Volume 653 Week 9 - Wednesday 8 April 2009 
Volume 653 Week 9 - Wednesday 8 April 2009 
[Volume:653;Page:2493] 
Wednesday 8 April 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statements relating to the downturn in the New Zealand economy? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is Mr English’s view that New Zealand is “unlikely to aggressively grow out of” the recession closer to the mark than his own view of the deepening recession shown by the latest economic survey where the Prime Minister previously claimed that in fact we would aggressively grow out of this recession by the end of this year? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually the Minister of Finance’s assessment of the economy and mine are remarkably similar. For the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition’s education I just inform him that the advice the Government has received from Treasury is as follows. If the economy grows slightly faster than is predicted in the Budget round then Treasury predicts that we will be growing in the June quarter of this year. If it is broadly in terms with where Treasury thinks the Budget might be remembering that that is quite considerably worse than the Budget Policy Statement then Treasury expects it to be no later than in the December quarter of this year. Even under Treasury’s doomsay scenario it thinks it will be March 2010. 
The Leader of the Opposition has asked the question and for the purpose of good order I will just repeat my quote. When asked by Guyon Espiner whether we would still be in recession in a year’s time I stated—and this is the quote verbatim—“I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year—we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively. I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” Once again we on this side of the House are right. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of an interview with Mr Bill English on  
Q+A 
 on 5 April 2009 where contrary to saying that we will come out of the recession reasonably aggressively he stated that we are unlikely to aggressively grow out of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister talk to Mr English about contradicting and therefore undermining his view about aggressively coming out of the recession given the confusing signals to the business community and the public when the two National Party leaders say things contradicting one another; and is the Prime Minister confident that this will not happen again? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not in the slightest—I have huge respect for the views held by the Minister of Finance and I talk to him regularly. I might add that on top of the different scenarios Treasury has provided it is worth noting how much variation there is out there. Only this week Business and Economic Research Ltd came out thinking unemployment would be 5.2 percent at its peak. Members can contrast that with the New Zealand Institute saying a few weeks earlier that unemployment would be 11 percent; the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research had it at 6.1 percent. The reality is that we are in a very unusual recession—arguably the worst since the 1930s Depression—and there is a range of views on exactly when New Zealand will start growing again. 
Nathan Guy 
: Is the Government more concerned about economic forecasts than it is about actually doing something to help New Zealand through the recession? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Unlike the Opposition this Government is not obsessed about updating and talking about forecasts. We are much more concerned about taking action to help blunt the sharpest edges of the recession. I might add as well— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What happened with the cycleway? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If I were Mr Chris Carter I would go out and get some bike shorts because he will be using them soon. The basic point is that the Government has done a lot. Whether it is tax cuts small to medium sized enterprise packages the Resource Management Act reform the reform of Auckland’s governance or the 9-day working fortnight—this has been a very busy and active Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his commitment to a Cape Reinga to the Bluff cycleway which would create 4000 jobs at a cost of $50 million; if so how does he explain his deputy’s comments on  
Q+A 
: “Well we won’t be spending $50 million on it this year or next year or the year after.” which again seems to undermine his leader and has the Prime Minister talked regularly to Mr English about that? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am confident about the cycleway. However after looking at the Television One poll results on Sunday night I am fearful that Mr Goff will be on his bike before I am. 
Nathan Guy 
: Will the Government be changing its economic and fiscal policies every time an economic forecast changes? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The forecasts of the length and depth of the recession will continue to change over the coming months but the pathway out of the recession is crystal clear—that is all of the actions that this Government has been taking; it is a busy Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What new plans does the Prime Minister have to tackle unemployment given Treasury’s prediction yesterday that 60000 more New Zealanders will be out of a job by this time next year and to what extent does he believe that those plans will reduce that estimated number? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said in answer to one of the earlier questions from the member there is quite a wide range of predictions from Treasury both in terms of growth where it pointed out that we may well be growing in this quarter right through to the doomsay scenario which was the March quarter of 2010. That is equally the case when we look at unemployment; there are a range of predictions. What I can say is that the Government is focused on keeping people in work or ensuring that people get into jobs as much as they can. This Government has taken action; the Opposition is taking no action other than whingeing. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: What action does the Prime Minister intend to take to restore confidence in the New Zealand economy given the results of the  
Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion 
 which shows the lowest level of confidence since 1974? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the business community is responding to what it is seeing internationally which is a very weak international position. But I think the New Zealand business community is taking confidence from the fact that this Government is acting. Thirteen days after the royal commission’s report we announced a plan for the reform of Auckland. Tax cuts were delivered on 1 April. The reform of the Resource Management Act is flowing through the House. The member’s own leader is working very aggressively and very effectively on reducing regulation across the New Zealand business community. When I go around businesses in New Zealand the only thing I hear from them is: “Thank goodness there is a National-ACT Government. We are very pleased to see the back of Labour.” 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does Bill English’s comment yesterday that it was anybody’s guess how high unemployment would go next year indicate a lack of confidence in current plans to deal with unemployment; if so what plans does he have to stop unemployment spiralling out of control like Treasury has estimated? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No it reflects the reality which is that it is anybody’s guess how high unemployment might go. The Minister of Finance is working very hard on making sure the New Zealand economy starts growing as quickly as it can. Can I say how lucky we are to have a Minister of Finance so focused on that issue. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he accept that the downturn in the economy will disproportionately affect in a negative way Maori unemployment; and how does this fact together with no tax cuts for low-income Maori families fire-at-will in the first 90 days of employment and the failure to even consult Maori in Auckland about representation in Auckland governance enhance mana as the agreement with the Maori Party would have suggested? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the recession is more likely to affect Maori New Zealanders as they are disproportionately represented as lower-income New Zealanders. We are doing a lot of things. It is not true that Maori did not get tax cuts; they got them like everybody else. It is true that the 90-day provision legislation will absolutely help Maori because it will help them just as it will help other New Zealanders to get a job. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to his reference to the importance of tax cuts to the recovery of the economy has he accepted the proposal of the Minister of Finance for a Budget Day announcement that out-year tax cuts will be scrapped? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government has not made any decision in relation to tax cuts for the out-years except to say that we recognise that there is a difficult economic position in front of us. The Government needs to make sure that it is balanced in what it does and it will take the actions that are necessary to ensure that we do the best for New Zealanders. I can say that tax cuts whenever they occur in my opinion are good for the economy because they stimulate demand and they put the right incentives back in the economy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he prepared to rule out the reversal of the legislation passed in December for tax cuts? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: All I can say is that no decisions have been made on tax cuts for the out-years at this point. 
State Services—Remuneration 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What previously agreed State sector pay increases is the Government having to fund as part of the Budget this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There are a number of previously negotiated pay contracts in place which the Government will honour. Included in these contracts are those for 42500 teachers and principals who received a 4 percent increase in July 2008 to be followed by another 4 percent in July 2009; 22000 nurses and midwives who received another 4 percent increase in March 2009; 2800 senior doctors who received 4.5 percent in June 2008 and will receive another 4.5 percent in June 2009; 2400 junior doctors who will receive a 2 percent increase in July on top of 8.68 percent in August 2008; and there are many more of them. The contracts are all legally binding agreements made by the previous Government and they will be funded in this year’s Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: What has the Minister done to ensure future State Service pay agreements are fairer and more reasonable in the current economic environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have indicated to the chief executives of Government departments that we expect State pay settlements to fall in line with what is happening in the rest of the economy in particular in the private sector where pay increases are quite low. We have also indicated to them that they will be funding remuneration increases from within the budgets they are given and that there will not be additional funds or ministerial funds to assist them. This will be the Government’s position for the foreseeable future. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister of Finance understand that this policy means that after 1 July school cleaners will be paid substantially more than support staff who work with kids with disabilities; if so does he think that is fair? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Fairness will be a critical part of the Government’s approach to State sector remuneration. The member should wait and see the bargaining parameters for that pay round before he gets too worried about it. 
Craig Foss 
: How does the Minister’s approach to State Service pay contribute to the Government’s objective of providing better smarter public services? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In a time of recession more New Zealanders will need more front-line services. In that environment it will simply not be feasible to continue to provide significant pay increases of the order of 3 to 5 percent for public servants without any benefits to productivity and more front-line service. Our focus will be on providing more public services. 
Business Confidence—Reports 
3.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he seen about business confidence in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Reports this year have shown that business confidence was in freefall until just recently. Business confidence measures appear to be stabilising although I must say at very low levels. Well in fact they were falling so fast that they had to stabilise somewhere. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister believe that the Prime Minister’s “sunny disposition” is justified when business confidence has been in freefall and is now at its lowest level since 1974 when 65 percent of businesses think the situation will worsen further and when half are reporting falls in their output and a third have cut staff in the last 3 months adding to Treasury’s projection of 60000 more jobless by Christmas; or can he explain to the House what part of those numbers the “tweet” next to him does not understand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Somehow the Opposition members seem to be surprised about this situation. For several months forecasts have shown that a coordinated world recession will have an effect on the world economy. I can only confirm what the Prime Minister says which is that everywhere we go businesses say “Thank God there’s a National Government and we got rid of Labour.” 
Chris Tremain 
: What measures has the Government taken to ensure that the recent stabilisation of business confidence is sustained and upturned? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is putting in place a range of measures that in the shorter term are designed to assist New Zealand businesses through a recession but just as important in the longer term are designed to build their confidence that this economy is one in which they can invest. Unless businesses invest new money we will not see new jobs to replace those that are lost. In the shorter term we have implemented a package of measures worth $480 million over 4 years to assist small to medium sized businesses we brought forward a range of major infrastructure projects and on 1 April we delivered a tax cut to 1.5 million New Zealanders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of these measures will do more to turn round the historic lows in business confidence revealed by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research yesterday: a cycleway that the Minister will not fully fund this year next year or the year after; a 9-day working fortnight policy that excludes 99 percent of Kiwi businesses; or tax cuts that shift demand from low and medium income earners who need it and would spend it to upper income earners who do not and will not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What will lift business confidence over the next 12 or 18 months will be the continued programme of an active Government that is making decisions quickly about things that make a real difference to the business environment. That is how we will get new jobs to replace the jobs that are being lost now. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister aware that the active Rudd Government in Australia is once again stepping up by injecting massive stimulus into that economy through a combination of income boosts for needy families and bold plans for infrastructure and why does he not admit that his Government’s double act of irrelevant PR gimmicks by the Prime Minister and dour fiscal conservatism from him is likely only to further undermine confidence and drive New Zealand deeper into recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Opposition finance spokesperson could do a bit better than that I would have thought. When the New Zealand Government announces a bold plan for broadband he criticises every aspect of it; when the Australians do it he calls it a bold plan for infrastructure. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: What policy actions does the Minister intend to take to ensure that foreign bank lenders are more likely to roll over debt owed to them by New Zealand companies when it falls due for repayment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This issue will be less of a challenge in New Zealand than perhaps in other countries but there is no doubt that global banks are deglobalising. Where Governments increasingly own them they are putting pressure on those banks to lend in their home markets rather than here. The most important thing we can do is to continue to underpin the stability of financial markets and the relatively favourable credit conditions that are enjoyed in the New Zealand banking system. But this issue is one of any number of risks to the availability of credit in New Zealand as it is in other countries. 
Nuclear Disarmament—New Zealand Commitment 
4.  
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he share the vision of the President of the United States Barack Obama who on 5 April stated his commitment to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”; and does he also share the President’s commitment to take concrete steps towards that goal? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: Yes. New Zealand warmly welcomed President Obama’s recent leadership on the elimination of nuclear weapons. Renewed engagement by the US in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is very welcome to New Zealand. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he agree then with the statement of the New Zealand Prime Minister of 1985 that the United States carries the burden of “knowing that the deterrent which defends them will also destroy them and all the rest of us if it is ever used. No nation should carry that burden.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. Broadly we do agree that the United States can because of its position in the world show leadership in this area. That is why we welcome the statements made by President Obama. We believe that they are a step in the right direction but we do not underestimate the size of the challenge that lies before the United States. We just hope that the United States is successful. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What recent action has New Zealand taken following President Obama’s statement on nuclear weapons? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: At the conclusion of today’s meeting between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton an agreement was signed for New Zealand’s fourth contribution to the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. This is a practical way for New Zealand to assist international efforts to prevent the smuggling of nuclear material and therefore reduce the potential for nuclear weapons to end up in the wrong hands. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In light of his response to my earlier question and also of New Zealand’s vote in support of the December 2008 UN resolution for a nuclear weapons convention will he confirm that our Government will urge the United States to commence negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I think it is fair to say that New Zealand has supported resolutions of the United Nations seeking negotiations on such a convention but we have done that against the background that such negotiations are unlikely to get off the ground in the foreseeable future. New Zealand’s emphasis has been and remains on the practical steps that President Obama outlined in his speech in Prague. Yes we will be encouraging that. As I said it is a very positive step and really it is one almost that only America can take. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has his Government warmly welcomed the vision of President Barack Obama in moving forward measures to effectively deal with climate change; if so if it was not President Obama that the Prime Minister was referring to why did he say: “The leaders I have talked to I can assure the member are so focused on the recession that they are not particularly focused on climate change at the moment.”? Which leaders was the Prime Minister referring to? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is a fairly long way from nuclear proliferation to climate change but that said no President Obama was not one of the world leaders I was talking about there. I have not spoken to him. I do share— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Who was it? Who were the leaders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well there was quite a number actually. If you like I am happy to give— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: One name! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Your mate Joe Biden! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have a photo of me with Joe Biden. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You’ve got to run up from behind and grab him! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is right. I do not know who was happier: Joe Biden seeing Phil Goff or Phil Goff seeing Joe Biden. The fundamental point here is that we support the view that the world needs to take climate change seriously. New Zealand has its own prescription for that and we will be following it. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he agree—bringing the matter of nuclear weapons closer to home—with the statement of the New Zealand Prime Minister in 1986: “New Zealand is a nuclear-free country. We reject any strategy for our defence which relies on nuclear weapons.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it not true that the Prime Minister was just making it up when he said that other world leaders were not focused on climate change because they were focused on the recession; if not why can he not name just one leader who said that to him? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It would be inappropriate for me to relay conversations— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Oh you’re just making it up! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As a former Minister of Foreign Affairs— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You’re not supposed to make things up as Prime Minister John. You should have learnt that by now. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have to go out there and ankle-tap world leaders then email the photo to the  
Dominion Post 
 in order to get a profile. I have my own profile. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a Standing Order that you continue to fail to enforce because members keep interjecting when I raise a point of order. I ask you to bring the House to order please. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will hear the point of order in silence. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker as you are aware the question was very straightforward. It asked whether there was a world leader that he had spoken to. Either there was one or there was not but nothing in his answer pertained to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the question had been straightforward and serious—and I am not sure whether the barracking from the member’s colleagues indicated the seriousness of the question—I believe that the response the member got was absolutely in response to the interjections from his colleagues. Ministers are perfectly entitled to respond to interjections when answering questions. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not going to relay conversations I had with other leaders simply because I think that is inappropriate. But I can say that with quite a number of leaders I have met recently what has come up first and has dominated nearly every conversation we have had has been the recession. If the Leader of the Opposition does not think leaders around the world are almost solely focused on the recession at the moment as opposed to anything else then he is showing why he is so out of touch with what is happening in the world. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In light of his response to my third question which rejected the use of nuclear deterrence in the defence of New Zealand and in light of the judgment of the World Court that the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealand supports the UN General Assembly Resolution 63/75 calling for negotiations to commence for an international convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said in response to an earlier question from the member yes New Zealand has supported those resolutions at the United Nations but it is important as I said to put them against the backdrop of what is happening out there. We think that the fastest way to achieve those kinds of results is not necessarily through a UN resolution; it is through the leadership that America is demonstrating in Prague this week. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table three United Nations documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member identify the three documents please. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The first is General Assembly Resolution 63/75 of 2 December 2008 which sets out the resolution calling for a convention on the non-use of nuclear weapons and which New Zealand voted against. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The second is General Assembly Resolution 63/49 which calls for a nuclear weapons convention and which New Zealand voted for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The third document is United Nations General Assembly document A/62/650 of 18 January 2008 which sets out the  
Model Nuclear Weapons Convention 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Maori Affairs Minister—Statements 
5.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he stand by his statement: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. Yes I most certainly do. As the Minister of Maori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Maori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was listening very carefully to that answer and you will probably realise why. We have previously had an exchange in this House about what the responsibility of the Minister of Maori Affairs was and what questions he could be asked in that light. We have had both a question and an answer now which accepts the point that I made at that time—that is the Minister of Maori Affairs has a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people. His responsibility is across all those areas of policy that affect Maori people and he can therefore be questioned in this House on those matters. We have now had that confirmed by the Minister himself in the House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: As I understood it the Minister said he has interests in those affairs that affect Maori people rather than responsibility for them. Perhaps it is a matter of looking at the  
Hansard 
 to check the statement. I think there is a big difference between an interest and an understanding of the affairs that might be raised across the board throughout the country as opposed to those affairs that he has responsibility for. I ask you to have a look at the  
Hansard 
 to consider that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think it is a matter of how far a Minister takes an interest. If he takes an interest so far as to call for reports or ask for briefing notes as Minister of Maori Affairs he then has responsibility for those reports for which he has asked. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker I refer you to the principal question. The Minister was asked to stand by his statement: “I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people”—as Minister of Maori Affairs. That in fact is the position that has been well understood for a long time but which was questioned previously by the Minister in trying to avoid giving answers. He has established clearly that he can now be questioned in this House on any matters that might impinge upon the views of the Maori people because he has a responsibility to represent those views as Minister of Maori Affairs. He has now defined his own responsibility. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are still considering a point of order and members should respect that please. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is no surprise to me that they applaud when I get to my feet! I think the point Dr Cullen makes is an interesting one. But there will equally be occasions when Dr Sharples will find that he speaks in a different capacity just as Helen Clark found that rather than speaking as Prime Minister and therefore in the interests of all New Zealanders there were occasions when she spoke as leader of the Labour Party. There were occasions where the Hon Jim Anderton spoke as leader of the Alliance and where any number of others who supported previous Governments spoke while being a Minister as somebody else. 
If we look back through  
Hansard 
 we will find some very interesting discussions led by Jonathan Hunt from the Chair about which hat was being worn at which time. Most people at the time found that ridiculous. 
The fact the Opposition now reaches that conclusion some 6 or 7 years later should not materially factor in the point that there will be times when Dr Sharples quite legitimately speaks for members of the Maori Party. That is quite obvious so trying to get a clear position on the issue that any time Dr Sharples opens his mouth to speak on an issue he is deemed to be speaking as Minister of Maori Affairs is extremely unreasonable in an MMP environment. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I think the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is drawing a very long bow by trying to stretch the definition of responsibility with the answer to this question. If we go to what the Minister said in the statement he stands by we see that it states: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs”. Of course he did that because the Minister of Maori Affairs was on the Cabinet committee that received the royal commission’s recommendation and was considering it. And I can tell the House that the Minister of Maori Affairs spoke strongly and forcefully for his views. He did so— 
Hon Members 
: What’s the point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister is pointing out the issues around responsibility and why there is certain responsibility here. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: So he was voicing his opinion then as the Minister of Maori Affairs because he was on the Cabinet committee that was considering the royal commission’s recommendation. His statement then goes on: “because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people”. The Hon Pita Sharples clearly has that responsibility and I say that so do all of us. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is some difficulty I think in trying to follow the logic of that position. Of course the Minister may well have been speaking in Cabinet as the Minister of Maori Affairs but if he had chosen to speak on this matter publicly as the co-leader of the Maori Party saying in fact that he has a responsibility as co-leader of the Maori Party to represent the views of the Maori Party of course that would have to be quite an obvious statement. But he chose to say that as Minister of Maori Affairs he has a responsibility to represent the views of the Maori people. We on this side of the House certainly do not confuse the Maori people with the Maori Party. They are not one and the same thing at all. Indeed if people have any doubt on that I simply refer them to the last election in relation to the party vote for Labour versus the party vote for the Maori Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank all members. I allowed that point of order debate to go on for some time because this is an issue that will always be a little difficult in the House. I believe that we were not heading towards difficulty with this question because clearly the Minister in making a statement said he made it as Minister of Maori Affairs so there was no issue about responsibility. But we cannot lock in today exactly how all questions will be handled in the future because where a Minister denies ministerial responsibility I as Speaker have to accept that. The Speaker cannot say—I am not allowed; I cannot say—“I disagree with that and I am not going to accept it.” Where a Minister makes it clear that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility I have to accept the Minister’s word. But the House can rest assured that I accept the point raised by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that initiated this discussion; it is an important point. I accept fully that when he first raised this issue some weeks back his points were made on good ground. We must treat this issue seriously as we move ahead but I believe that today’s questioning should not be that difficult because the Minister has accepted responsibility for the statement he made as Minister of Maori Affairs— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you if possible—and I am not seeking here an early retirement from the House—to consider what you said in that last judgment. You said you have to accept that if a Minister denies ministerial responsibility then he or she has no responsibility. Now there must be limits upon that. If the Minister of Finance was to get up and say that he has no responsibility for the Budget one might well ask which Minister does have responsibility for the Budget. I think you have to accept that at a certain point you cannot avoid being drawn into the issue of a Minister saying that he or she is not responsible for X when it is blatantly obvious that the Minister is responsible for X. The Minister will be forced to reply on that particular matter. Otherwise we could have weak Minister after weak Minister popping up saying that he or she has no responsibility for that and we sit here wondering whom we now try to ask about that matter. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That point pushes it far too far. It is quite an absurd position. That would mean that for example the Minister of Women’s Affairs could be expected to speak as Minister on absolutely everything—similarly with ethnic affairs or consumer affairs. One might find all sorts of other links between ministries—so that position simply cannot stand for a House rule. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the points are made with goodwill on this issue because it is a challenging issue for the House. But to come back to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s point I am sure that if a Minister denied ministerial responsibility for something that was clearly his or her responsibility he or she might not be Minister for much longer. I think there are natural forces that come into play. I dare to suggest that if a Minister denies responsibility for example as Minister of Finance for something that is clearly his responsibility clearly his future as Minister of Finance may not be great. This example applies to all Ministers. There are natural boundaries around these things. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: How can the Minister claim to act with integrity when on the one hand he is railed against the scrapping of Maori seats in Auckland and on the other hand he signed the confidence and supply agreement promising not to pursue the entrenching of the Maori electorate seats in Parliament? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It is very simple. I reflect the views that have been given to me by the Maori leaders of Auckland City and I make their case for them. I am surprised that a party that purports to represent Maori like Labour does has not made the same move. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Which of these statements best reflects John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Maori seats from the new Auckland Super-city Council: the one calling the decision “institutional racism” or the other calling it “integrity in action”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have no responsibility for the Prime Minister’s statements. Those statements were my statements. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it is not long since the Minister made those statements about institutional racism and integrity in action but it was in fact he who made those statements not the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I am to understand the question correctly there was more than one statement involved in it and if one of the statements was not that made by the Minister his answer is perfectly in order. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the comments of Associate Professor Ann Sullivan that “At the local government level Maori are unfairly inequitably and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils.”; if so does he think that the Minister of Local Government’s decision to remove Maori seats and mana whenua seats will have a further negative impact on Maori representation? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I totally support the advice from Associate Professor Sullivan and it has also been my experience in trying to get Maori on to the various city councils in the Greater Auckland area. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker. Has the Minister received any reports from Maori living within the Tamaki-makau-rau region responding to the Government’s decisions announced yesterday? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes. I have seen Maori leaders—mana whenua—on television saying they do not agree with those views. I have also had phone calls from those leaders. I have been asked to convene a hui on their behalf. There is total support for the stand I have taken and it is a wonder that Labour has not done something about it itself—amazing. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the complete absence of Maori seats in the proposed Auckland super-city a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Well the Waitangi Tribunal is the forum that would decide that and I understand that some people in Auckland want to take the issue before that forum. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Members 
: What’s your policy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I point out to members interjecting that the Speaker does not have a policy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Very wise Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister of Maori Affairs continue to describe his relationship with the National Government as mana-enhancing when both his views and the views of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance have been rejected without any consultation with any of the people in Auckland affected by that decision and when other decisions made by the Government—the 90-day fire-at-will bill the lack of tax cuts for low-income families and growing Maori unemployment—mean that this Government has not delivered mana-enhancing benefits for Maori people? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The agreement that the Maori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. We agree to disagree and to not talk behind each other’s backs. We have an open honest policy. We agree to disagree. We have done that and at all times there are no surprises and that is why our relationship is growing stronger every day. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Te Ururoa Flavell is asking a supplementary question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I did not hear all of that answer but I am hoping that it did not cover my question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Did the Minister support the recommendations from the royal commission for designated Maori seats on the super-city council; if so why? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes I most certainly did because I believe that the Government has a responsibility to make sure that the Maori voice particularly mana whenua is heard at the top table—right at the first level. That is why I supported them. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that answer does the Minister believe that his Government’s rejection of separate Maori representation for Auckland indicates that any signing up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by his Government will at best remain aspirational and at worst could be interpreted as a form of covert institutional racism? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Why did you not sign the agreement when you had the chance to sign it? 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Nanaia Mahuta is raising a point of order. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: The Minister may think that was a flippant response but he should answer the question that he was asked. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that the House takes this issue seriously but we must have some silence. I ask the honourable member to repeat her point of order in a way that is not provocative please. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: My question was very clear. It required a response. The Minister did not attempt at all to provide a response to the question that he was asked. If he cannot answer it he should simply say “I don’t know.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the honourable Minister to answer further because in his answer he asked why the Speaker had not signed the declaration and the Speaker is in no position to do so. I invite the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to further answer that question. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The answer is that for the past 3 weeks the Maori Party has been in negotiations with National over that very document and we are hoping that something will be released very soon. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand National this morning that disagreement between the Maori Party and National on this issue strengthens relations between them and does this mean that the relationship will achieve the status of a marriage made in heaven if there is total disagreement? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I would expect that member to draw that conclusion from that statement. I did make that statement and I totally stand by it. You see this is the bit about integrity and honesty. We can disagree in public because this is a matter still in progress. This is a matter that is not completed and this is the time that we disagree with each other. Until that legislation is passed in Parliament I will keep putting forward my view. There you go. 
