Coddington Deborah: Railways Bill — First Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Railways Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7522] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to continue the theme developed by that member. We all have a nostalgic affection for rail travel steam engines and such things but we have to face the reality that more people in New Zealand want to use their cars than go by rail. It is always very interesting to me that the very people who advocate the saving of the rail for the sake of our social well-being and the building of our infrastructure are often those who do not even use rail but who want to force everybody else on to it. 
The explanatory note of this bill states in the general policy statement section that it was introduced because the rail system was going from “a vertically integrated industry with 1 major operator to an industry with a number of separate operators”. I wonder given the way that things are going now whether that will continue to be the case. We did go from having one major operator and those of us who had to travel by train in those days can remember it as being an appalling way to travel around New Zealand. When the Government owned the railways it was an appalling waste of taxpayers’ money. In the last year that State-owned rail was in operation in 1979-80 it lost $90 million. That was $90 million of taxpayers’ money. At the moment taxpayers have the option of investing their own money in rail if they want to. They can go and buy shares; there is absolutely nothing to stop them from buying shares in Tranz Rail. So why does the Government want to force them by taking the money off them to go and buy into rail? 
This legislation has been brought in as being very rail-specific safety legislation. We heard from the Hon Jim Anderton the other day the gruelling tale of Morgan Jones and no one would argue against that. It is very difficult to argue against safety measures. Who wants to take the unpopular line and argue against safety measures? But sometimes legislation has to be looked at with an analytical eye. That is what we have done with regard to this legislation and that is why we will not be supporting it going to the select committee. It is far too prescriptive and there is far too much detail in it. 
When we have very industry-specific legislation like this which comes in on top of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act which we just brought into law in May we have two major effects. One effect is that blame and responsibility are sheeted home to the Minister. So in this bill the Minister of Transport is to be held directly responsible when accidents happen. If we bring in this very specific safety legislation so that accidents will not happen when an accident does happen people will ask why the Minister could not have prevented it. That is just one issue that needs to be looked at. I think that ACT is the only party that will be voting against this bill so it will go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am on that committee so at least I will have the chance to look at the bill clause by clause and to try to reduce some of those overly prescriptive provisions. 
The other effect that we have to look at is—[ 
Interruption 
] If those members listened to what I was saying instead of gossiping to each other they would not have to interject. There is a lot of myth about the safety of rail since privatisation especially in the UK. A report that came out today from the UK states that the Rail Regulator Tom Winsor has reported that Network Rail’s costs have “exploded out of control with the result that upgrading of the network will have to be delayed.” Why is that? One of the key reasons for the loss of control of costs has been the replacement of rail track—no accountability to shareholders by a not-for-profit organisation. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Ha ha! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The member laughs. Of course he would not understand that shareholders like to have a return on their investments. 
A new report in the UK for the Rail Safety and Standards Board has shown that there have been fewer deaths on the railways since privatisation. I will repeat that: there have been fewer deaths on the railways in the UK since privatisation. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: There are no trains running. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I was in the UK just recently. I used trains all the time; they run very frequently. I can assure that member that the trains run all the time but they are very expensive. The new train warning system that they are trying to bring in in the UK—and this is the very point I bring members back to in this bill and which I want to get to—will cost £10 million for every life saved compared with traffic-calming measures that would cost only £100000 for every life saved. Do members see the point that I am trying to make? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: No. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I will repeat it for that member’s benefit. I will say this very slowly. There are costs and benefits that have to be weighed up. 
Nobody wants to have an unsafe rail track or unsafe roads. But when there are limited resources to spend on issues like that the costs and benefits have to be weighed up and one must look at the cost. For instance in New Zealand if we put in as this bill seems to suggest we will warnings at every single rail crossing—that is where the track goes through farms and private land—what will that cost compared with spending the money on improving a curve in a road for instance to make that road more safe? [ 
Interruption 
] That is an interesting point; the member says that the railways carry the freight. I wonder if the Government does pursue its obsession with renationalising business in New Zealand how it will protect freight on the rail network. Will we go back to the 40-mile limit? I can remember as a little girl helping my father to load wool bales on to the back of a truck in the middle of the night so that he could drive around the back way to the port at Napier because by law he had to take that load to the Waipukurau railhead. That was the result of the 40-mile limit; I am old enough to remember that. Will we revisit those days so that the Government can protect freight on the rail network? Those are the points I am trying to make. 
As I said ACT will be voting against this bill which has been pushed by the unions. It is on top of the Land Transport Management Bill which is already going to strangle transport in this country. An economic survey has recently shown that one of the biggest costs to economic development in this country is the strangulation of transport. What do we have now? We have a Land Transport Management Bill that is being pushed by the Greens. Another member thanked the Greens for that bill. We have a taxpayer member of the Green Party an unidentified staffer who is out there lobbying for support for that bill. Those people have very little understanding of the costs of rail safety. So this Government will be legislating for itself and will itself be caught by this legislation. It will be hoist by its own petard.