Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair and it's a great pleasure to speak on this Part 2 of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill and I start with clause 9 which I am surprised given the Minister is not exactly elegantly expressed. If you look at clause 9 it says The main function of the Commission is to co-ordinate develop and promote an approach to infrastructure that encourages infrastructure and services that result from infrastructure that improve the well-being of New Zealanders." It's not very well expressed to be honest—"promote an approach to infrastructure that encourages infrastructure"—and it doesn't really define what the approach to infrastructure is. I wouldn't have assumed that there was an approach to infrastructure that would discourage infrastructure but maybe there is maybe there isn't. The point that we've got here is that I think what is trying to be said is that the commission would well—well that's the point; it's not clear what it's trying to say. I can't make head or tail of it. I'm prepared to ask the Minister. I'd love to ask the Minister to explain just exactly what clause 9 means in simple terms. And unfortunately without reference to Biblical allusions or passing proverbs—just in clear simple terms—it would be useful to know what he actually means by that.In terms of the actual functions in the next clause it refers to "[might] provide advice in relation to infrastructure … [about] the ability of existing infrastructure to meet … expectations;". Well of course everybody in New Zealand knows and particularly in Auckland where I come from that there is a shortage in the transport estate which has built up over many decades. The previous National Government of course worked tirelessly to try and turn that around and invested significantly in a broad range of transport areas but also worked on some other wider areas—of course one of the greatest areas of infrastructure progress that was made was through the ultra-fast broadband and the provision of that sort of thing. So it's not just about transport but we certainly need to continue that work and the frustration that many New Zealanders feel right here right now is that that momentum that we had over the past nine years—nine years of progress—has been lost and we've fallen into a hole and there hasn't been that continuity. So I think there's no question that the commission will have a lot to say about the pause that we've seen in the provision of infrastructure and the fact that we need to get back to a clear pipeline.Then the third one of course is the priorities for infrastructure and that's where we run into a problem because we of course have the Greens and Julie Anne Genter who is determined not to give in to the car fascists and then we've got Phil Twyford the Minister of Transport who is the only person in New Zealand apart from Julie Anne Genter who thinks that we've overinvested in roads in recent history because most people do just want to get around. So when we're trying to sort of work on what our priorities for infrastructure are then you get into difficulties because we on this side of the House have the old-fashioned view that the purpose of transport infrastructure at least is to enable Kiwis to get around quickly efficiently and safely. That's what transport infrastructure is about but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be what the Government sees. And so instead of having a bunch of projects in Auckland for example where I am in terms of dealing with the congestion on the Southern Motorway they have this focus for the single biggest transport investment ever being a slight improvement to the public transport offering down Dominion Road with a slow train.So people can't understand that priority. So it will be very interesting. I'd be fascinated to see the first report from this commission when it sits down and tries to make head or tail of the priorities for infrastructure. It'll be a useful and instructive discussion and to the extent to which as a result of the studies of this group that we can get a more sensible basis for decision making around the priorities for infrastructure it will be a good thing. But I'd like to hear an explanation from the Minister of what clause 9 actually means. Thank you very much."