Hon John Carter 
: Has the Minister received any reports that a senior Labour member of Parliament made a statement yesterday that Labour would not have accepted and implemented the royal commission’s recommendation of three Maori seats? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Actually I do not remember whether I have but I can imagine that that is exactly what those members would say. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I seek leave to table the questions that the learned Minister has forgotten he made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that I can possibly seek leave for that because it is not a document and I think that is— 
Hon Members 
: A list of questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member describe for me what he is seeking to table. Is he seeking to table a list of his supplementary questions? 
Hon Members 
: His statements. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please tell us what he is trying to table. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I seek leave to table the statements that the Minister made that he has forgotten. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is really trifling with the House and because—[ 
Interruption 
] Members for goodness’ sake! If the member is seeking leave to table the statements that the Minister has just made they are available in  
Hansard 
— 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove will just get a little less excited please. Could the Hon Parekura Horomia please make clear what on earth he is trying to table. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may recall that the member asked a supplementary question quoting two statements. One was in relation to institutional racism and there was another statement. Those statements were made by the Minister of Maori Affairs who appeared to have forgotten that he had made them. Those are the statements being referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. Is that the document that the member is trying to table? 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That is right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table such a document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Agriculture—High Country 
6.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent reports has he seen on agriculture and high country management? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Yesterday I received the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s excellent report entitled  
Change in the high country 
. This report takes a sensible and constructive approach to tenure review. It aligns with the Government’s election commitment to take a fresh approach to the issue while rejecting the previous Labour Government’s divisive and damaging work in this area. As such we will be carefully considering the recommendations made in the report. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How will this Government’s approach to tenure review differ from that of previous administrations? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This Government will approach tenure review in a vastly different manner. We fundamentally believe that high country farming and conservation are not mutually exclusive and that the ongoing expansion of the Department of Conservation estate should not go on unquestioned. Clear instructions have already been given to relevant Government departments to implement a good-faith approach to tenure review negotiations and I am pleased to report that high country runholders are already reporting to me a marked improvement in the approach taken by officials on this issue. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What role does the Government see for farmers in the management and enhancement of our unique high country landscapes? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This Government unlike the previous Labour Government is not interested in driving a wedge between high country farmers and the Crown. In many situations farming families can be more effective in delivering environmental outcomes for our unique high country landscape than any Government department can. That is why the National Government sees the high country runholders who have often farmed this land for generations playing a major role in managing and enhancing the high country for all New Zealanders. 
Internal Affairs Minister—Ministerial Requirements 
7.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Can he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct public duty and personal interests” in Part 2 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of his recent trip to India which passport did the Minister travel on: his ministerial passport or his personal passport? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I travelled on my diplomatic passport which in terms of the rules is correct. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The members’ colleague is seeking to ask a supplementary question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What possible explanation might there therefore be for the Minister and his mates receiving ministerial facilitation to which he was not entitled from Ministerial Services from Auckland Airport or must the House conclude that because the Department of Internal Affairs is also the responsible department for Ministerial Services the Minister wrongly used his own influence to pull a few strings? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This provision has been in the  
Cabinet Manual 
 since 1984. Dr Worth has no responsibility for the  
Cabinet Manual 
. I think that it is ridiculous for these members who were Ministers just a few months ago to pretend they do not know what is in that manual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not alleging that the—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to desist; I am trying to deal with the point or order that the member has raised. I do not believe that the Hon Pete Hodgson is questioning the Minister in respect of the  
Cabinet Manual 
; rather he is questioning the Minister’s compliance with it. I invite the Hon Dr Richard Worth to answer the question. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The current question is in connection with facilitation. The position there was that I was the only person who received facilitation in New Zealand. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the Minister satisfied that he has kept his Prime Minister abreast of all matters surrounding the appropriateness of the Minister’s behaviour since becoming a Minister or might he wish to make further private disclosures? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: To the best of my belief I have behaved to the highest standards and in accordance with the  
Cabinet Manual 
. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Settlement Progress 
8.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What is the Government doing to help achieve its aim of settling all historic grievances by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 In 2 weeks the Government is holding a hui to discuss with iwi who are currently engaged in Treaty settlement negotiations or who are about to enter negotiations how the Government’s aim of settling historic grievances by 2014 can be achieved. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why is the Government holding the Te Kokiri Ngatahi hui? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government is committed to resolving historic grievances in a just and durable manner because settlements protect and promote Maori interests and identity by helping to develop a strong economic base. In order to increase the momentum in Treaty settlements we have to look for ways in which we can achieve these settlements more quickly than we have done in the past. The Crown cannot make effective change unilaterally. The central North Island settlement shows how powerful creative cooperation can be in removing longstanding obstacles to progress. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What issues or proposals will be discussed with iwi at Te Kokiri Ngatahi? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government believes that changes in the Crown-Maori relationship can help it to achieve the settlement of historic grievances by 2014. These changes focus primarily on a stronger role for Maori in determining the nature of settlements how settlements may be resolved and how settlements are to be carried out. Maori have clear ideas about what works and does not work in this area. This hui is an opportunity to have a dialogue with Maori on these issues. 
ACC Minister—Statements 
9.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement on  
Morning Report 
 on 1 April when in response to my statement that “you’ve been calling ACC insolvent” he said “I have not”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The member’s assertion on Radio New Zealand National was incorrect as it was based on a half-quote. I originally said: “if ACC was an insurance company it would be insolvent.” The advice I have received from the department and from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is that the corporation’s solvency has declined over the last 3 years and that its financial position is unsustainable without very large levy increases or significant changes in policy. I note that the new chair of ACC Mr John Judge whose experience I put over both mine and the member’s in respect of finances has used even stronger language than I have about the state of ACC’s finances. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Minister’s denial have any credibility when  
Hansard 
 the official report of Parliament quotes him as saying on 4 March 2009: “The reality is that ACC is effectively insolvent.”; and how can he continue to deny that he misled the public and Parliament? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The financial issue is very clear. As John Judge the new chair of ACC said to the select committee this organisation has liabilities of $22 billion—and I note that Mr Judge thinks that that is probably understating them—and assets of $10 billion. Any private financial organisation in that position would be insolvent. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier today in question time you made a good point and I wrote it down at the time. You said that for Ministers to deny responsibility for something they plainly are responsible for leads to their not being a Minister for much longer. I think that struck to the heart of what question time is about. It is the role of the Opposition to ask questions of members of the executive in order to point out inconsistencies or irreconcilable statements. My questions today are not about whether ACC is insolvent; they are about whether Dr Smith has denied saying it was insolvent when in fact he has said that. The member’s answer to that question went down a completely different track and did not address the question I had asked. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker I ask you to turn your attention to Speakers’ rulings 165/5 and 165/6 and for that matter 165/3 as well. They make it very very clear that the Speaker does not judge whether a Minister answers. Appealing to you as Opposition members have been doing frequently lately for an intervention like that stands in stark contrast to the intention of those rulings. There are quite a large number of other Speakers’ rulings as well on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members are well aware that I have been trying to improve the standard of answers to questions rather more than perhaps some other recent Speakers have done. But I would ask the honourable member to reflect on the fact that as Speaker I can require answers to be more precise only when the questions are clear. The primary question was I must accept pretty clear and the Minister answered it. But if the member reflects on the words he used in introducing his supplementary question he said—if I recollect correctly—words like “How can the Minister deny that …”. It was that type of question. If one wants precise answers the language used in questions has to be very clear. Members will have noted that where I have been requiring answers the nature of the questions asked has been very simple very clear and with no political overlay. As Speaker I will do my best to make sure members get an answer but I invite the member just to think about the language that precedes the substance of his question because it makes it difficult for me to insist on an answer. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My difficulty is that it is hard for me to be more specific than to quote  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point I was making to the honourable member was that there was nothing wrong with quoting  
Hansard 
—that is dead right. It is the language that precedes his question that makes things so difficult. When he asks “How can the Minister …” he is seeking an opinion about how the Minister can do that. The Minister gave an answer about how he could successfully do that in his opinion. That is why I invite the member to think about the language he uses when asking a question. The Minister in my view has to try to answer the question and the Minister did because in explaining how he could say what he said he explained his thinking around that. As Speaker I cannot insist on a better answer than that. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister take his standard of conduct from the John Key edition of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which is also relied upon by Richard Worth? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: If there is any issue— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are going to demand higher-quality answers from members on the Government side of the House then surely you should be asking for higher-quality questions from members on the Opposition side of the House. That question was totally gratuitous in its nature. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker as I recollect your rulings so far—and we are creating a whole new set of rulings in this area—what you have argued is that if a political question is being asked then a political answer is perfectly in order. I suspect you would think that that question was a rather political question and the Minister may be able to give therefore a rather political answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a good point. I did not intervene because the Minister gets the last word. Where a question is gratuitously political the member asking it can expect to be dumped on politically. I am sure that Ministers are perfectly capable of doing that and I am sure that they would not wish me to rule out questions that gave them the opportunity to do it. But the reason why answers are important when a straight question has been asked is that I believe the accountability of Ministers to this Parliament is at stake. Where a political question is asked I am sure Ministers are perfectly capable of dealing with it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I stand by the statements I have made about the state of the finances of ACC as part of being honest and up front with the public about the extent of the problems. It is just a pity that Labour breached the Public Finance Act in hiding the mess that it left in ACC. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a difference between a political answer and one that point-blank denies an independent inquiry. Labour was not found guilty— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat! The member must resume his seat now! I do not want the member in his last days to be the first to take an early shower—although I am very impressed by the member’s exercise regime. The member cannot use a point of order to question whether the statement the Minister is making is correct; that is not the correct procedure for dealing with his disagreeing with it. He can ask a further supplementary question should he wish. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal exception to the statement that there was a breach of the Public Finance Act by Labour because that could refer only to me and the previous Minister for ACC. There was an independent public inquiry. The scaffolding was erected the rope was provided but the independent inquirer declined to hang us. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the report of the inquiry which makes plain that the Public Finance Act was breached in the non-disclosure of the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member—and indeed you—ignored my point of order. The breach was found to be a breach in terms of Treasury— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a debatable point. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No Mr Speaker it is not a debatable point; it is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Where we get into difficulty is that I know that the member may feel strongly about this matter but the Standing Orders do not provide for a debate during question time about the accuracy of answers. Where the member feels that an answer has not been accurate he can use a supplementary question to further delve into that matter but he cannot use points of order to refute an answer a Minister has given no matter how strongly he feels—unless he wishes to make a personal explanation and he can seek leave to do so. But he cannot use a point of order to refute the answer from the Minister. He can only use supplementary questions to do that. I am warning the honourable member. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am entitled to seek protection from you in this matter and I am entitled to seek an assurance from you that when the Minister said “Labour” he was not referring to a member of this House being in breach of a statute because if he was I will require him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Often the debate in the House is about ministerial responsibility. There is no question but that Dr Cullen was the responsible Minister for the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. It is clear— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the Minister please resume his seat. We are getting into a debate about this matter not matters of order. I realise that Dr Cullen feels strongly about this matter but the Standing Orders do not provide for answers to be refuted by way of points of order. I cannot provide the kind of protection he seeks because the Standing Orders do not provide for that. He can though ask a supplementary question if he wishes to refute the answer the Minister has given. I think we should come now to a further supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not seeking to refute an answer; I am seeking an assurance which I am entitled to do in this situation that when the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Cullen will resume his seat. I have reached the limit of my patience. He cannot raise a point of order unless he wishes to make a personal explanation. The Standing Orders provide for that situation. If he feels that his integrity has been impugned he can make a personal explanation and the House must accept it. But he cannot use the Standing Orders to refute an answer. There is no provision for that situation. I have ruled finally on that issue and I will not hear further on it. I make that very clear. If this matter is raised again I will ask a member to leave. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is none. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: On a number of occasions in the House since the election the claim has been made that I breached the Public Finance Act because of non-disclosure of matters relating to ACC. An independent inquiry was formed to inquire into that matter. That inquiry found that the rules that Treasury was following in relation to disclosure were not consistent with the Public Finance Act. The inquiry specifically did not find any blame on the part of or any breach by the two Ministers who might have been involved—I and Maryan Street. Therefore there was no breach of the Public Finance Act by me or indeed by Labour. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a completely different point of order. We have a new microphone system in this House—relatively new; it was installed in the last year—and I noticed that when Dr Cullen was making his earlier points of order the person in control of the microphone button cut him off prematurely as soon as the Speaker started to rise. It is very normal in this House for the end of phrases to be allowed to be delivered and things come to a natural conclusion. I find it somewhat over the top when effectively someone acting for the Speaker—and I am not suggesting it is the Speaker—switches people off in a way that ruins the flow of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have no control. I assure the member that I did not switch off the sound. But I do make clear that the one thing I insist on being respected in this House is that when the Speaker gets to his feet any member on his or her feet unless it is a special occasion will sit down. I do not care whether the member has finished what he or she is saying. There is no dispute about that matter; he or she will sit down. It is hugely important to the good order of this House. If the member has a further supplementary question I invite him to ask it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister intend to adopt the National practice made popular by his colleague Dr Worth of phoning the Prime Minister on Saturday afternoon to confess to being caught out on his irreconcilable inconsistencies; if so does he expect absolution? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I find it interesting that the answers I have given to the member about the financial state of ACC are totally supported by the evidence that was given by Mr John Judge at the select committee which was actually that far from my statements being shonky I had been too conservative and the problems were worse than I had stated. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister received from the new ACC chair on ACC’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr John Judge has advised me that after meeting with the scheme’s actuaries and the auditors he believes that the figure of $22 billion in liabilities—described by members opposite as a gross exaggeration—is actually light. He notes for instance that the $22 billion is based on future health-care inflation in the out-years of 1 percent per annum when in the last 10 years it has been running at an average of 6 percent. There are also very optimistic assumptions about improvement in rehabilitation rates when over the last 5 years rehabilitation has been getting worse. The chair has advised me that the true liabilities of ACC—making more realistic assumptions—are likely to be at least $2 billion worse than those I have quoted. 
Holidays Act—Review 
10.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What progress has the Government made in reviewing the Holidays Act? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that significant progress has been made under this Government. Draft terms of reference have been drawn up for a working party to review several areas of the legislation including the calculation of relevant daily pay the transfer of public holidays by agreement and giving workers the choice to trade their fourth week of leave for cash. 
Allan Peachey 
: Who will be involved in the working party that is reviewing the legislation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The working party will feature both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. I am incredibly pleased to work with both organisations on this and I can say that the level of cooperation from both has been fantastic. One of the first tasks the working party will undertake will be to determine who else needs to be consulted on the proposed changes. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why is the Government reviewing the holidays legislation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We are reviewing the legislation because it is not up to the job. It is causing significant issues for employees and businesses leading to unnecessary confusion and compliance costs. It is absolutely absurd that cases centred on the Holidays Act have had to go as high as the Supreme Court to be resolved. The previous Labour Government tried to address the issues in 2003 and failed; it tried again in 2004 and failed; and it did so again in 2008. We are just doing what should have been done years ago. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
11.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Did he tell reporters: “my appearance arose because the chairman phoned me the chairman of the committee said that having been advised that Mr Judge was unavailable would I be available for answering questions about the changes I was making on the board”; if so does he stand by that comment? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes; the indisputable facts are these. First Mr Judge was genuinely unavailable and asked me to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Second I discussed my attendance with the select committee chair David Bennett and Mr Bennett agreed. Third the first thing I said to the committee when I attended was that Mr Judge would appear at the earliest convenient opportunity and this he has done. I think arguments over whether I phoned Mr Bennett or Mr Bennett phoned me or whether I was attending the select committee on Mr Judge’s behalf or apologising on his behalf are simply diversions from the real issue of the mess that the previous Government left the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Minister’s answer to the substantive question why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The record is quite plain. I spoke with Mr Judge after a Cabinet meeting advising him of his appointment as the new chair of the ACC board. He advised me that he would be unavailable on the Thursday when the select committee sought the attendance of the chair. Mr Judge asked me to attend. I subsequently had a discussion with the select committee chair. He believed and agreed that that was a good thing to do given that I was in the process of reconfiguring the ACC board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a very simple question. It was: “why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. It had nothing to do with the general background. We have only one supplementary question left for the day so the option of asking the supplementary question again as you often invite people to do is not one that is useful. I ask you to ask the Minister to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member has pointed out that he does have a further supplementary question available to him to delve further into this issue. I cannot insist on the Minister answering in a particular way. The Minister seemed to give an explanation as to exactly what went on. In that it appeared to answer the question. If that is not the case the member does have a further supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear at the committee? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The record is quite clear. On the Monday I advised Mr Judge with Cabinet’s support— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Answer the question. It’s about NZPA. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I am underlining the events that occurred. The new chair of ACC— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will now do something that is really unusual. I will ask my colleagues to let the Minister hang himself and to not interject. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order is a good one. If members do not want the Minister to deviate in answering the question they should not interject. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My statements have been absolutely consistent in the fact that when I informed Mr Judge of his appointment as the ACC chair he informed me that he would be unavailable for the select committee meeting later in the week. He invited me to attend and to apologise on his behalf. That is exactly what occurred. The very first statement I made to the select committee when I attended was that Mr Judge would make himself available at the earliest convenient opportunity. He did that. I cannot believe that the Opposition believes that a simple 2-week delay in being able to meet the new chair of ACC over a financial review for the previous financial year is some big deal. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I raised when I had one supplementary question left. It is that this was a very simple question: “why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. The New Zealand Press Association was not referred to in the answer and no reason was given for the Minister giving an answer to the New Zealand Press Association that was inconsistent to that he has just given to the House. 
John Hayes 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need to deal with this point of order that has been raised. It is a very difficult one. I accept the point the member is making which is that he is asking a very specific question. If we look at the primary question which has to be verified what he is now building into this supplementary question is what the Minister might have told the New Zealand Press Association. The dilemma I have in trying to extract a more precise answer from the Minister is that that question has not had to go through the verification process that the primary question did. That is something of a difficulty for me because the Minister has explained what he did in answer to the member’s question. Obviously there is the chance to pursue this matter further in the future but it is difficult for me. I have to accept an unverified— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is absolutely right. You do have to accept something that is unverified when a member quotes it. It is open to the Minister to deny saying he said that to the New Zealand Press Association. As a number of us have done in the past when inaccurate quotes have been given to us he has chosen not to deny saying that to the New Zealand Press Association notwithstanding that he has had two opportunities to do it. It is very clear that he did—he was quoted as doing that and the supplementary question related to why he told the New Zealand Press Association that. He has been given two opportunities to deny the quote and he has not. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Last week we covered the issue of the questioner trying to frame the context in which an answer must be given and then expecting the Chair to back him or her. The other day I gave the example of the “yes” or “no” answer that is in Speaker’s ruling 157/8. There is also Speaker’s ruling 162/6 and Speakers’ rulings 163/6 and 163/2 and so on; throughout  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 there are these requirements. Mr Speaker you are being constantly asked to put yourself in a position that previous Speakers have roundly rejected. In that regard although I do not want to read it out I commend Speaker’s ruling 163/5 where Speaker Hunt makes it extremely clear that the position Mr Mallard wants to put you in is an unacceptable one. For the order of the House you have made some explanations to Mr Mallard but I do not think they are necessary. I think they are giving greater credence to the capacity of a questioner to frame a question that then must be answered according to the parameters set in that question. 
Dr Nick Smith gave an explanation. That surely stands as an answer that satisfies any one of the complaints that might have arisen before recourse to any of the rules in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that essentially mean a Minister can answer in a way that he or she deems fit. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have been listening very carefully to your rulings since you became Speaker and I have taken your advice to ask tight primary questions and tight supplementary questions. This supplementary question was very tight. It asked “why?” in relation to a particular quote. Neither the quote nor the “why?” was addressed. So it is my submission that you are not being asked to judge the quality of the answer; you are being asked whether the supplementary question was addressed. It is my submission that it was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a difficult issue and I accept that I have put myself in a position that is rather more difficult than some recent Speakers have. But I have done that intentionally because I believe that this Parliament and the issue of accountability are too important to allow the practice of evasion of questions that developed during the previous term of this Parliament to continue. 
In the interest of fairness—because I cannot judge the quality of an answer—I will allow the honourable member to repeat his question although his allocation of supplementary questions has expired. We will accept that the quality of the answer will be judged by members of the public and we will not intervene further on the matter. I am giving the member a chance to repeat his question. I will allow the Minister to answer it and the quality of that answer will be judged by others not us. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On what basis are you doing that? That was surely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to tease this out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I can tell him exactly on what basis I am doing that. I suggest that he looks at Standing Order 377. The very first requirement of that Standing Order is that a question shall be answered. It does not say that a Minister will respond to a question. The actual Standing Order in respect of contents of replies states: “(1) An answer”—it does not say “a response” it says “an answer” and in the English language it is pretty clear what “answer” means. That is the basis of my ruling. I have invited the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a further supplementary question but we will not continue the debate beyond that. The answer given will be judged by others not us. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All of the Standing Orders are given life by Speakers’ rulings that accumulate over a period of years. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 166/6. I think it would be impossible for anyone to suggest that Dr Smith has not made every attempt to answer the question. There is another ruling that deals with the issue of the problem in the word “answer”. Someone has to reach some sort of definition or conclusion about what an answer is. That is why Speakers are protected by the accumulation of rulings. Are we now going to toss all of those out and start again? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It does seem to me—and I have some sympathy for the position taken by the Leader of the House—that the interpretation of Standing Order 377 has to be governed by the first few words of Standing Order 377(1) which are: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked …”. That effectively has two qualifiers within it before it gets any further—first of all “seeking” and secondly “addressing” the question asked—if of course it can be given consistently with the public interest. It is always for a Minister to decide whether it is consistent with the public interest to give an answer. The response to that of course is simply not to give an answer or to indicate that an answer will not be given because is not consistent with the public interest. Once a Minister has launched into an answer the answer should seek to address the question asked. It is all very well on quite narrow factual matters to try to get Ministers to address a factual question—“When did the Minister do such and such?”; “How many such and such?” “What such and such?”—but most questions are not phrased in that framework. When they go beyond that framework then the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have not required Ministers to have a very narrow interpretation of what they are able to do. 
Indeed Mr Speaker I invite you perhaps on occasion to look at the Australian Parliament if one wants to see a very bad question time in operation. A person asks a question there are no supplementary questions and the Minister has in effect unlimited time to give a speech in response to that question. Answers are often 3 minutes or more in length. Question time is something of a farce. It is a series of ministerial speeches in response to questions half of which are patsy questions anyway from members of the Government. 
Our question time is much more robust on Ministers in that regard. I think we have to be careful in going so far as to try to bring Ministers up to the mark in starting to insist on a particular type of answer in a way that allows a much less free interchange between members on both sides of the House. Our question time in my view is already by far the most robust of any Westminster-style Parliament in the world. I think one should not be going too far in changing the thrust of past Speakers’ rulings in that regard. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I think the difficulty for a Minister is that when a member without notice quotes a particular statement and asks why that contradicts another statement I have no opportunity to check it. What I chose to answer to the House was specifically what occurred around the question: “What was the communication I had with the new chair of ACC about attendance at the committee?”. I gave a very clear and straight answer about that important issue relating to my ministerial responsibilities. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have heard enough on this matter and we cannot take any more time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is actually helpful I think. It will be very short and very helpful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is trying to be helpful I will give him that opportunity. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know we should not be coaching the Government from the Opposition benches. The proper response in that case is to say “I don’t recall making that statement.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for their contributions. There has been tremendous public support for the attempts to make question time a time when Ministers are held more to account in this House. The impressive point is that answers have improved enormously. The point the Hon Dr Michael Cullen made is a good one—that it works best where questions are seeking factual information on notice. The point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made is also a good one—that where supplementary questions contain material that is not verified it is very difficult for a Minister to be able to answer exactly because he or she has no opportunity to check the validity of the quote. 
