Volume 654 Week 12 - Wednesday 13 May 2009 
Volume 654 Week 12 - Wednesday 13 May 2009 
[Volume:654;Page:3137] 
Wednesday 13 May 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2009—Future Commitments 
1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will Budget 2009 address commitments that were made but not funded in Budget 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The previous Government made several unfunded commitments as part of Budget 2008. These were promises that could not be paid for within the generous operating allowance in Budget 2008 so they were charged up against future Budgets. They included a $200-million-a-year economic transformation package $70 million a year for an expansion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and $190 million to fulfil contractual pay increases for teachers. As part of Budget 2009 the Government will decide whether they will be kept or dropped. 
Craig Foss 
: What criteria is this Government using to decide which unfunded commitments it will fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Some of the obligations are contractual and will be met. Such obligations are teacher pay rises. Others will be assessed against other spending priorities. For instance we have to decide whether pre-commitments to adjustments in tertiary institutional funding 3 or 4 years away are more important than the growing demand on the probation service and corrections service. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he confirm that the biggest unfunded commitment he has cut so far is John Key’s cycleway and that that is why he said: “we won’t be spending $50 million on it this year or next year or the year after.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is wrong. In the next few days the Prime Minister will show exactly who is boss. 
Craig Foss 
: What will the ending of some of the unfunded commitments mean? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Most of the unfunded commitments are related to Budget years 2 or 3 years away so ending them will have no immediate effect. It will mean that some people will not get some of the things they might have been expecting but equally no one will lose anything they already have. Unfortunately we discovered that because no funding had been allocated to these commitments when we removed the commitments we were unable to make any savings. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What measures does the Minister intend to introduce in the Budget to help the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are struggling to pay their mortgages and small business loans and who are suffering from the banks’ reluctance to lower lending rates in line with the reduced official cash rate? Does he take note of the fact that taxpayers are footing more of the risk via banking guarantees and Reserve Bank asset-building? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those ordinary New Zealanders decided to do something for themselves by voting the member’s Government out and this one in just a few months ago. In respect of the banks the Government and the Reserve Bank are keeping a close eye on them. No doubt there will be a bit of pushing and shoving while we sort out how the banks will share the burden of getting through the recession. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How much will the restructuring of Auckland governance cost? Will these costs be part of Budget 2009 or will all the transition costs be passed on as a debt to Auckland ratepayers when the transition agency winds up? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: My understanding is that the costs of setting up the transition board will be appropriated in the Budget. 
Craig Foss 
: Will Budget 2009 continue the previous Government’s practice of making large unfunded commitments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer is no. Budget 2009— 
Hon Member 
: Oh! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is possible to commit only to those things you are actually going to spend money on and that is what is going to happen in this year’s Budget. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday in points of order around question time we traversed the issue that the phrase “unfunded commitments” in the question was ruled out of order yet we see it come back in this supplementary question. It is clear that no evidence has been presented for any unfunded—as opposed to unappropriated—future spending commitments. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No such ruling was made. The member over there took offence at the use of the term “unfunded” and quite understandably. The mistake the member David Cunliffe makes is that National voluntarily removed the term “unfunded” from a question. It appeared therefore on the sheets that the member probably saw. It was certainly not ruled on nor was it ruled out of order. Quite frankly it would be absurd to have it ruled out of order because unfunded promises are a fact. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any more assistance on this matter. The phrase is not out of order. Members often do not like supplementary questions but they do have supplementary questions of their own in which to pursue the issue. I thought the point of order the member was going to raise was that in fact the Speaker is not spending any money. The Minister perhaps should not have referred to the Speaker by saying “you”—as in what “you are actually going to spend money on”. Does the member wish to ask further supplementary questions? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Perhaps as a point of order just to clarify for the record that the supposed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot use the point of order process to clarify things for the record—it is either a matter of order in this House or it is not. Clarification for the record is a matter that is dealt with through elucidating answers to supplementary questions if the member wants to do that. 
Government Members—Conflicts of Interest 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he believe all members of his Government are handling conflicts of interest appropriately? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Paragraph 2.59 of the  
Cabinet Manual  
states: “Ministers themselves are responsible for proactively identifying and reviewing possible conflicts of interest and ensuring that any conflicts of interest are promptly addressed.” I expect my Ministers to act in accordance with the requirements laid out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his reported comments that he as Prime Minister approved Melissa Lee’s decision to continue to have a role with the television programme  
Asia Down Under  
after becoming an MP and how does that reflect on his ability as Prime Minister to identify and manage conflicts of interest? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise as an issue the fact that the Prime Minister is answering a question about a member of Parliament not a Minister. It is not usual for the Speaker to allow questions to be asked about MPs in the Government. I assumed that the question that was set down referred to a Minister even though it states “members”. I ask you for your guidance on that issue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am sure you were listening carefully to the supplementary question as well as to the primary question. The Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that he was referring to advice given by the Prime Minister. Melissa Lee is on the record as indicating that she received advice from the Prime Minister on that matter. That is the Prime Minister’s ministerial role and his judgment is being questioned as well as hers. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Speakers’ rulings are quite clear on this matter. Speaker’s ruling 147/2 sets out the ruling from the former Speaker Margaret Wilson. Interestingly the Speaker said on that day “I remind members that Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities …”. She went on to say further that members are to ensure that a “question is addressed in the capacity of Prime Minister and not as leader of” a party. This was a response from her making it very clear that the leader of a party although he or she is the Prime Minister does not have any accountability in this House for actions taken as the leader of the party even though he or she may in other places be identified as the Prime Minister. Most interestingly this was a response to a point of order raised by a member. The point of order was “I invite you to rule on whether the responsibility just referred to is a responsibility of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the Labour Party. If it is the responsibility of the leader of the Labour Party and not the Prime Minister then the question should be ruled out of order.” The Speaker agreed. The person who raised the point of order was Trevor Mallard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be silence. This is a serious matter that has been raised. Finally I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard because his name was mentioned. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is very clear and very easy for you to differentiate between those situations. In this particular case we are talking about the spending of a company receiving New Zealand On Air— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is an important point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not need assistance. Points of order are dealt with in silence. The member cannot get into the substance of the issue; he can only raise matters in a point of order to do with order. When I saw the question I must confess I was surprised by it because members should understand the difference between Parliament and the Government. I automatically assumed that the questioner was referring to members of the Government which means Ministers. Members of Parliament are not members of the Government unless they happen to also be Ministers. When the supplementary question was asked I contemplated intervening because it seemed to me that in fact it was asking something the Prime Minister could not be responsible for because the member referred to is not a member of the Government but is a member of Parliament. The member might belong to the same party but the Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for matters where he might have responsibilities as party leader. I do not want to penalise the honourable member in losing his supplementary question but I invite him to ask a further supplementary question that comes within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly in my first attempt. This matter is a matter of the expenditure of Government funding through New Zealand On Air. I submit to you that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for that and matters related to it. It is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions and to have them answered where New Zealand On Air funding is being used for a company and then used for— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again the member is starting to argue matters of fact which are not matters of order. There is a dilemma here. If the primary question had asked the Prime Minister about a member of Parliament it would not have been approved I would imagine. It asked about all members of his Government. His Government is his executive. In the supplementary questions the Prime Minister cannot be questioned about members who are not members of the executive. That was the point the Hon Rodney Hide raised. I ruled in favour of Rodney Hide’s point of order because it is correct that members of the Government are members of the executive and the supplementary questions can relate only to conflicts of interest regarding members of the executive. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just for clarity in your ruling are you saying that if one were to ask about a conflict of interest for example about how the Minister of Broadcasting was handling conflicts of interest that would be acceptable and the Prime Minister could be asked about how he thought the Minister of Broadcasting was handling conflicts of interest and that would be acceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Correct. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be helpful for the Leader of the Opposition to recognise that if he were to take that particular advice solicited by Russel Norman he would be talking about the Minister of Broadcasting at the time of this event occurring which was of course prior to the election. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable member because I believe I should have intervened sooner. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As the former Minister of Broadcasting I say that if that matter had been properly declared it would have been declared to me. Melissa Lee did not do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjections while I am on my feet. We can see the problem the Speaker gets into when he or she allows points of order that are not points of order. I should have stopped the honourable Leader of the House and I regret that I did not because it led to disorder. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can New Zealanders have confidence that all members of his Government are handling conflicts of interest appropriately when Richard Worth’s failures to handle conflicts of interest are well documented and when last night the Melissa Lee documentary suggested that conflicts of interest are in fact endemic in Government members’ caucuses? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Which part of that question will be allowed to stand and why was not there a move to stop that line of questioning sooner? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I could have intervened but I am sure the Hon Bill English is perfectly capable of handling a question like that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said in answer to the primary question the  
Cabinet Manual 
 lays out the processes and as that member will know when Ministers are appointed there is a post-appointment review of their personal interests conducted extensively by the Cabinet Office and that is exactly what it did. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which conflict of interest does the Prime Minister think is worse—Richard Worth purporting to act as a Minister while promoting his own private business or Melissa Lee using taxpayer funding— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. The member knows that I was tolerant with the last question whereby I did not intervene. He knows he cannot ask about matters relating to members who are not members of the Government. He knows that. He deliberately sought to flout my ruling. I will not tolerate it again. That part of the question is ruled out. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just curious to know from you how the Leader of the Opposition can frame his questions in a similar way that was done when Opposition members asked questions about Taito Phillip Field who was not a member of the executive but day after day of questions were asked by a member of Parliament on that matter and those questions were all allowed. I wonder whether you could perhaps give some advice as to why you think those questions were in order about Taito Phillip Field but today you do not believe these questions are in order about Melissa Lee apart from the fact that one of those members is in the National Party. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All of the questions that related to the Field case which are easily able to be researched in  
Hansard 
 were asked primarily of the Minister of Immigration at the time. Questions that were asked of the Prime Minister were asked of him in that capacity. As we have said there have been numerous times during my time in Parliament when this particular issue has arisen. There was the famous explanation from Helen Clark in about I think 2001 about the hats that various members wore in this House at different times. There is also the very clear ruling I spoke of before that does back up the position you have taken this afternoon and I think that regardless of any way Opposition members may try to get around it they must remember that it was their pleadings to the Speaker that got us to this position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to spend more time on this issue today. The matter is very clear. The primary question is about members of the Government and conflicts of interest regarding members of the Government. Supplementary questions must relate to that and cannot veer off into issues around members of Parliament who are not members of the Government. I have ruled on the matter and taking that matter any further will not be productive. As members will have forgotten I am prepared to allow the honourable member to ask the first part of that question again but not the part that relates to a person who is not a member of the Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Maybe I will change my question Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will allow the honourable member to do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Broadcasting to examine whether there have been any conflicts of interest or misuse of NZ On Air money to produce party political advertisements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That would have been a matter for the previous Prime Minister to address because the events being referred to which were outside the House occurred under the Labour Minister of Broadcasting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All around the House there will be order. A point of order is being taken. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I do take personal exception to that. If someone stole money on my watch— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If he wishes to make a personal explanation about the matter he can seek leave to do that. But he cannot dispute an answer using a point of order; it is totally outside the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal exception to that comment and I ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I made a statement of fact and the fact is that the events being referred to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue of what the Minister said cannot be debated under points of order. I take it that the member possibly wishes to use—and I am just trying to find the Standing Order he is using to address that issue of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well it is a personal reflection on me because he said I didn’t do my job properly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There should be no interjection. The member could possibly use Standing Order 115 in particular or Standing Order 116. In Standing Order 115 the words used by the Minister would have to be “offensive or disorderly”. If there is a dispute over the accuracy of an answer that is not “offensive” or automatically “disorderly”. Standing Order 116 refers to a personal reflection: “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” The dilemma in whether I insist the Minister withdraw and apologise is that it does not appear to me that he has used words that could meet those requirements. That is why if the member feels offended by it he could seek leave to make a personal explanation about it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I just want to make it clear that I regard as a personal reflection on me the suggestion that I should have stopped Melissa Lee using NZ On Air funding when she did not declare it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Such a debate is not provided for in the Standing Orders. On the basis of what I heard the Minister say I could not ask him to withdraw it as meeting the requirements of Standing Orders 115 and 116 because it did not automatically appear to be offensive. If the member feels that it is a personal reflection then he can explain to the House under the personal explanation provisions. But there are no other provisions. So if it is not a personal matter— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not personal; it’s ministerial. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —and the member should not be interjecting but I will allow him because I know he is trying to be helpful in this—it is then a matter of debate and he cannot insist that the matter be withdrawn under those circumstances. Now I have lost track of where we had got to to be quite honest; the Minister had just given an answer? 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called and recognised. 
Hon David Parker 
: My point of order goes to the denial of responsibility that the Minister articulated in his answer on the basis that the alleged wrongdoing happened before— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: How many times—the member will resume his seat—do I have to point this out to the House? I know that the House got into some bad habits but the point of order procedure is not a process for debating issues and questioning the accuracy of Ministers’ answers. There are further supplementary questions. The Minister has given an answer; supplementary questions can be asked about it to elucidate whether it is an accurate answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. About a month ago the Speaker stood me down before I had finished my point of order in a way that led to a disorderly exchange. I would suggest that you listen to my point of order before you sit me down because I had not said enough in respect of my point of order for you to judge whether it was in order. The Deputy Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister said that he did not have to answer the question as it was not within his responsibility because the events that were being considered had occurred before the date of the appointment of the Minister concerned. With respect that is not correct. The Minister has responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member will resume his seat. 
Hon Member 
: Sit down! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjections. The member will resume his seat because he is debating; he is not raising a point of order. That is why I have sat him down. That is not a point of order. He is debating the accuracy of the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer. I cannot judge that but it is in the hands of the questioner to question it. If the answer to the question appears to be inaccurate he can dive into that. Anything the Deputy Prime Minister has said in answer is now open to questioning. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will let the Hon David Parker continue because I do not want to make him feel that I have not listened. 
Hon David Parker 
: My point of order is that the Deputy Prime Minister did not address the question because he denied that there was responsibility to address the question and therefore declined to do so. In my submission he had responsibility for it and ought to have addressed it but he did not because he denied responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want this to go on any further. In my assessment in my judgment the Minister absolutely answered the question. I can see that Opposition members did not like the answer and if we let the Leader of the Opposition get on with it I am sure he has some very good questions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister of Justice to report on whether there have been any conflicts of interest that might have led to a breach of the Electoral Act in terms of failure to declare donations? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has not had any such facts put to him. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Prime Minister perceive a conflict of interest in politicians advocating the spending of an extra $2 billion of taxpayers’ money to build a tunnel through the Mt Albert electorate during a by-election and does he think the public finances could cope with such pork-barrel politics if they were to spread to every electorate in the country? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to say that there is one rule for all parliamentarians. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The Deputy Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister was asked whether he had seen reports. That is perfectly legitimate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to waste any more time on this issue. I found the question highly debatable as to whether it was in order. I invite the member so that I do not cut the ACT Party out of a supplementary question to ask his supplementary question but I ask him to please keep it relevant to the primary question. 
David Garrett 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that suggest there might be a conflict of interest in politicians advocating an extra $2 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent in Mt Albert during the by-election; if so does he think that the public finances could cope with such pork-barrel politics if they were to spread to every electorate in the country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having just ruled out the opportunity of the Leader of the Opposition to question the Prime Minister about members who are not members of the Government I can hardly allow the member to question the Prime Minister about members who are not members of the Government. I am afraid that I have to rule out that supplementary question. 
Roading—Auckland 
3.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he agree with Paul Mees a senior lecturer in transport planning who is reported as saying that Auckland has spent 50 years putting all its eggs in the motorway basket and that “in Auckland you’d think it was the 1950s from the way the road lobby and the Government carry on”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No and I note that Mr Mees is also a noted Melbourne-based public transport activist—which is fair enough. My view is that there are no single-modal solutions in Auckland. We will need both public transport and roading solutions and this Government is investing heavily in both. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he say that he is committed to or investing heavily in public transport when one of his first acts as the Minister of Transport was to cut $420 million from funding for rail bus walking and cycling and put that money into an expanded motorway-building programme? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That money was not cut from any programme; it had not been spent. All those activities receive increased expenditure in the Government policy statement shortly to be released. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Dos he agree with Paul Bedford the former chief planner of Toronto who says that Auckland should stop spending on new motorways and vastly improve public transport because the reality of motorways is that they fill up to capacity with additional traffic almost immediately after they are built? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have to say I prefer the opinions of Aucklanders to those of Australians Canadians and—for that matter—Scotsmen. 
David Bennett 
: What commitments has the Government made to public transport in Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This Government is investing hugely in Auckland’s public transport infrastructure. There is the ongoing $600 million Project DART $500 million for the electrification of Auckland’s rail network and $500 million for the new electric trains themselves. In addition the new Government policy statement will increase funding for public transport services next year by a further 5 percent to its highest level ever. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why is he one of the only people in New Zealand who thinks that redirecting $420 million in future funding increases away from things such as public transport is not a cut? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Members of the previous administration confuse what they expected to do with what actually happened and is about to happen. One cannot cut money that has not actually been spent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can he say that he wishes to listen to Aucklanders when all the surveys show that the No. 1 priority of two-thirds of Aucklanders is better public transport and furthermore when his Government took away the ability of the Auckland region to have a fuel levy that could fund improved public transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The reality is that about 86 percent of Aucklanders whether or not the Greens like it proceed to and from work each day by car truck or motorcycle about 7 percent use public transport and about 1 percent use rail. We are committed to improving the investment in all those modes but we have to have some basis in reality in terms of our investment in the transport sector. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can it possibly make sense for his Government to spend $8 on motorways for every $1 on alternatives to motorways when the latest reports from the Transport Agency show that motorway traffic has reduced to 2004 levels—it is declining—and that secondly buses and trains are at capacity in Auckland because we have simply under-invested in them for decades? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point is that we have to have some basis in reality. The reality we are faced with is that 86 percent of Aucklanders go to and from work each day by car truck or motorcycle and 7 percent use public transport. I appreciate that the Greens want to save the planet but I think in this instance it would be appropriate to first work out which planet they are on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Russel Norman. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to Russel Norman but the last part of that was a gratuitous insult. Although the question was political in its nature it was not the sort of offensive political question that you have ruled out before; it was a pretty simple question and did not deserve that sort of response from the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard that statement used in this House on more than one occasion. It has never been ruled to be offensive before. In fact the Minister gave rather more information that he needed to. He was asked how he can do something; he could have said “Easily.” and he would have answered the question perfectly well. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister therefore confirming that it is not the policy of the Government to do something to save the planet which most New Zealanders actually want; and does he realise that the reason why most Aucklanders are stuck in cars is under-investment in alternatives for years which means they do not have the choices that survey after survey show they want? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This Government is very committed to supporting the planet and environmental causes. I was just making the point that one has to understand the reality of people’s transport options and the impact that investment can have. We are investing around $1.6 billion in public transport in Auckland which will increase the amount of rail use from about 1 to 2 percent to probably 3 to 4 percent. It would require a massive massive amount of money to move that percentage to anything like the 80-something percent that roads provide now. 
Families Commission—Appointment of Christine Rankin 
4.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What consultation was carried out before the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 It has been a long process. There have been a number of consultations. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I submit to you that that answer did not address the question. It sort of waved in the general direction of the question but it gave no specifics as to consultation at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Given that the question was on notice and that there has been considerable time to prepare the answer I believe that the honourable member has a valid complaint. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This process has been through Cabinet it has been through the Cabinet appointment and honours committee and it has also been discussed with one of our coalition partners. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member’s colleagues might pay him some respect; he is asking a supplementary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister indicate to Peter Dunne in March that Christine Rankin would not be appointed? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I met with Mr Dunne in March and we discussed Christine Rankin’s impending appointment but I do not believe that that was the end of the process. There was a discussion to be had after that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order. It was a very straightforward question: did she or did she not indicate to Peter Dunne that Christine Rankin would not be appointed? She did not address that in her answer. She said she had a discussion with him— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance on this occasion. I believe that with that kind of question the member cannot expect an explicit answer. He cannot expect the particular answer he wants to that kind of question. I think the Minister indicated in her answer that she had had a discussion. The member has further supplementary questions with which to pursue the matter. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Would it be reasonable to say that the reinstatement of Christine Rankin to a position in the Government is similar to the reinstatement of Trevor Mallard to Labour’s front bench by Phil Goff following a conviction for assault and a period off the Labour front bench? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called and I have recognised the honourable Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. The member cannot authenticate that question. The question cannot be authenticated because I was not convicted of assault. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We keep going through the same process all the time. The member cannot use the point of order procedure to question the accuracy of the member’s question. The question does not have to be authenticated; it is a supplementary question. I fully understand if the member wishes to make a personal explanation about that; he could certainly seek leave to do so. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Well are we going to have points of order in silence? That does not seem to be the case today. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: They’re tough. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If he makes that kind of comment during points of order inevitably there will be responses. A point of order will be terse to the point and directed to me as Speaker. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And in silence—is that correct? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please just deliver the point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The key thing is around the authentication of a supplementary question. If an assertion that is not true is made that a member of the House has been convicted of something you cannot just allow that to pass on the basis that it is a debatable matter not to be raised by way of a point of order. A member has stood and told you that he has not been convicted of that yet you have allowed that question to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker cannot judge the accuracy of questions. There is merit in the member’s point of order in that unnecessary allegations should not be introduced into a supplementary question. But it seemed to me that the question was making a very particular point and the matter related to a member’s personal interest. If in fact it was offensive to that member’s personal interest that is why there is a personal explanation procedure: the member can clarify the point and no one can dispute it after that. But we cannot debate the accuracy of answers or questions by way of point of order. It is totally outside the Standing Orders to do so because it always leads to disorder—it always leads to disorder. Either the member is offended by that allegation because it is wrong and he therefore wishes to seek leave to make a personal explanation or he is not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the matter goes to your role as Speaker and to your responsibilities to protect the minority in this House. You have received my word by way of point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please resume his seat. The reason I have not received the member’s word by way of point of order is that there is no process for me to do that. The member has said that but it is not in order. I cannot hear it because it is not in order for me to hear it. If the member is offended by something that is inaccurate— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There has been a long history of doing it by point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There may be a long history but it is in fact totally contrary to the Standing Orders of this Parliament—unless Parliament wants to change its Standing Orders and I suggest that it does not because raising debating material under points of order invariably leads to disorder. I think it would be best—if the member does not wish to seek leave to make a personal explanation—if I see whether the Hon Sir Roger Douglas would be prepared to rephrase his question in a way that is perhaps less offensive to the member. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Given the exchange that we had in the second question today that related to the activities of a member surely a natural extension of that would be to protect the Hon Trevor Mallard by ruling the question out because the Minister surely cannot be responsible for the member’s actions or any consequences of his actions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I have already ruled out one question today I invite the member to ask a supplementary question— 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Excuse me for pursuing the matter but I would refer you to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and seek your clarification on Speakers’ rulings 44/2 and 44/3. Speaker’s ruling 44/2 states: “It is the right of any member to challenge a statement of another member especially if there is any suggestion of improper conduct on the part of a member.” Speaker’s ruling 44/3 states: “If a member feels that repeated reference to some matter in the member’s private life is a reflection on the member’s integrity then the member is entitled to the protection of the Chair and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter.” Unless there is some reason why those rulings do not apply I would suggest that they apply directly to this matter that Mr Mallard is entitled to your protection and that the member should be told to refrain from pursuing that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will certainly look at the matter the member has raised to make sure that I take full cognisance of that but I think the best way to resolve the matter may be if the honourable member is prepared to rephrase his question in a way that does not cause offence. I think it might help the House. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: I will try not to cause offence; I am happy to withdraw those words “conviction for assault” if they are incorrect. I repeat the question. Would it be reasonable to say that the reinstatement of Christine Rankin to a position in the Government is similar to the reinstatement of Mr Mallard to the front bench of the Labour Party by Phil Goff? As I found myself on one or two occasions when I was removed from the front bench time heals most things. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Christine Rankin has not been appointed to any position in the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the question is of such questionable relevance that we should in fact rule it out and move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the Minister satisfied that Christine Rankin has left behind her culture of extravagance and her other bizarre behaviour; if so how did she become satisfied of that? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Christine Rankin will not decide how a budget is spent at the Families Commission. She is one of seven commissioners; they will be making agreements together around a table. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister reconsider her decision in light of the resignation of the highly respected Druis Barrett— 
Hon Member 
: Who? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —the highly respected Druis Barrett—someone recognised right around the House—from the Families Commission advisory group because of the appointment of Christine Rankin and in particular her attitude to Maori? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I repeat that Christine Rankin is one of seven commissioners. I will not be revisiting that decision. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which comment is accurate: that of Mrs Turia that she had not been consulted or that of her colleague who reported that Mrs Turia was present at the Cabinet appointments and honours committee and did not express opposition to the appointment of Christine Rankin? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I cannot comment on what Minister Turia said. I have not heard her comments on whether or not— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: It’s true. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think they are both true. 
Hutt Hospital—Redevelopment 
5.  
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What decisions have been made by the Government in relation to hospital building developments? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In 2008 the previous Government approved the redevelopment of Hutt Hospital campus—under consistent and highly effective political pressure I remind those members—subject to final ministerial approval of the preliminary design. Today the National Government can announce that further approval and Hutt Valley District Health Board can now progress the $82 million redevelopment of Hutt Hospital’s emergency department and theatres. This approval includes a $62 million contribution from central government and we funded this commitment despite the fact that we inherited over $600 million of capital requests from district health boards with only a small amount of money to pay for them. 
Paul Quinn 
: When will the people of the Hutt Valley area see the benefits of this necessary and important investment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is well recognised that the Hutt Valley emergency department is inadequate and access to elective surgery there needs to be improved. The full project is expected to be completed and operational in 2012. In the meantime the district health board has built its own temporary and innovative “theatre pods” as it calls them to provide more elective surgery for Hutt Valley people. 
Paul Quinn 
: What other decisions has the Government made in relation to hospital services for people in the Hutt Valley and Wellington region? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have advised the House before that the new Government inherited a health sector on track to financial crisis with over $600 million of capital demands for regional projects. The Capital and Coast District Health Board’s underlying deficit of around $70 million is a significant issue and it is clear to me that the previous Government did not sufficiently factor in the interest and capital charges associated with the enormous borrowings required for the regional hospital. I can today advise that the Government has agreed to pump a total of $53 million of health cash into Capital and Coast District Health Board as deficit support for the current financial year. This will ensure the ongoing viability of important hospital services in Wellington as we work to tidy up yet another mess inherited from the previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Waterview Connection—Community Impact 
6.  
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What are his concerns about the impact on the community affected by the decision not to proceed with the previously announced tunnel option for the Waterview Connection? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed project on the community. In this case there are no easy options. Even the twin two-lane tunnels proposed by the previous Government would affect 140 or so houses. It is my job as Minister of Transport to balance the concerns of the local community with the impact on taxpayers across the country. I believe that some of the concerns will be mitigated by the announcement from the New Zealand Transport Agency between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. this afternoon. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why did he say in his media release yesterday that there will be consultation about today’s decision when he has just ignored the previous consultation with exactly the same people? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The problem with the previous proposal was that it was completely unfunded and was therefore a wish—and in fact quite a cruel hoax on the community because there was no plan to fund that project. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The use of the term “unfunded” has already been decided by you and the Clerk’s Office to be inappropriate in this context. It was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I saw nothing wrong with the answer given by the Minister. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen on funding methods for a $2.77 billion tunnel for the Waterview Connection? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have seen a wide range of possible options on how such an expensive roading project could be funded. They have included increased Crown debt with a large interest bill plus substantial tolls; a 20c per litre fuel tax; or a 35-year regional property tax of around $460 per household in Auckland per year. I have not ever seen which one of those options Labour prefers or any indication at all as to how Labour would propose to pay for such a tunnel. I think that meets the definition of unfunded. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Will he compensate landowners whose homes are not demolished but who now face a motorway of up to six lanes eventually running by their homes when such a motorway will affect their property values? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it is appropriate as I said before to wait for the New Zealand Transport Agency to announce this afternoon its preferred proposal for the project before responding to that question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does National understand what Sheelah Chalklen and her neighbours mean when they say that “These are not houses as the Minister refers to them but homes.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Absolutely yes. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did he or his office have any influence at all over the timing of today’s announcement by the New Zealand Transport Agency about the Waterview Connection—an announcement scheduled to occur after question time has been held? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Not at all. The New Zealand Transport Agency met yesterday to make its decision as to the proposed alignment and then it told me that it needed 24 hours to have the first opportunity to contact affected residents in the community. The decision as to the timing of the release this afternoon is the agency’s. 
