Jones Shane: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Shane: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9799. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa. I rise to speak in favour of the Infrastructure Bill but as our whip has said I do so with a heavy heart. The bill has been stripped of the most important dimension because it has been decided that infrastructure does not include the most valuable commodity which is shelter. Without allowing for a transparent process this Government has circuitously stripped out a very innovative approach to housing an approach that required councils when they were dealing with their resource management schemes and planning provisions to impose on developers—perhaps many of whom created the leaky-home drama—an obligation to the wider community. Unfortunately for all home seekers and the broad community this Government has sold them out. We are prepared however in the spirit of driving forward infrastructure to overlook such an egregious failure. 
That causes me now to come back and identify why this bill will be supported by Labour. There is very little debate that we must create an improvement in our productivity and also in our levels of innovation much of which is related to the concept known as agglomeration. That is a concept that says that where networks of people and capital are concentrated in an area—otherwise known as a city; soon to be called a super-city—entrepreneurialism development and creativity will flow. Infrastructure undergirds much of what we hope to see as a consequence of more people being able to make innovation. For that reason infrastructure is regarded by members on this side of the House beyond cavil as an essential ingredient in enabling our country to achieve its full potential. We do not indulge ourselves in foolish vacuous statements such as those about catching up with Australia. We are more interested in husbanding our indigenous resources developing our own people and isolating those areas of infrastructure that will create a real step change. Real change is not about funding seven highways or suddenly announcing an upgrade to the Kopu Bridge so that it can bear the weight of the trucks that will be carrying the new hitherto unknown undisclosed bounties of mineral wealth that have never before been placed before the nation. 
Let me come back to the bill; infrastructure is a key ingredient in such broader debates and this is the Infrastructure Bill. Let us focus for a moment on the usefulness of a code. There is a potential contradiction in the notion of a code being enforceable at District Court level yet being an exercise in voluntary participation. That is not the Government’s usual style; its usual style is forced participation. We look forward as a consequence of this bill to participants in the infrastructure industry being able to cobble together a usable code but there is provision if they fail the test. Apparently they are all focused at the moment on seeking opportunities in those fairly foul beasts known as council-controlled companies in Auckland which are largely the handiwork of the Minister. However it is important that a code comes into place so that the red tape that has afflicted this area of the economy can be sorted out in the confines of that code. When we have participants who either will not play by the rules or who will gain from the rules then there will be the opportunity for them to be policed and for them to be corrected. 
As members know one of the reasons why infrastructure will be roundly supported by us is that we saved Auckland from gridlock. We did that by laying down foundation planks for a long-term strategy invested in public transport but it is sad that up and down the country every provincial council is being starved of money for public works. Indeed one of my councils in the Tai Tokerau the Kaipara District Council has complained bitterly to us about its cutbacks which are being made in order for the current Minister of Transport to rebuild the Kopu Bridge to bear the weight of a vicious mining exercise where apparently there will be no need for diggers no need for trucks and no need for carrioles; all that will be needed are needle-like precision cuts into the side of a mountain and then in some way “Dr Spock”—the physical character represented by the Minister on occasions—will spirit away all the minerals. No it will not happen like that. That is why public transport is being starved but the provision of public transport requires a very efficient process of allocating scarce resources; I tell members that this is a sensible contribution in that regard. Provincial councils are being starved and this bill has little to say unfortunately as to why they are being put on an ugly diet—something perhaps that ACT Party members ought to have been put on or could be putting themselves on but that is another matter. So the code is important and Labour agrees with it but we do put on record our considerable concern with this fixation on highways and with the deprecation of the importance of public transport. 
We are also concerned about the winding down of our railway system. We know that Mr Steven Joyce and other members are antagonistic towards KiwiRail. The reason that rail corporation provisions are being changed in this bill—and I direct the Minister’s attention to that; he and other Ministers have the ability to change the manner of appointment and the number of directors who are being appointed to the railways corporation—is that Ministers are shafting Jim Bolger getting rid of him. That man is a great patriot. He breathed life into the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. Despite some misguided views about a host of public policy issues pertaining to social matters he has been gutted by the rat pack led by that salesman of Brylcreem otherwise known as Steven Joyce. That is a business that will never ever prosper. 
In relation to the attitude of local government to utility network providers I say that local government has a great deal to answer for. That is why the previous Government elected to establish the royal commission. It is widely known that a pipe covering the distance across seven or eight local authorities in Auckland had to have its dimensions changed and that slowed infrastructure down. What happened as a consequence of our royal commission—unfortunately hijacked by Rodney Hide—is that we became aware of infrastructure deficiencies. We laid down a pathway as to how they could be addressed but this Government although it talks loudly acts very timidly. It has enraged those people who do not like its rhetoric and disappointed those who are looking for bold action. But we know that the Government will be contested next year. 
This bill is supported overall but with the caveat that it has stripped the heart of social housing out of the infrastructure debate. As I said that is an egregious failure but we are prepared to overlook it. Local government working more effectively with investors in the utility scene and in infrastructure can improve infrastructure outcomes but not if that represents the degradation of public transport the deprecation of KiwiRail and the ongoing assassination led by Tony Ryall and Steven Joyce of that great patriot of right-wing politics from the King Country Mr Jim Bolger. His name and reputation unfortunately are being besmirched both openly and secretly in Auckland by the current Minister of Transport. However in the spirit of unity we are prepared to allow this bill to progress to the next stage. Kia ora tatou katoa.