I think it has been a useful discussion. Let me make it very clear that I do not intend to back off from my interpretation of Standing Order 377. It has had widespread support. In fact I think Ministers look rather better when they answer questions rather than evading them. The House is improved by that. But members do need to be reasonable when seeking my intervention in answers to questions. 
We got to the stage where I had agreed to allow the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a further supplementary question which promoted a point of order. My dilemma now is having allowed the member to ask a further supplementary question I think we should allow it. However I take on board the points made by honourable members. I do not seek to make question time impossible at all. The quality of answers has improved hugely compared with the last parliamentary term and I do not want that improvement to be lost. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is important. You have decided to allow the member to ask his question again after he protested about not getting a satisfactory answer. We would contend that by every standard you have set either for this Parliament or previously when an answer is given it does tend to mean that you will interpret Speakers’ rulings 165/5 and 165/6 in quite a different manner. I would be very interested if you could come back to us at a future time to tell us how those matters that are raised in those two Speakers’ rulings—the matters of the neutral word “answer” and then of course the subjective term “address”—will be considered in the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member and I am very happy to rule on it right now. Yes he is correct. I am not continuing with Speaker’s ruling 165/5 because I happen to disagree totally. The word “answer” is not a neutral word. I have studied the academic writings of the previous Speaker in some detail where this matter has been discussed. I have read the papers carefully. I have read the Standing Orders very carefully. I have a different view. In fact that Speaker’s ruling is not one that will guide my decision making. I have made it very clear in response to this further question that we will not be judging the quality of this answer. I have made that very clear to the member. I invite the question to be asked and the Minister to answer. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a substantial shift in the way in which the House deals with things. I ask myself whether it means that you will refer to Speaker’s ruling 163/5 as a guide to how you will run question time in this House. 
It may be best that you do not respond now. It would useful if we could have some notification of that in some other way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the honourable member that these matters are not difficult. The Speaker does not as Speaker’s ruling 163/5 points out judge whether an answer is correct. What is often so plain to all including the public watching and listening is when a very simple and clear question is evaded. If accountability is to be as those who wrote that original Standing Order intended then questions should be answered with rather more clarity than has become the practice in recent years. That does not mean though that the Speaker will judge the quality of an answer or whether it is correct. That is why we had the trouble with Dr Cullen’s point of order earlier on. I cannot judge whether an answer is correct but it is patently clear at times where questions are evaded. 
I have made it clear that there will be no further debate on the answer to this question. I have invited the member to ask a further supplementary question. I cannot now go back and take that off him. I invite the Minister to answer it and there will be no further debate on that answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps if I could helpfully I hope draw to your attention that the Speakers’ rulings in the current  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 book are of course quite recent ones but they repeat in essence Speakers’ rulings that go back many many decades. In other words while you are appearing to argue that this is a relatively recent matter in fact the issue of the nature of Ministers’ replies to questions is one that has been argued in this House for many many decades long before anyone in this Chamber was anywhere near it. So I think it would be somewhat unhelpful if you were to assume this was some kind of recent occurrence and recent rulings are responding to those occurrences. They are not. They are deeply embedded within the tradition of our Parliament. 
I think therefore you might want to contemplate over the coming adjournment just how far this new interpretation goes. I think it will cause continued difficulty during question time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear at the meeting? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I cannot recall the exact words I used to the New Zealand Press Association but my very clear recollection is that when Mr Judge the new chair of the ACC board was unavailable to attend the select committee he asked me to attend. 
Veterans—Health 
12.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: What reports if any has she received on veterans’ service-related health? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 I am pleased to confirm the appointment of the expert panel on veterans’ health one of the commitments agreed to in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. The expert panel is an important step in improving the understanding of issues related to the service-related health of all veterans. 
John Hayes 
: How did the memorandum of understanding come about? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The memorandum of understanding was a direct result of the Health Committee’s inquiry into Viet Nam veterans’ exposure to defoliants. The then National Opposition worked with the Greens ACT United Future and New Zealand First to secure the inquiry. It was a great example of parties working together. I also say that once the inquiry was secured all members of the committee including the Labour members worked very hard to address the concerns of veterans. 
John Hayes 
: Did the previous Government exaggerate any part of the memorandum of understanding package? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What responsibility does the National Minister have for the previous Labour Government? She has none. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member to repeat his question and to be mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities. 
John Hayes 
: Since you have come into the House as Minister have you— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asked a question and said “you”. I respectfully suggest that you Mr Speaker have no responsibility for that question at all and that that is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very good point and I will give the member one further chance to ask a question that is in order. 
John Hayes 
: What reports has the Minister seen that might suggest there has been an exaggeration in elements of the memorandum of understanding package? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Unfortunately when the memorandum of understanding was announced in December 2006 the former Minister of Defence Phil Goff and his colleague Rick Barker implied that the package would deliver $30 million up front. They said “The package will deliver benefits close to $30 million.” and they did not correct the media when it was described as such. However the figure of $30 million was based primarily on an initial endowment of $7 million which was expected to be invested at 6 percent over 30 years. Unfortunately the current financial crisis and fall in interest rates could result in a fall in the funds available for distribution. 
Questions to Members 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Was he asked to phone the Minister for ACC to discuss the question of who should attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I had discussions with the Minister about his attendance. That may have involved some phone calls at the request of his office. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he phone the Minister for ACC and discuss the matter of who should attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I had discussions with the Minister and that may have involved phone calls to the Minister’s office. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Very directly—did he call or not? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I had discussions with the Minister and that may have involved phone calls. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did the Minister for ACC inform him that John Judge was not available to attend the committee meeting on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I did not ask Mr Judge to attend so it is not a matter of his availability. I did agree that the Minister would attend and Mr Judge made it quite clear at the select committee on 2 April as to his availability. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister for ACC tell him that John Judge could not come? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not ask Mr Judge to attend so it is not a matter of whether he was asked to attend. The Minister did attend and the Labour members got much value out of his attendance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister tell the chair that John Judge could not come to the committee? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: We have had this question a number of times in this House. I did not ask Mr Judge to attend that meeting so it is not a matter of his availability. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he invite the Minister for ACC to attend the meeting of the committee on the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year held on 12 March 2009? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I agreed that the Minister would attend the meeting of 12 March and I am not aware of any invitations made as chair of the select committee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When the chair agreed was he agreeing with the proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I agreed that the Minister would attend and there was a lot of value in his attendance at that time because of the reconfiguration of the board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When the chair agreed was he agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I agreed and the Minister did attend the meeting. There was much value there for members of the Labour Party. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think I have allowed as many supplementaries as is reasonable—far more than any other Speaker has previously allowed. 
Urgent Debates 
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s decisions on Auckland governance. This is a particular case of recent occurrence—the decisions were announced yesterday afternoon after the House had met—and it does involve ministerial responsibility. The announcement concerns governance arrangements that are of national significance and I consider they do require the immediate attention of the House. I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to move the motion. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. As Mr Speaker has so rightly pointed out the changes that are being recommended to the governance structures in Auckland are the biggest changes in the history of local government in Auckland. It is important that we get it right and it is equally important that the people of Auckland have some say over their own future—that they get ownership over the changes they will live under and work through. I have to say that after the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance the changes that have been recommended by this Government take us in absolutely the wrong direction. The changes take us away from democratic governance and the process the Government is intending to follow is equally undemocratic. There is no opportunity for Aucklanders to have meaningful participation in the process of change because this Government has decided that what it wants for Auckland will be imposed on Auckland without any further consultation before the key decisions have been made. 
Labour set up the royal commission; we make absolutely no apology for that. It was the right thing to do. We know that Auckland needs a strong regional structure to carry out the regional responsibilities that are required of such a government whether it be in transport the environment water or planning. We set up a royal commission that contained able competent and serious people. The royal commission report therefore merited a serious response and consideration. I congratulate the people who served on the royal commission. Having read the report we have said that we think the regional structure is appropriate— 
Nathan Guy 
: It took you a while. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No it did not take any time at all. The member of course is wrong; a statement went out immediately after the royal commission report and it said that we supported the regional structure and the powers that went with it. But we also said that this was a step along the way. 
We think there are some shortcomings in the royal commission’s report and those shortcomings are as follows: “Regional government—strong able to deliver the services that need to be delivered regionally but do not take the ‘local’ out of local government.” We wanted the responsibilities that should be carried out at the level of the proposed local councils to actually be carried out at that local level with the requisite powers and the funding to do so. And there was a possibility through those six local councils that that could have happened. They were of a scale whereby they could have been funded I understand to the extent of some hundreds of millions of dollars in order to carry out local responsibilities. 
We said that we had a problem with the voting system. What is wanted when we have a city the size of the proposed new Auckland City is representation that is fair and balanced across the city. You know I remember the time before the reforms in 1989 when Auckland City did not have a ward system. And I remember as a member of Parliament representing the south of the isthmus—Mount Roskill and the Mount Albert area as well—that we had too few representatives and that the representatives came from the wealthier more affluent suburbs of town. But the reform in 1989 cured that and the system worked well. Rodney Hide knows that in the letter he has received from six Auckland mayors and the Auckland Regional Council they have all said they wanted a ward system for Auckland. That is the way we can guarantee that every part of our city is fairly represented. [Interruption] John Carter can talk! Paul Hutchison is sitting in front of him; he knows what his people told him at the local meeting. So does Wayne Mapp. He knows the discontent about the fact that the new system does not provide fair and balanced representation. 
 Now in that respect the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance got it wrong. It said 10 “at large” seats and 10 ward seats. The changes that the Government has made in this area are only on the margin. I believe that Mr Hide and Mr Key are deliberately gerrymandering the system to ensure a permanent majority by those people representing the affluent side of town at the expense of people in the poorer suburbs. I went with some of my colleagues to Otara on Monday to a meeting of 150 people. The meeting was not called about the super-city specifically. It was about broad issues—they were predominately Pasifika. The most powerful issues that were raised that day were about the super-city and the need to have fair representation. It was about not losing the “local” out of local democracy and not having their suburb Otara ruled from the other side of town by people who have no conception of their needs and the concerns that they have in their part of the city. 
The third thing that Labour differed on with the royal commission was the need for checks and balances on the mayor. I think on balance we decided that having the mayor of the super-city elected “at large” was necessary. But we do not believe that this should be a presidential-style mayor. We believe that the deputy mayor should be elected from the Auckland Council. We believe that the chairs of the committees should be elected from the Auckland Council and not by the mayor. We do not believe that some charismatic celebrity—or John Banks—could come along to govern the city and be given that power and that he or she would give all Aucklanders the confidence that the right thing would be done for them fairly across the whole of Auckland. 
I come to the question of consultation. It was clearly set out in the National Party manifesto yet 3 months in this arrogant Government is already ignoring what it promised in its manifesto. I will quote for the National members of Parliament—particularly the Auckland members because their constituents will hold them to account on this—the National manifesto: “We will consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the royal commission are known.” 
So what do we hear from the Minister of Local Government? He said that the consultation has already happened and that there has been a royal commission where people had a chance to make submissions. Mr Hide can be forgiven for not wanting consultation because that is true to the ideology of his party. But what excuse do the National members have for reneging on a sincerely made promise that the people would be consulted? The manifesto did not say National would consult through a select committee—there will be a select committee process—but that it would consult people after the findings were known. 
Everybody in this House knows that in order for the consultation to be meaningful and genuine it must happen before the key decisions are made. We heard from the Government yesterday that the key decisions have been made. They were made within a week of getting the royal commission report and they did not involve this Government consulting even the opinion leaders in Auckland let alone the wider communities. 
National wants a fundamental change in Auckland. Some of those changes are necessary but the Government is not prepared to take the time to get it right. In fact I do not believe that it wants to get it right in terms of fair representation. The Government is not prepared to honour its promise to go back to the people across Auckland and say to them that this is their city they need to be involved in the decisions about the restructuring of local government and they will be given the opportunity to do so. This is a decision being rammed through undemocratically without regard to the democratic outcomes that we would all seek. 
We should look—as the National Government should have looked—at what the royal commission itself said because it did examine the issue of whether there should be six local councils or 20. It said—and I quote from the royal commission report because obviously no National member has read it—that “significant change at the second-tier level to create a large number of community councils would have involved considerable costs and a significant and ongoing oversight role for the Auckland Council.” 
 Well first of all why has the Government not told us what this extra cost will be? There are projections within the royal commission report but the Government has remained silent about this. It does say it will cost $240 million to restructure Auckland and Aucklanders are being asked to pay that money—$240 million. There should be no taxation without representation. The Government wants Aucklanders to accept this and pay for it but it is not prepared to consult Aucklanders about the cost. 
Then the commission concluded: “The creation of 20 entirely new entities with new territories would for uncertain gains impose high transitional costs on the ratepayers of Auckland and cause major disruption to existing staff and services.” This conclusion was borne out by independent cost analysis. What part of that did the National Government in ramming this through not understand? It wants Aucklanders to put up $240 million and it wants that sum to be increased because it has changed the rules of the game. What did the  
New Zealand Herald  
say about it today? It called the changes “startling changes”. 
What National is doing is not bringing local democracy back into the system. It is making the unit so small that no power will be devolved. No meaningful decisions will be made at the community board level and therefore there will not be participation by Aucklanders in what would be a farce if they thought they were doing things to influence the system. National is setting up a system where the majority on that council will be determined by “at large” elections. “At large” means that each of the eight councillors out of the 20 who will be elected will have a constituency of 850000. That is 17 times larger than any of the electorates that electorate members represent. How can that be local government? How can people feel that they have access to their councillors when their councillors are responsible for 850000 people? Who will benefit from a constituency as large as that? People will have to have the wealth and the resources if they are to put their information across an electorate of that size. This system is being designed to reward the business people and the wealthy people of the city at the expense of the ordinary folk in the isthmus of west Auckland and South Auckland; make no mistake about that. 
The Government has given no explanation of why a ward system is inappropriate and no explanation as to why we got it wrong in 1989 in requiring a ward system. A ward system has worked. The people in my electorate know who their ward representatives are. If they are in an electorate of 850000 they might know the small number of people who will be ward councillors but they will not know the “at large” councillors. The new system is biased against fair and balanced representation. It takes the “local” out of local government. The system that is put forward will I think have another agenda in this term or—God forbid—in another term and that is the privatisation of the regional assets. That is what National wants to do. National members said that. They were not keen to admit it before the last election but they said that about Auckland International Airport Ltd. They will do it to the ports. Mark my words—this is part of the agenda of the National Government if and when it thinks it can get away with it. 
Finally I will talk about the issue of Maori representation. There is a debate to be had about that but that debate has not even happened. What happened to the mana-enhancing power of the Maori Party when without consultation with the Maori Party and without consultation with Maori people across Auckland the royal commission’s recommendations have been rejected? There was no talk no discussion no inquiry and no respect. [ 
Interruption 
] Wayne Mapp knows that. Wayne Mapp knows how people in Devonport feel about being swallowed up into a larger city without having an adequate level of local representation. Labour is after the reform of Auckland. We are after having sufficiently strong regional government to carry out the responsibilities at that level but we are also determined that the “local” should be kept in local government that the councils are meaningful that they have the power and responsibility to ensure that people take them seriously and that we have councillors who are accessible at that level. We are committed to having a system that ensures Auckland is not governed from the glass towers of Queen Street but by a representation that is fair across the whole city. 
Debate interrupted. 
Tabling of Documents 
ACC Minister—Statements 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 During the course of question time today the Hon Trevor Mallard made claims of a statement about the New Zealand Press Association that resulted in the Speaker ruling that I had to answer as Minister an additional question. I seek the leave of the House to table the actual New Zealand Press Association report that Mr Mallard deliberately misquoted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the tabling of a report. Members are familiar with the report. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Urgent Debates 
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This debate is important because it is about the governance of Auckland for the next 50 to 100 years. I welcome the contribution that the Leader of the Opposition Mr Phil Goff made and I look forward to working with him other members of the Labour Party and other parties to make sure that we do what is right for Auckland and for the wider country. The thing that drove us through this as a Government—always at every turn and for every decision—was what is best for Auckland not just now but for the next 50 to 100 years. 
Let me go through this. The local boards are about democracy and local democracy. The Auckland Council is about good governance. In 2010 as a consequence of the decisions that this Government made Aucklanders will get to vote in the most important local body election ever held in New Zealand. They can vote for a mayor with real power to make a difference. When have they been able to do that before? They can vote for councillors accountable to all of Auckland. When have they been able to do that before? They can vote for councillors from their local ward and they can vote for local board representatives who for the first time will have the force of law behind their advocacy for their communities—previous Governments never provided that. The elections in 2010 will be a celebration of democracy for Auckland. 
These changes mean more democracy better local representation better accountability and most important better governance. As the Prime Minister said yesterday we have introduced “a simple and effective system for making regional decisions and implementing them smoothly.” “Our plan will allow Auckland’s civic leaders to think regionally plan strategically and act decisively in a way that has not happened for the past six decades”. Our plan serves Auckland’s many local diverse neighbourhoods and its diverse needs. We have decided on a framework that balances the need for elected representatives to be able to think strategically on behalf of the whole region with the need for the local communities to have a strong voice on issues closer to home. The combination of the new Auckland Council and the local boards will lead to better connections across the region better value from rates and central government funding and community control of what matters in our neighbourhoods. 
The new system is much simpler and more coordinated and will provide for community representation at grassroots level. Boards will let residents and ratepayers influence decision making while the council can get on with the job of delivery of regional services. Each board will be named after its local community—whether it is through the Mangere or Henderson board the Pukekohe or Papakura board the Waiheke or Devonport board local communities need to be able to manage their issues locally and express their identities. We have gone further than the royal commission in promoting effective local representation. The Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff should actually talk to Devonport rather than just talk about it. I took a call last night from Mike Cohen the leader of the Devonport Community Board. He is well known to the local MP Dr Wayne Mapp and he told me how pleased he was with this Government decision for local representation. That is what he had to say. I say to the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff who says that we did not engage with local leaders in Auckland that the royal commission which his Government set up spent nearly $4 million travelled to Toronto went to London and hobnobbed around the world but never went to Devonport. It never went to the North Shore. But the Minister of Local Government— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Did he go? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: He went to Devonport and he talked to them. I have not seen anyone from the Labour Party do that. But the Minister of Local Government and the good member Dr Wayne Mapp talked to the people that Mr Phil Goff decided to introduce into this debate. I tell this to the Leader of the Opposition because it is clear that he has no way of finding out that the people of Auckland wanted one council and that they wanted local representation. That is what this Government has provided. I have heard no plan from Labour—none. We had 9 years of Judith Tizard. That is all Labour gave us for Auckland. The new boards offer a better solution than keeping the eight councils or the six local councils the royal commission wanted. 
For Maori I say that Pita Sharples put his case forcefully and hard. On balance the Government decided not to go with the three Maori seats. It was a tough call. Maori have a unique window to contribute and to involve themselves in the governance of Auckland because in 2010 there will be 20 councillors elected to the Auckland Council. There will be a new mayor and 20 to 30 local boards will be elected. I say to Maori that they should work to put up the good candidates because we know that the people of Auckland will vote for good candidates. I am sorry to see that Labour thinks that there are no good Maori who can stand and win a seat or that the good people of Auckland do not vote people according to their merit and ability to represent their city. We are also working on how to properly engage the Auckland Council and the local boards with Maori and I am pleased to say that Dr Pita Sharples has confirmed that he will continue to work with me to that end. 
The important thing is that we get a good result for Auckland and that we manage the transition with some certainty and some certitude in the way we go about it for the sake of the staff of the councils and for Auckland. We will be appointing an establishment board to do the transition work. Although I disagree with elements of what has been proposed the local councils the mayors and the chief executives whom I have kept in close touch with—unlike Phil Goff—have said that they will work and are committed to a steering group to help us with the transition and with the transition board. They have assured us that council services will continue throughout the process. Our plan will give greater efficiencies less duplication and waste and better outcomes for the region. 
I heard a bit of talk earlier in this House at question time about the responsibilities of Ministers. Let me tell members what my responsibilities are. As Minister they are to the people of Auckland: to listen to the advice to make decisions and seek the support of my ministerial colleagues and to take action. The advice has been given and it has been listened to. The decisions have been made and are supported by the Government. Now is the time to act. That is what the people of Auckland will see between now and the election in 2010—an action to make Auckland which is a great city even greater. What we have to strive for each and every day is to make Auckland the greatest city that it can be through the good governance that we can now provide and to do the same for our country. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is gravely concerned that if the Government and the Minister of Local Government continue to bulldoze ahead with these sweeping far-reaching proposals Aucklanders will wake up in about 2 or 3 years’ time and discover that they have been conned. They will wake up to discover that democracy in the Auckland region has been significantly shrunk. They will wake up to discover that they have inherited a huge bloated remote inaccessible super-bureaucracy—a super-council—a council run by a tiny inner cabal. It will be run probably by two men—and I fear that it will be men. It will be a mayor with an incredible concentration of powers a sort of tsar of Auckland and a chief executive again with huge and sweeping powers. All of this concentration of power they will find will be counterbalanced only by 30 local councils that are little more than impotent talkfests. I predict that if this goes ahead the people who are elected to those 30 local boards will find themselves utterly frustrated. They will be wringing their hands in frustration because they will have all of the expectations of their local communities yet they will be utterly impotent utterly powerless to promote the interests of those local communities. 
The question we must ask is why the unseemly haste? We ask why there is this unseemly haste to rush through the implementation of the royal commission’s proposals which are sweeping far-reaching proposals. They will change the future shape of democracy in New Zealand and indeed all around New Zealand because let us make no mistake the Government having foisted this on Auckland will intend to do the same around the rest of New Zealand. We ask why we are racing it through without allowing for local communities to have some consultation on these far-reaching changes. So far there has been a complete lack of community consultation since the recommendations were made. Community boards all over Auckland are clamouring and asking to please give them a pause to allow the time for them to understand the commission’s recommendations and to understand how they will impact on the everyday lives of their communities. They are pleading with the Government so why the unseemly race? 
We ask why we are not doing what National before the election promised solemnly to do. National members said that they would consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the royal commission were known. They did not say that they might consult; they did not say that it was a possibility—they made a solemn promise to Aucklanders and indeed to New Zealanders that National would consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the commission were known. We call upon the National Government and the Minister of Local Government to make good on that promise and to allow Aucklanders to be consulted on these far-reaching proposals. 
We are deeply concerned and alarmed at the extraordinary concentration of power in the offices of the mayor and the chief executive. The mayor will basically be able to propose the super-city budget formulate all major policy appoint the deputy mayor and appoint all council chairpersons of committees. I have been on a city council the Wellington City Council for 9 years and I can tell members that once the mayor selects his inner cabal—and it looks unfortunately as though it will be a “his” rather than a “her”—and sets the budget all of the strategic directions and all of the long-term plans he will have total concentrated power over the future direction of Auckland. Aucklanders should not be duped or deceived on that point. They should be aware of the huge and unprecedented concentration of power that this move represents. 
Other speakers have asked how councillors who are elected at large could possibly be able to be accountable to their 1.4 million electors. How will they be able to be accountable to them? I do not believe that they will be able to be directly accountable to as many people as that. 
That brings us to the issue of the local boards. It is extraordinary that under the proposals the Government has completely wiped out six city councils in Auckland and all of the democracy they represent. The Government is proposing to wipe out very effective local councils. The Waitakere City Council is strongly supported by its community. The Manukau City Council is strongly supported by that city. Those councils will be simply wiped out with one fell swoop and replaced instead with those 30 local boards. They number no more than the existing community boards but they will be effectively devoid of powers. 
What powers will those local boards have? They will have no budgets and no powers of implementation. They will not be able to hire staff raise their own revenue or set rates. They will not even be able to offer service delivery. They will not even have the ability to implement their own plans although there is some mention that they may be allowed to develop policies over dog control liquor licensing and graffiti control. We were also told in the briefing yesterday that the people—I do not even know whether they will be called councillors—who will be on these local boards will be paid about the same as members of local community boards. That is the princely sum of about $12000 a year. 
