything to do with air, land, water is absolutely at the heart of what we as Māori feel is part of us, intrinsically part of us.

So the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill has come before our committee. Part 1 has been a delight to go over, and for that reason I’ll just finish by saying that it’s been good to see both sides of the House supporting it, and hearing the contributions from the other side. I look forward to Part 2.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just say it’s a pleasure to speak after my colleague Tamati Coffey and to just continue focusing solely on Part 1, because I know that’s important and I’ve decided to come in and give him a hand. Look, it’s a hardworking committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, chaired by Deborah Russell on my left here—of course, a hard-working chair, I have to reiterate. But, also, this is a fantastic piece of work from the one of the hardest-working Cabinet Ministers, the Hon Shane Jones, there, in his high-vis vest—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Illustrious.

—illustrious; the adjectives are coming thick and fast.

But, look, I do want to focus on Part 1. I know the Chair is nervous that this may have been exhausted but can I reassure him that it hasn’t, because when we talk about community expectations, boy, is the list long. I remember that when the transport Minister, the Hon Phil Twyford, spoke, in his speech he talked about nation-building and mentioned that wonderful public service agency, the Ministry of Works. I was doing some research—as you do with these critical speeches in the House—and it was none other than the other side who got rid of it in 1996, I saw. I think that’s key, and I want to relate the disestablishment of the Ministry of Works in 1996 by that side of the House—what a disgraceful act that was to community expectations.

I heard local government being mentioned, and there was no better training ground, or for those of us that have electorate offices, to hear first-hand what community expectations are. Can I say that those expectations are just really basic stuff around infrastructure. So when they come into my office it’s simple stuff, they talk airports—you know, why is every airport in this country putting their hand up to the Minister saying, “We need money, we need funding for our airport extensions”. That’s an expectation that’s quite real. Every single airport is crawling here saying, “That lot on the other side, they gave us nothing; absolutely nothing”. What I now see is that Provincial Growth Fund logo up, proudly going up like a coat of arms that usually the local authority co-owner would put up, but, instead, it’s that beautiful hook to say this has been funded by this side of the House—a coalition Government absolutely serious about infrastructure.

I only need to walk down the road from the Wellington Airport and you see wharves there that are boarded up—that’s infrastructure. But did you know that nearly every single wharf in this city is boarded up because there’s been zero investment? They were discarded. I don’t want to talk about the role of local government yet, because that comes in a different part, but it’s sad. Add wharves to ports, and another set of infrastructure—by this stage, you’re down at the railway station, here, in the capital city. There is no better symbol or icon of how infrastructure has gone so wrong in this city itself. I mean it’s running through most of New Zealand Aotearoa and—they are, all over New Zealand, crying out for investment.

Those are the expectations of community; they want to be able to have conversations around infrastructure, they have certain expectations. Everyone’s mentioned maintenance, I mean, come on—when you build something, you have to maintain it. We know that from a personal perspective, when you own your own home or you’re renting or whatever, maintenance is key. That’s talked about there in Part 1. I think Kiwis have an absolute passion around getting infrastructure right. It’s talked about every day, in every town; every MP’s talking about it. I’m so glad that on this side of the House we’ve put together a programme, we’ve set up a commission—that I’ll talk about in Part 2—led by the illustrious, as he calls himself, the first citizen of the provinces, none other than the Hon Shane Jones himself, and I’m very happy to speak on this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga