Hughes Darren: Infrastructure Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Infrastructure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:12504] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Opposition is surprised that the Minister in the chair the Minister for Infrastructure—it is the first time we have ever had that portfolio in a Government in a formal titular sense—has not seen fit to take a call during the Committee stage on this bill and explain his legislation. Many members have asked questions or have raised issues that came up at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Minister has not seen fit to speak to his bill. This is the Infrastructure Bill. It is a bill that we were told formed a critical part of the Government’s economic programme. The Minister for Infrastructure also holds the portfolio of finance so presumably he is interested in the Government’s economic programme and I would have thought that he would take the chance to explain to us why after 2 years in Government the bill is still languishing at the point where it is. He has chosen not to do that so maybe he will answer a few questions about different clauses in Part 1 to enable the Committee to move forward. 
Obviously the Opposition is supporting Parts 1 2 and 3 but we are trying to engage in a debate that the Minister said was serious for the New Zealand economy. He said that if we could sort out infrastructure matters and remove roadblocks or whatever the other Crosby/Textor road-tested phrases were then we would be able to achieve nirvana in New Zealand. But such is his enthusiasm that he has been reading all manner of reports. I am surprised the Minister has not taken a call. He has probably been reading the  
New Zealand Woman’s Weekly 
 to check out the engagement of Kate Hawkesby and Mike Hosking. He is not that interested in the Infrastructure Bill. I saw him with a magazine over there before but I am not sure what it was. 
One of the points that has been raised by the Opposition tonight is in respect of the definition of “utility operator” in clause 4(d). Government members on the select committee insisted on the words “or any person acting on behalf of a local authority in respect of that infrastructure:”. My colleague Moana Mackey made that point. The commentary on the bill states that “not all water and wastewater utility operators are local authorities.” I wonder whether the Minister could speak to that and let us know the Government’s philosophy in respect of those assets. I ask whether the Government in wording the legislation in that way is signalling that part of its approach to infrastructure is that it wants to see more private provision of water and waste-water services in the community. I think that is a reasonable question. It is either something that the Government is open to and enthusiastic about or it is something that it is closed off to but wants to make sure that no one is not caught who is currently operating in that space. 
It seems to me that if there is a Minister for Infrastructure being serviced by a National Infrastructure Unit which is part of Treasury then he should be able to answer my questions. Before the election the problem was too many bureaucrats; after the election Bill English has been able to accumulate all manner of taxpayer-funded resources. We will not go down the particular path of what all of those have been but he has his own National Infrastructure Unit or NIU which is anything but new. I would like to know from him what advice he has received on whether that is an area for further infrastructure exploration and development and whether the Government wants to see more private provision. I think that would be a pretty straightforward issue for him to address for us. 
I turn to clause 9(b) which requires operators to keep disruptions to a minimum. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that particular phrase. It seems to me that if we are talking about big infrastructure works in New Zealand it would be useful to know whether the Minister believes those are just words or whether it is an achievable measure. There can be major change to infrastructure and somehow it can be passed off that disruptions will be kept to a minimum. There can be a variety of different projects under way and we would like to know what the Government means by that requirement. If the code is very literal about keeping disruptions to a minimum it may extend the time frame for projects. The Government is saying that everything is so quick and that we need to build all this infrastructure now. Of course that has not followed through to the speed of this bill. It has been sitting around for 2 years. However the Minister might be able to comment on clause 9. 
Clause 6(3) states that operators do not have to comply with the code if it is inefficient or if it would be too costly to do so. I think the Minister really does owe it to the Committee to go through the provision in clause 6(3). It seems preposterous that we are going to all the effort to come up with a code and the people whom the code covers can opt out of it at any stage that they like simply by invoking an argument of inefficiency or cost. I think the Minister could very quickly address that issue for us so that we have a sense of the Government’s thinking on that if the main part of Part 1 is to include a code. 
Clause 10(2) provides for the ability for different applications of the code depending on geographic locations. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on how he sees that operating in practice because one of the things we all know as members of Parliament is that whenever each of us advocates for a case the example in each area is “very unique”—that double saying that makes no sense. That “very unique” example is separate from everywhere else in the country. We can see that that provision could be absolutely rode roughshod over by operators who did not want to comply by arguing for some special feature of their geographic location. I would like the Minister to offer some comment on that. He must have advice on that. His failure to engage in this debate raises a lot of questions about what advice he is getting if he is not able to share any of it with the Committee. He has set up a whole unit to help him so none of these are challenging questions for him. 
Clause 10(1)(d) talks about the managing of conflicts of interest. We could easily see a conflict of interest happening between the various operators and the corridor managers. The clause states that the code must contain a contact which outlines processes for how one would resolve those conflicts. It would be good to learn from the Minister where he sees the priority of where the interests should fall as those conflicts are resolved. We know that conflicts of interest are matters that are often on the mind of Government; it is just the way things are. They have to be managed. In this legislation the Minister is writing it into a code but it is not clear from the reading of it how that would be managed and where the priorities would fall for the different players. 
Finally clause 11(2)(a) talks about consultation with utility operators and corridor managers who are likely to be affected by the code. But it is silent on the matter of consultation with local government. That issue may well have been explored at the select committee but I was not a member of the select committee so I am not sure whether that was covered off there. But there are different references to local government and I quoted a clause earlier relating to additional parties being added because there was a recognition that not everyone involved in certain services were local authorities. But it seems to me that if the code has to be written once and it has been consulted on with utility operators and corridor managers then where is the role for the local authority in respect of where that access for utilities services is needed? If the Minister could comment on those things he could prove to the country just how important it is to have a stand-alone Minister for Infrastructure rather than one who is giving all the appearances of being mute on these very important macroeconomic reforms to the New Zealand economy. But I have failed entirely to even attract the Minister’s eye throughout the Opposition debate as he has worried himself away on other topics and I wonder whether he might be able to show some courtesy in respect of this crucial legislation. He picked up on Amy Adams’ voice because it is very distinctive and I can see how it could interrupt the inner peace of the meditation that the Minister up until that point was ensconced in. The piercing tones of the member at the back of the Chamber cut right through. 
Amy Adams 
: That’s the nicest thing you’ve said to me in weeks! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I have said many nice things to the member. In fact I have said lots of nice things about the member behind her back and that is very rare in politics. That is a very useful observation for her to have. 
If the Minister could be minded to answer some of the points that have been raised I think that would be useful especially seeing as he is enjoying some pretty broad support across the Committee for his bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of the Hon Bill English to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.