Hon John Carter 
: It’s not about money. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I ask how local boards will be adequately represented by local board members councillors or whatever they will be called who are paid $12000 a year and who will be able to perhaps meet only every now and then and probably often at night. What this move represents is a forced amalgamation. Why are we doing all of this? We are not doing it to save money. No one is even pretending that this will save money and we know that it will not. We know that in all of the forced amalgamations around the world virtually nothing has been saved and we know that people always underestimate the costs of the implementation of the new council. So why are we doing it? Essentially we are doing it because we will have this super-council with one voice. The Green Party agrees that Auckland needs one voice and we agree that there needs to be one integrated transport plan. But we do not agree with the mechanism that the Government has come up with to implement this which involves an incredible concentration of power—probably a greater concentration of power than could be found in any local council around the world. We are also deeply concerned about the sweeping elimination of the three Maori seats which the royal commission had proposed. The Government has given no good reason why it has wiped out those three Maori seats—no good reason at all. In fact the Government has given no good reason for much of what it has done. 
In conclusion the Green Party is calling on Aucklanders to be aware that they are being conned and that they will wake up to find themselves with their democracy shrunk an incredible concentration of power and impotent local boards. Aucklanders must be aware of that. The Green Party calls on Aucklanders to rise up and demand as we are doing that this process be slowed down that there is what the Government promised—consultation with Aucklanders—so that Aucklanders can understand the far-reaching implications of these proposals so that the Government does not just ram and bulldoze these proposals through. There should be no unseemly haste. 
Finally I say that in overseas countries—in England and America—they are going in exactly the opposite direction. Those countries have worked out that the key is in empowering grassroots local democracy not creating large super-cities or carrying out forced amalgamations. The whole trend is towards local empowered communities. Sure there are 30 community boards but these boards are not empowered— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The urgent debate on the Government’s response to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance is a very important debate in this House; indeed it is not likely that we will debate as big an issue over the first term of this Government. I acknowledge the contribution the Prime Minister has made to this issue and congratulate him on the leadership he has shown this Parliament Auckland and this nation. I also congratulate Rodney Hide on the work and the leadership he has shown because in the very short time that this Parliament and this Government have had this report the response has been extraordinary. I also compliment the staff who have been involved in the Government’s response. They have done an outstanding job and they deserve to be complimented on the work and the effort they have put in. 
The one neat thing about the result the Government has delivered is that it brings clarity to the governance of Auckland. One of the problems that Auckland has—and all members in this House would concede—is that at the moment it is just a mess. There are 21 authorities looking after roading and regional issues that cannot be decided because there is so much disagreement amongst the councils. It goes on and on. All New Zealanders—not just Aucklanders—pay for the fact that there is no way of making decisions around Auckland. The Government has gone up and put into unitary authority the ability for an authority to make regional decisions and we have gone down to the local communities to ensure that there is local democracy at the local level by having enhanced local boards. That is so important. We will end up with the ability for the unitary authorities to think regionally plan strategically and act decisively. That is something that has been missing in Auckland for years and years. Even more we will end up with less bureaucracy and more democracy. Who can argue against less bureaucracy and more democracy? Surely to goodness everybody in this House I assume stands for democracy. There may be some members who do not and maybe they will take a call and suggest they do not and that is fine. I am proud of the Government’s response and I am proud to have been involved with it. 
If there is one disappointment in this whole issue it is the slowness with which the Opposition responded to the Government’s response. It took Opposition members 3 hours and 2 minutes to come out with any statement at all and then unfortunately they got it wrong. Members should look at one or two of the things that the Leader of the Opposition whose name escapes me at the moment said in his statement. 
Allan Peachey 
: The guy who’s “Phil-ing” in. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Yes that is right. He said: “The Government is ramming through without consultation decisions”—it actually does not even read right—“on Auckland governance that will result in a huge centralisation of power in the new Auckland SuperCity”. Actually the royal commission received 3500 written submissions and heard over 500 oral submissions yet the Leader of the Opposition says that there was no consultation. He also says: “The Government’s decisions completely remove the local from local government. Most Aucklanders will feel they have less access to their decision-makers. The boards which replace the local councils will have limited real power and therefore relevance.” What a lot of nonsense! The fact is that we have enhanced local boards that will represent local communities. You know local people want to have a say in things like their halls. These people want to know where their bike stands are going to be. They want to talk about which park they can allow people to walk their dogs on or not and about where their swimming pools might be. All those sorts of things matter to local communities. Those things are important to the communities. They are now going to have their say. The Local Government Commission will consult with Auckland as the Government said it would and make sure that the views are heard on where the local boundaries should be. There will be local consultation and we will end up with better local democracy than ever. 
Members on the other side of the Chamber ask about the powers. Well unlike the previous legislation—where the local authorities had the ability to delegate or not or to say there could be community councils or not—it will be mandatory to have local boards as we pass legislation and those boards will be given the opportunity to represent their communities. That is something that the Opposition just cannot seize on and that the Green Party does not understand. Actually we are enhancing local democracy. This Government thinks local democracy is important. We think that putting the “local” back into local government is absolutely essential and that is exactly what we are doing. We are relieving Auckland of the tedious mess and of the lines of candles that it had. We are allowing Aucklanders to get on and make decisions at the level that they should be made—decisions on roading the ports and the airports. We will have one authority that will allow them to make decisive decisions and to get on with things and make them happen. 
It is good for Auckland and good for all of New Zealand. It is estimated that every New Zealander pays today on average $10 a week because of the congestion in Auckland. We want to relieve New Zealanders of that burden. We want to make sure that we all stop paying for waste. We want efficiency of delivery yet Mr Goff goes out there and says that we do not have it right. He says we are not putting the “local” back into local government. Well I ask Mr Goff to think again. We will have somewhere between 20 and 30 enhanced local boards with powers that allow them to represent their local communities. What could be better than that? Mr Goff said: “The Government promised to strengthen local representation. Instead they have done the opposite centralising all real power in one Auckland-wide council.” Goodness gracious me! Here he is saying that we need to have regional representation and that we need to be able to make decisions on a regional basis. So what did we do? We set up the unitary authority in the way that that the royal commission said we should. We did exactly what it asked in that regard yet here is Mr Goff criticising it and saying we are going to make it an all-encompassing unitary authority. That is exactly what we wanted to do—what the royal commission did. After all it was the Opposition members over there who actually made this happen. He goes on to say: “They actually changed the commission’s recommendations without any consultation. Aucklanders will have no opportunity to have their voices heard.” What a lot of nonsense. Mr Goff should—but obviously does not—understand that as we go through changing the boundaries as we go through putting the ward boundaries in place and as we go around putting the local enhanced local boards in place there will be consultation. There will be continuous consultation; the Local Government Commission is charged with consulting the people. It has to do that as it is part of its responsibility. 
I have to say that this as a response from a Government in just under 14 days was a fantastic result. Everybody who was involved in it—and that is all of us—can take a bow. We have done a fantastic job. We are going to untangle Auckland we are going to relieve Aucklanders of congestion we are going to reduce costs we are going to get rid of inefficiency we are going to have efficiency of delivery and we are going to make sure there is value for money. With this system the ratepayers will know that they are getting back value for the dollars they are paying—something they have not had for years and years. I am proud of the Government proud to be working alongside Rodney Hide and proud of the coalition Government that is going to deliver something that is good for Aucklanders and good for all New Zealanders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Just before I call the next speaker I just say to the House that the general hubbub in here is rising and rising. I ask members to talk quietly and those in the gallery to talk quietly as well. If you want to talk please talk quietly. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The concept of representation is a vital issue in all aspects of our society. Representation is about having a voice and being respected for having unique points of view. It is about having legitimacy; it is at the very heart of democracy. Representation is an important theme in our youth culture—to represent oneself in a way that makes the community proud and to demonstrate responsibility. At the levels of our local and national government we also expect that there would be freedom of expression and the capacity for all members to contribute. 
Participation in the decision-making procedures of local authorities is important for the representativeness and legitimacy of local government. But for tangata whenua for Aotearoa for a nation that is bound by the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi representation takes on an even more solemn responsibility. Representation is as provided for in the Treaty the means by which tangata whenua have an equitable say in the decisions that affect them. 
But there is something terribly wrong with this picture. In a 2007 post-election survey of local government 
only 3.6 percent of people elected to councils identified themselves as Maori with a further 1.2 percent identifying themselves as European Maori. This percentage has been relatively static for at least the last three elections despite the fact that at the 2006 census Maori were 14.6 percent of the population. This is what we know the current picture of representation to be in this day and at this time. It is not a free market where all players have an equal choice. 
It is not just that we know the numbers; we have the percentage points in hand. We are in a better position than that. Eighteen months ago the report  
Maori engagement with local government: knowledge experiences and recommendations 
 by Dr Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tawhai told us everything we needed to know about how to improve Maori responsiveness to local government. It told us how local government bodies could improve their representation and improve upon their engagement with their citizens. Overwhelmingly the view from Maori was resounding. Maori desire local authorities that are connected responsive and accountable to Maori communities. 
So how did the royal commission respond to this advice? It recommended that all local councils be given Maori names determined by the Local Government Commission after consultation with mana whenua with the new Maori names used by the commission being suggested starting points for consideration. It recommended that the Auckland City Council should comprise 23 councillors with two councillors elected at large by voters on the Maori electoral roll and one councillor appointed by the Mana Whenua Forum. These were honest attempts genuine attempts to do what we must do—to represent. Government has a responsibility to act urgently to address the chronic under-representation of Maori at local government level. This solution was not perfect but it was a positive approach that would provide for political power sharing because Maori would be placed directly into a decision-making role on council. 
I want to say in no uncertain terms that Maori seats deliver accountability by Maori to Maori. Putting it simply a candidate who is elected from a Maori constituency is more likely to represent the views of Maori voters. We know as Professor Ann Sullivan has concluded that at the local government level Maori are unfairly inequitably and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils. That is indisputable. So with all due respect the Minister calling this moment in time “a unique window of opportunity” is at best sadly naive. 
The Government’s decision to scrap the Maori seats and to fail to act in this vital area of representation will not create opportunities for Maori. Let me repeat: Maori are unfairly inequitably and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils. Auckland has the largest Maori population in the world which is drawn from tribes from all over the country and their culture must be expressed in civic affairs. One in four Maori live in Auckland and how are we acknowledging that? How does the decision to scrap legitimate distinctive Maori representation honour our commitment to mana whenua—the people who nurture the city of Tamaki into its growth over the centuries? Maori are already at a disadvantage in local elections and the bigger the region the higher the political and financial hurdles before them. How do we acknowledge that? The Government has rejected the very mechanism that the royal commission concluded would help. 
We know of course that the Local Government Act 2002 has a legislative obligation to “establish and maintain processes to provide for opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority.” Yet the reality is that Maori representation is always a matter of under-representation or representation that takes place after the event. We had a chance to do something about that. We had a unique window of opportunity and that window has been firmly shut with the decision to reject the recommendations of the commission. 
We want to see local government and regional authorities working with mana whenua establishing effective strategies for engaging Maori communities and advancing Maori representation. Maori do not want to be relegated to forums that present as cultural window dressing; they want to be firmly at the table. Comments made by iwi leaders such at Tukuroirangi Morgan and Grant Hawke have been to the extent that they want to be recognised as power brokers and decision makers at the same table as other community leaders. And why not? We need local authorities to place priority on joint partnerships with iwi in order to enhance Maori representation. We want to see in Tamaki-makau-rau a model of representation that actually engages and reflects the people of its constituency. 
The Maori Party is extremely disappointed by this move. We have received an invitation to meet with local iwi next Wednesday at Orakei Marae and I believe this will be a vital hui to see a way forward. Representation is an issue that is far too important to get wrong. Kia ora. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Representing 33 percent of Aotearoa’s population 33 percent of our tax revenue and 33 percent of our GDP the powerhouse of Auckland includes multiple ethnicities the largest Polynesian population and the largest gathering of Maori. The document I have here  
Making Auckland Greater 
 is the blueprint for that seething body of creativity and humanity. It is a blueprint. There is no brown definitely no red and no green; just blue and white. Auckland welcome to your future! 
Our friends from the Maori Party are lamenting the fact that they did not get any Maori seats in this deal. They have a chance. If they continue to vote for the supply and confidence agreement they will implement this system into power. But they have revealed their impotence signed up to the Government and are now quarrelling and crying. They do not have anywhere to go. If one lies down with a big beast one wakes up with an itch. I say to the Maori Party “Koia tena to utu.” 
With such a huge number of people such a large body of our economy one cannot agree with the rationalisation of functions for that region without positing it upon the legitimacy of participation. This document shows that there will be no meaningful participation unless one is blue or white in Auckland. There will be no opportunity for the large growing young families in South Auckland to influence the Paratai Drive corporate wealth along with the people who are so keen to privatise the local government assets of Auckland. That is those families’ future. 
The Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has an idea that he will create 20 30 or 40 small boards. He is yet to tell us what those boards will do and what they will deal with—dogs brothels or cemeteries—and I wonder where he will find his best friend. Those small boards will be toothless underfunded and reduced to supplication when going to the powerful centre which will be accountable to characters at large. Animals at large are accountable to no one. Without a ward system the only way that the contents of this document will have any legitimacy is to get rid of the proposed councillors at large for an area that will cover 1.3 million people. 
Mr John Carter the handmaiden of Mr Hide is suggesting that he will cut off the bookends. He will give Wellsford back to the north and parts of Franklin back to Tainui. That however will not change the essential iniquity and unfairness of this system. This system is designed to disempower the young families and the working families of Auckland. There will be no power in the west east north or south; it will all reside at the centre. Irrespective of how powerful the arguments are for water utilities and transportation unless it rests on the informed consent of the people and they have an opportunity to choose genuine members from their communities we are yielding to corporate powers the legitimacy that ought to be belong in the community. 
I say to the Maori Party “Haere ra!”. Maori Party members should explain to their supporters that once the Maori Party stepped up to the plate and agreed to a confidence and supply agreement irrespective of how much its members moan they are maintaining the power base that is doing their own people damage. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: What’s that party’s policy? The same. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Of course Georgina te Heuheu was actually in Cabinet when this decision was made unlike Dr Pita Sharples. We are told that she never spoke one word in support of Maori voters or Maori ratepayers. She did not speak one word. Georgina te Heuheu dutifully delivered a letter—written bilingually no doubt—by Dr Sharples to the Prime Minister. That is something akin to a primary school teacher delivering a letter to the headmaster. She never said one word. 
Rationalisation of functions for Auckland is positive but without its being posited located and founded on participation and democratic principles it will always fall short. Kia ora tatou. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Auckland the City of Sails is home of the JAFA and is New Zealand’s biggest city the one that those of us who live below the Bombay Hills love to hate. Auckland has to change. The royal commission’s report states that Auckland just like an inattentive disruptive schoolkid can do better. For Auckland to get better results it needs to be consistent to focus on its core business and to work constructively with others. Over the past few years the people of Auckland have become increasingly frustrated by the dysfunctional local government and layers of expensive bureaucracy. The royal commission acknowledges that situation and has made a compelling argument for change. Its conclusions came after 20 months of work 3500 submissions and 550 oral presentations over 27 days of hearings. It says it all. 
We all knew that Auckland’s governance was not working. We knew that the public felt that the rates were out of control and the commission report proved it. It pulls no punches. It states: “Auckland’s regional council and seven territorial authorities lack the collective sense of purpose constitutional ability and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland.” It lists a series of serious deficiencies. It states: “Disputes are regular among councils … Councils cannot agree on or apply consistent standards and plans. Sharing of services among councils is limited yet there is scope for so much more activity in this area. The end result is delayed and sometimes suboptimal decisions for the region … Citizens and businesses get poorer services than they hope for at a higher cost than necessary.” So we see that not only the present arrangement is not working but the councils actually make life difficult for the people of Auckland. They fight among themselves. Their standards and plans across the city contradict each other— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Oh rubbish! Who wrote this rubbish? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Mr Hawkins may say this is rubbish but the royal commission has heard submissions. It is a lose-lose situation and not just for the people of Auckland. As our largest city and the gateway to the rest of the country what happens in Auckland affects us all. As the royal commission says: “Auckland can and should contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now.” In a world that is facing unprecedented economic crisis and as we look towards a long-term brighter future for the whole of New Zealand Auckland’s contribution to prosperity and productivity is essential. 
Local government is a strange thing. Most people are not vaguely interested in the councils and their work. One just needs to note the low level of voting in the local government elections. Most people do not want to think about local government but they want local government’s functions to function on auto and to work efficiently and effectively so that they hardly even notice them. There is no political debate about this issue. We need good central efficient and effective services and good local democracy through 20 to 30 local boards. These local boards will have teeth. Contrary to what others have said they will have teeth. Their roles will be mandated in legislation so that the Auckland Regional Council cannot freeze them out. This is a good answer for Auckland. It will deliver for the people of Auckland and it will deliver productivity and prosperity for New Zealand. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I stand as an MP from Auckland to contribute to this debate. Well the National Government certainly knows how to stuff up a good idea. We have an opportunity to turn a page on Auckland’s history of troubled governance and poor leadership. It is a chance to set up our city for the future so that it can make the big decisions and finally start to reach its potential and be the powerhouse that Auckland needs to be. What does the National Government do? It cherry-picks the bits that it likes out of a report that was a year in the making a report that sets out a comprehensive visionary blueprint for Auckland’s future—a blueprint for strong government of our greatest city. The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance speaks to issues of leadership democracy how strategic assets will be owned and governed urban design social inequalities regional economic development and our priceless waterfront. 
But what does this National Government see? It sees only the centralisation of power. That is the stuff it cares about. Power—that is the thing National members are interested in. They are ramming through a centralisation of power that will gerrymander them and their mates on to the Auckland council for years to come. It will leave dozens of communities unrepresented or under-represented. It will kill off the “local” in local government and push all the real power and responsibility up to the super-city while leaving local democracy to a bunch of glorified community boards—talk shops with responsibility for booze dogs and graffiti. It will concentrate power in the hands of a few people with an executive mayor and no checks and balances. We could call this a stuff-up or we could call it a traditional National Government power grab for its mates and cronies. Worse still the National Government is preparing to railroad these changes through without consulting the people of Auckland in breach of its campaign promises. The promise sounded pretty good a few months ago but it clearly has no place in the National Government now. 
I want to make it clear to this House that there is much that is good thoughtful and wise in this royal commission report. I hope that in the coming days and weeks we will have a chance to debate those things. But now we focus on the electoral rules the rules of the game that determine who gets what who gets a say and who runs the place. The Labour Party believes that the royal commission did not get everything right. We disagree with it the most on the proposals for the way that councillors are elected to the Auckland council. Strike one against democracy is that only the rich and famous will need to apply. Who will be able to fund a campaign that reaches out to 850000 voters? Only the rich and those backed by the rich so I say we should stand by and wait for government by TV hosts and retired Olympians. Strike two against democracy is that it is entirely possible that all the eight places elected at large will come from one part of town. In the old days before the ward system central and eastern Auckland were well served and the west and the south got the scraps. Strike three against democracy is that the other 12 councillors are according to the Government’s proposals to be elected on the basis of wards with an average of 70000 voters. Many communities will inevitably miss out and will go unrepresented. 
These proposals amount to a giant gerrymander. Democracy is not just about winning majorities; it is also about ensuring that everyone has a say. The Government’s plan will be great for those in the leafy suburbs and glass towers but what about the people of Avondale Beach Haven Ranui Otara and Manurewa? National’s plans for the second tier of government are a disaster. The royal commission and thousands of submitters recognised that there needs to be a balance between centralising governance and protecting local democracy. We in the Labour Party are not sure the royal commission got the second tier entirely right and we wonder whether in fact the six councils could get close enough to local communities and whether at the same time they have enough powers to exercise a meaningful role in the development of our city. This is delicate stuff; the detail is what is important. What does the National Government do? It drives a bulldozer through the carefully researched and argued recommendations of the royal commission. It plants an axe through local councils and replaces them with 20 to 30 community boards that are basically talking shops. What will they be good for? They will be good only for having a chat. They will not raise revenue provide services or hire staff. They will be good only for dogs liquor and graffiti. 
This is a coup against democracy. All significant decision-making planning and power in the sphere of local government for one-third of our nation’s citizens will be in the hands of 21 elected officials. Those 21 individuals will be elected on the basis of a gerrymandered system. Local democracy and local government are being gutted. Councils like Waitakere City Council and Manukau City Council have demonstrated over the last two decades just how efficient and effective local councils can be in promoting economic development nurturing a sense of identity and belonging and melding distinctive and diverse communities behind a common vision and a sense of place. The royal commission recognised these achievements and sought to retain a second tier of government that would preserve councils and push upstairs the functions of planning and infrastructure but maintain local councils with the structures and the capacity to make a difference. 
Let me take the New Lynn urban development project transforming public transport and providing for a residential and commercial mixed-use mixed-income development. Will a smattering of local community boards have the capacity to do anything like that? No. Will a super-city council with one or two elected councillors from the west have the political will to do anything like that? It will not. Let me take Manukau City Council’s role in championing the identity and aspirations of our most diverse young and Polynesian of cities. Will a smattering of local talk shops have the ability to do anything on that scale? Will a super-city with only one or two councillors from the south have any political will to tackle that project? The answer is no. 
The National Government’s instinct to sell out local democracy as it concentrates power in the hands of grey-suited men in glass towers and the Victoria Avenue set will deliver the worst of both worlds. There will be a huge accumulation of power at the top level of governance and a complete imbalance at the bottom where local democracy will be reduced to a cacophony of talk shops. The Labour Party supports a unitary authority for the region. We support the idea of having one rates bill one plan the public ownership of strategic assets an expanded mandate for social issues and integrated organisations for water and transport. But let us be clear about this: the electoral governance rules set the goalposts for politics. Politics is about who gets what. The National Government’s proposals amount to a power grab and to a coup against democracy. They are unfair and if they are pursued they threaten to undermine the legitimacy of the entire reform package. The consequences for Auckland for future generations and for democracy are dire. 
Debate interrupted. 
Visitors 
Maori King—Te Arikinui Tuheitia 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I interrupt this debate in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee for the Rt Hon Helen Clark to shortly make her valedictory statement. But first I have much pleasure in informing members that Kingi Tuheitia is within the precincts of this Chamber and I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Kingi Tuheitia entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Valedictory Statement 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 E Kingi Tuheitia Te Ariki Tumu e nga iwi o te motu e rau rangatira ma tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. This speech is obviously my last in this Parliament and it is an occasion that I view with mixed emotions. 
Being a member of the New Zealand Parliament has been a very big part of my adult life and my involvement in New Zealand politics more broadly predates my election as MP for Mt Albert in 1981. It was in 1968 fresh from Epsom Girls Grammar School that I enrolled at Auckland University to study history English German and yes political studies because I met an older student who said: “That is pretty interesting.” Therein lies a tale. 
What a year 1968 was though for students around the world with unrest spreading across the campuses of many a country as the postwar baby-boomer generation came of age. Here in New Zealand those of us who were politically and perhaps radically minded were not short of causes to get involved in—opposition to the Viet Nam War to contact with apartheid sport and to French nuclear-testing in the Pacific. All of these issues sent fault lines through New Zealand politics some ideological and some generational. But I believe that the great strength of the late Norman Kirk as Labour leader was that he reached across that generation gap to speak for us as young people on those issues and also to articulate an independent foreign policy. 
In my childhood and teenage years a television set was not a feature of every home. That meant that politicians were generally rather remote figures whose voices were only occasionally to be heard on one of the handful—and I think there were four—of Government radio stations. This was of course before Radio Hauraki broke the monopoly by broadcasting from a boat in the Hauraki Gulf. I do remember Sir Ronald Algie MP coming to my secondary school for prize-givings. I certainly recall a meeting an election meeting of some kind in the Te Pahu community hall which I attended with my father when I had the temerity to ask the local member Sir Leslie Munro a question about the wisdom of deploying New Zealand troops to Viet Nam—and I recall being barked at on that occasion. But other exposure to politicians was non-existent in my earlier life. So in recent years when children have asked me on innumerable school visits whether I wanted to be Prime Minister when I was their age I could only reply that I could not remotely have imagined that being possible as the politicians of my childhood and youth were almost invariably rather elderly gentlemen. 
Those perceptions though changed for me during my student days and upon joining the Labour Party as I did in 1971. There was a new generation coming into Parliament for Labour beginning with the election of Jonathan Hunt in 1966. Outside Parliament there was the extraordinary energy of Jim Anderton in Labour’s Auckland local body campaigns and later as Labour Party president. As well there was the growing stature of Norman Kirk as a dynamic leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition. I was proud to be a mere foot soldier in the campaign that saw him lead Labour into Government in 1972. But then the third Labour Government suffered very greatly from Norman Kirk’s untimely death and major economic shocks leading to its defeat after only 3 years. So it was back to the politics of Opposition for 9 years in the course of which I myself entered Parliament as the MP for Mt Albert. 
