Williamson Maurice: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Williamson Maurice: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19771] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I say from the outset that the National Party will certainly be supporting this bill to select committee. We understand the need for legislation that tidies up the legalities around what is referred to in the bill as “the entity”—that is a corporation by the name of the New Zealand Railways Corporation which has the responsibility for owning and operating the rail. But the National Party also has some quite serious concerns about the detail of this bill and we will be asking some questions at the select committee and seeing whether we can get either some additional clauses put into this bill or some clauses changed. 
The Government is very very quick to roll out its transport mantra just about everywhere that it can. It wants it to be “an integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system”. I do not think that there is anything wrong with those four things but they go nowhere near enough to put realistic limits on the bill. For example what we are creating here and what members need to understand we are creating here is actually a monopoly: a business that can provide access to the rail track—but it is the only one. For many years I have asked why there is only one monopolies commission actually and I have never had a sensible answer to that question. But when it comes to rail—and Harry Duynhoven may laugh—I understand why there may be only the one operator of the rail track and a whole lot of rolling stock operators gaining access to it. I can live with that. 
However just like the fact that I can live with there being only one Auckland airport and a whole lot of aircraft operators in the name of airlines using it there have to be some rules about what these entities can charge. I mean who is to stop the entity from seeking monopoly rents from the users of the rail track? There is nothing in this legislation that states: “Now you are the only owner of the railway line. Charge what you will.” because if Toll Holdings does not like it it would be a matter of bad luck unless there were some quite severe limitations about the use of monopoly rents and the ability to rack-rent. 
I also notice that there is some stuff in this bill about the returning of land to the original owner under the Public Works Act of 1981 and I think that is a perfectly sensible thing. But it also gives some exemptions and I wondered why that was and then the penny dropped for me as to why. I guessed that if the New Zealand Railways Corporation owned a very thin sliver of land that was only the width of a railway track between two quite large blocks of privately held land it would be a bit of a nonsense to go back to the original owner and say: “You can own this nice little wee thin strip of land but you cannot get access to it. It lies between two private sections of land.” I notice that there are some provisions in the bill for not having to offer the land back to the original owners where the entity is getting rid of a very small piece. I think it states that it is something to do with its size shape and structure and the entity may not have to force the land back. 
So overall yes there is a need to have a proper legislative framework for the New Zealand Railways Corporation to act under. Secondly I am staggered that the Government is so reluctant to ever put the words “economic efficiency” into anything. It was the same with some of the road legislation when we were talking about the Land Transport Management Act. The Government fought tooth and nail against having the words “economic efficiency” in the legislation and I cannot understand for the life of me why. Other than the Greens who do not believe in economic efficiency I do not know of anybody in this House who would not want New Zealand Railways to run on an economically efficient basis. I will certainly be moving some amendments either at the select committee stage or when the bill comes back into the Committee of the whole House so that we do not only seek as the bill states that the objective of the entity is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to “the aim of achieving an integrated safe responsive and sustainable transport system”. 
Well those are lovely words. Those are like mother’s milk apple pie and so on. But those words do not actually talk about how this entity would operate in the commercial world and this is a commercial entity—a business that will charge people to use it. There are no powers fettering its monopoly position as far as I can see. We have in the airports legislation some restrictions about how those airports can either use or misuse their monopoly powers. I would like to put in some words about economic efficiency and to also have some limitations on the abuse of a monopoly power. 
Having said all that though the bill is necessary and the National Party will not do anything to hinder its passage to a select committee that will hear the necessary submissions and make what we hope will be some constructive suggestions for improving the bill.