Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill

I’ll just take a brief call on this Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. We oppose the bill. We think that the system doesn’t need to change; it isn’t broken. The status quo is fundamentally satisfactory. Road users pay for new roads and maintenance through their fuel taxes and road-user charges, and it’s fair and it works. Users of rail pay for the use of the rail network through a commercially focused State-owned enterprise.

In Northland, rail has never paid its way. It was built back in the days when trucking was heavily regulated and very inefficient, and even back then it didn’t compete—it couldn’t compete. So rail in Northland has never made any money. It’s never paid its way, but successive Governments have poured money into rail in an attempt to keep it going. It’s been a black hole. I’m not saying that rail anywhere else in other parts of the country is not viable, but in Northland it’s not. The National Land Transport Fund is for roads, paid for by motorists, but this Government, they’ve cancelled the motorway up north and they intend to plough millions, if not billions, into rail in Northland.

This bill shows the Government’s love affair with rail. They would love to have National’s four-laning project on their side, but we got there first, so they’ve had to satisfy themselves with a few scattered safety projects and pouring money into rail. They made a song and dance about spending about safety on our existing roads, but up north all we’ve got is plastic sticks instead of lanes. They’ve ignored our road-building programme, which was building the safest roads in the country. Up north, we’ve got a few roads that have been slightly widened, but nothing like four-laning.

The reality is they can’t even spend the money that the New Zealand Transport Agency have available for roads. They can’t even spend the existing money that they have now. They can’t even do that right. It’s a disgrace, and we will not be supporting this bill.

This is a sensible piece of legislation. It’s a privilege to be able to speak on the land transport legislation amendment bill. In summary, this is a bill that is about safety. It is about strengthening the regulatory functions of the New Zealand Transport Agency, and it implements measures as part of the Tackling Unsafe Speeds programme. Therefore, without hesitation, I have no qualms in commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe the previous speaker Kiritapu Allan’s contribution was actually referring to the next piece of legislation we’re debating in the House rather than the current one, but that aside, I’d like to touch now on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill, rather than the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. Now, this bill is fundamentally shifting how rail is funded in New Zealand. That is a major concern for us, because, historically, what we have seen is those using the roads pay to use the roads, and those using rail pay to use rail. It seems like a pretty common-sense approach, and, actually, I think most users of roads would agree that that is a fair and reasonable measure. As a road user, you pay your road-user charges, you also pay your fuel tax every time you fuel up at the pump, and that’s appropriate. That goes towards contributing to the upkeep and development of new roads over time, which is a fair reflection to ensure the cost of those is met by those that utilise those particular modes of transport.

Now, I know the Green Party are fundamentally opposed to any sort of vehicle on a road and would rather that we only had pedestrians, cyclists, or maybe train users, but the reality is that simple mindset simply doesn’t work in rural New Zealand. Having that sort of narrow-minded, idealistic view is totally out of touch with what broad New Zealand requires from a transportation system. Now, absolutely, on this side of the House, we understand that rail has a place; that is not in the regions. We cannot expect everyone to commute around the Waikato region, for example, by train. That’s simply unrealistic. Actually, those that do utilise the road systems, which is by far the vast majority of New Zealanders, should not have to fund the rail network.

Rail in New Zealand is run as a State-owned enterprise (SOE). It’s a commercially driven enterprise designed to create a profit. What this Government is now saying is that, actually, we’re going to totally change that view. What we’re going to have instead is a rail system that’s an SOE but we’re going to say, actually, it doesn’t have to generate a profit. So we’re going to value it from a public-good perspective rather than a profit, commercially driven focus. That is a total shift from where we’ve been, and, of course, that requires a significant increase in funding, if KiwiRail is no longer required to generate a profit.

That’s why this particular piece of legislation has been put forward, so that current road users can help to fund this massive requirement that KiwiRail is demanding. We’ve seen a significant hole open up in terms of the funding need for KiwiRail as this Government signals a whole range of different projects on which to focus with rail. Now, look, there is, as I’ve mentioned already, a place for rail, but focusing investment willy-nilly through re-diverting transport funds into rail is simply not the right way to do that, because it sees investment go into lines that may not be viable and do not have a significant economic benefit for the country.

So we absolutely oppose this sort of total re-routing of the transportation funding system and recommend that the Government focus instead on building some of the roads with the National Land Transport Fund that we have committed to previously.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I apologise to my colleague Mark Patterson, who I seem to have accidentally nicked the call from, but we have got somewhat out of order this afternoon. I needed to, on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa, respond to a few of the points made by former speakers contributing to this piece of legislation, particularly my colleagues Tim van de Molen and Matt King—“King of the North”. When we’re talking about re-diverting transport funding into something like trains, into something like rail networks, Mr van de Molen, I’m not quite sure if there is cognisance or understanding of the fact that trains or rail are actually a mode of transport.