As many are well aware I grew up on a farm in the western Waikato and I did not prima facie have a background of the kind associated with Labour leaders in the past. But my wider family like many had a great range of political allegiances. Politics was definitely of very great interest to us and not something just to be engaged in via a vote on election day. We were participators and doers. My parents were perhaps initially a little surprised at the direction my politics took but within a relatively short period of time they extended their always strong personal support for me to strong political support. That continues to this day with my father who is 87 being present in the gallery and my mother who is not well enough to travel being able I hope to watch the proceedings on television this afternoon along with my sister Jenefer who is caring for her. Words cannot adequately express my gratitude to my parents for the love and support they have always given me. 
My first general election campaign as a Labour candidate was in 1975 in Piako. It was one of National’s safest seats. It was held by gentleman Jack Luxton and later by his son John. I must say my experience throughout the campaign was that Jack was indeed a gentleman. 
 But what a great learning experience that was for me moving around the small towns of the east and south Waikato drawing support in particular from workers and their families on the Kaimai tunnel project in the dairy and timber factories and in the Arapuni hydro village. I well remember a campaign visit in my support by Sir Basil Arthur who was the Minister of Transport. He came to the Kaimai tunnel but the superstition of the Irish and Italian tunnellers meant that I as the candidate was left at the tunnel head. 
The highlight of my campaign in Piako was the visit of the late Bill Rowling who put Putaruru on his whistle-stop tour of the Waikato. The hall we hired was full to overflowing with a morning tea held in his honour. I know that Glen Rowling is here today. I do not remember in the last 34 years Glen whether you were also present in Putaruru but I have never forgotten the excitement of that occasion. 
My advice to young people starting out in politics is to be prepared to run for their party for the first time in electorates that are highly unlikely to be won but where one will learn a lot and have more to offer when a winnable seat opportunity comes along. In my experience success is seldom instant in politics and where it does come quickly it can equally as quickly fizzle out. 
The Parliament I entered in 1981 was far less diverse obviously than that which we see today. That year 1981 the number of women elected to Parliament doubled from four to eight and there were only six Maori members of Parliament. I recall Sir Robert Muldoon at the end of his lengthy career saying that one of the greatest changes had been the extraordinary increase in the number of women in the House and that he found us rather frightening. I have to say that the boot really was on the other foot and to have interjected on Sir Robert was to invite demolition which I was never foolish enough to do of course. 
The main forms of recreation when I first came were the billiard-room in what is now the Grand Hall—thank goodness it has been banished to a corner of the building and I have no idea where it is—the Bellamy’s bar ever with us and the card schools in members’ offices where I understand rather large sums of money were wagered for. 
 To say that this was an alien environment for a 31-year-old woman fresh from a university teaching environment would be an understatement. It was frankly very hard going as a lot of my political career has been but it was of course character forming and it gave me the experience and the confidence to go all the way in the system and importantly to be part of changing it for the better for ever. 
But saying that Parliament was hard going and an alien environment brings one to the issue of motivation. What exactly was it that attracted me to this life? I think what brought me here was idealism values a sense of community and of internationalism a desire to make a contribution to public life in my country and overwhelmingly a sense of gratitude for the opportunities that New Zealand offered me and which I think should be the birthright of every New Zealander. 
I have always been very proud of New Zealand’s egalitarian traditions. Deep in our country’s roots is the ethos that Jack is as good as his master and these days we must say that Jill is as good as her mistress. Many of our forebears came to this land to escape the class-bound nature of Britain where their place in the economic and social order was largely prescribed from birth and could not be escaped from. I deeply detest social distinction and snobbery and in that has always lain my strong aversion to titular honours because to me they relate to another era that our nation largely has evolved from but obviously not entirely freed itself from at this time. 
Entering Parliament was for me a way of translating ideals into positive action—hard as that can sometimes be. There have been many issues over my 41 years of political activity when I have perhaps been a little ahead of public opinion at the time. Yet so often today’s avant-garde becomes tomorrow’s status quo. Such thoughts cross my mind when I see a cross-section of New Zealand families celebrating their children’s civil union or a Government delegation from Viet Nam welcomed as friends and regional partners when once to support relations with their country was thought to be far beyond the mainstream. 
My first 6 years as an MP saw me focused on three main areas. First and foremost there was my electorate work in Mt Albert. How grateful I will always be to the wonderful people in those central Auckland suburbs for the opportunities and support that they gave me to grow and develop as a politician and a leader over 27 years. Mt Albert was formed as a new electorate in 1946 on the edge of the city. It faced a by-election the following year when the long-serving Arthur Richards the former member for Roskill retired. Warren Freer was then elected at the age of 26 and served for 34 years rising to the No. 3 position in Labour’s parliamentary hierarchy and becoming a senior Minister. I spoke with Warren last week and my understanding is that he is present with us here today. It is certainly my hope that Mt Albert will support and nurture Labour successors to Warren and me who have the capacity to rise to the very top of the New Zealand political system and serve the electorate and our country with distinction. 
The bread and butter constituency work in Mt Albert has always been interfacing with Government agencies and departments on matters like housing social welfare and immigration and of course supporting the endeavours of our very fine local schools sports clubs and communities. Those communities are very strong and diverse making it a rewarding electorate in which to live and work. I am going to miss it a lot over the next 4 years but home is where the heart is and my heart will always be in Kingsland where Peter and I have spent the entire 27 years of our married life. 
Second there was the work here in Parliament and for me that was mainly focused around various permutations of what is now the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee of which I became chair from 1984 to 1987. The nuclear-free legislation was a highlight of that period as were the major reports our committee produced on disarmament and on New Zealand’s relationship with China. 
Third there was the broader work within the Labour Party where I had been a New Zealand executive member since 1978. There was the excitement of the 1984 campaign and the trauma of the economic shock and adjustments that followed the election. Victory in 1987 disguised the fact that in our heartland seats held by Ministers the Labour vote slumped as the fourth Labour Government had delivered economic policies to which our traditional supporters could not relate and which had not been foreshadowed. That experience and the subsequent massive defeat in 1990 left a lasting impression on me along with a determination for the future to be transparent about election policy to deliver on it and to always to keep faith with the loyal long-term Labour supporters who sustain our movement through good years and bad. There are always fair-weather friends in politics. One knows who one’s true friends are when they are still standing with you in the aftermath of defeat and the phone—and now the texts—have otherwise gone rather quiet. 
My time as a Minister from 1987 to 1990 was very rewarding. It enabled me to engage with be part of see visit and meet communities right across our country. As Minister of Conservation it took me back to places in the South Island that I had last been to on family holidays with my family in the 1950s and 1960s. I was able to strike the occasional blow for the environment by rejecting obtrusive development projects like the Monowai Mine on the Coromandel and the Nukuhau Marina which was proposed near the mouth of the Waikato River at Lake Taupo. 
Public housing and health were passionate interests of mine and so much was done from the acquisition of many more State houses to the passage of the pioneering smoke-free legislation—I had the darts in my back for many years after that—and the innocently named Nurses Amendment Act that freed midwives to practise autonomously. 
As Minister of Labour in 1990 I took the Employment Equity Act through Parliament only to see it gone by Christmas that very same year. In the face of a retailer revolt I also promoted the legislation for 7-day shop trading. Although that was clearly not welcomed or wanted by retail workers the introduction was softened by my writing what amounts to an advanced industrial agreement into the schedule of the Act. Alas that did not long survive the 1990 election either. 
The 9 years in Opposition in the 1990s were tough years as we in Labour worked to restore our battered electoral credibility. There was the shock treatment of the new National Government’s health superannuation welfare and industrial policies and the unemployment rate rose above 10 percent in 1991. The electorate clearly was not happy in 1993 but still saw Labour as having a lot of baggage from the 1980s. This “plague on both your houses” sentiment was then expressed in the resounding vote for change to the electoral system in 1992 and the binding referendum on MMP in 1993. The New Zealand electoral system and politics have never been the same since. 
The two-party system crumbled as the first MMP election approached with MPs leaving both major parties to sit elsewhere in the House around the cross benches. I will never forget a Grey Power meeting I attended in Wanganui as the Leader of the Opposition where there was a panel of representatives of the different political parties. With the single exception of the Hon Peter Gresham every other representative of a political party had come from Labour. Then I saw the extent of the fragmentation that MMP had brought. 
I became Leader of the Opposition of course at the very point that the old electoral order began to crumble and smaller parties had a chance of finding a niche in the political spectrum. 
 Labour lost support in particular to the Alliance and to New Zealand First. The nadir for me came with one of those dratted Colmar Brunton polls in the mid-1990s which proclaimed that Labour had 14 percent support and I had 2 percent support as preferred Prime Minister. I have to say that it does not get much worse than that. Looking back on it now with the advantage of hindsight I am surprised only that concerned delegations of colleagues did not beat a path to my door rather more often than they did. 
Against that background success in the 1996 election was impossible but none the less it marked a turning point for me and for Labour. The coalition Government stitched together was not a marriage made in heaven and eventually it dissolved. Meanwhile Labour and the Alliance were able to effect a rapprochement and to campaign as a ready-made coalition in 1999. The rest is history: 1999 delivered a Labour-Alliance minority coalition Government with support on confidence and supply from the Green Party. 
Our Government then and in subsequent terms embarked on a programme of change across the economic social environmental and cultural spheres and in every other sphere which over time I think has made a substantial difference for the better to many New Zealanders’ lives. Our core values always were fairness opportunity and security and we endeavoured to apply them across the board. We always took a long-term approach to investment in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund KiwiSaver early childhood education skills training research and development primary health care and public transport. Investments in these areas can take decades—generations—to be paid off but if we do not start making those investments we will never get to the desired end point. 
We enhanced workers’ rights through the Employment Relations Act through paid parental leave and through the fourth week’s annual holiday. The economy on our watch experienced its longest run of continuous growth since World War II and the unemployment rate remained low for years. Those successes gave us the capacity to make very significant investments in families services and infrastructure and I believe that the rising tide did lift every boat transforming the circumstances of Maori Pakeha Pasifika Asian and other communities alike. 
In the last term in particular we had the comprehensive sustainability programme to put New Zealand on the front foot in combating climate change. I strongly believe that it is so important for our country’s international credibility that we are seen to take these issues very seriously and be prepared to act. 
Over 9 years we made very substantial acquisitions for the conservation estate. Indeed many Cabinet colleagues will remember that when Chris Carter brought along yet another proposal Michael Cullen would say: “Not another iconic property!”. There were so many. But for me the jewels in the crown were the transfer of Molesworth Station to the Department of Conservation and of course last year the purchase of a pastoral lease of the spectacular St James Station to be available for the people of New Zealand for all time. 
It was my pleasure to lead our work on arts and culture—to encourage the development of Kiwi talent audience enjoyment economic opportunity and the promotion of our unique New Zealand identity and perspectives. I found the heritage part of the portfolio particularly satisfying as I look back on years of big projects from the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior which I think touched many New Zealanders’ hearts to the newborn digital official encyclopaedia  
Te Ara 
 to volumes of oral and other histories of World War II and the Viet Nam War and to the major regional museum and gallery projects in which the Government became a substantial funding partner. 
There was also the ongoing process of reconciling with New Zealand’s past—of recognising injustice where it had occurred and addressing it. I think New Zealanders are now very familiar with the settlement of the historic grievances going back to the time of colonisation and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those settlements must be completed so that we are able to move forward together as a nation. As one who grew up on a farm on Ropatu land in the Waikato where our family’s presence felt like it had been there for ever I cannot imagine the scale of loss felt by Waikato-Tainui from the mid-19th century. But I do hope that I and my Government have played our part in helping put it right. The presence of Kingi Tuheitia and his delegation here today means a great deal to me as did the friendship of the late Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu over many years. 
As well in my time as Prime Minister there was the apology to New Zealand’s early Chinese settlers and their descendants for the unique and severe discrimination they suffered in our country for many decades and the apology to Samoa for the injustices perpetrated by the New Zealand colonial administration. Just last year I issued on behalf of the Government and people of New Zealand an apology to Viet Nam veterans and their families for the manner in which their loyal service to New Zealand was not recognised as it should have been and for the inadequate support that had previously been extended to them and their families. It is important to put these matters right. Reconciliation respect inclusion human rights—these were important things for me as a Prime Minister with a deep belief in equality. 
Maoridom in recent decades has undergone a profound renaissance and stands very tall today as New Zealand’s first people as substantial economic stakeholders and as contributors to so much that is fundamental to New Zealand’s unique identity. I believe that our Government was a willing partner in that renaissance. The substantial Pasifika populations have also made their presence felt from the professions to the factories from the movie screens to the sports fields and beyond to become a quintessential part of the fabric of New Zealand society. I have enjoyed too my involvement with New Zealand’s many emerging ethnic communities whose cultures heritage language and faiths have added so much to the richness of our country. 
The Civil Union Act which enabled rainbow couples to express their love for each other by cementing their relationship in law; the Property (Relationships) Act which applied the principles of fair division of property on the dissolution of a de facto relationship; and our work guided by the New Zealand Disability Strategy were all important to me. 
There is so much about New Zealand that is special and that marks us out as a unique and gifted nation. We have evolved distinctive reconciliation and constitutional processes. Our institutions from our Parliament and executive Government system under MMP to our Supreme Court have evolved so far from that colonial heritage. It is inevitable in my view that our constitutional status as a monarchy will also change. It is a question of not if but when. 
My Government has sought to reflect our country’s unique personality in New Zealand’s international relations. For us New Zealand needed to stand for peace justice reconciliation and sustainability. Our refusal to participate in the war in Iraq was a decision based on principle knowing that involvement would have ripped our country apart for no good purpose whatsoever. 
I do take pride in the high regard in which New Zealand is held internationally—in the work our Government did in the Pacific and East Asia; in rebuilding what had been for a long time a strained relationship with the United States of America; in broadening relations with Europe so that the occasional visits of Prime Ministers and Ministers to Brussels were not just to argue about the butter quota important as the issue may be; in engaging strategically with Latin America; and in deploying peacekeepers around the globe. That high regard for New Zealand and New Zealand’s constructive way of working internationally was the background against which my name went forward as a candidate for the position of Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. I regard my selection as a huge honour personally and for New Zealand and I will certainly seek at all times to carry out my duties there in a way that reflects well on New Zealand. 
 I have no regrets—underline “no regrets”—about leaving Parliament at this time. I have had an incredible career here and I have been given such enormous opportunities. But it is time to go and for others in my party to take forward the cause that we believe in and that I personally will always believe in. Of course the election result was disappointing after so many years of hard work—how could it not be—and we had a sense of achievement in so many areas. But in a democracy the people’s will must be accepted and respected as it is by me. 
A long and rewarding political career is never a solo act. I stand here knowing that I have been supported by so many people for so long because they believed in me and in the values they saw me representing. My parents gave me the best possible start in life that any child could have: a secure and loving home and support for my education at every stage. My three sisters my brothers-in-law and my nieces nephews aunts uncles and cousins in our large extended Kiwi family have always been so supportive of Peter and me over our many years in the public eye. Peter himself has been a staunch supporter of my aspirations and career no matter how unpleasant and difficult things got in political life from time to time. 
For 10 consecutive elections I have received solid support from the Mt Albert electorate. I thank all those who have voted and worked for me there over 27 years. Special thanks are due to the Mt Albert electorate committee—members of whom are in the gallery today—which has worked so hard to make our electorate one of the best organised for Labour in New Zealand and to my hard-working electorate office staff now led by my long-time friend and supporter Joan Caulfield. 
My political career has been based on the values and principles of the New Zealand Labour Party and I thank all those at every level and in every region across New Zealand for their constant support. Here in Parliament I have been privileged to work with remarkable and exceptional people from my deputy leader for many years Dr Michael Cullen to all of those who have made up our Cabinet and our caucus. I have made many friends in politics and I know those friendships will be lifelong. The texts will keep coming and I suspect also the occasional tweet. 
Other political parties played an indispensable role in the success of our Government over 9 years in office. I worked particularly closely with the Hon Jim Anderton and was pleased to see that a friendship formed in the 1970s which had been placed under great strain in the late 1980s and the 1990s resume in the 21st century as if there had never been a breach. Thank you Jim for everything. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party worked closely with me and Labour for many years and I believe we shared and still share common approaches in many areas. Although there was perhaps less commonality none the less there were honourable relationships that guaranteed confidence and supply with the Hon Peter Dunne and United Future and with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First. I believe a relationship based on considerable common interest was also possible with the Maori Party during the last parliamentary term. The Hon Tariana Turia and I go back a long way and I acknowledge in particular her generous comments in Parliament last week. 
My contact with the National Party and ACT over the years has not been especially significant given the extent of political differences between us. But I do wish on this occasion to acknowledge the leaders of both parties John Key and Rodney Hide for their courtesy to me especially in recent times and also the courtesy of numerous other members going back to the time of Marilyn Waring Katherine O’Regan Paul East and Simon Upton. I should also say I have also enjoyed Jim Bolger’s company a lot post-politics. 
I have very much valued the ongoing wise counsel and advice of Geoffrey Palmer and the support and insights that Mike Moore has provided to me on moving into the international system. 
As Prime Minister I was always supported by the broader public service in general and by all those departments and agencies for which I had direct responsibility. In particular there was Mark Prebble and then Maarten Wevers as heads of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and all their staff including of course our Cabinet secretaries Marie Shroff Diane Morcom and Rebecca Kitteridge who all worked hard to ensure that Labour as a democratically elected Government could implement its policies. 
 That is the service that public servants offer to any of us who have the privilege to serve in Government. 
Martin Matthews Jane Kominik and everyone at the Ministry for Culture and Heritage helped me to give arts culture and heritage a higher profile than ever before in our country. I thank them so much. The Department of Internal Affairs supported me in my role as Minister of Ministerial Services which was rather like being chief enforcer on many occasions and as host of countless international delegations at head of State and Government level over the years. 
I did enjoy my work with the Security Intelligence Service and with the Government Communications Security Bureau led variously by Richard Woods Warren Tucker and Bruce Ferguson. I placed trust in them and their staff as they did in me and I believe and will continue to believe that what they do is in the interests of our country. 
I also owe a great deal to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which supported me and my Ministers on so many complex international issues and supported me personally through years of summits and bilateral visits. It was also a privilege to be involved in many ways with the New Zealand Defence Force and to see its work on and offshore. I will always remember the amazing visits to Kabul Bamian Basra the Sinai East Timor and the Solomon Islands to see New Zealand military personnel at work. 
Close personal support for me as Prime Minister came from my private office and the talented teams of staff led by Heather Simpson and Alec McLean and to this day that support comes from my parliamentary staff Jacque Bernstein and Dinah Okeby as it has always come from what are now generations of personal secretaries researchers press secretaries messengers diary secretaries typists and receptionists in the past. 
Personal protection came from the Diplomatic Protection Squad of the New Zealand Police who stayed very close to me for the whole 9 years. The fact that I am standing here alive well safe and healthy today means they did their job. To the Diplomatic Protection Squad and the New Zealand Police across our country I say thank you for the support they always gave. They are New Zealand’s unsung heroes and I believe they deserve much greater recognition and praise for what they do to protect us all. 
Over the 22 years since I first became a Minister of the Crown I have been not just driven but fully looked after and supported by the Government drivers in the VIP Transport Service of the Department of Internal Affairs. I have come to know many very well and they are my friends. As a former Prime Minister I am privileged to continue using their service so today marks not an end but an interlude. As General MacArthur once famously said: “I will return.” 
It is 27 years to the month since I made my maiden speech in this Chamber at the tender age of 32. I have looked back at what was said at that time and there were words that read: “My greatest wish is that at the end of my time in this House”—and I did envisage walking out rather than being carried out—“I shall have contributed towards making New Zealand a better place than it is today for its people to live in.” I leave knowing that I have fulfilled my wish and that I did play a part in making New Zealand a better place. 
It has been a privilege and an honour to be a member of this House for 27 years and Prime Minister for 9 years. I wish my successor Phil Goff and the Labour team all the best for the next election and I do wish New Zealanders well for what are undoubtedly challenging times ahead. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Applause 
] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We are very close to the 6 o’clock dinner break. I seek leave for the House to rise at this point and to resume again at 7.30. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. The House will resume at 7.30. 
Sitting suspended from 5.42 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Urgent Debates 
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance—Government Response 
Debate resumed. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this matter of importance not just to Auckland but to the nation. First I thank the royal commission for putting together such a comprehensive report on such an important city in this country. The report is about reforming Auckland governance—because we all know that it is broken. I acknowledge members opposite for putting the inquiry in process in 2007 but I also acknowledge the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide; the work done by the Hon John Carter; and the leadership of the National Party with its coalition partners in bringing forward a set of recommendations for this proposal. 
The proposal is about having one mayor one council one district plan one set of rates and one vision for Auckland City. It is about having a singularity of purpose and intent and it is about bringing improvement to the lives not just of Aucklanders but of New Zealanders. We have heard a lot about what in the governance proposal will not work but we have not heard about the huge benefits that a change in the governance system of Auckland City will bring. 
Auckland is our biggest most productive and most colourful city and we will have in place by October 2010 a governance system that will deliver high-quality services and a city that Aucklanders will be proud of. We are following the vision of the Auckland City Council which is that Auckland will be the first city of the Pacific. So this issue is about changing the system of governance to produce efficiencies drive economic activity create jobs and provide for a more prosperous city. 
We have heard a number of members talk about the make-up of the proposed council. There will be 12 ward councillors eight councillors elected “at large” and one super-mayor. The 12 ward councillor positions will provide the opportunity for Aucklanders to elect in their local ward or community a person who will represent that community to the rest of the city. The eight “at large” councillors will be responsible for the greater vision of the city and will represent the city at large. Some have criticised this make-up—and I find it rich that some of those who have criticised the proposed composition of the council are list members of Parliament. I find it particularly rich that some who have railed against the first-past-the-post system and have promoted the proportional representation system in this Parliament are now against having “at large” councillors within the Auckland City Council. 
This Government has responded to the needs of the communities by requiring grassroots participation from those communities. We have provided for 20 to 30 community boards so that those at the grassroots level can be represented democratically within the institution of the Auckland City Council. We have responded to public demand and we have said that communities will get more responsibilities than are currently available under local community board representation. 
We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that we should not take the “local” out of local bodies yet we have put it back in so I do not know what document the Leader of the Opposition is reading. We do not need more bureaucracy; we need more effective governance institutions. We also heard a Green member of Parliament—a list member I might add—say that community boards produce talkfests. Well I invite that member to come to the community board meeting next Thursday in Maungakiekie. If she attends she will realise that such meetings are not talkfests. They are about local communities having a voice and advocating for the issues that mean something to them. She is welcome to come to a Maungakiekie community board meeting and hear what real grassroots people have to say. 
The new proposal will also reduce costs as we remove the duplication of services and staff within the Auckland City area. There will be one mayor not seven mayors and we will certainly not need a chair for a faltering regional council. There will be one chief executive officer not seven. There will be one Watercare company so shareholders will not have to hold regular meetings with officers and councillors to discuss the shareholding composition of that organisation. There will be one accounting system that works rather than systems that do not talk to one another. Particularly important is the fact that there will be one set of rules around resource consents and building consents. There will be a consistency in approach. 
We need consistent approaches to projects. I think of the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative which will link Manukau City with Auckland City. I think of the fact that the Auckland City Council has put provisions in its long-term council community plan to allow that project to go ahead yet its partner Manukau City has no such provisions in its long-term plan. We should not allow these types of funding and planning mismatches to occur across Auckland City. I think of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act which was enacted last year and had bipartisan support in this House. I think of the big events in Auckland City such as the Pasifika Festival—which the Labour Government cut funding to—and such as the art gallery— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Come on Sam! 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Carmel Sepuloni knows that it is true and I have the emails to prove it. One council—the Auckland City Council—funds that festival and the other councils just ride on the back of it. We can see that by having one council we will get a consistent approach not just to infrastructure projects and major events in Auckland City but to economic development which is critical to this country at this particular time. 
People have talked about inequities in terms of ratings. Well half of the submitters to the royal commission were from Waiheke and when we count the rates paid by Waiheke people and count the benefits they attain from those rates we find that they get a net benefit. To say that small communities do not benefit from larger councils is a fallacy. 
Let us talk about representation. We have heard a number of people say that this issue is about money. No it is not about money. There is no correlation between money spent and one’s probability of being elected. It is about belonging to a party as members across the House know. It is about hard work belonging to a community and representing people. It is not about money. It is about putting up candidates who are able to do a job and an effective job at that. It is not about pandering to interest groups. 
 We have had consultation for the last 2 years. We have heard from over 3500 submitters. We will have a Local Government Commission that will do some consultation. We will have a select committee process that will effect consultation—and Auckland MPs right across the House can consult their constituents. This proposal is about going forward and it is about putting in place the best system for Auckland City. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
General Debate 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I acknowledge the valedictory speech of Helen Clark today. It can be fairly said that she is the author of New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and by and large that now has wide wide support both within the community and within this Parliament. But one thing I have to ask is why she was not generous enough to acknowledge the new leader of the Labour Party. Does that mean she thinks he will fail that he will not make it to the 2011 election or that maybe she has even forgotten his name? It was I thought quite remarkable and it will have been observed by many people across this nation. 
