Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. I was just slightly disappointed that that member who just sat down Paul Eagle didn't take the opportunity to espouse the benefits and merits of this bill especially as he is a member based in Wellington. And as alluded to and as Mr Chris Bishop directly quoted he is in an area that relies heavily on rail and I would have thought he would have taken the opportunity to take us through some of the details of this bill because it seems to be one that the Government and his party in particular the Labour Party seem hell bent on pursuing.So the bill—we've had a quite good summary of it from the Minister and I think the big thing is as my colleague also highlighted that National is very supportive of rail and we always have been. In fact I have a personal involvement. Before I came into politics I was involved in the purchase of the electric multiple units that came into Auckland so I saw some of the difficulties and the workings of working with Auckland Transport as it was and also the Ministry of Transport and also the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) during that process. But of course where I represent now the electorate of Hunua which covers Pukekohe in particular this is an area that has not had money spent on it in terms of providing a good rail service between Papakura and Pukekohe even though it has been planned for a long long time and we've had a Government that keeps waxing on about how they're going to invest in rail. But I've got thousands of people who travel up the Southern Motorway every day. I think from memory about 120000 people travel the Southern Motorway yet the Government couldn't see its way to actually speeding up and putting some investment into that southern part of the rail network where it is really required because the people who are the most likely to get on a train as I used to as I commuted to Auckland Central regularly—to get on a train—but if you can't get on it easily or it stops at Papakura and you have to wait for the next train it's all a disincentive.And the other thing we're waiting for with bated breath is the triple-laning between Wiri and Westfield so we can actually see some trains passing so we can actually put in some commuter trains that actually might be able to go through at a much-increased speed so that you can actually have speed or services that deliver people to Auckland Central in a much shorter period of time. But of course it's nearly three years and it's all been talk talk talk. But let's just return to the bill because I know the Speaker is showing a lot of interest in the bill. I think the issue is—one is around the rail network investment programme and there's some good stuff in the bill. Obviously moving the planning phase out to six years is very much important. But I must admit I find it an argument that's sort of weird to be having because every council does what is called an AMP an asset management plan and that is a 10-year plan. So for a long-term infrastructure investment like rail you would have thought that that actually is an absolute given that you extend the planning programme for KiwiRail. And obviously there is a difference between investment planning and also the funding which as the Minister noted is still based on a three-year funding model. The role of NZTA under this new arrangement is interesting because on one side KiwiRail's required to do some plans put it into the mix and then NZTA is meant to opine on it. And there's this disconnect between what actually happens at regional level even though they're meant to be trying to make that happen. I think there's an element of lacking clarity in that part of the bill.But I think the other thing about this bill is the issue around KiwiRail actually being able to access this wider national land users fund which is this fund that is created and as my colleague Chris Bishop said hypothecated which in other words means targeted—or is related to where the money is gained or where it's sourced from it is spent in that area. What this bill does is it starts to cut aside that whole principle which is a really fundamental principle. And as Mr Bishop quite rightly pointed out it seems absurd that truck drivers and trucking firms will now end up in effect subsidising rail which is their major competitor. So that aspect of the bill I think is a bit of a slippery slope and I'm so glad that the National Party was clear and has been clear about our position because I think if we get into power on 20 September that will be something that many people will be focused on from our party to make sure that we've got clear principles. We don't confuse them and we don't use cross-subsidisation as a principle because there has been a longstanding move towards not allowing for cross-subsidisation. And of course that provision in the bill is a major issue. The other bit I want to raise is the status of KiwiRail. And as KiwiRail is a State-owned enterprise (SOE)—and it's one of about 22 SOEs I think from memory—they have a clear line of responsibility. They have clear objectives. And you can go to Schedule 2 which lists all those entities and the involvement of Ministers in terms of how the oversight of all those—and KiwiRail has had a pretty clear line of sight of what it's meant to be doing and how it's to operate. What is slightly disturbing is during the course of this bill increasingly the issue of how KiwiRail is to be managed has been raised and I think moving away from an SOE model brings about an added complication. I just want to note during the course of today that this is an issue that we'll be monitoring very closely. Basically it follows a revaluation undertaken by the Government that basically inflated last year's surplus that the Government reported and that revised valuation related to how the assets of KiwiRail were considered or viewed by the Government. Basically using a public-good approach to valuation methodology resulted in—I think it was—an increase of $4.6 billion and that was why there was a major surplus reported last year. Of course it's just a book entry. It means nothing. But merely because the Government instructed that the valuation of KiwiRail should adopt a public-good basis rather than a business basis we had this massive inflated figure that was captured not only in the way of KiwiRail's asset or in its balance sheet but also in terms of the Budget surplus reported which of course is great for a Government when it's trying to talk as if it's doing very well. I think the move towards this public good is starting to claw at this whole concept of KiwiRail being an SOE. And I'd just like to suggest to you that let's hope that the Government does not pursue this line of thinking with this asset. It is an important entity for New Zealand. It does carry many thousands of passengers as we all know not only in a tourist sense but also commuters but also it's got the tourism aspect of it and also the freight which ferries carry crossing the Cook Strait. So those four aspects are all part of KiwiRail's mix. It's important that it is given proper funding. It is important that it is properly governed and managed. But we're starting with this bill to claw away at some of the clarity around that and I think that's a dangerous slope to be heading towards.