But on top of that, there is a really crucial role for rail, in particular when we’re speaking to the potential to reduce our carbon emissions. There’s currently a very live conversation, actually, about potentially moving our port—my port, as an Aucklander—which, I mean, it’d be awesome to see the coast at the front of Auckland CBD opened up for all Aucklanders to use, but one of the conversations that we haven’t yet cracked into properly, I don’t believe, is whether we are going to be investing in meaningful transport solutions to get that freight back into Auckland, where it is predominantly redistributed around.

I also want to raise with the National Party, who seems to think that roads are all paying for themselves by virtue of road-user charges and fuel, that they perhaps need to look into how Government spending actually operates in the transport area, because that’s absolutely not the case, as they should know with their obsession with roads, which they have liked to dub the roads of national significance. It’s definitely the case that I myself as a taxpayer, but not as somebody who actually owns a car, am helping through my taxes to pay for roading projects literally right now as we speak. I think that New Zealanders, on balance, expect transport choice, particularly in our urban centres, and for many of them, it is about enabling that transport choice.

I’m only contributing briefly to this piece of legislation given that it is part of a three-bill package from this Government about reorienting towards a far brighter future our transport solutions in this country. The Green Party is proud to support the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill.

Just for members, we’re on call No. 9, which is usually a split call, so I’m going to call it as a split call unless—the whips are telling me it won’t be?

💬 Kiritapu Allan: No, you’re good. It’s call No. 9. The Greens took the Labour call; you’re taking the National call, and he’s got No. 10.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK—OK.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call this afternoon on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill, but before I come to the legislation, I do just want to acknowledge the situation down in South Canterbury at the moment. Members will be aware we had a significant flood event around the Rangitata River just over 10 days ago, and, unfortunately, it knocked out both the road bridge and also the rail network for quite some time. Contractors down there did a fantastic job getting both bridges open fairly quickly, but, unfortunately, the main trunk line down there is still closed. But it’s a real pleasure to be able to report to the House that they’ve done a fantastic job down there. I understand they’re having to replace about 200 or 300 metres of rail line, and they are aiming to have that open by Thursday, which, if they did, would be an absolutely monumental effort.

I do want to cover off a couple of points that we do have in this Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill, though, and, at its heart, it’s making it even easier for KiwiRail to access the National Land Transport Fund. I have real concerns about that, particularly for an electorate like mine. And we’ve heard from Ms Chlöe Swarbrick, who obviously has an interest in all things Auckland. But I have a concern because this is already a Government that has taken $5 billion out of the State highway network to put into rail projects, particularly in Auckland, and also cycle projects in Auckland. They’ve done that and what it’s meant is that there’s a real lack of money now available for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to put into the State highway network.

That’s certainly true in my part of the world where, had National been re-elected, we would have built a four-lane highway between Ashburton and Christchurch or, more specifically, Ashburton and Rolleston because the Rolleston to Christchurch part is nearly complete. But because the Government’s taken so much money out of the State highway network, we now have a situation where NZTA are having to come up with this cut-price scheme, which is to put a median barrier down the existing road. That’s really just due to the fact that they’ve taken so much money out of the State highway network to put into rail instead.

So I have real concerns that this bill is going to make it even easier for money to come out of money that should be going on roads to make those roads safer. I mentioned Ashburton to Christchurch and there’s a very good reason for that. It’s now the second most dangerous stretch of highway in the country for fatalities and serious injuries. So if we’re taking more money out of the roading network to put into rail, all it’s going to mean is that roads around the country, including mine in Canterbury, are less safe because legislation like this passes and more money ends up going into rail.

It’s also had another effect, which is we’ve had an announcement recently from the Government which is to borrow $19 billion, because they’re now in projected deficit, having to borrow $19 billion. I think around $12 billion of that is going to go into infrastructure and $6.8 billion of that is going to go into the road and rail networks. We still don’t know, by the way, what the breakdown of that’s going to be, about how much of that $6.8 billion is actually going into roads, but I have this fear that when you look across the other side, you look at New Zealand First on the one hand, the Greens on the other, and Labour in the middle, there’s probably only one thing that they actually agree on and that’s rail.

I’m not opposed to rail. I think rail can work in certain circumstances, but I have a fear that you’ve got a Minister over there, who’s sitting opposite, who said that we have over-invested in roads and motorways for decades. You’ve got an Associate Minister in Julie Anne Genter, who refers to motorists as “car fascists”. What’s the likelihood that we’re going to see much of that $6.8 billion actually going into new roading infrastructure rather than into rail?