The speech by the leader of the Labour Party in relation to the Royal Commission on Auckland’s Governance just showed how out of touch he really is. The difference is this: this week the National-led Government—with ACT in particular because Rodney Hide is the Minister of Local Government—has made decisions. 
Aucklanders expected us to make decisions because there have been months of debate intense discussion and hearings by the royal commission. Every politician in this House from Auckland knows that full well. They have been following the debate and have been close to the communities that they represent. Every one of them is agreed that the existing structure is inadequate and that there should be a single city across the region. That is essential for this reason: we have one of the finest harbours in the world; we have simply failed to realise that potential. Anyone who goes to the waterfront will know its scruffy nature. It was not surprising to me that Mr Bob Harvey said that he and other politicians in the Auckland region owed New Zealand and Auckland an apology. They have failed Auckland through having a deficient structure to fix that up. I know that Maryan Street who at least was previously from Auckland knows the truth of that. It was essential to move on that issue and I think there is wide consensus on the single city structure. 
The debate essentially settled on the second tier. Let me also be clear about this: it is obvious from the royal commission and from all the debate that there should be only two tiers. There is no question of having more tiers than that. 
Over the last week I have received hundreds of emails from across North Shore on the future of the community boards. On Monday night I went to the Devonport Community Board meeting. The voices of those at the meeting were absolutely clear that they wanted the retention of their community board. Why is that? It is because the residents of Devonport and Bayswater know that if they want an issue resolved in their particular region it is the community board that deals with it. It is not the wider North Shore City Council but the community board. 
I tell members that if I want to know something about Devonport that I may not personally know myself—although being resident in the area I usually do—I immediately ring Mike Cohen the chair of the board and ask him what he thinks about an issue or what people are thinking about an issue although by and large I will already have some sense of it. What I do not do is to ring the mayor because he represents 220000 people. It is that attachment to the community board that people value. That is the message I have been getting over many many months and it certainly came through very clearly over the last 10 days. 
The Government has listened to that message. I know I have not been alone in hearing that message I might add. Many other politicians have heard precisely the same message. Mr Maurice Williamson relayed to his colleagues very clearly and very explicitly the same message from his community. So did the Hon Judith Collins. She relayed exactly that same message. So did Pansy Wong. All of us have received the message that people want connectivity to their local community through representation. The Government has acted because the consultation has been done. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 What a totally hysterical totally ungracious and totally lacking in fact contribution to the House. In the past I would have expected better of Dr Mapp but I know of his near-miss of getting into Cabinet—because it was a very very close call—his low ranking and the portfolios that nobody else wanted so they thought they might as well be given to Dr Wayne Mapp. Since that time his total invisibility probably makes him a little bitter even though he should not be bitter in that position. For that member to be so ungracious in respect of the valedictory speech of the Rt Hon Helen Clark is I think appalling. Every other member in this House including his leader John Key and people like Rodney Hide who had no reason at all to be gracious to anybody in the Labour Party had the decency and common courtesy to offer her the respect that she most certainly deserves because she has earned it. For that member to come into this House and attack her and Phil Goff is just a disgrace. I think the member should learn his basic manners before he takes a call in the House again. At this time in New Zealand most New Zealanders are saying: “It’s the economy stupid!” and they are saying it with a lot of passion and a lot of feeling frankly to people like Dr Mapp. I know his colleagues certainly agree with the latter part of my comment because those comments are frequently made to members on this side of the House in regard to that member—“It’s the economy stupid!”. 
The single thing that we expect from the Government is leadership; we expect strong leadership on the economic issues that are confronting not just our nation but also other nations around the globe as well. But what we have had on these areas from the two leaders in National are completely conflicting statements—and I have to say that Phil Goff has highlighted this extraordinarily well over the last few days in questions in the House. John Key said one thing Bill English said another and neither of them look at each other any more. When we watch them from this side of the House their body language is just fabulous. Nathan Guy knows that because he sits right behind them and I am sure he is tempted to pour a glass of water over them so that he can cool the tension between them— 
Chris Hipkins 
: When he’s not coaching David Bennett. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is right. In fact Nathan Guy has spent an awful lot of time in the House over the last little while coaching poor old David Bennett from Hamilton coaching Richard Worth and of recent times persuading Nick Smith to go out a different door so that Steven Joyce does not give him another bollocking that we can all see out in the lobby. But Steven Joyce has been too quick for him. On a number of occasions we have seen that Steven Joyce is much faster than he looks. He does not look like Chris Hipkins; he does not look like a young fit athletic person—the sort of person who would do a marathon. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not being insulting at all but he is not really really young and really really trim and fit. But by crikey he can move fast when he has a Minister in his sights. Maurice Williamson is looking a bit anxious. I have not heard yet that Mr Joyce has the Hon Maurice Williamson in his sights but I tell Mr Joyce to be wary. I think the Hon Maurice Williamson would be able to out-sprint him. He certainly knows more about transport than Steven Joyce will ever know. That is very obvious from his contributions in the House. 
 We have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance completely at odds about the financial situation and where our economy is headed. On 22 March on  
Q+A 
 on the TV John Key said “I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 or this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that [economic situation] and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively.” I am not quite sure what all that language means but he was confident that we would come out of our recession reasonably aggressively by the end of this year or the beginning of next year. But just 2 weeks later on exactly the same programme Bill English said “I think one of the features of this recession is that we’re unlikely to aggressively grow out of it.” He was not just contradicting his leader but also in a considered and thoughtful way in my view deliberately using the Prime Minister’s own language to contradict him. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 If members on the Opposition side of the House want to hear something complimentary about Labour then I will say something. I think Labour needs a huge compliment paid to it for what it did in the late 1980s with regard to local government reform. I think Michael Bassett the Minister of Local Government in 1989 did one of the best things this country has seen which is take 740 local authorities and bring down the number to 74. But if we are going to be critical of Michael Bassett—and I do not like to be—I have to say he did not go far enough. That was the problem. He left Auckland with seven local authorities. 
The joke I used to crack in Auckland was that with all the local authorities—I think we had 34 of them including the Mount Albert Borough Council the Mount Eden Borough Council and the Mount Roskill Borough Council—we are really lucky our roads join up. Then someone pointed out to me that there were some roads in Auckland that did not actually join up. There is a road called Burnley Terrace just behind Eden Park. The Mount Eden side of the road comes in from one end and the Mount Albert side comes in from the other end and there is a little dogleg in the middle where they had to make the road join because the authorities did not even talk to each other back then about where the roads were going to go. There is just example after example. Now with seven local authorities I can give members examples in my portfolio of building and construction where a house that was consented in Manukau City could not get consented in Waitakere. That is just nonsense. 
I am sorry we spent four point something million dollars on a royal commission inquiry to advise us on one thing that my colleagues will tell members I have been banging the drum about for a long time with one sentence. I had just one sentence. I said: “I want the big things to go up and the little things to go down.” In my electorate I can tell members it turned out that the people of Howick who felt incensed about local government amalgamation were not actually upset about being amalgamated into Manukau City or about even big things like wastewater water roading and all of those big networks and major issues; they wanted to have more say about their library swimming pool whether there would be a disabled car park beside the supermarket or whatever. It a really clear one-sentence rule. The big things should go up to one council and the small things should go down to local communities where they can have a say on the things that matter to them but it does not disturb things. In Wayne Mapp’s case the people of Devonport should have a say over things that relate to Devonport. In my case the people of Howick should have a say over things that relate to Howick. In Judith Collins’ case the people of Papakura should have a say over things that relate to Papakura. But none of those people should have a say over the Auckland-wide things to any more degree than anyone else. That is what has come about from democracy. 
When I hear members on the other side saying that this move is anti-democratic I am simply gobsmacked because I think this is one of the best things we could do for Auckland. First of all there will be 20 elected councillors. Eight of them will be elected at large. To hear some members in this House who came here from a party list and did not even get voted for themselves—not one person voted for those list members because one cannot—saying that to be voted at large across Auckland is anti-democratic is the antithesis of democracy. I believe that it is a damn good idea to have some people across the city who are not elected parochially who are not being elected to look after the Pakuranga area or the Manurewa area but who are there for the better part of Auckland. There will be eight such people. Then we come to strengthening democracy at the next level. Twelve of the 20 councillors besides the eight at large will be down at ward level: three at Manukau three at Auckland City two at Waitakere two at the North Shore one at Franklin and one at Rodney. They are all based on population. How can that not be democratic? 
I say to my colleagues and friends in the Maori Party that I worry about the concern I heard last night with people saying that Maori will not get a say. Actually Maori will get a very good say. They will be able to vote and they will be able to vote for people at large. I think that if they organise themselves then they have a damn good chance of successfully getting two or three members in the at-large vote to be candidates. That is how this system has been set up. Then the next thing which I thought the royal commission really failed on were the six pseudo-councils lying underneath the proposed Auckland Council. I am really pleased to have been on the Cabinet committee that made the decision that that was ridiculous and that there was no local representation in that. The big request we are getting is to have local democracy and local government so we have moved to 20 to 30 local boards. We are enhancing their functions and roles and we are strengthening them. They will have a lot of say over what goes on. But what I am really delighted about is that no longer will we have a building consent for this area one for that area and one for somewhere else. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 One knows when a Minister is really in trouble; it is when the Prime Minister has to explain in very extravagant terms how very confident he is in him. According to John Key Nick Smith has a brain the size of the South Island. But let us look at the facts: since becoming the Minister for ACC Nick Smith has botched the sacking of Ross Wilson has engaged in what senior actuaries and very respected commentators have labelled “irresponsible scaremongering” about the accident compensation scheme and has gagged and bullied the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board. He then attempted to do the same to ACC’s chief executive officer Dr Jan White right in front of my eyes by gatecrashing a select committee on ACC’s financial performance and actively trying to prevent her—in fact interrupting her—from answering some questions. 
That is just the start of it. Since Nick Smith took over the ACC portfolio we have seen the calculated manufacture of a non-existent crisis. We know that the ACC portfolio—some of us know this better than others—is complex and difficult but it does not need breathless irascible panicky behaviour in its management. It does not need the kind of panicky approach the Minister for ACC has taken and demonstrated in the last few months; it needs a calm and measured approach. 
Yes in areas where costs are rising we should ask what we can do about that. Well let us take a deep breath and look at what the scheme offers to see where costs might be curtailed. Why are they going up? In part they are going up because of an ageing population and because an ageing population takes longer to rehabilitate. But more than anything if the kinds of approach to the scheme this National Government has taken in the past are taken again we will see fewer visits to physiotherapists by order—in that one is allowed to have only five visits or six as I think it was in the 1990s. Then one had to jump through enormous hoops to get further treatment—that approach does not facilitate good rehabilitation. 
The scheme requires a calm approach a rational approach and a considered approach. None of those approaches have been demonstrated by the Minister who has responsibility for one of the jewels in the crown of our social structures in New Zealand. The accident compensation scheme is the envy of the world. It is the envy of the world because of its comprehensive coverage because of the low rates of levies and because it protects its injured citizens from the trials and tribulations of litigation. That is one of its greatest features. 
 As part of his plan to manufacture a crisis that is non-existent we have heard Nick Smith talk in the general debate about the accident compensation scheme and its solvency and that the reality is that accident compensation is effectively insolvent. Yet a few days later on  
Morning Report 
 David Parker said to him that he had been calling the scheme insolvent and that it was not. Nick Smith said he had not. This man cannot even agree with himself let alone get the facts right about accident compensation. He cannot maintain a consistent line from one week to the next because he has no comprehensive understanding yet. Although one hopes he might gain it in time he clearly does not yet have an understanding of solvency as it relates to the scheme. If a scheme has liabilities of $22 billion and assets of $10 billion there is an issue of solvency until we look at the period of time over which those liabilities are calculated. The liabilities are calculated over the lifetime of an injury. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 Well that was the previous Minister of Housing who presided over slum landlords and the previous Minister for ACC who presided over a huge budget blowout of about half a billion dollars and did not declare all the figures in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. That member should hang her head in shame. 
Today is a sad day for the Labour Party is it not? It is a sad day because the Rt Hon Helen Clark has decided to step down and leave this place. We heard her valedictory speech today as she moves off to her position in the UN in New York. Most New Zealanders and indeed the House will wish her well in that position and in what she will do for New Zealand. 
This is the end of an era for the Labour Party. Ms Clark was someone who held the Labour caucus extremely tightly. She really was very much a control freak. People in the Labour caucus were still confiding in Helen Clark who was the heir to everyone in the Labour Party and indeed in the Labour caucus. She was someone who had sheer intellectual grunt and knowledge. She will be sorely missed in the Labour caucus. What will happen from hereon in when Dr Cullen goes at the end of this month is that the Labour caucus will lose two tremendous leaders. That is another two leaders gone from the Labour Party. We will watch from this side of the House as the party ruptures and haemorrhages with those two strong leaders deciding to move on to better things. The House wishes them both well. 
It is time to reflect on the positioning that will take place in the Labour caucus. It has already started. The chat has already started down the corridors and around the water coolers about who will be the successor to Phil Goff. It is an embarrassment that Phil Goff got 6 percent as the preferred Prime Minister in the latest poll. Today Phil Goff will actually be feeling a little bit chipper. Do members know why? It is because he heard like the whole of the House heard during the Rt Hon Helen Clark’s valedictory speech this afternoon that when she started as the Labour Party leader her polling as preferred Prime Minister was 2 percent. So Phil Goff will be feeling very chipper that he is currently polling on 6 percent. 
I also want the House to know that when Phil Goff came to Rotorua recently to talk to the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce the Prime Minister had already been in a few weeks before and 350 people had turned up to the Rotorua Chamber of Commerce luncheon. When the leader of the Labour Party Phil Goff decided to turn up in Rotorua do members know what happened? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Four people registered. Do members know who one of those people was? It was the previous member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick so three people turned up to listen to Phil Goff. In fact that Chamber of Commerce lunch had to be turned down. We will watch with interest with the two leaders who are in the process of leaving the Labour caucus just what will happen and who might be the aspirants lining up behind Phil Goff. Will it be the Hon Ruth Dyson? Will it be the member who spoke before me the Hon Maryan Street? Will it the Hon Dr—do they have a doctor left? Will it be David Cunliffe or will it be someone like Clayton Cosgrove? It will be very very interesting to watch as I believe the Labour Party will now start haemorrhaging. The knives will start getting sharpened and we will watch from this side of the House with great interest. 
There was very positive news though this week and indeed today with the National Government’s understanding of MMP and its reaching out to the Green Party by signing a memorandum of understanding on home insulation energy efficiency and natural health products. On this side of the House the National Government understands MMP and how it works. Members opposite are the true Opposition. There we have 43 members of the haemorrhaging Labour Party and one from the Progressive party. So there are 44 members opposite against the balance of members in the House. It will be interesting to see how we progress forward and the way the National Government under John Key is realising how MMP works. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 At the present time New Zealand is suffering from its worst economic downturn in more than 50 years. Over the last 3 months of 2008 our economy contracted by around 1 percent and for the first 3 months of this year it has probably contracted by more than 1 percent. A net 47 percent of firms have said that activity worsened during that period. 
It is obvious that part of the reason for this downturn and the recession has been the financial crisis that has hit the world but more importantly the problems that New Zealand face have largely been of our own making. In fact if we look at the Government administration over the last 12 years we see that it is has probably been the worst period of Government in at least 70 years. I was part of the Kirk-Rowling Government and I cannot say that we were a particularly good Government; nor was the Muldoon Government of 1978-84. But the last 12 years have been the worst that I have ever seen and the previous Labour Government should be ashamed of its performance over the last 9 years. 
Why do I say this? That Government allowed Government expenditure to get out of control. In the 12 years between 1984 and 1996 Government spending in 2009-dollar terms actually went down. In that period Government expenditure in this country per head of population went down by $305 per year. In other words it was $305 lower in 1996 than it had been in 1984. But the reverse happened under a National Government between 1996 and 1999 and again under the Labour Governments that followed. In 2009 Government expenditure per head is $7567 more than it was in 1996 so a family of four is paying over $30000 in extra taxes to the Government—that is $587.07 a week to be precise. My question to the Labour Party is what do people get for that $587? Imagine how much better off people would be if they had that $587. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Those members do not like it do they? They robbed the people they claim to represent. They took $30000 off them and flushed it down the toilet on family commissions and all sorts of other things. 
 Not only that the consequences of transferring the $30 billion from the private sector to the public sector in that period which certainly included 3 years of National Government were a loss of productivity and a loss of output that probably cost New Zealand 2 percent a year or around 25 to 30 percent in productivity and wages. 
That has been the worst period of Government in living memory. Those previous Labour Government members should be ashamed of themselves. There was an increase for a family of four of $30000 in taxation. I ask the next speaker from Labour to tell me how much better it would have been for average families the people they claim to represent and whom I used to represent in Otara if they had had an additional $30000 in their pockets. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 My strong instinct is to spend the next 10 minutes refuting the falsehoods of the gentleman who has just resumed his seat. He believes that if he repeats something that is wrong often enough he will turn it into something that is right. But I have other things to do. I have to list the mistakes of the Hon Dr Richard Worth and that will take all of the time I have available to me. I will go through them one by one and see how far I get. 
I think that going to India as a private individual and then after getting there making a big noise about being a Government Minister was probably Dr Worth’s first mistake and it was highlighted in particular by one newspaper with the largest circulation in northern India which described him as a senior Minister. I think that shows poor judgment and I think that is gilding the lily. 
But the second mistake was having a shareholding and a directorship in New Zealand Aviation which was going into a joint venture with the Southern Institute of Technology to train Indian aviation pilots in New Zealand. Indeed that was one purpose of the gentleman’s trip. He claimed that New Zealand Aviation was non-trading—true—but he went to India to try to correct that inactivity. He claimed that he would not be part of the joint venture which I think is sophistry because the joint venture would have had as its underlying ownership New Zealand Aviation of which the gentleman was a shareholder and director. 
Dr Worth’s third mistake was that he forgot to tell the Prime Minister. He embarrassed the Prime Minister. Dr Worth told him that he was going to India on a general trade mission. He did not tell the Prime Minister about his shareholding in that company and therefore having caused the Prime Minister embarrassment he was labelled by the Prime Minister as “unwise and stupid” and he received a bollocking. He then arrived in Parliament duly bollocked and made a mess of question time. The first Tuesday the next Thursday the day after that today—this guy cannot answer questions straight in Parliament and that I think is his fourth mistake. 
Dr Worth’s fifth mistake was made on Monday of last week when he told the Prime Minister he would immediately get out of his shareholdings and on Tuesday of last week when he told the media he had already done so. He was wrong; he had not. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He was building up to April Fool’s Day. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was not an April Fool’s Day joke. He meant it. He said he meant it and he was on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 on Wednesday saying he was out. But he was not. He still had a shareholding in companies—Indian-focused companies. By Thursday he still had shareholdings in WSD Global Markets and the Indian Overseas Group. Therefore he got another bollocking. 
Dr Worth’s sixth mistake was that he told the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology last September that he would get himself out of his interests in New Zealand Aviation and then when she reported that in the  
Southland Times 
 he said she must have misunderstood him. Well Mr Assistant Speaker Roy you and I both know the chief executive of the Southern Institute of Technology and she is not someone who easily misunderstands people. 
Dr Worth’s seventh mistake was that he told Radio New Zealand including on yesterday morning that he had dropped his directorship of WSD Global Markets because he learnt that it was going to be listed. That is wrong again. WSD Global Markets has been going to be listed for months. If one asks anyone in Tasman Capital one will be told it has been an ongoing feature of that company yet Dr Worth first became a director of it only a few months ago. 
 So he must have known when he did his due diligence at the time of becoming a director that the company was going to be listed but on Radio New Zealand he gave as his excuse for stopping being a director the reason that the company was going to be listed. The real reason he got out of the job as a director and shifted his shares from a personal holding into a family trust was that he knew that WSD Global Markets had come to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office. In fact he was told that over a cocktail party in Auckland in September by an Auckland business person. 
Mistake No. 8 was that Dr Worth helped himself to facilitation services at Auckland Airport that he was not entitled to. One of his travelling companions could not stop bragging that he was facilitated too although in more recent days that travelling companion now denies it. 
Dr Worth fiddled his own Wikipedia entry—this is interesting—was caught and was told off by Wikipedia. That was done instead of doing proper housework like going to the Brookers website for the nation’s law directory and correcting his own entry which even today says Dr Worth is a consultant for Simpson Grierson—as he holds the job of a Minister of the Crown! 
A tenth mistake is that Dr Worth claims to have met all his own costs on that trip to India but will not table his receipts instead demanding to be taken at his word. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I acknowledge Helen Clark’s valedictory speech today and I wish her well in her new role at the UN. 
In the first few months of this Government National has kept its word on law and order. We have new legislation on parole new legislation on bail new legislation on DNA sampling new legislation on victims’ rights and just last week urgent measures dealing with sex offenders. We have kept our promise to the electorate and we are doing what we said we would do. 
Four Fridays ago I joined Henare O’Keefe at Flaxmere Skate Bowl. Henare is the gentleman who ran the “Enough is Enough” march against crime. Henare Des Ratima and a group of dedicated supporters have been initiating projects to address crime in Hawke’s Bay. On this particular night we were out with the marae’s recently acquired new barbecue “Tunutunu” talking to the kids at the skate bowl. These kids aged from just 8 years were bored had only 16-year-old gang aspirants as their leaders and largely had parents who did not give a damn that they were out roaming the streets at midnight. From watching and talking to these kids as they ate at the barbecue it became pretty clear that lifting the sentencing bar again and again will not address the issues that these kids face. National is cognisant that continually lifting the level of sentencing will not address the drivers of crime on its own. As a result I was proud to see Simon Power recognise this fact by way of his Drivers of Crime forum last Friday. I congratulate Minister Power and Pita Sharples who worked together on that initiative. 
Hawke’s Bay has been at the centre of addressing the drivers of crime and seeking alternative solutions for decades. Now that we have addressed some of the inadequacies in bail parole and victims’ rights here in the House it is my opinion that we must focus on top-of-the-cliff solutions if we are to deliver better outcomes in the crime debate. 
Just last weekend I attended Wairoa’s CACTUS youth programme graduation day. Dubbed “The Longest Day” last Saturday represented the graduation of the fourth group of Wairoa youth to complete the programme. “The Longest Day” started at 6 a.m. and finished at 12 p.m. combining a series of physical challenges and finishing with pulling a 17-tonne fire truck down the main street of Wairoa. It brought together an 8-week programme aimed at teaching the teenagers discipline goal setting and leadership. It was an amazing day and an amazing programme and the impact on the kids was clear to see. CACTUS was recently awarded the top award at the nationwide TrustPower Community Awards. I congratulate Detective Sergeant Mick Lander Mayor Les Probert and the Wairoa College principal Brian Simpson who together with many others pulled this amazing project together. The upshot of this initiative is that a number of communities around New Zealand are now trialling the programme. CACTUS is just one example of many programmes being initiated for youth in Hawke’s Bay and also around New Zealand. 
 I wish to bring one problem to the attention of the House and it goes to the heart of the matter. It is the glue that holds these programmes together. Normally the glue would be a family a whanau that reinforces the values the skills and the goals taught on these programmes. Unfortunately in many families these lessons are not reinforced when the kids return home and old habits come back very quickly. Regrettably this means that many very good programmes often have only short-term benefits. My challenge to the House is to come up with a long-term solution that offers effective competition to the gangs from an age when children are first being prospected by those gangs. 
The issue is boredom and parents who do not give a damn. I think that one answer lies in the many urban maraes that are flourishing around this nation. No one will ever replace the family and we should not try to replace it. But somehow we need to provide an ongoing alternative for kids who are bored whose parents do not give a damn and whose only role models are the 16-year-olds who are prospecting to be the next generation of gang members. I think that maraes can provide ongoing home and youth programmes that address the issues I have just spoken about. In Hawke’s Bay Henare O’Keefe and his team will be working to trial just such a programme over the next year. I look forward to updating the House on this project as we in the Hawke’s Bay look to progress a brighter future for our kids. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to initiate a series of four statements to be advanced by the Green Party over the next month. It is our intention to put forward for public consideration a general statement addressing four themes: the problems we face in today’s world the inadequacy of traditional politics to meet the challenge the Green political philosophy for the 21st century and the Green economic programme for the next decade. 