Budget 2009—Oil and Gas Exploration 
7.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will Budget 2009 contain any measures to encourage oil and gas exploration in New Zealand waters; if so what are those measures? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes; I am obliged to the Minister of Revenue who supported Budget 2009 making provision for a 5-year continuation of the exemption for non-resident operators of offshore rigs and seismic vessels. The exemption is known as the 183-day tax rule. The exemption has had a positive effect on oil and gas exploration. The number of non-resident offshore rigs operating in New Zealand has more than doubled in the last 5 years the number of offshore wells has increased fivefold and the offshore gas reserves have also increased. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How does the exemption to the 183-day tax rule work to encourage oil and gas exploration? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: New Zealand is distant from other countries with petroleum programmes; the cost of sending rigs and seismic vessels to New Zealand is high. Prior to the exemption non-resident offshore rig operators and seismic vessels had tended to stay in New Zealand for a period of less than 183 days even if further exploration had been desirable beyond the 183-day window. Different rigs were then required to be brought back into New Zealand to complete the work causing extra mobilisation and demobilisation costs. This disrupted sensible exploration and development programmes. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Will the Budget contain any other measures to assist our natural resources sector? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes the Budget will also contain as previously announced the $20 million injection into the acquisition of seismic data by the Government that is then made available to explorers. This step along with the continuation of the 183-day rule indicates the Government’s strong commitment to the natural resource sector in New Zealand and its contributions to New Zealand’s future economic prosperity. 
Recession—International Economic Developments 
8.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on international economic developments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The member will know that there is an endless number of reports on international economic developments. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister for example seen reports that the Australian Budget includes measures that will protect up to 210000 jobs? Can New Zealanders expect his Budget to address their fears about rising unemployment and the loss of their jobs homes and dignity by delivering significant job-saving measures? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What I can confirm is that Australian unemployment is consistently higher than New Zealand’s and its Budget deficit forecasts are higher than recent forecasts I have seen from New Zealand. So whatever we are doing it seems to be working better than what Australia is doing. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Further to the work of the previous Labour Government does the Minister agree with the Australian Treasurer’s moves to invest the $5.7 billion being spent on education and innovation to help those who have lost their jobs and to help the country grow out of recession? Is this not exactly the sort of investment New Zealanders can expect to see from him in his Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course our investments are going to be better targeted and that will show up in lower unemployment in New Zealand. I can assure the member that despite his anxiety the Government will be continuing investment in education innovation and infrastructure on a larger scale and with much better focus than his Government ever achieved. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the New Zealand response to these developments compare with other major economies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are responding actively and assertively to global economic developments but we start with some disadvantages; New Zealand was in a recession before the global crisis struck. None the less there are some encouraging signs. The lift in the unemployment rate to date has been modest and remains well below that of most Western countries and certainly remains well below that projected for Australia in yesterday’s Australian Budget. As I said to the Opposition before whatever Australia says it is doing we seem to be doing it better because our unemployment is lower. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will the Minister confirm that he intends to follow the lead set by the Australian Budget and deliver bold steps to increase investment in clean energy initiatives research and development and infrastructure; and does he agree that now is the time to be investing in New Zealand and in New Zealand’s future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that with typical Kiwi understatement we will probably use less extravagant terms than the Australians and we will achieve better results. 
Dairy Industry—Reports 
9.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand dairy industry? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week the Prime Minister and I launched the  
Strategy for New Zealand Dairy Farming 2009/2020 
. This comprehensive document sets out the direction for the vital dairy industry over the next 10 years. It outlines the way in which the industry will increase the profitability sustainability and competitiveness of New Zealand dairy farmers. This is a first for the primary sector and it is something that I think we need to see more of. I commend it to the House. 
Colin King 
: What has been the Government’s reaction to the dairy industry strategy? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I said the Government has welcomed the strategy and it strongly endorses its five key goals. However as both the Prime Minister and I made clear at the launch of the document it is important that the dairy industry takes greater ownership of its environmental performance and sees it not as a compliance issue but as an integral part of future business success. The vast majority of dairy farmers are already doing this well. Unfortunately a small number refuse to do so and this is unacceptable to me. 
Social Development Ministry—Role 
10.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she believe that it is her department’s responsibility to carry out Government policy? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why then given the Government policy to cap but not cut the Public Service did she not tell her chief executive that sacking 200 people was contrary to Government policy? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is this Government’s policy to let chief executives to do their jobs and manage their departments. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister accept that the result of yesterday’s announcement is a net loss of 200 jobs and that it means that rather than shifting resources to the front line she is in fact cutting the resources of a ministry that is facing an increased workload? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No cuts are happening; what is happening is that the chief executive is making decisions for his department. We certainly support his making decisions like that. 
Louise Upston 
: What plans has the Government put in place to support public sector staff made redundant as a result of the focus on front-line services? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have taken immediate steps to assist those people in the public sector being made redundant. Yesterday my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall announced a redeployment package to help match public sector staff who are made redundant with other jobs in the State services. This redeployment option has been developed in conjunction with the Public Service Association and will give people the option of entering the redeployment pool during a notice period. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did she not raise with the Minister any concerns about the impact of cutting staff of the ministry at a time when the ministry is facing an increased workload? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am sorry but the member asked why I had not raised concerns with the Minister and I am not sure which Minister he was talking about. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can I rephrase that question so that the Minister can understand it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess the member was raising a point of order. I believe that he asked a question. The Minister said she could not understand the question. I believe that is a fair answer. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister reconcile John Key’s statement on 11 March—“I believe it is important to save as many jobs as we can while we can.”—with over 200 jobs being cut at the Ministry of Social Development or is she telling the staff of her ministry that she sees them as second-class workers? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Not at all. There is no one silver bullet to save jobs but this Government will continue to focus on putting jobs first. Money is tight for everyone and we have to prioritise our resources where they are needed which is at the front line. 
