Peachey Allan: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peachey Allan: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9816. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to be the member who will bring the second reading debate on the Infrastructure Bill to a close and in doing that commend the bill to the House. Closing the debate gives me an opportunity to reflect on how the debate has progressed through the House. It started with a very very clear and concise explanation from the Associate Minister that spelt out very very clearly the reasons for the Infrastructure Bill why it is required what its significance is and what it will do for New Zealand and there is no reason why I should relitigate that. 
Unfortunately the debate then took a turn for the worse. The Labour Party instead of putting up one of its members who had been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and knew what was going on—who had done the hard grinding work—put up Mr Shane Jones. We all know that Mr Jones is the second assistant to the second deputy to the vice-captain of the Labour Party B team and it showed. What an opportunity Labour members missed right at the very start of the debate to engage in debate with the Government on what the real significance of the Infrastructure Bill is. I had expectations that the debate would get better with subsequent Opposition speakers. It did marginally in the sense that at least those speakers gave us a sort of a hint that yes the Labour Party sort of supported the bill. But then instead of engaging in the significance of the bill and engaging with the Government in a meaningful debate Labour members had to throw in a whole pile of asides and irrelevant comments. 
Why is it that when we on this side of the House understand that the development of infrastructure is essential to New Zealand—it is essential if New Zealand is to lift its national productivity—Opposition parties do not want to engage in a debate on lifting national productivity? If one thinks about that for a moment the answer is obvious. After 9 long years of adhockery in the approach of the Labour Government to the development of New Zealand this new National Government has had to get into top gear quickly and begin to get the infrastructure improvements that this country needs and that is what this Infrastructure Bill will do. It will improve and expand the future economic growth and prosperity of New Zealand. 
One has to ask why it is that Opposition parties do not believe in economic prosperity. If they did believe in it they would have engaged in a meaningful debate with the Government on the significance of this bill. This is a very significant bill for the future of New Zealand and its development. Historians will stand in awe of the huge steps that this country took forward after 9 years of lethargy as a result of the passage of the Infrastructure Bill through this House. 
I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that held the hearings on the Infrastructure Bill. The committee worked very very hard. I am bound to say that Labour members were generally cooperative and generally made a reasonable contribution. I have to conclude by saying that it is disappointing that Labour members on the committee did not bring the same positive attitude to the debate on the second reading we have had in this House. I commend the Infrastructure Bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time.