Humankind is entering the age of reckoning. In earlier times Earth’s erratic climate precluded sedentary agriculture and thus any ordered society. For the past 10 millennia a stable climate has allowed us to tame nature in a relatively empty world where resources were abundant and our numbers sparse. Through technological ingenuity we went forth and multiplied in the belief we were inheriting the Earth. Over the past two centuries the human population has grown from 1 billion to 7 billion and our terrestrial inn is full. In the past half-century the global population has doubled yet global GDP has grown fivefold in global trade and twentyfold in volume. The world economy driven by the classical economic precepts of resource exploitation and unlimited growth has overheated. In the past century each human’s Earth share has shrunk to less than half what it was—from 5 hectares to 2. Yet as our Earth share has shrunk our ecological footprint has expanded recorded now at 2.7 hectares per person. With greater numbers and a larger footprint we now record an ecological overshoot of 25 percent beyond the planet’s carrying capacity. We are today colliding with the limits of Earth’s finite resources—limits that are elastic but that can snap. Economic hubris precedes ecological collapse. 
As part of that overshoot this generation is bequeathing severe global environmental problems to the next leaving behind us an impoverished planet. We have engaged in extensive deforestation and desertification of the land surface and have damaged some 20 percent of the coral reefs. We have created an ozone hole in the atmosphere that is injurious both to agriculture and to human health. We are causing climate change of unprecedented magnitude and we face the catastrophic potential of global warming with storms and droughts ensuing crop failure and debilitating sea level rise. We are on the way to a human-induced mass extinction of Earth’s species—at our own hands. In the worst-case scenario over the next century human civilisation itself will be under severe strain. 
To compound matters in the past two decades we have engaged in a frenzy of unlicensed financial adventurism giving vent to individual and corporate greed of shameful immorality. The resulting financial meltdown has caused a global recession of proportions not experienced for many generations. Last century repressive communism imploded and a necrotic mindset withered away. This decade predatory capitalism has exploded and that voracious mindset is undergoing death throes of a character all its own. 
From the wreckage of such ideological excesses we search for a rational and balanced way of life but the short-term financial emergency obscures a clear view of the long-term ecological crisis. We in New Zealand believe ourselves to be insulated from the worst of both crises. Our banking system has been more responsible than elsewhere. Because of our rich national resource base and sparse population we run an ecological surplus. Yet we are an integral part of the rest of the world. The global fate is our fate. Any nation that believes it can survive the global ecological crisis and prosper with positive good fortune is not only self-centred but self-deluded. 
There is no choice. We must change our mindset our way of life our governmental management and our political direction or we shall experience ecological collapse. This goes for New Zealand as assuredly as it does for the rest of the global community. Traditional politics of the kind embraced by National and Labour in this country will fail us in our time of need. The Green Party with its new and positive philosophy offers the answer to these problems as my colleagues will explain in subsequent statements. 
I seek leave to table a document called  
Prosperity Without Growth? The transition to a sustainable economy 
. It is by the Sustainable Development Commission of the United Kingdom. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is seeking leave to table that document. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I also acknowledge the valedictory speech made by the Rt Hon Helen Clark and wish her well for the future. I am sure she will do New Zealand proud. 
I am delighted to have the opportunity to take a call tonight. My congratulations go to the National Government for its quick response and its common-sense analysis of the royal commission’s report on Auckland governance. The royal commission spent 20 months consulting talking to groups and considering numerous submissions. It is very clear that for far too long Auckland has struggled under multiple bureaucratic layers. The commission’s report although comprehensive unfortunately blurred some of the lines of authority and did not really address the local community’s need for representation and a strong voice. The Government has corrected these oversights in the report that has been tabled. The Government has digested the royal commission’s report and has moved quickly and decisively. 
The Government has retained the one unitary authority called the Auckland Council. This authority will be able to provide leadership and effectively deliver core services such as transport water and waste. The Auckland Council will have the responsibility of managing all the $28 billion of community assets and for planning and managing the region’s infrastructure. For far too long the Auckland region has suffered from inaction. Ninety-six territorial local authorities is 95 too many. Competing interests and infighting have resulted in a region that has stagnated. The Government’s decision—to have one council 20 to 30 community boards with 125 to 150 members one regional mayor with governance powers 20 councillors one long-term council community plan one district plan one waterfront agency one rates bill one rating system and so on—will provide the basis for Auckland to move ahead. 
For far too long the community has not had a voice. Rejecting the royal commission’s plan to have a local community council as the second tier and instead having 20 to 30 community boards with much more say over their communities will at last give communities the voice they have long sought. The changes the Government proposes will give Auckland communities the voice that they need and that has been stripped away in the past. 
 The Government is determined that communities will have their say. 
The community of Mt Roskill where I am a list MP has been demanding a greater say in how it functions. People have had a growing concern over the effect that alcohol has and they have wanted a say. That was clearly evident last year when the Mount Roskill South community came together to oppose the imminent opening of a liquor outlet only 100 metres away from two schools a kindergarten and a church. If the proposal had been successful there would have been 10 liquor outlets in the Mount Roskill South area. The community was very concerned about the growing issue of youth crime and alcohol. There was concern that alcohol would fuel that trend and that if there were more liquor outlets there would be a downward spiral. The community was concerned that the current legislation had no teeth and it was particularly concerned that the community had no say over where liquor outlets should be. So people came together and I was heartened by that—I was really heartened by that. They met on two occasions last year and proposed activities and they were going to go all the way back to the council to oppose the outlet. Fortunately common sense prevailed: the outlet did not open up and the community had a win. It was a victory for the community. 
It is really pleasing that under the new governance structure communities in Auckland will finally have a voice. They will have a voice about where alcohol outlets can be placed where they want their local parks how they want their libraries to function and what their concerns are over graffiti. They have not had a voice for many many years and this governance structure will bring back that voice. Most important the local community boards under the new governance structure will be permanent. The permanent functions are yet to be decided but they will be permanent; they will not be there at the whim and at the beck and call of local councils as is the case currently. 
The new governance structure is all about democracy and it is all about good governance. In 2010 Aucklanders will vote in the most important local body elections ever held in New Zealand. There will be one city one council and one mayor. People can vote for a mayor with real power to make a difference. They can vote for councillors to be accountable for all of Auckland. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I would like to talk today about leadership. I will begin by paying tribute to two extraordinary New Zealand leaders: Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. In particular I pay tribute to Helen Clark who made her valedictory speech today. 
During their time in Parliament we have seen huge transformation in New Zealand. We have become a nuclear-free and independent country in terms of our foreign policy. There has been massive change to the size and role of Government and significant constitutional evolution. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen led New Zealand with distinction for 9 years and were ably supported by competent Ministers like Phil Goff and Annette King. That was the first leadership team to really master MMP. It is worth remembering that the Labour Government in the entire 9 years it was leading New Zealand never had a majority either independently or in coalition. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had to put together each deal one at a time and they did it masterfully. They understood MMP and the importance of cross-party negotiations. I think a really important thing to remember is that their leadership style allowed them to do that. 
Now of course National is starting to get used to MMP as its relationship with the Maori Party shows. It applauds the Maori Party while sticking the knife into its front! It applauds it while it does that. The sad thing is that when National members did that today Pita Sharples fell for it. He fell for it. He is so happy having cups of tea with John Key—having little cups of tea and riding around in the BMWs—that he has been sucked in and has fallen for the applause and he has forgotten the people who put him there. 
But there is another thing that National has forgotten and has not caught up on. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen had very high standards for the Ministers in their Cabinet; John Key clearly does not. He has demonstrated in the last few weeks that he has no standards when it comes to the performance and conduct of his Ministers and no case illustrates that more than the case of Dr Richard Worth. John Key has given the Minister of Internal Affairs three final warnings. This begs the question: what is a final warning if someone gets three of them? How many more warnings will come? 
First of all let us run through the history of the matter. On 30 March Dr Worth was caught out travelling to India as a Minister and talking up aviation training in New Zealand all the while operating as a director of New Zealand Aviation Ltd and holding shares in and a directorship of the Indian Overseas Group. So what did John Key say about that? He said it was “stupid” and “unwise” that he had given the Minister a “bollocking” and that he did not expect to see the behaviour repeated. A few days later on 2 April it was revealed that Dr Richard Worth continued to hold shares in WSD Global Markets an Indian-focused trade company and the J P Morgan Indian Investment Trust despite assurances that he had resigned from “absolutely everything”. What did John Key say on 6 April when he was asked whether Dr Richard Worth had no more chances and no more lifelines? John Key said “Yeah.” Then on the following day 7 April what did John Key say when Richard Worth failed to disclose that he was a director of WSD Global Markets when its associated company in the Cook Islands WSBC Bank was being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office? John Key said he had had an “extensive discussion” with Richard Worth. So his third warning was an “extensive discussion”. 
So first of all John Key said Dr Worth was stupid and unwise gave him a bollocking and said the behaviour was not to be repeated. Then when asked whether Richard Worth had no more chances and no more lifelines John Key simply said “Yeah.” Then he said he had had an extensive discussion with Mr Worth. Where is the leadership? How many transgressions does it take before John Key will show some leadership and do something about it? John Key’s credibility is now at stake; why will he not take action against Richard Worth? 
There is more than just a conflict of interest here. Richard Worth should not be a Minister because he has done absolutely nothing. I went through Richard Worth’s media statements and written questions to try to find out what he has been busy working on since he has been a Minister. I found that he has done nothing. Apart from going to India and creating a whole host of problems for the Government Richard Worth has done nothing. So I put a whole bunch of written parliamentary questions to him but he did not answer them. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a shame it is to hear such barrel-scraping and desperate tactics from a Labour Opposition that is desperately searching for relevance in the current political climate. Today has been such a positive day and this week is such a historic week so I say to the Opposition: “Move on!”. They are words those members have heard many times from somebody they are going to miss—“Move on!”. I tell them to take a leaf out of this Government’s positive book. 
As I have mentioned today is a very historic day. It was an honour to be present in the House earlier this evening—in a packed and respectful House I might add—for the valedictory speech of the Rt Hon Helen Clark. The previous Prime Minister of course grew up in the Waikato town of Te Pahu just west of my electorate and we wish her well as she moves to New York to take up her role as administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. I will long remember being present today as she bade farewell and received such a warm tribute from all members regardless of their political allegiances. As a former history student of the University of Otago I am also looking forward to the valedictory address of my former lecturer the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as he takes his leave at the end of this month. And will not the Labour Party miss them both! 
Today is also historic as our senior whip noted earlier for the agreement that has been reached between the National Party and the Green Party. I have little doubt that our two parties will continue to find much to disagree about especially on social issues but—and it is a big but—I am delighted by this development as I was by the confidence and supply agreement that our party reached last year with the Maori Party as both of those parties have significant pockets of support in the wider electorate and both bring an important perspective to this House. I say “Kia kaha and thank you to both parties for your confidence and your courage in the steps you have taken.” 
As an enthusiastic member of National’s Bluegreens policy group I have long hoped to see greater consensus in our Parliament over crucial environmental concerns and with today’s memorandum of understanding I think we have taken a very significant step in that direction. 
 It is another sign of the responsiveness and wide focus of the John Key - led Government that such an arrangement is possible. I am pleased that the Greens have adopted the positive stance that we can and should work together on environmental matters where we have common goals and compatible policies. 
The immediate focus of that memorandum of understanding will be the pursuit of important measures to improve home insulation and to promote and achieve greater energy efficiency and the fair and appropriate regulation of natural health products. These are significant matters. I look forward to the constructive approach of our two parties and our support parties in Government leading to vital steps forward as we tackle some major challenges of our time. 
I acknowledge the important challenge that councils iwi farmers and other interested parties including the Government have committed to in cleaning up a taonga of my region—the Waikato River. It is vital work; it is a challenge that we must accept. I acknowledge the wonderful achievement of Hamilton Boys High School in taming a small part of that river as they stormed to victory for a third consecutive year last Saturday in the Maadi Cup—the feature race of the New Zealand Secondary School Rowing Association. It is a great pleasure to be able to put Hamilton Boys High School on the map in this House tonight. It was tremendous to be present on the bank on Saturday with thousands of others to cheer them on and I know that there were some other MPs who shared my delight that Hamilton triumphed once again. 
I point out that we are in a really positive time—it is a historic time. Let us not be sidetracked by the negativity and the barracking—although quite pleasingly the members have gone silent in the last couple of minutes on the other side. Let us look at the fact that we have a Government that is rising to the challenges and is working as constructively as we can and as widely as we can in the best interests of the country—long may that continue. I am very proud to be a part of it. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 25 March. 
Clause 5C Review of bylaws ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 My colleagues wish I had more than 2 minutes and 30 seconds to continue speaking about clause 5C but I am sure that in my limited time I will be able to recap on this particular clause. 
I remind members that this is the clause that covers the review of by-laws made under this legislation. It states: “The Council must review a bylaw made by it under section 5 no later than 5 years after the date on which the bylaw was made.” I think we have already traversed in this debate a number of concerns that this side of the Chamber has about this particular bill and why we feel that is quite likely a review will be needed significantly earlier than in 5 years. We have already heard about the problems with the definitions under clause 4 that create a situation where there will be a constant need for review and indeed the potential for litigation. 
Let us remind ourselves that clause 5 says the power to make by-laws is given to the council and the council can designate any public place as a specified place for the purpose of the Act and it is also the clause under which we identify who we think the gangs might be. This is the most problematic clause in this bill for members of the Labour caucus. We believe that clause 5C which allows for review after 5 years is in fact inadequate. It will be necessary to review this law significantly earlier than that. 
We also know that under clause 5—members will remember this from when we discussed it earlier—the possibility of “identifying an organisation association or group of persons as a gang” is likely to be the subject of significant litigation. We have already seen earlier in the bill that a gang has been defined as “any other specified organisation association or group of persons identified in a bylaw made under section 5”. So effectively what we are saying is that we are giving carte blanche for the Wanganui District Council to decide what a gang may be. Gangs will then move to change their names and try to find other ways of getting around the definition of “gang”. 
Once again as we have said before this bill is giving false hope to the people of Wanganui that the problem of gang intimidation can be dealt with by looking at what people wear rather than at what they do. The review clause clause 5C is simply saying that clause 5 is not adequate because it does not allow for a quick enough review of what we believe to be a very difficult and very unfortunate set of rules and definitions in the bill. 
The Wanganui District Council has throughout this debate called upon members of Parliament a number of times to look at their particular concerns. I reiterate from the Labour side that we understand the reasons why the people of Wanganui wanted this bill to come forward and we do understand that Chester Borrows brought this bill forward because of those concerns. But quite simply the provisions in clause 5 which are to be reviewed under clause 5C will not provide the people of Wanganui with that kind of assurance. It will in fact provide them with false hope and we believe that clause 5C is one among many flawed clauses in this bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5C be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5C agreed to. 
Clause 5D Further reviews of bylaws every 10 years 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will take a call on this particular clause because I want to speak in favour of Metiria Turei’s amendment that substitutes the words “5 years” for “10 years”. We have just voted through clause 5C which provides for a review of the by-laws under this legislation after 5 years. Clause 5D states that from that point on there should be a review no later than 10 years after the last review. For the very same reasons I have already talked about I believe that Metiria Turei’s amendment is correct. The problems we have identified with this bill will not go away after the first 5-year period. They need to be looked at again and again. 
 I believe that making criminal law for the specific district of Wanganui will create significant problems for the people of Wanganui and for the courts in the Wanganui region. That is the main reason why I believe we should be reviewing these by-laws not 10 years after the first 5-year period but indeed 5 years after each 5-year period. I think that is only fair for the people of Wanganui. If this bill passes we need to give the people of Wanganui an assurance that we will continue to keep our eye on this process. I believe we are giving people in Wanganui false hope that the problems caused by gangs in their region will somehow or other be eliminated by this particular law. For that reason we need to continue to review these by-laws. 
A 10-year period seems to be an excessively long period for those ongoing reviews to take place. Things can change a lot within a 5-year period; we certainly know that the behaviour of gangs can and does alter over time—their tactics change what they wear changes and the ways they identify themselves will no doubt change in that 5 to 10-year period. We need to ensure that the by-laws made under this bill are reviewed on a regular basis. Section 5D as it currently reads sets the date for the secondary reviews at 10 years after a by-law was last reviewed. Metiria Turei’s amendment substitutes 5 years for 10 years and I support that. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will of course be voting for Metiria Turei’s amendment to reduce the review period in the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill to 5 years. 
As the previous speaker Grant Robertson said the bill applies to only one area Whanganui—with an “h”. But we have to look seriously at the terms of review particularly because looking around this Chamber and thinking of insignia and identification systems for people we can see that the males seem to be a form of gang wearing the same sort of identification or insignia. Looking around I see that every male is wearing one of these jackets and one of these ties. I think they are a gang against the other sex represented in this House which tends not to be a member of a gang. It may be something that we have to review particularly in relation to one gender and a short review period might be appropriate for that. I also see red insignia on this side of the Chamber and blue insignia on the opposite side—blue boxes. That may mean there are two gangs. There could be confusion. 
A serious review is appropriate. I think it would be hypocritical to look at this bill as applying only to Whanganui. It has implicitly perhaps more general application which is why we should review it at frequent intervals and hopefully scrub the whole law off the statute book. It is offensive it will not solve anything and it will lead to mayhem. Thank you. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and contribute further to the discussion around section 5D of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill. 
As my colleague Grant Robertson has raised there are still questions over why 10 years is the appropriate time period for further review. I want to highlight that section 5C sets out an initial review period of 5 years. I even think that 5 years may in fact be quite a prolonged period for an initial review of a by-law. But after that point to set in place another 10-year phase of review is quite a lengthy one particularly given that the other mechanisms for residents of Wanganui to have their say—on whether they perceive that for instance the by-law is in the appropriate place or whether they feel that the appropriate gangs have been captured by the by-law—may be limited. In order to investigate that fully I think it might be useful to go back and look at the preceding period that impacts on the by-law being set. 
In the process of setting a by-law the Wanganui District Council—the provisions are set out in clause 5—may make a by-law designating the public place that the by-law will apply to and it also at that point identifies the organisation. In doing so it is required as set out in the Local Government Act to go through special consultative procedures to set that by-law and rightly so. 
Having said that I think it is important that this House consider who in our communities is the most likely to submit on such a process. When a local council goes out and seeks the view of its community in a full consultation period who is the most likely to have their say during that consultative period? I think that those from the lower socio-economic sections of our community or from socially deprived areas are probably less inclined to have their say in that process. I imagine that there will be very strong advocates in favour of a by-law applying to their particular leafy suburb; that is less likely from people from other particular areas. 
Having identified a particular issue a council goes ahead and sets its by-law. The people who are affected by that by-law will have to wait a good 5 years before they can go back before the council to assess whether the by-law has been working. If that slides through it will be another 10 years before it comes up again. I think that period is probably too long. I think it is right that Metiria Turei has pointed out that it might be too long and in that case I think it is important that we consider a reduction—a halving—of that period in clause 5D. As all the members of this House know 10 years is a very long time when it comes to by-laws like this and when it comes to setting down what might be relevant in our communities. 
Let us reflect back on where we were politically 10 years ago. In 1999 New Zealand was a very different place: it did not have KiwiSaver it did not have Working for Families and it did not have interest-free student loans. It did not have a lot of the genius things that the previous Labour Government brought in. A lot can change in a decade as we have seen. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: A lot of improvements. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: A lot of improvements as my colleague rightly points out. I would like to hear from Mr Borrows why 10 years is the secondary review period set out in clause 5D. I would like to hear the rationale behind that. Also are there any other mechanisms for review in that 10-year period that the local council could apply or would the community simply have to wait for that review period before it could adjust the two issues that the council has the ability to set? 
One of those issues is the area that is covered and the other is the gangs themselves that would be covered. I want to reflect on how prominent some of the gangs that we see now were back in 1999. I would question whether the Bloods and the Crips had quite the same presence in our communities 10 years ago as they do now. We have even seen recently in our papers that a gang associated with the Hell’s Angels has shown up in Nelson. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise because the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern raised a couple of questions that she wanted some sort of clarification on. It is my pleasure to be able to do that. 
Jacinda Ardern talked about where we were 10 years ago and she asked why there was a 10-year period for further reviews of by-laws. She reflected on the ability of the Wanganui District Council to have another look at a by-law and asked whether it had to wait 10 years. Well a number of Labour Party representatives were involved in the select committee process. The most eminent of course was Martin Gallagher. We have reflected upon Martin’s contribution on a number of occasions. There was also the Hon David Benson-Pope the Hon Darren Hughes and the then Government support member Ron Mark. Clause 5C which we have just completed debate on states that the first review will be no later than 5 years after the by-law was made. Clause 5D states that subsequent reviews are to be no later than 10 years after it was made. The ongoing review period of 10 years was not the subject of considerable debate by members on either side of the select committee. The point is made that the review can be done at any time. The Wanganui District Council can review what gangs are covered and which areas may be designated as prohibited areas. 
I note too that there seems to be a little note of cynicism whenever members talk about the various places where gang patches may be prohibited or banned. People always talk about leafy suburbs. There has been some concern that only the upper crust areas of Wanganui would be areas where patches are prohibited. If anybody from the other side of this debate bothered to look at the papers put out by the Wanganui District Council then he or she would see that places right across Wanganui including the areas of Aramoho Castlecliff Wanganui East and Gonville have a resident gang population and they are areas where gang patches will be prohibited as well to prevent intimidation. 
I think it is also important to note that under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 consultation is required as part of a review. Even if the Wanganui District Council decides to make no change it still has to go through the whole process under section 83. This involves making the proposal available in written form for a full month right across the electorate. People are able to uplift it at no expense through the courts libraries and district council offices and service centres. Wide-ranging consultation takes place with people who want to take part in the debate. 
I will make another point. Members have talked about the ability of this legislation to work and they have made quite scathing comments about whether it will work. It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition said in his initial speech that the only reason Labour would not support the bill at this time is that it wanted to see how the legislation in South Australia was working. He made no suggestion that this legislation would not work for Wanganui. I think that is an important point to note. 
My final point is a comment on the point raised by the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern about the presence of the Bloods and the Crips 10 years ago. Well the Bloods and the Crips do not have a significant presence in Wanganui which is where this legislation will apply. The bill names the gangs that do have a presence there. The whole point of the legislation is that if a gang develops a presence in Wanganui in 2 years’ time or in 18 months 6 months or 3 years the Wanganui District Council can quite quickly move to place it on a parallel schedule under the by-law provision after going through the process under section 83 of the Local Government Act. It can have a review and make a change at any time it likes as long as there is a 1-month public review period. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5D be agreed to: 
to omit “10 years” and substitute “5 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5D be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5D agreed to. 
Clause 5E Procedure for and nature of review 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5E be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5E agreed to. 
Clause 5F Bylaw not reviewed within specified time frame revoked 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 5F be agreed to: 
to omit “2 years” and substitute “1 month”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 5F be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 5F agreed to. 
Clause 6 Prohibition of display of gang insignia 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 We are opposed to clause 6. We are opposed to the entire bill actually. This bill the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—and that should be “Whanganui” with an “h”—is aimed at outlawing the wearing of gang insignia in specified public places. We do not disagree with the goal of cracking down on gangs but this bill simply will not work. 
Banning gang insignia from public places follows an “out of sight out of mind” rule. It addresses the issue of what gang members wear as opposed to what they do when the very real reality is that it is gang violence and criminal gang activity that require serious attention not the wardrobes of the gang members. 
 The bill is built on the premise that “the wearing or displaying of gang insignia particularly in public places has contributed to an increasing gang problem in the Wanganui district. It sought views from members of the public on this bill by means of a referendum. We understand that the council does not believe that the enactment of this bill would solve the gang problems in Wanganui but considers that it could form the beginning of a solution.” So the bill “could form the beginning of a solution” but “the council does not believe that the enactment of this bill would solve the gang problems in Wanganui.” With that in mind why would we support this bill and in particular clause 6? 
When I read this bill I think of my 21-year-old cousin who 2 years ago was involved in a youth gang. I think about the tattoo on the side of his arm showing the insignia of his youth gang. When I consider this bill in relation to his involvement with that gang I wonder what he and his peers would think of it. As far I am concerned I think they would go out and get more T-shirts and caps printed with the name of the youth gang on them. It all comes down to status. All this bill does effectively is reinforce the status—albeit a negative status—of gangs. 
For many gang members the naming of their gang in legislation would be perceived as a badge of honour. That is effectively what we are doing as we try to outlaw gang insignia in public places. As I said in my maiden speech the negative stigma imposed on our youth impacts on their self-perception but they thrive on it regardless because it is attention none the less. When we say to them that a gang is illegal we give them attention and some sort of status. Effectively the bill will do the complete opposite of what it is expected to do. 
If the Government thinks that this bill in all reality is a good idea then why is it not imposing it on the rest of New Zealand instead of just Wanganui? Obviously even the Government does not believe that this bill is a good idea; otherwise it would spread it across the rest of the country. 
