Sowry Roger: Railways Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Railways Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7412] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party will be speaking in favour of this bill and voting in favour of its introduction but we do so with severe reservations because we are very concerned about some aspects of it. Although we will vote for this bill to go to a select committee we will be reserving our position depending on the bill that emerges from the committee. 
I want to start by saying that I notice that the Government and United Future have decided that this bill will have full submissions. I acknowledge that a bill like this needs full submissions from a range of people interested in the process. I regret that we will not be allowed to do that for the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and I regret that United Future has stopped that given that it has no one on the committee and shows very little interest in transport issues. That aside United Future has rolled over as is its wont. 
I take issue with the Minister who said that rail was moving away from being vertically operated—and he is right there—to being fragmented with a number of players. I am bemused that he can say that with a straight face given that just a few weeks ago in this House he was trumpeting a deal that the Government had signed with Tranz Rail for its management to have sole management rights to the track. It was denying access for anyone other than the odd heritage operator and the obvious passenger transport that is already broken down. That deal is still on the backburner because after having signed the deal with Tranz Rail executives the Minister raced around behind the bike sheds and did a deal with Toll Holdings which undermined the Tranz Rail executives. So the Government went from having total faith in Tranz Rail and buying the track back and giving Tranz Rail’s chief executive and management the total rights to run it to racing around and doing a deal with Toll Holdings saying: “No you can have total rights. You can get the same money. The Government will own the track and Toll Holdings can operate it.” 
We now know that that deal is effectively dead in the water. Toll Holdings will not be able to get the 90 percent shareholding that the Government had insisted upon in that arrangement. So now we have other operators lining up to purchase the operation and they do not know whether they will get the same deal from the Government. It may well be that Tranz Rail is moving away from being vertically operated because it is in such a shambles after the Government’s meddling in the sale process that people do not have a clue as to who will operate or own what. 
The Minister stood in the House a few weeks ago and said that the reason he had had to front up with $200 million for Tranz Rail was that the company would be broke by Friday and if he did not come up with the money the trains would stop. Well the trains are still going. I tell the Minister that Tranz Rail could go broke because of the reports it has to commission every few weeks to evaluate another deal that the Government is trying to stitch up with another potential buyer—that is what might send Tranz Rail broke; it has nothing to do with the original reasons. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Do you really believe that? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Anderton sits there chuckling away but he is the man who has been promising rail all over the country visiting everywhere but Nelson. He has promised rail all over the country but he has not delivered on it at all. Richard Prebble has a better track record in delivering services than Jim Anderton. Jim Anderton has been going to Gisborne just about every month for 4 years and saying the same thing: “Don’t worry the trains will start.” There is not one extra log on the rail now than when he started going—and he knows that. 
Mr Anderton can sit there and chuckle all he likes as the only Cabinet Minister to be on New Zealand superannuation and proud of it. That says a lot about the high stand he takes when it comes to using taxpayers’ money—$180000 plus the car and Vogel House are not enough for him; he has to take New Zealand superannuation as well just to make sure that ends meet and that he can pay for his regular Thursday or Friday night at the movies. I tell Mr Anderton that that sort of behaviour goes down with the populace at large about as well as his continual promises to save rail in Gisborne. People have stopped laughing about Mr Anderton in Gisborne; they are polite to him because they are never quite sure whether the chequebook is coming out but they suffer him only begrudgingly. That is what they tell us on a regular basis. 
What is of concern in this bill is the huge amount of fines. It is the good old Jim Anderton approach to Government: if something is going wrong in the rail business sock some fines in there. We have fines that will apply to staff—to the workers whom Mr Anderton represents. If a staff member fails to act in a safe way he or she is liable for a fine not exceeding $100000. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If he or she does something causing death. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No that is not what the bill says. I suggest that Mr Anderton reads clauses 60 to 65 because he will then see what it means. Next time Mr Anderton is on the plane to Gisborne he should read them and stand up in Gisborne and tell the people there—when they have stopped laughing—that this Government is happy with $100000 fines. The union movement is not happy with that. It is on record as saying that it opposes these clauses. We will oppose them as well and we will not support the bill with those sorts of draconian fines particularly when the company can also be fined under the occupational safety and health legislation. So not only does one have to be content with fines under the occupational safety and health legislation under this bill one is also able to be fined up to $100000 under clause 60 and up to $50000 with imprisonment terms not exceeding 1 year or 6 months depending on the section of the legislation. 
We think that is draconian. We think it is likely to mean that the person operating in a shunting yard—[ 
Interruption 
] Government members can chip away but do they think that the person down in the shunting yard who makes an error of judgment will be happy with the fact that because he is standing alongside the track doing his job and an accident occurs for which he is found to be liable he can be fined up to $50000 or $100000 depending on the error of judgment? 
What other industry has those fines? None—not one. Why would we fine the workers at that level? Does Mr Anderton believe that they can pay for it? Are those workers on a salary plus New Zealand superannuation like him? Are they double-dipping? No they are just getting a salary. He is out there saying: “No that is not good enough. We will get the company under the occupational safety and health legislation and we will get the staff members the managers the shunter operator the person”— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: The shunters usually get run over—that’s the problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Oh he says the shunter gets run over so he is not worried about him. Well I want to say— 
Darren Hughes 
: Be sensible. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Hughes says this bill will stop them being run over. Mr Hughes also said that the alcohol tax on port would stop youth drinking and they are still laughing about that in Levin on Saturday night. I say to the Government that we will not support this bill in the shabby condition that it is in.