Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. Like my colleague Maureen Pugh I feel somewhat of an emotional connection to railways. I think a number of members in the House have grown up with experiences whether it's relatively prosaic in the manner of transportation or some have been fortunate enough to have had family members involved in and to have the privilege of driving these magnificent beasts. Like my colleague Chris Bishop I do see the value of rail including in relation to my own electorate. I won't take up the entire time that I've got allotted to make a contribution by putting a shout-out for the case for rail to be better employed and an existing line to be more suitably used in the Helensville electorate the north-west of Auckland but I can't resist an opportunity to say that in fact it does make sense in some parts of the world and my part of the world is one of those.So let it not be said that this side of the House does not believe in rail full stop. In fact we believe in it where it is appropriate. I'm reminded of that saying in response to a person asking if something was going to be popular: for people who like this kind of thing they'll find this is the kind of thing they like. Rail makes sense where it makes sense and not more and not less.I think in many ways both sides of the House are in danger of violently agreeing with each other that we should have a mode-neutral approach to transport in this country. I think there's broadly speaking—if I've understood correctly and without having had the benefit of the debates at the select committee level—consensus in that as an ideal. Where the parties differ is in relation to this bill whether we believe that it is in fact promoting the concept of mode neutrality or if perhaps the finger is on the scales of one and not the other.There are a couple of ways in which we can discuss that—in particular the way that funding makes its way into the National Land Transport Fund and I'll get into that to the extent that I'm able in the next couple of minutes. But I also think it's worth noting—again on that overall theme about the value of rail being the best mode of transport where it is most appropriate—that this side of the House does believe as we've stated in the minority view deriving from the select committee that we are not averse to the idea of a New Zealand Rail Plan. Indeed we think that that development is to be supported. But the particular New Zealand Rail Plan that has been generated is not necessarily the right one to proceed with.So it is that we can see that in some cases it will be sensible to allow for the transportation of heavy bulky goods and to reduce congestion where population density and topography allows that. Auckland where I hail from personally and where I have the pleasure to represent a part thereof is famously difficult to arrange public transport for—in particular terrestrial being an isthmus and therefore difficult to build networks that make sense in ways that countries overseas with better geography and topography or more suitable geography and topography and population density make that much more possible. So it's easy to make comparisons with dense cities such as Singapore London New York. But we live in the city of sails those of us who are blessed to call Auckland home and I'm not sure that I would trade the wonderful Hauraki Gulf or indeed the Kaipara Harbour or the Manukau Harbour either of those three jewels in Auckland's crown for the benefit of such transport systems even as those great cities enjoy.We've talked about the fact that there is a mixed model if I were to put it kindly whereby the proposal is that KiwiRail would remain as a State-owned enterprise but the planning and funding functions would move under the Land Transport Management Act. It's neither fish nor fowl and while KiwiRail would remain an enterprise that is owned by the State it would not be a State-owned enterprise in the sense that we've come to understand that word whereby accountability and funding align closely. So for that reason as with others on this side of the House I cannot support this bill.