Blumsky Mark: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Blumsky Mark: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18040] 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed being on the Local Government and Environment Committee during this whole process and it is probably only when one gets bills like the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill that one starts to debate the merits of actually staying in the place. But then one realises that one could be on the other end and maybe helping Wellington to put together a bill somewhat like this because I reckon that if I am lucky enough to have a shot at the other one I will be doing the same thing quite soon. 
I like what the bill’s promoters have done. They have taken control big time. Like those speakers who have gone before me I can only congratulate them because they have been on a hell of a trip. I am well aware of the hurdles and of the local government processes they have been up against. Is it not a pain in the backside having to go every year—every single year—to every single annual plan and ask like Oliver Twist whether one can have some more? Often local authorities say that they will be there absolutely. Then of course the annual plan goes through the process and lo and behold it has gone or the bit the local authority said that one would get is a hell of a lot smaller than it was because there has been a bit of a noise about rates rate increases and so on. This has been a journey. I say that the bill’s promoters have done well and I was delighted to be on the select committee. 
The process in the select committee was fascinating because one learnt a lot. One did learn a lot because 500-odd submissions came through. I tell members now that one learns a lot from listening to the people who made the submissions about the difficulties that they have been in. Thank God for many of those organisations which I call the group of 11—there are really 11 as the zoo is in there—because if they were not there any more we can just imagine the problems there would be. I have plucked out a couple of the submissions as examples. The Wiri Central School just made it quite clear that it was a decile 1 school and that it would not be in a position to pay. Its parents the families cannot afford to go to the organisations it needs to go to for learning like the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium and the zoo. That school needs those organisations to be there. 
Then we had a submission from Kelly James. Kelly James would be dead if the rescue helicopter had not picked her up when she had a dolphin land on her. She went into a respiratory arrest and nearly died but was brought back to life because the helicopter got there. We have to say that was fantastic for Kelly James. 
Then we look at the submission from Ian Tuck the director of junior surf who said that his group saved 227 people last season and performed 307 first aid treatments. We have to say: “Thank goodness they were there and by gosh they had better be there next time.” 
Then we have the Chinese new settlers. They are here they have come from a strange land they have all this water around them and they do not know a thing about water safety. So we need WaterSafe Auckland to be there to take them through those educational issues. I knew the member would like that one. 
I had the pleasure as I said to go through the submissions which really rammed home to me the importance of the group of 11. It also rammed home to me how important volunteers are and I know that Mr Hide mentioned that. Many many volunteers are tied up in these organisations. They do not get paid and they do an outstanding performance for us. But I also need to thank another group in this process for the learning I had in going through their submissions. They are the community organisations that fund—for example the ASB Bank Community Trust. We are lucky that it is there and that it is generous. We are lucky that the Lion Foundation is there and that it is generous. I congratulate the Auckland City Council because I think it has done good. It has taken a big share of the burden—a bigger share than it probably deserved—and it has made a real difference. I say to the Manukau City Council—Mr Dail Jones mentioned Manukau not me—that 25 percent of its population use those services but it provides only 3 percent of the funding. That is not fair. That is not fair at all. 
Coming back to earth there has been a problem. Serious money is an issue. There is an issue with viability hence the need for this bill. The bill establishes a framework to secure sustainable funding. Money is tough to get. It is not easy to get money for these organisations. I am on the board of Wellington Free Ambulance. We are forever trying to raise money. Donations are harder and harder to get from the public. Every Friday on the street corners in Wellington a different bucket is being shaken. It is a different bucket from a different organisation needing funds. Then of course costs are going up. Petrol prices are going up rental prices are going up. Money is hard to get. Then we have examples like that of the Lion Foundation which admits that 2 years ago it contributed $59 million to the New Zealand community and this year it will be $43 million. So the big funders that have been there historically and have done a fantastic job will struggle to have the degree of moneys available. 
If we look to the future we see Auckland is getting bigger. There is more pressure on the services in Auckland. There will be more risks to those organisations so there will be an issue for how that group of 11 will be funded. There were three options. The first was to ask the Government for more money. I have to suggest that life saving WaterSafe Auckland and the Auckland rescue helicopter for example should probably get more Government funding. I think there is a case for them to get more Government funding. Another option is to up the user-pays. Well there is user-pays and there should be user-pays in many of those 11 organisations—and the cultural arts are a part of that—but we have to make sure that they are affordable because we have to make sure that Aucklanders can enjoy them. So there is a need even in the cultural aspect for the subsidies to go forward. The last option is local government and that is why this bill is here. I note that the Auckland City Council submission stated that independent market research undertaken in 2005 indicated a high degree of support across the region for the regional funding arm of the group of 11. This was reconfirmed in October in 2007 in a separately commissioned North Shore City Council survey. So what I am hearing is that the people of Auckland through surveys by Auckland City Council and North Shore City Council are saying this group of 11 should be funded by the region. To say it again this was reconfirmed in 2007 in a survey commissioned by the North Shore City Council. 
The local government option makes sense. I must admit I am a huge fan of the Auckland Regional Council stepping up and I think it is a pity we could not get that in the process because it did not meet the requirements of the bill or whatever. I believe that is the cleanest and easiest way for this to occur. So in a logical way we are picking up second prize but I suppose that is not as important as the fact that the funding is going to come forward which is important for sure. 
As a National Party person on the Local Government and Environment Committee I was also very conscious of the fact that I did not like the bill in its original form. I liked the Auckland Regional Council stepping up and I liked waiting for the royal commission to do its work—I think the royal commission will play an integral part in the shape of Auckland. Auckland has to get itself together which it is not doing at all actually and I am sure that if the National Party comes forward as the next Government—as I hope it will—it will address that in conjunction with the royal commission. Something has to be done and I admit the fact that we cannot wait until 2012 as we suggested in the Supplementary Order Paper. If we do not send a stronger message to those organisations we actually run the risk of them falling over. 
I suppose just to those who are in the gallery—and I know a number of people are here from different organisations—I send a final message. This bill will pass and there will be a pretty strong funding stream from local authorities for organisations to get. I think they will get $7 million or $8 million. That is not a cash cow for those organisations to then sit back and think: “We’ve got all the money in the world now. Let’s spend it. Let’s go for it. Let’s buy this that and the other.” It will be too easy for those organisations to fall into that trap. What they have to do is say: “We have a serious lifeline. This Parliament has recognised the importance of us as organisations and recognised the importance of us to Aucklanders.” Parliament is saying: “Here is the money to keep you alive and to keep your organisations strong. Don’t abuse that privilege. It is a privilege you’re getting. Don’t abuse it. Be careful with our money please.”