As I was saying earlier the biggest problem with this bill is that it serves as a badge of honour for our gangs by giving them some sort of status. Effectively the bill will not do anything to stop the gang problem because it does not address what the gangs are doing wrong in terms of criminal activity; all it does is address the issue of their wardrobes. Thank you very much Mr Chair. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on clause 6 which states: “No person may display gang insignia at any time in a specified place in the district.” and makes one of the penalties for that a fine of $2000. I thought I would consider some of the innocent members of the public who could if this legislation is used incorrectly be impacted by it. When I wondered what would be a good example to draw on I thought of the ACT Party. I know that Mr Garrett from ACT has some strong views on this bill and I wondered whether the ACT Party could be impacted by it. 
The bill states that people may not “display gang insignia at any time in a specified place in the district” so let us think first of all about the definition of gang insignia. Clause 4(1) states that gang insignia “(a) means a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of an affiliation with or support for a gang; and (b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign symbol or representation … is attached”. Let us think for example about Rodney Hide’s bright yellow jacket. If we take out the word “gang” we see clearly that Rodney Hide’s bright yellow jacket meets the definition of gang insignia. 
Let us consider the definition of a gang. Clause 5(3) states that a gang “has the following characteristics: (a) a common name or common identifying signs symbols or representations;”. Well the ACT Party clearly has those does it not? It has a common name identified signs and symbols and so on. 
Under clause 5(3)(b) a gang is a group whose “members associates or supporters individually or collectively promote encourage or engage in a pattern of criminal activity.” I thought that the ACT Party could not be covered by that definition but actually it can because Rodney Hide went on TV not long ago and encouraged members of the public to break the law. Is that not right? I cannot remember the exact provision of the Building Act he was referring to but he was encouraging people to breach the Building Act. So Rodney Hide suddenly meets all the criteria for the ACT Party to be deemed to be a gang. 
Moana Mackey 
: Let’s vote for it! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Maybe we should vote for it—I do not know. That is a worry—who else could be covered by this bill? Just today or maybe yesterday Kate Wilkinson encouraged retailers to breach the law. So suddenly National meets all the requirements to be deemed to be a gang. Let us look at some of the penalties that could be imposed. Those members could be arrested on the spot for wearing their gang patch. If National members wore their National Party rosettes in Wanganui and went to an area where gang patches were prohibited they could potentially be arrested. We might think that that could not happen because those members would know they were not allowed to wear their National Party rosettes in the specified places in case they were deemed to be gang members. Clause 5A “Signposting of specified places” states that those places must be signposted. But as my colleague Grant Robertson pointed out earlier in the debate those signposts will end up taking pride of place in gang headquarters around the country so there will be no signposting. 
The other way we could find out about specified places would be to go to the council building to inspect the by-laws which this bill allows people to do. But as I pointed out the other day in order to go to the council building to inspect the by-laws the members would first have to go into the area where they were prohibited from wearing their gang insignia. Suddenly our ACT and National colleagues who were wearing their insignia—and who met all the requirements in this bill to deem them to be gang members—would be breaking the law by going into a specified area in order to find out what the law was in the first place. This really highlights does it not the risks in making these kinds of laws on an ad hoc basis. 
Fundamentally the National Government knows that this is a bad bill because we are discussing it only as a local bill on members’ day. National does not support this bill enough to make it a Government bill that applies to the whole country. If National members thought that this bill was worthy of pursuit they would pick it up. This would not be just a local bill; it would apply to the whole country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 6 agreed to. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Since the Committee stage debate began a week or two back there has been a very significant development that affects this bill. We have already debated the title clause but since that time the New Zealand Geographic Board has agreed and proclaimed that “Wanganui” should be spelt “Whanganui”. It is important that this bill if it goes through—and of course I hope that it does not—should at least have the correct name in the title. I seek the leave of the Committee to move an amendment to the title clause to insert an “h” after the “w” in the first word of the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought to insert an “h” into “Wanganui”. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Clause 7 Powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 In this debate on clause 7 I want to draw attention to some concerns which have already been expressed in this debate about the extent of the powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia. As many Labour speakers have already made clear in this debate we certainly do not support gangs. We think that gangs are a blight on our society. But this bill does little to deal with what gangs do; it simply deals with what gangs wear. 
Clause 7—and indeed clause 8—is where we get into the question of what the police may do in terms of how they arrest people and what they may do to seize and remove gang insignia. I think this raises some concerns about the way in which this clause is laid out but what concerns me is the fact that this bill will be able to pass through the House because of the support of the ACT Party. I thought that the ACT Party members would be leaping to their feet when we came to clause 7 because this is the kind of freedom-type issue—the freedom to wear things the freedom to move about the place; in this case Wanganui—that I thought the ACT Party was founded on. 
Rodney Hide in the first reading of this bill touched on some of the issues that are covered by clause 7 and I quote him: “Freedom is about the individual and the measure of a free society is how we move to protect the minority from the majority. If the majority thinks that people wearing glasses should be locked up that is not freedom or democracy;”. I certainly would share those thoughts as a man who wears glasses but the point Rodney Hide was making was that freedoms and things that were important to the ACT Party were the kinds of reasons why he opposed this bill. 
Remarkably that is no longer the case. The ACT Party is now in favour of this bill a bill that Rodney Hide called rubbish. We now know why the ACT Party is in favour of this bill and why its members appear to have traded away their beliefs and their principles about freedom. It is because they have done a deal about the “three strikes” bill. They have done a deal with National—or they are hoping to do a deal with National—to move the “three strikes” bill through the House. We have already seen National send it off to a select committee so that was stage one of the deal. Rodney Hide told people who watched the  
Back Benchers 
 show on TVNZ 7 that a deal had been done to allow ACT to support this bill. The last time we were here I think David Garrett told us the bill was nonsensical but that ACT would still support it. That is a remarkable position. 
The principles about freedom and about the ability for people to move around the district where they live have now been completely ignored by the ACT Party. ACT members have simply moved on from that and have said that they will not stand up for their principles. They will not look at a clause like clause 7 and ask about issues of freedom and the movement of people and they will not ask what the consequences are beyond Wanganui. 
The really important point here is that because we are making this law on a district-by-district basis we are at the moment looking at an issue like freedom of movement—an incredibly basic right—just in relation to Wanganui. We are not thinking about the wider consequences of making criminal law in this way. We are not thinking about what these things actually mean. We know that David Garrett does not much believe in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He says that we have got too hung up on people’s rights. But even he could see that this particular part of the bill was flawed. But no ACT has decided that it will flip-flop and simply take a deal whereby it will vote for this bill in the hope that it will get its “three strikes” legislation through the House. 
I can quote what Mr Hide told the  
Back Benchers  
show. He said: “We voted for it this bill because what it’s going to do is get ‘three strikes’ through this Parliament.” Those are Rodney Hide’s exact words. Shame on the ACT Party for turning its back on its principles! Sir Roger Douglas is here. He founded the ACT Party and even though I disagreed virulently with what the party stood for it at least I knew what it stood for. It stood for some principles about freedom—freedom of choice and freedom of association—and here we are debating clause 7— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Clause 7 is quite specific about matters to be addressed. We have had a wide-ranging dissertation about ACT’s principles. I ask that you bring the speaker to clause 7. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a valid point. The Committee stage is a clause by clause debate. It is about the nuts and bolts of a bill. Freedoms important as they are are things that one might want to bump up against once or twice in a speech but this debate is about the nuts and bolts. This is not a part by part debate. It is a clause by clause debate and it should be about the nuts and bolts of the wording of the clause. I invite the member to continue. He has 27 seconds. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I will make every one of them worthwhile Mr Chair. Clause 7 is indeed about the powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia. Important issues in terms of rights have been raised and I would have expected the ACT Party members to be on their feet immediately. But clearly they have traded their principles away. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand and take a call on clause 7 of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill—a short call hopefully as we do not want to hold this up any more than it needs to be but I want to follow on from my colleague Grant Robertson. This clause deals with “Powers of arrest and seizure in relation to persons displaying gang insignia”. This is an issue that the ACT Party should be very concerned about. This is really where the rubber hits the road when it comes to the freedoms that my colleague was talking about. All that I can deduce as my colleague Chris Hipkins said when he referred to the ACT Party fitting the description of a criminal gang under this legislation is that just like a criminal gang its members have all been pulled into line they have all been beaten around the chops and not one of them is allowed to say what he or she really thinks. The irony of that perhaps should not be lost on members. 
This is a very important clause— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why doesn’t Roger Douglas tell us what he thinks? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Well he has only one speech and he gave it during the general debate so we should not expect that he is going to stand up and take a call on this. 
In relation to powers of arrest and seizure clause 7(1) states: “A constable may without warrant—(a) arrest a person whom the constable has good cause to suspect” may be breaching the Act. This is a very extensive power to give to the police. Let us look at south-east Los Angeles. A lot of people have talked about different gangs but what people perhaps do not know when they talk about the Crips and the Bloods is that in fact there are East Side Crips and West Side Crips. When we talk about displaying gang insignia and we go back to the definition of gang insignia in clause 4(1) we see that paragraph (a) states that gang insignia “means a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of an affiliation with” a gang. I tell members that Labour members have had a photo emailed through to us where the Minister for Social Development and Employment is doing the West Side Crips sign. This is a hand gesture that represents a criminal gang the West Side Crips and I want to know whether— 
Hon Member 
: A gang insignia! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —that gang insignia would be captured under the legislation. Obviously a hand gesture that represented a criminal gang falls under the ambit of this legislation. It would be interesting to see that gang insignia being “destroyed or otherwise disposed of”—and it is gang insignia. It is the Minister for Social Development and Employment in the photo. I notice that the person who has emailed it to us has blurred out other faces to protect the innocent but the Minister is clearly doing the West Side Crips insignia. This is very interesting and it comes to the heart of why Labour opposes this legislation. We are really getting into bad law when we have to have discussions of this nature but they are very real discussions. The member in the chair Chester Borrows has said— 
Paul Quinn 
: What about the law of common sense? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What was that sorry? 
Paul Quinn 
: What about the law of common sense? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The law of common sense! Mr Paul Quinn wants to lecture us all on the law of common sense. I look forward to his taking the next call so that he can in his usual erudite way lecture members on what he believes to be the law of common sense. I think we would all benefit greatly I say to Mr Quinn from his expertise displayed every day in this Chamber on that particular issue. We look forward to that greatly I say to Mr Quinn. 
One of the issues that we have raised—and we have raised it consistently—in terms of powers of arrest and seizure is what happens when a person is in an area and has no reasonable way of knowing that he or she is not allowed to wear gang insignia. The signs will go missing. They will be put in gang headquarters and probably student flats as well. They will be stolen. So someone walking into an area where a constable has powers of arrest and seizure for wearing gang insignia might not even know that he or she is breaking the law. Under this Act those people have no defence. In fact under section 5A(2) already agreed to by National and ACT if a sign is not up and someone does not know he or she is breaking the law it is not a defence for him or her to say “I didn’t realise this was a part of Wanganui I wasn’t allowed to be breaking this by-law in.” 
How can the ACT Party support that provision? How can the ACT Party say that when there are no signs telling people they are breaking the law because they have been taken down and hung up in gang headquarters? Those signs are the only way under this bill that people can know they are breaking the law unless they go down to the council and check every single by-law on arrival in Wanganui to make sure they are not breaching any of them during their visit. Of course everyone does that when they go for a holiday in lovely Wanganui! How can the ACT Party support a provision of arrest and seizure for someone who has not even been told he or she is breaking the law? 
All I can say—and I will come back to what my colleague Chris Hipkins said—is that the ACT Party is truly behaving like a gang on this bill. ACT members are not allowed to speak freely and they are not allowed to separate themselves out from the rest of their gang. If they do they are given a bollocking. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 7 agreed to. 
Clause 8 Power to stop vehicle to exercise powers of arrest or seizure 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 8 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 8 agreed to. 
Clause 9 Laying of information for offence under this Act 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 9 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 9 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 on behalf of  
Hon Murray McCully (National—East Coast Bays) 
: I move  
That the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. 
This bill is promoted by the Eden Park Trust Board. It introduces changes to the governance arrangements for Eden Park New Zealand’s largest stadium and one with a rich sporting and social history and an iconic international reputation. Eden Park has been named as the finals venue for the Rugby World Cup in 2011 and it is likely to be included in the venues for New Zealand’s co-hosting of the Cricket World Cup in 2015. But it had more humble beginnings. In 1899 the Kingsland Cricket Club leased a large space cleared it of rocks and used the space for friendly games. The Eden District Cricket Club purchased 15 acres in 1903 and the park was formally opened on 9 November 1903. 
 The land was in constant danger of flooding at that time and was often completely submerged. Difficulties with the site continued and in 1910 the Auckland Cricket Association purchased the grounds with funds guaranteed by a number of Auckland gentlemen who became the registered proprietors of the park and in essence the first trustees. 
In 1914 the Auckland Rugby Football Union entered into a 21-year lease of the park for every football season and hence began the joint use of the ground. The inception of the lease allowed the drainage to be improved and the original grandstands to be built one by Auckland rugby and one by Auckland cricket. The stand built by Auckland cricket remains today and overlooks the outer oval. In 1924 the trustees the Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Football Union entered into an agreement whereby the beneficial interests of the two sporting bodies were recognised by the trustees. A board of control comprising representatives of the three parties was set up to manage the park. In 1955 the Eden Park Trust Act was passed giving the complex arrangements the force of law and it provided the basis on which the developments over the past 50 years were instigated. 
Over the years the park has been the venue for many notable events far too numerous for me to name today. Some of the highlights have been the New Zealand cricket team’s first-ever test victory in 1957 not to mention its lowest-ever score against England 2 years earlier; the 1992 Cricket World Cup opening match and semi-final; the All Blacks’ first Bledisloe Cup match in 1931; and the unforgettable Springbok test of 1956 in front of over 61000 spectators. For me the favourite is of course the victory in the final of the first Rugby World Cup in 1987. The park has also been the venue for the 1950 British Empire Games the 1988 Rugby League World Cup final hockey tests against India and Pakistan football internationals and athletics events including the Auckland school athletics championships from 1939 to 1965. In addition the park has been used for public events including royal visits and religious events. 
I now come to the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill which makes amendments to the Eden Park Trust Act 1955 to implement new governance arrangements for Eden Park. In order to meet the International Rugby Board’s requirements as a finals venue for the Rugby World Cup it is necessary to redevelop the park by expanding its capacity so as to accommodate over 60000 spectators for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. The Crown and the Eden Park Trust Board have agreed on matters relating to the funding and management of the redevelopment and the establishment of a new structure for the long-term governance of Eden Park. The trustees the Auckland Cricket Association and the Auckland Rugby Football Union recognise the significant financial contribution that is being made to the redevelopment of the park by this Government and they have agreed to open the governance and use of the park to the wider community in partnership with Auckland cricket and Auckland rugby. 
The new governance structure will ensure the recognition of the interests and rights of the park’s beneficiary bodies the public ownership interest in the park and the desire for broader community use to be made of the venue. A trust deed has been prepared and it sets out the detail of the new governance arrangements. The deed is modelled on that which is in place for the Westpac Stadium right here in Wellington. The deed is incorporated as a schedule of the bill and it sets out the new constitution functions and powers of the Eden Park Trust Board. The trust deed broadens both the community involvement in the ground and the park’s uses. It makes provision for five Crown-appointed trustees from the wider Auckland region and one each from the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Auckland Cricket Association together with two appointments from the current trust board. After 3 years the current board members will be replaced by one each from the Auckland Rugby Football Union and the Auckland Cricket Association. The deed also includes provisions to deal with the transition from the current trust board to the newly established board. 
The redevelopment of Eden Park is on schedule to be completed by October 2010. It is highly desirable that the new board of trustees is in place as early as possible to enable appropriate governance and management operations to be in place prior to the completion of the redevelopment. 
I pay tribute to the current trustees of the Eden Park Trust Board who are promoting this bill and to the members of the board of control former and current trustees and members of both Auckland cricket and Auckland rugby who have for over a century given their time unselfishly and been responsible for developing the park. Through their endeavours and their commitment Auckland has a sporting stadium that is internationally recognised. Eden Park has played host to a wide variety of sporting and other events and brought a large economic benefit to Auckland and it has achieved all of that as an independent trust. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I am eminently qualified to speak on the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill which Labour supports—I live only 10 minutes away from the stadium. But I was just wondering who that last speaker was. Does anyone know? He looked very familiar. Is he a councillor? [ 
Interruption 
] So he is an Auckland city councillor. It is the Richard Worth approach to dealing with political issues. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Conflicts of interest! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I do not know whether a trustee of the Eden Park Trust Board deals with conflicts of interest. 
The purpose of the bill is non-controversial. The bill is designed to clean up the trust deed to give the trustees flexibility to deal with the run-up to the Rugby World Cup in 2011 to change and amend as necessary the governance arrangements of the trust deed and to obviate the need for the trust to come back to Parliament whenever it needs to make a change to the deed. It is very important. It gives the trust board the flexibility it needs. In future the trustees will be able to agree amongst themselves on the changes they need and those amendments can be confirmed by regulations made by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The bill gives the board an important level of flexibility as it prepares for the world cup and any potential legal bottlenecks will effectively be removed in advance. 
One of the interesting provisions of the bill is that the trustees are not personally liable under the bill; it extends protection to all the trustees past and present. Interestingly it does not include any event or circumstance that could have been avoided by the trustees exercising a reasonable standard of care. Presumably that means that if the trust board gets David Beckham to come and play a game of football and the board loses a pile of money over it it will be liable for that debt. 
The real reason this bill is important is that the New Zealand economy is very very dependent on big international events coming to New Zealand and we have got a lot riding on the Rugby World Cup in 2011 in terms of our tourism and also our national self-esteem. Given some of the dire predictions about how long it will take for our economy to climb out of this global recession and given the lack of any decent stimulus policies from this National Government we really have to make sure that we are as well positioned— 
Paul Quinn 
: Come on! That was a low blow. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —as well positioned I say to Mr Quinn as we possibly can be in the international tourism market. We get only one shot at the world cup. It is absolutely important that we get it right. 
 So let us just pause for a moment and think about what it is worth to us for this event to go ahead and to do so successfully. The economic analysts project that it will be worth $476 million in direct additional expenditure in New Zealand outside of Auckland an additional $262 million in expenditure within Auckland additional GDP in the New Zealand economy of $507 million and additional GDP in the Auckland economy of $240 million. There is a huge amount at stake—something like $1.5 billion. We have to see this measure from a wider perspective. It is about the future of our economy the future of our tourism market and the crucial role that the Rugby World Cup plays in that. It is like the Olympics; it is essential that we make a favourable impression on the many thousands of visitors who come to New Zealand. 
When I think about tourism and how well we are placed I have to say it reminds me of how little progress we have made—in fact how far back we have gone—in the last few months since the election. There has been a complete failure to reposition New Zealand’s tourism industry as a sustainable industry. I am reminded of the complete failure by the Minister of Tourism to rebut the claims that were made as part of the air miles debate in Great Britain—one of our most important markets for tourism. It was a terrible shame to see the Minister of Tourism completely fall into a trap and argue how badly poor little New Zealand had been dealt to by the people involved in the air miles debate. Strongly positioning New Zealand’s tourism industry as sustainable would have been a much more intelligent approach. 
I want to discuss another aspect of Eden Park for a moment. 
 According to a clipping from the  
Australian 
 newspaper—and some members in the House may have heard this story—when workmen were demolishing the main stand in preparation for the current upgrade they found a secret escape route that had been built for the Springbok rugby team in 1981. For the sake of members on the other side of the House I probably should explain what the 1981 Springbok Tour was. Most of the members on the other side do not even know what happened in 1981 let alone how they felt about it. 
Paul Quinn 
: Some of us had a choice. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: For the information of Mr Quinn it was all about a rugby team from apartheid South Africa coming to play rugby in defiance of an international boycott. Apparently a local builder was called in only days before the famous flour bomb test at Eden Park to build a series of escape hatches. He built a hatch up through the roof of the changing rooms. He cut holes and built a series of interconnecting doors between the offices. The escape route was built to spirit the Springbok team out of the stadium if things got too hot and heavy for them with the protesters and so on. 
Today we can see in a wonderful little echo down through history that it would be great for the National Government to have a similar kind of escape hatch so that its members could scuttle away from the public outrage at all the election promises that have been broken in the last few months. One that springs to mind today—it is at the very very top of our minds—is the complete abdication of any moral commitment to their election campaign promises to consult the people of Auckland about the findings of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What happened to that? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Nothing. They had no answer this afternoon in the House. They had nothing to say on this issue even though it is there in black and white in their election manifesto. There are many many more broken promises and I want to touch on just half a dozen of them. 
The National Party said it would clean up the streets. Its members made a huge fuss about their 100-day plan and they rushed all sorts of legislation through under urgency. What was the ultimate result? I can tell members that the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill amounted to nothing more than window dressing. I have to be honest and say that it was extremely disappointing to see that kind of performance during National’s first 100 days. National promised a very dramatic 100 days. It used urgency. It broke every democratic and constitutional convention in the book by not submitting any of that legislation to select committee scrutiny and not allowing the public to make submissions. 
Chris Hipkins 
: No regulatory impact statements? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: No none at all. It is extraordinary. If National members really had wanted to do something of substance on law and order they would have brought into effect the Order in Council of Labour’s 2007 legislation requiring that a minimum of two-thirds of a sentence be served before parole was granted. But no. What did we see instead? We saw window dressing and small ideological gestures. Instead of making the ridiculous claim that murder and other crime are out of control—and we now know that is a complete lie; anyone who saw the information in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Tuesday knows that the murder rate has been cut in half in the last two decades—they might have done something constructive like putting in place Labour’s early intervention initiatives to stop child abuse. 
That is rather a long way of saying that Labour supports the first reading of the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does it do? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is a very important amendment that allows the trustees of the Eden Park Trust Board to make the amendments to their trust deed that they need to make without having to come back to Parliament and endure any more speeches like this. Labour supports this bill. It is non-controversial. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I remind members that the next speeches are to be 5 minutes in length. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 That was an entirely forgettable contribution from an entirely forgettable member. In fact I do not even recall that member’s name. But that is not surprising because the contribution was not worthy of the Eden Park Trust Amendment Bill. It came as a complete surprise to me at the end of that forgettable member’s dissertation to discover that in fact Labour is supporting this bill. That speech was hardly an indication of that so if that is the way that the Labour caucus members are going to behave from now on we just have to wonder do we not about how they will perform in the future. 
This is a good bill. It is a bill introduced by the Hon Murray McCully and I will dignify this bill with a decent speech on it and some good debate on the topic unlike the previous member who rambled through some sort of strange Labour Party speech that was a mystery to me anyway. Most important I think the bill was excellently supported by my friend and colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who is also from Auckland. The bill amends the Eden Park Trust Act 1955 which established the Eden Park Trust Board. Invested in that trust is the property that is Eden Park. It is a condition of an agreement that Eden Park is to hold the Rugby World Cup final in 2011. That is of course exciting for Auckland and for New Zealand but in order for that to happen Eden Park needs to be upgraded in order to hold a capacity of 60000 people. This is a significant event for New Zealand and a significant event for Auckland so Eden Park needs to be ready for it and so does the legislative framework that supports that. It is a shame that the previous speaker did not really touch on these important issues; he was too busy being a Labour member. But there you are! 
In 2007 the Crown entered into an agreement with the Eden Park Trust Board that it would underwrite $190 million for the redevelopment of Eden Park. Of course the Government’s proviso was that changes were to be made to make the park’s trust board and management structure more representative of the public and more representative of the whole region. Because the trust had been created by statute of necessity therefore it can be changed only by statute. So the purpose of this bill is to amend the Eden Park Trust Act of 1955 and to introduce the new Eden Park Trust deed which is a much more representative trust arrangement that will allow us to meet our obligations relating to the 2011 Rugby World Cup final. The other purpose of the bill is to empower the Governor-General by Order in Council to amend the schedule containing the trust deed to give effect to any validly made amendment to the trust deed. 
The bill will facilitate the creation of a redeveloped stadium with a capacity of 60000 people which is exciting news for Auckland and I do hope that that number of tickets will be sold for the Rugby World Cup final. This bill implements an agreement between the Crown the existing Eden Park Trust Board the Auckland Cricket Association and also the Auckland Rugby Football Union. The new structure will ensure recognition of the interests and rights of the beneficiaries of the trust the public’s ownership interest in the park and the community’s interest in using and benefiting from the park. The redevelopment of Eden Park is to be completed by October 2010 in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011. It will provide many benefits. Some of those are regional; some of those provide recreational benefits. There will also be local community benefits arising from this redevelopment but perhaps more significantly today the benefits are to the Rugby World Cup to be held in 2011. The Rugby World Cup is of course one of the world’s premier sports events. The spotlight will be on New Zealand and New Zealand sport. 
On that basis I commend this bill to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.