Mackey Moana: Infrastructure Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Infrastructure Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:12501] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Infrastructure Bill. 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: We’re happy to hear from you! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank Mr Heatley. He will be hearing a lot more from me in the debate on Part 4. Part 4 marks yet another day in the sad sad history of Phil Heatley Minister of Housing but we will get to that in debate on Part 4. As other members have done I thank the submitters who came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I thank the officials who worked on the bill. 
It is interesting that when the Government puts up legislation in the House that has the word “infrastructure” in the title National MPs think they have solved all infrastructure problems. They kind of think that if they pass it it will come. The reality is that although this is good legislation—it was drafted by the previous Labour Government—it will not solve all infrastructure problems. This bill does not change the fact that the Government’s focus and priorities in infrastructure are skewed. They do not represent the infrastructure needs particularly in rail. Where I come from the Government is looking at closing the Gisborne to Napier rail line. We have fought for a long time to keep this rail line open. It was only under the Labour Government that that became a reality and now the National Government wants to try to get rid of it. It wants to turn it into a cycleway of course which is its answer to everything—if in doubt build a cycleway. The reality is that rail will always be part of the long-term mix of transport in Gisborne. It could be used an awful lot more than it is currently being used; I hope that the Government will see sense on that matter. 
Part 1 implements a code. The interesting thing about the code is that when National members were discussing the code at the select committee they said how important it was that there was buy-in and that they would go out and consult on it. They then told us that the code had in fact already been written and was already there in draft form. The cart was put before the horse in that respect. 
It became clear at the select committee that there was an expected and I suppose understandable tension between rail operators and road transport operators. It seemed as if the National members on the select committee did not want to acknowledge that there was a difference between the road corridor and the rail corridor. When there is a problem people need to be able to access infrastructure to do with power lines gas and water but the difference is that when work is being done in a road corridor it is easier to divert traffic. A rail corridor has to absolutely shut down when work is being done. Those who came along and submitted from the rail perspective wanted that point to be understood. It is all very well to say that everything should be treated the same but the rail corridor is different and the disruption is far greater when they have to close down the entire line. It seemed as if National members did not want to acknowledge that point which was a shame. 
Darien Fenton 
: They don’t like railways really. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They do not like rail; I think that is the point we came to. We had a little bit of insight as to why a number of infrastructure and lines companies were quite keen to turn rail lines into cycleways when that point came out. I often wondered why Eastland Infrastructure was so keen on turning our rail track into a cycleway until I started to read the submissions on the infrastructure legislation and realised that it would probably find it far easier to access its lines if they ran along a cycleway rather than a rail corridor. I think that that is where it is coming from which is a shame because— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: They haven’t seen how fast Mr Mallard would cycle down it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. We would have to put out a special warning if Mr Mallard was on the corridor on the cycleway. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You know that Mallard is an engine don’t you? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I did not know that the Mallard was an engine. That is extremely interesting. 
The other part I will speak about in this bill which is very important is the definitions. Labour members were very concerned about the definitions relating to waste and waste water infrastructure and about who would be considered to be the utility operators. Paragraph (d) of the definition of “utility operator” in clause 4 originally stated: “in relation to water and wastewater infrastructure a local authority as defined in section 5 of the Local Government Act 2002”. The National members on the select committee added these words: “or any person acting on behalf of a local authority in relation to that infrastructure:”. When this amendment was flagged at the select committee it was raised as being just a small issue so that we could have flexibility. 
This issue is clearly intended to pre-empt the future privatisation of the infrastructure services in waste water and water. We accepted that Auckland has already gone part of the way and that we need to make sure that the situation in Auckland is covered by this legislation so we suggested alternative wording that would have captured the situation in Auckland whilst not opening up the door holus-bolus to the privatisation of waste water and water infrastructure. That suggestion was turned down by National members which clearly indicates to us in relation to the debate that is going on with regard to the Auckland super-city the National Government’s intention for the future privatisation of these services. It wants to make it as easy as possible to privatise these services. 
There were other ways to word the definition and submitters came along and suggested wording that would have captured the situation in Auckland with the council-controlled authorities that are already there but would not have allowed the definition to open up as widely as it has. We did not really get any answers from the National members on the select committee on this matter. Clearly they were told what they needed to do and that is the way that they voted. But it was an issue of significant concern for a number of the submitters who came along. It seems like such a small thing but the difference that those 10 or so words can make is enormous when it comes to our infrastructure services. 
Another interesting thing about the code is the exemptions—that is where it does not apply as much as where it does apply. I think we will have to be very very careful and keep a close eye on this area. It would have been far simpler for us to design a situation that ensured a total buy-in from all the parties but that is not what we got. That work had not been done at the very basic level. The Government wanted to get this legislation through and its overarching intention was that its focus was purely on roads and it was not very fussed about all the other types of infrastructure that this bill deals with so we did not get to that situation. That is unfortunate. We were basically told that the code had already been drafted. Despite the fact that the legislation states that it is yet to be drafted and that there was a whole process of consultation to go through we were told categorically that it had been drafted. Lots of people do not agree with it and a significant number of those in the infrastructure sector do not agree with it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Who’ve dropped out. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes they have dropped out of being a part of it. I think that that fact really undermines the very basis of this code and the purpose of having it. The reason for having a code was that we could not get agreement on when people could access the transport corridors. This legislation is still before Parliament and has not even been passed and already parties are dropping out and do not want to be a party to this code. I think that it speaks to the process that this Government has taken in getting the legislation to this point. We can understand people’s frustration when we hear big words and big speeches about the fantastic process that has been set up yet the select committee was told that the code has already been drafted. We were told that the code was already there and that we could basically take it or leave it. The Government did not see any point in going back and relitigating it with the sector. Well that runs contrary to Part 1. As I said before it puts the cart before the horse. 
I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair the Minister for Infrastructure what work he is doing to try to make sure that all the parties who should be signing up to this code will be brought on board. A code becomes somewhat redundant if all of a sudden people are dropping out all over the show. We end up in exactly the same situation that we ended up in before which is that someone going in to do work on a transport corridor has absolutely no idea where the infrastructure is located because that information is not being supplied. The council plans may be 2 or 3 metres out so people may dig somewhere that they think is safe but suddenly they hit a water main or a— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: It’s madness. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well Mr Heatley would know. I will take it from an expert. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He knows how to dig. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. Phil Heatley certainly knows how to dig so I will take it from an expert in that regard. 
I think all members of this Committee acknowledge that we are in an untenable position with regard to access to these corridors but I ask whether this is the best way to go about it. I ask whether we will actually resolve anything when affected parties are basically being told to take it or leave it that this legislation will implement a code but that the code has already been drafted by certain elements of that sector and that if they do not like it that is just tough. The fact is that we have been in the position of telling people to take it or leave it before and it has not worked. That is how we have ended up where we have ended up. Part of the problem has been the Government’s refusal to acknowledge that rail is different from roading and that the implications for carrying out work in the transport corridors that involve rail are different from those for carrying out work in the transport corridors for roading. It is far easier to do work on roading and to leave the road open than it is to do work on rail and leave the rail line open.