Joyce Steven: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Joyce Steven: Infrastructure Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9797. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister for Infrastructure) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: I move  
That the Infrastructure Bill be now read a second time 
. The Infrastructure Bill is an omnibus bill in four parts covering three areas: changes to utilities’ access arrangements to transport corridors changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 and the repeal of the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act 2008 with the retention of an amended restrictive covenants provision related to social housing. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received 37 submissions from a wide range of organisations which represented the interests of the three areas the bill covers. The majority of submissions focused on the proposed changes to arrangements for access to transport corridors by utility operators such as power and telecommunications companies. Most submissions were very supportive of the aims of these parts of the bill and offered constructive suggestions to improve them. Three submissions commented on the changes to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act and were supportive of the changes proposed. 
Several submitters on Part 4 of the bill which repeals the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act expressed general concerns about the affordability of housing and noted that repealing that Act without any indication of an alternative approach to addressing housing affordability was unsatisfactory. However Local Government New Zealand and the six territorial authorities that made submissions on Part 4 have suggested that rather than improving housing affordability the Affordable Housing: Enabling Territorial Authorities Act would if implemented increase the cost of housing in the current market. Further the building sector raised concerns about increased complexities and delays as a result of that Act and that is why we are repealing it. In addition proposed changes to other legislation such as the Building Act and the Resource Management Act will be more effective in simplifying processes and reducing the costs of housing development thereby helping to improve housing affordability. 
Restrictive covenants are a growing barrier to the integration of social housing in communities. The majority of submitters including territorial authorities and non-governmental organisations were supportive of retaining this provision through an amendment to the Property Law Act 2007. These covenants unfairly discriminate against some of our most vulnerable people such as older people children and people who require assisted living such as IHC clients. 
I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work they have done in strengthening this bill. I support the changes that have been recommended. Many of these were of a minor nature or drafting nature but I will briefly outline the more significant changes which relate solely to utilities’ access rights. Although all utility operators have the right to do work on local authority roads local authorities can impose reasonable conditions on the utility operators when undertaking those works. Local authorities should not be able to use road-opening processes to require utilities to do something that benefits the local authority at the utility’s cost. Where a local authority would like to impose such a condition it should pay the increased cost of the condition and the area should be identified in advance. 
The intent of clause 21 and parts of clauses 30 and 32 of the bill is to restrict the ability of local authorities to impose conditions that create additional amenity value beyond the current amenity value of the area. Submitters’ concerns with the clauses as originally drafted were that they would restrict local authorities’ ability to maintain the amenity value of certain roads and would increase the cost to local authorities in doing so. These clauses have been redrafted to better reflect the intent. 
Part 1 of the bill establishes a framework for a national code of practice governing how utility operators and corridor managers coordinate their activities. Several submissions identified the need for a code management body. The bill takes the approach that there is no requirement for a code but if industry participants see value in having one then it can be developed. Mandating a code management body would add a degree of compulsion beyond what is intended. 
There is an inconsistency between the various utility Acts covering the activities of operators effectively giving telecommunications operators more rights of protection over their assets than electricity and gas operators have. For example the Telecommunications Acts allows only local authorities to impose conditions on telecommunications operators but the Electricity Act and the Gas Act allow local authorities and other utility operators whose assets are being moved to impose conditions on electricity and gas operators. The majority of submissions on this issue supported removing all utility operators’ abilities to impose conditions on each other. Instead utilities can create standard conditions that apply to corridor managers and utility operators through the mandatory code of practice. The bill has been amended to remove all utility operators’ rights to impose conditions on each other by amending the Electricity Act and the Gas Act to make them consistent with the Telecommunications Act. 
Several submissions recommended minor amendments clarifying the current cost allocation provisions that apply when a corridor manager requires a utility’s assets to be moved such as when a road is being moved or realigned or when the New Zealand Transport Agency requires a utility to move its asset because it is unsafe. The current cost allocation provisions in the Electricity Act and the Gas Act which the bill copies into the Telecommunications Act apply a causer-pays principle—the causer of the work pays for the total cost of the work. However the provisions have an exception that provides for utility operators to share most of the cost when a controlling authority causes the work: the utility must pay for the fittings and the controlling authority pays for the actual work done. 
Submitters suggested that ambiguity arises from who constitutes a controlling authority. The prevailing interpretation is that the term “controlling authority” applies to the New Zealand Transport Agency only. However the definition of “controlling authority” in section 54 of the Government Roading Powers Act includes local authorities. Submitters said that the term is ambiguous and should be clarified. The reference to fittings is ambiguous and causes disputes. Submitters said that it should be clarified. The provisions do not allow any claims for betterment. One submitter was unsure whether this meant that there could be no claim whatsoever or that the claimer must pay the increased cost. The submission was that claims for betterment should be allowed but that the costs should lie where they fall. Changes to the bill have been made to address all of those concerns. 
Currently utility operators have no right of access to the rail corridor. KiwiRail has powers under the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act to grant and revoke easements under any conditions including requiring the payment of rent. Utilities have a right of entry at level crossings only where a unique regime applies with application for access being determined by the District Court. Submitters pointed out that the amendments to the Railways Act in the bill recognised that the rail corridor was underutilised and that the current amendments do not go far enough towards enabling greater use of the rail corridor by utilities. KiwiRail cited fundamental differences between road and rail especially in the way that it operates—particularly its inability to divert traffic—and safety concerns as reasons why the current arrangements should remain in place. The bill will go some way towards addressing these concerns by requiring all corridor managers to publish their criteria for access to corridors and to respond in writing within 30 days to an access request. The code of practice can also assist by facilitating greater cooperation. 
A review of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981 and the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990 is currently under way. This work programme will consider the matter of KiwiRail’s powers in relation to granting and revoking easements on railway land. 
Only minor technical or drafting changes were made to the remaining parts of the bill so I do not intend to cover those. I intend to introduce at the appropriate time two Supplementary Order Papers with the first dividing the bill into four bills to better reflect the Legislation Advisory Committee’s guidelines— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Courageous. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —agreed—and the second making three minor technical amendments to the bill and in addition amending the section that relates to a council’s ability to impose conditions on utility providers to enhance amenity values by replacing the reference to those areas identified in a long-term council community plan with a reference to those areas identified in a district plan where there are particular considerations rules or requirements relating to amenity values. Once again I thank the select committee members for the work they have done on this bill.