So all this bill does is it makes it even easier for rail to raid more money from the roading network. The Government opposite have already announced they’re going to be putting more money into rail. All it means, unfortunately, is that roads in my part of the world in Canterbury are going to be less safe because all we’re doing is investing more and more into Auckland and into Wellington. Thank you.

It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for this Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. Of course, New Zealand First are huge supporters of our rail network—and the shameful state of disarray that we have inherited it in and the billion dollars allocated in the last Budget is long overdue. I was just up in Matt King’s neck of the woods on Friday, actually doing his job for him, and I know they are really excited up there to get their new port and the rail link up there and really get Northland cranking. But this is a much wider issue.

It’s integrating our transport systems. And just coming at this from a farming issue, we’re looking at emissions and the methane and all the debates around methane and flow gases. What we’ve actually got to do is drop our carbon dioxide emissions. How are we going to do that? We’ve actually got to do something, and one of those things is to get our freight, primarily, and, in our urban centres, our commuters into public transport and on to trains—the logs that are damaging our roads and the like. So this is an absolutely appropriate response. These ghost roads that the Opposition are pining for that would cost billions and billions of dollars—I mean, just to put a four-lane bridge over the Rākaia River, Andrew Falloon, would be astronomical costs that we could be actually investing into our rail network to take some of those big logging trucks and freight off the road. And, of course, there are the safety elements of that as well.

So, without further ado, New Zealand First absolutely support this measure and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you for taking my call this afternoon, and it will be a brief one. It’s abundantly clear that National opposes this bill. As the last speaker for the National Party, it’s just signalling that KiwiBuild has been derailed, so is this on the same track for a similar destination? In this instance, the puns aside, the case for change has not been made out for the Government. The status quo is satisfactory.

We’ve heard that the road users pay for the new roads and accordingly users of rail ought to pay for the use of the rail network. My colleagues have made it very clear what the party position is on this, and I’m just going to defer back to memory lane, just track there a little bit, to the association that, of course, yourself, Mr Speaker, and I have to Taihape, which is a railway town, and family land associated with my family, the whenua there at Turangaarere, Omoti, was a railway settlement and the land was claimed under the Public Works Act back in the early 1900s and known as a railway settlement.

The tracking of those stories also, for many of us, the histories associated with the railways, and the reference to the ghost roads and the ghost housing this afternoon with the questions that had been posed in this House—I also allude to, up in Taihape through to Waiōuru, our defence lands. Many of our members from families waited at the railway stations, farewelling our ancestors as they went off to war. There’s a hauntingly sad image many of us may recollect, particularly during Anzac Day, and it’s about our soldiers, the forgotten ones and the fallen ones, who were waiting to return home. That waiting place is at the railway station beside the railway track.

The reason I mention that is that they are sad memories that are conjured up, and what this bill is purporting to do, and it will be railroaded through, is that it may become a sad memory in relation to the fact that the State-owned enterprise, which is the operational entity for KiwiRail, ought to be and remain running and focused as a commercially run entity. This bill is purporting to change the framework for that so that heavy rail track network owned by KiwiRail is now framed under and placed under and supported by the road users paying for the new roads. So the National Party opposes this bill.

The references that I have made, whenever I do stand to speak, it’s drawing it back to those personal connections. The railways for many of us as families have tracked through our lives and we do have certain memories, and they are poignant ones.

May this bill become a distant memory in the course of time, as it will show that it does not operate in the commercial entity that it was proposed and set up to do. The National Party does not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to talk about this rail bill. Can I just acknowledge the Minister of Transport for his work but also the fundamental objective of this bill, and that’s to integrate rail with all the other modes so we can get transport sorted once and for all, and all those challenges, because they are long term. We’re here for the long term and this is all part of that programme.

I was in Whanganui myself, reflecting on the previous speaker’s words. I was walking along the river line and got to Aramoho, I think it was called, and there’s a rail bridge there, and walked back down the rail line past Cullinane College and back into the city centre. I thought, “At least there’s a Government here that will ignite and activate that line and make sure that it gets used even more than it currently does.”

The other piece I like about this is that those in the metro cities with urban rail networks, Auckland and Wellington, those KiwiRail public servants—

💬 Hon Phil Twyford: You’re making Jamie jealous.

—ha, ha!—will certainly now be part of that regional land transport planning that’s vital. They’ve been left out of the loop, not on purpose. I know public servants are all willing in the transport sector, but this just formalises the arrangement and makes sure now that that statutory three-year rail network investment can proceed. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 24 April 2020.