Coddington Deborah: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19774] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am curious too as to why this bill is going to the Government Administration Committee. I presume it is because it is legislation that deals with the administration of the rail network. I actually agree with Peter Brown who has just spoken that we have a very good Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and an excellent chairman and that we do have the time to get through legislation like this. Although ACT is supporting the bill going to the Government Administration Committee I am disappointed that it will not be to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because one of the reasons for that support was that I was very interested to see the submissions on it. 
There has been a lot of talk about the long-term structure and role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation in terms of owning the national rail network. There was a lot of lobbying in 2002-03 by what became known as the “big four”. I think it was Solid Energy—and I can see the Minister racking his brain as I am. Four big companies wanted the Government to buy back the rail network so they could have the exclusive use of it. Of course that would never have worked because rail is not like a road where there are passing lanes etc. We opposed this buy-back of the rail network. One of the biggest mistakes that Richard Prebble ever made was not selling the railways. He is always accused of selling the railways. In fact he never did sell the railways. One of the greatest myths in modern politics is that Richard Prebble sold the railways. Had he sold the railways had he privatised them we would have had a successful privatisation like Telecom—and I do not see this Government moving back to buying back Telecom and turning it into New Zealand Post. 
Peter Brown mentioned the fact that the railways used to lose a lot of money. In the year 1979-80 the railways lost $90 million of taxpayers’ money. It was an appalling situation. We saw this move by the Government to buy back the network as a retrograde step. 
There has also been talk about buying back this network as a sweetheart deal with Toll Holdings. That is why I would be interested to see the submissions to the select committee—the submissions that will inevitably come in from New Zealand transport operators who will have a lot to say about this legislation which has appeared to favour an Australian mega transport company that is trying to swallow up New Zealand transport companies. Peter Brown advocated that his party has always foreseen a situation where the taxpayer owned the rail network and the companies such as the trucking companies used it—as a parallel with the roading network. Does he not see what a disaster we already have with the roading network? Yes the trucking companies do pay massive road-user charges to use the roads but what do they get back in return? They get nothing like what they pay. They get nothing in terms of goods and services commensurate with what they pay for. 
If it is estimated that $200 million a year is what is needed to be spent on the rail network we will never achieve that. We cannot even achieve it with the roads let alone with a rail network. What people always forget when they criticise the run-down state of rail in New Zealand is that the geography of New Zealand is such that it makes it very very expensive to maintain a rail network. People always talk about Britain and America but we have a totally different situation here. Whenever there is talk about a line closing down—an example was the Napier to Gisborne line—all these sentiments come out. People have this emotional attachment to the rail networks—“Save Rail”. How many of those people actually use the rail? They want it for a once-in-a-lifetime scenic trip that they may take but it is a cost to the taxpayer. If we go back to the time when we spent $90 million a year on our rail network the cost to the taxpayer was just exorbitant. 
The other issue that comes up is rail safety and how the Government should have ownership because private ownership never takes care of safety. In 2003 I went to a really interesting conference in Britain. It was a conference on how the media report disasters. There has been a lot of reporting in Britain about how privatisation of rail networks in Britain led to a decrease in safety standards and bigger disasters. This conference actually showed that when one compared like with like—if one compared all the equivalents and eliminated things—and compared roading with rail road travel was far more unsafe than rail. It is just that when there is a rail disaster it is a big one and it is a shocking one. The media report it and blow it up. Everyone is really interested in it and says how ghastly it is and we have all these tales. Every day that number of people and more can be killed on the roads in Britain and no one takes any notice. So it is all about perceptions. There is no evidence to show that private ownership of any rail network automatically leads to a decline in safety standards. 
The Government was not forced to purchase back the rail network. Yes I agree that the privatisation of the rail network was badly handled. But that does not mean to say that it should be one or the other. It could have been fixed up or improved instead of going back to a situation where the taxpayer now owns and carries the risk of running maintaining and pouring more and more dollars into the national rail network. As I said we are supporting this bill to select committee. I am disappointed it is not going to our select committee—the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—but we will support it and see what happens when it comes back to the House.