Rurawhe AdrianANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much. I've just had some encouragement behind me to speak for a fair amount of time because I think I do have a lot to say on rail and I do have a lot to say on roads and I'd like to—Nicola Willis: This'll be goodANDREW FALLOON: —if I could get into that. Thank you for your encouragement as well Nicola Willis. Look it is a pleasure to take a call this evening on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill but I do rise to oppose the legislation. Those reasons why have been outlined by a number of my colleagues on this side of the House but I'll run through a few more.Now my fundamental reason for opposing this piece of legislation is actually quite simple and that is that the guiding principle of the National Land Transport Fund should be to pay for roads should be for road maintenance and should be to benefit road users. The reason for that is actually remarkably simple. It's because the National Land Transport Fund is funded by road-user charges and by petrol taxes. Of course road-user charges and petrol taxes will be going up again on 1 July this year as they did last year and as they did the year before. The question I have for the Government is: actually what are road users getting for that? They're getting more taxes and actually a lot less for it.But what this bill does is it ensures that road users who pay for roading improvements will actually end up with fewer roading improvements—and this bill undermines that. This bill undermines that principle that roading upgrades should be paid for by road users. It says that the National Land Transport Fund should be used for rail that road users should be subsidising potentially uneconomic rail projects. A colleague across the House—Gareth Hughes—has questioned some of those I suppose economic metrics and yet he didn't come up with any economic metrics of his own to describe how those in many cases projects that have very low benefit-cost ratios could in any way—in any way—be regarded as economic under whatever metric he proposes. Now like colleagues across this side of the House I'm not anti-rail as some on the Government benches would like to suggest. On numerous times I've taken the Northern Explorer from Wellington to Auckland—it's a fantastic piece of rail infrastructure—stopped off a number of times at National Park. I just want to echo the comments from Chris Hipkins earlier in the day for Kiwis to get out and enjoy your backyard because it is a fantastic trip; National Park is a great place to stop off. I also recommend the TranzAlpine going across the West Coast—where my colleague Maureen Pugh is going to win the election later on this year—and of course the Coastal Pacific which travels down the east coast of the South Island as far as Christchurch.The reason I mention that—as far as Christchurch"—is because for the last two years I've been asking the transport Minister Phil Twyford about plans for passenger rail between Christchurch and Dunedin. We used to have a passenger rail network from Christchurch to Dunedin. I travelled on it as a young lad from Ashburton many times. The train used to stop at the Ashburton Railway Station which again was a wonderful piece of infrastructure until it finally was removed several years ago. But I've been asking the current Government about that project for one very simple reason and it's this: that the previous National Government put $50000 into a feasibility study in 2017 asked for by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum and yet this Government has gone completely silent on it. We don't know the status of that feasibility study. I've asked the Minister for it several times. He claims that he hasn't received it. He claims he hasn't read it—actually Nicola Willis a bit like that email he's received from Winston Peters about Auckland light rail which of course he hasn't read either. So he hasn't seen this feasibility study on passenger rail between Christchurch and Dunedin. It must set some sort of record for being the longest feasibility study that I'm ever aware of because obviously it was funded in 2017; we now find ourselves in 2020 and yet the Government's gone completely silent on passenger rail between Christchurch and Dunedin. What I strongly suspect is that they'll remain silent on it until a few weeks out from the election and then a politician from the other side—probably a Green Party politician—will jump up and say "We're going to do this if we're re-elected." Of course they won't; it will be the same as it was in 2017 when Phil Twyford and Jacinda Ardern said that we're going to build Auckland light rail and they haven't moved a muscle on it.I worry about this bill and what it means for transport infrastructure in this country because this isn't just a bill about rail; this is a bill about what the effect will be in terms of funding for other important projects around the country. We've already had this Government remove more than $5 billion from the State highway network—more than $5 billion from the State highway network—to instead invest in Auckland rail and cycle projects; again that light rail project which they haven't moved a muscle on. The cost on regional New Zealand has been extremely high—extremely high. You've had important roading upgrades up and down the country but particularly in regional areas that have been shelved that have been cancelled or—in the words of Phil Twyford—"reprioritised". There have been important safety upgrades like the one at the Woodend Bypass which my colleague Matt Doocey has been campaigning for for a long time. It's off the table. It's gone. It's an important safety upgrade that that community has been screaming out for because of the safety concerns about highway traffic going through that community. Of course the Northland motorway has been put on ice and it's simply out of spite. We had a colourful contribution earlier today from Ron Mark in terms of what the Government's doing in Northland and of course what Matt King is doing in Northland. Yet they're promising to do things like move the port. They're promising to do things like rail but the biggest project that Northland actually needs is the Northland motorway and the only reason they won't do it is because it was National's idea. If it was Shane Jones' idea he would have cut ribbons on it—he would have cut three ribbons on it by now I'm sure as he's done for roundabouts around this country—and yet he hasn't done it because it's an idea that's come from this side of the House. Winston Peters—it remains a shame that he lost that seat of Northland to my good friend Matt King.Now those concerns have been reflected on the select committee. I don't sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which considered this bill but I have been through a number of the contributions that interested parties made on that as I'm now the I think associate spokesperson on transport which is a far more grand title than I think I deserve. However I did go through some of those submissions and they were quite remarkable in terms of the warnings that they gave to the Government and to this Parliament about what this bill would mean. I just want to pick up on a couple of those.The first one of those is from the Road Transport Forum who of course represent a lot of the trucking organisations and companies around the country and others. They said "This bill sets in place an opportunity to reduce funding available to support roading improvements." So they're very clear that this bill is aimed at one thing and one thing alone which is to move money from roading projects into rail projects to fund rail projects at the expense of roading projects.I just want to come now to the contribution by the Automobile Association because they were very very clear about what that would mean if we take money out of roading projects and put it into rail projects. They said "If road construction or maintenance is decreased or delayed this impacts road safety." It impacts road safety in those communities that I've mentioned. It impacts road safety in places like Woodend it impacts road safety in places like Northland and it impacts road safety in places like the area that I represent South Canterbury and particularly that road that runs from Ashburton to Christchurch—now the second most dangerous stretch of highway in the country.So I worry about this bill and I worry about the effect that it will have on road safety.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 16 June.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m."