Electricity—Investment in National Grid 
11.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What is the Government doing to strengthen the national electricity grid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 On Friday last week I released a revised Government policy statement for electricity. The new policy statement introduces a streamlined simplified process for transmission investments under $20 million in value. This will save Transpower time and cost and will speed up important grid upgrades. Events in recent months—indeed in recent weeks—demonstrate the critical need to ensure that investment in the grid is not delayed but rather accelerated. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Is the Government doing anything else to ensure reliable transmission of electricity; if so what? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes; the Government believes that disentangling the regulatory overlap between the Electricity Commission Transpower and the Commerce Commission is important. I have launched a ministerial review into the electricity market which will consider those very issues. The Government is taking the interim step of amending the Government policy statement to ensure that transmission investment can happen more quickly. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Rates 
12.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What reports has he received on the financial effect on ratepayers of the Government’s decisions on Auckland governance? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The most significant report is that of the royal commission. Although it costs the proposal differently in some ways from the Government’s decisions the model is still broadly comparable. The commission expected that these changes would bring savings with a net present value of between $277 million and $574 million. My officials have also carried out some very preliminary and high-level costings on the Government’s proposal for local representation which themselves were reviewed by Treasury. The cost of implementing the Government’s proposal will not be significantly greater than the cost estimated by the royal commission. 
Phil Twyford 
: What response does the Minister have to families in the North Shore Manukau and Waitakere given that their annual water bills are likely to go up by 70 percent from around $900 a year to around $1600 a year as a direct result of the Government’s decision to force volumetric charging for water on Aucklanders? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: My response is quite simple: ratepayers should not respond to the scaremongering of those who oppose better governance for Auckland. I could do no better than to point to the royal commission which the previous Government set up and spent $4 million on. The commission showed that there will be gains in net present value of some hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Rahui Katene 
: Has he been advised that the regional Pacific fono held in Manukau on Monday night decided that Pacific peoples would support the hikoi for Maori seats on the super-city; and what arrangements have been made to meet with Auckland ratepayers to specifically respond to the concerns about the Maori seats? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I have been advised of that. The Prime Minister I and the Hon John Carter have a significant programme of meetings in the Auckland region to discuss the future of Auckland governance and it is certainly true that the issue of Maori representation often comes up. Also the Minister of Maori Affairs sits on the Auckland governance reform Cabinet committee. 
Rahui Katene 
: What response will the Minister make to Te Tiriti o Waitangi Committee o Manukau City Council which has recommended that the royal commission’s proposals for Maori representation should be reinstated and strengthened and that Maori representation should be included on the establishment board? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Certainly the question of the establishment board and who is on it is an issue still before the Government and it is true that the Government did not agree with the royal commission’s proposal for Maori representation. However it is also clear that proper engagement with local iwi and the new Auckland Council will be crucial for the new council to succeed and the Government is continuing to work on this issue. 
Phil Twyford 
: Why will the Minister not legislate to ensure that Greater Auckland’s water supply cannot be sold or contracted out to the private sector when he is perfectly willing to legislate to tell the Auckland Council how to charge Auckland families for water? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Unlike the previous Government this Government is not about making local decisions here in Parliament. This Government is about responding to the issues raised by the royal commission providing leadership on the issue of Auckland governance setting out a timetable and doing something else that the previous Government did not do and that is providing a mechanism by which Aucklanders and others with an interest can have their say through the special select committee that will be set up today. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree that Auckland ratepayers have a right to know how much the implementation of the Government’s decisions on Auckland governance will cost them in their rates bill? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No they do not have a right to that but they should know and they will know. 
Phil Twyford 
: Has the Minister consulted the Minister for Regulatory Reform on the two local government Auckland bills and is he satisfied that a thorough analysis of the regulatory impact of these bills has been undertaken and they will not produce any adverse financial effects for Auckland ratepayers? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes most days that consultation takes place. This is a very inclusive Government where Ministers regularly talk and discuss matters. Also we are absolutely convinced that this is the best outcome for Auckland and so are the majority of Aucklanders. It is just a shame that Opposition members cannot make up their minds on the position for Auckland’s governance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand we have come to the end of question time now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. There are questions to members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No before that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is one more supplementary question from Paul Twyford. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister stand by his comments to a local government conference in February that when one is planning a spend-up it is always a good idea to get the consent of those who are paying the bill? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Absolutely. 
Question time interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Waterview Connection—Statement by Minister of Transport 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is by way of inquiry around the planning of the House to the Leader of the House. I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to make a statement on the Waterview question. We understand from the locals that the decision was to be announced at 3 o’clock and it is a question of whether the Minister of Transport will make a statement on it to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order at all. There is no provision for the member to seek such information under a point of order. I apologise for not allowing the point of order but it has nothing to do with the order of this House. When a Minister might make an announcement has nothing to do with the order of this House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. I urge members to treat it with respect. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In the past there has been some flexibility on the part of Speakers for people to inquire of the Leader of the House as to House business and to ask whether a statement is to be made in the House by a Minister on a particular issue. This is a very serious issue. There is an expectation that the announcement having been made at 3 o’clock the Minister will make a statement either now or at the end of questions to members. It was a simple inquiry as to whether the Government intends to grace the House with a statement. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There is no provision under the Standing Orders to ask questions across the House through a point of order. It is true that other Speakers have not worried about the Standing Orders in that regard but there is actually no mechanism within the Standing Orders to achieve that result. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance. I indulged the member because I felt that I had been pretty hard on him today and I did not want to be seen to be unfair to him. But the point that the Hon Rodney Hide has made is absolutely valid; there is no provision for such questioning. We come now to questions to members. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjections. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I invite you to look back at previous Speakers’ rulings that allowed such questions and invite you to consider whether it is only the Standing Orders or whether it is the custom and practice of this House from which the procedures have developed. It is my view that like all areas of law it is a combination of both. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We could go round and round in circles forever I think. In my short time in this role I have tried to be as accommodating as possible in notifying the Opposition of the Government’s intentions. There has been no such notification of this course of action today. Might I suggest also that when you do watch the replay of question time today you will find you have not been too hard on Trevor Mallard at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members. I do not think we need to take any further time of the House on this matter. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Members 
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill—Consideration 
1.  
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: Can he confirm that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is currently being considered by the committee? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How many more submissions are to be heard on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: From correspondence this morning I understand that one submitter whom we tried to contact by telephone but were unable to is I believe being offered a further opportunity to be heard. Beyond that I think that all submitters have been heard. 
Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill—Report Back 
2.  
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: What is the report-back date for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 The report-back date for this bill is 19 June 2009. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Can the chairperson confirm that once the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has been disposed of by the committee the committee will have an extremely light workload; if not why not? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill incorporates the biggest changes to the Resource Management Act in 20 years. The work on that bill will be completed by the committee and considerable work is under way on processing the consideration of the bill. At the conclusion of that we are conscious that we have a bill on phase 2 of the amendment of the Resource Management Act coming forward. The committee has one member’s bill one private bill and one local bill before it. 
Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill—Status 
3.  
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): 
 The bill is currently before the Committee of the whole House where the National Party is fighting tooth and nail to try to prevent all New Zealanders from having the right to a minimum remuneration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was totally outside the Standing Orders for an answer of a member in charge of a bill—and she will not do that again. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What further processes is the member expecting the bill to go through? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The bill needs to go through a third reading to be enacted. However I understand that there will be difficulties in getting to that stage. 
Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill—S.O.P. 13 
4.  
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
: Why did she introduce Supplementary Order Paper 13 on this bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): 
 That Supplementary Order Paper amends the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill to provide for a schedule listing which political parties represented in Parliament support the Act. These provisions follow those in sections 72 and 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. The amendments also require the Minister on introduction into the House of Representatives of a Government bill that proposes an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act to bring to the attention of the House the consultation process that was followed in the formulation of the proposed bill. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Why was it necessary to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 13 on this bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Because in the past former Governments have proved to have had no commitment to the minimum wage and action so far from Government parties shows that they still do not. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You pulled up the member earlier for straying well beyond what is reasonable in answering questions to members. I think that the member has breached again quite considerably and should be terminated as an answerer. 
Question No. 5 to Member 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Member 
: Oh you are here today. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Thank goodness for Wayne Peters. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. I know there have been a number of Peters through this House but I do not think that it was Wayne Peters who made that interjection. I wonder whether it is appropriate to refer to someone who is not in the House in that way. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance in this matter. I ask the Hon Shane Jones to just ask his question. Thank you. 
Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Regulatory Impact Assessment Process 
5.  
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill 
: Does his bill increase the rigour of the regulatory impact assessment process that is conducted before Government legislation is introduced to the House? 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (Member in charge of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill): 
 Yes. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Waterview Connection—Announcement of Preferred Option 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Phil Goff Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement on the preferred option for the Waterview Connection. 
Standing Order 380 requires that the matter for debate be a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative or ministerial responsibility of the Government. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence the event upon which an urgent debate is sought must have occurred when the application is lodged. Standing Order 380(1) requires the application to be lodged 1 hour before the House sits but gives the Speaker discretion to allow a lesser period of time where the event occurs within 1 hour of the sitting of the House. However the event must have occurred before the House meets. An announcement made after the House sits at 2 p.m. does not give grounds for a debate at that sitting. As I said yesterday this does not mean that the matter is not of sufficient importance to require the attention of the House. It simply does not meet the requirements of the urgent debate procedure today. 
I have received a similar application from the Hon Darren Hughes seeking to debate the Government’s announcement that it will announce the preferred route for the Waterview Connection at 3 p.m. today. Not every announcement by the Government can give grounds for a debate particularly not one made on a previous sitting day that an announcement of an actual decision is to be made at some time in the future. Both applications are accordingly declined. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a very important matter not only for the Opposition—and that is why we have written to you 2 days in a row now on the matter—but also for the communities affected by this decision. This is the only opportunity the House will have to address this matter. The House is about to go into urgency and there will be no question time tomorrow when the executive might be called to account. Your letter yesterday— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is actually questioning a ruling of the Speaker. Occasionally these urgent debate matters are finely balanced decisions if you like but the Standing Orders rule this one out because the event that the members seek to debate has not occurred. Forgive me that event might have occurred by now but it had not occurred by 2 o’clock this afternoon and the Standing Orders leave the Speaker no discretion on that basis. In the member’s own application the announcement that he referred to was made on a previous sitting day so the opportunity to debate that was gone. The issue that he wished to debate was the Government’s announcement that it would announce something but that application should have come in yesterday. 
Whether an announcement that an announcement will be made is of sufficient moment to take precedence in the business of the House is certainly an on-balance issue. But that opportunity was lost because the announcement was made on the previous sitting day. Today these have not been on-balance decisions at all. The Standing Orders simply do not provide for an urgent debate today. Of course as has been pointed out there is a general debate now. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider an application from the Opposition for an urgent question. The announcement was meant to be made at 3 o’clock. There are no details available about it yet which is convenient enough in itself. I ask whether you would consider an urgent question from the Opposition to the Minister of Transport when the decision is made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no provision for such— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am just asking whether you will. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not about to do that. There is a general debate coming up and I am sure members will debate the issue with great passion. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be an urgent debate led by the Leader of the Opposition on the Government’s decision not to build tunnels at Waterview. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Government can run but it cannot hide. Steven Joyce has made a decision that will result in the destruction of hundreds of people’s homes. If this decision related to Paratai Drive in Orakei or to Remuera Road there would be a tunnel all right. There would not be any question at all about destroying environments and homes. That is what the National Government has decided to do at Waterview and it has not had the gumption to make the statement on that in time for the matter to be debated in this House. Others will continue to talk about that issue but I want to raise another issue in my comments today. 
Very serious allegations were made on  
Campbell Live 
 last night that Melissa Lee misused taxpayers’ money from New Zealand On Air to make party political videos for the National Party. That claim was made by a staff member who had the courage to front up who was prepared to have her name released and who was prepared to go on the television. She said that staff time and equipment that was paid for by taxpayers’ money through New Zealand On Air some $1.2 million was misused to make an election propaganda video for the National Party. If that is correct it is a gross misuse of taxpayers’ money. Melissa Lee was invited to turn up and state her point of view answer or explanation on  
Campbell Live 
. She neglected to do so; she refused to do so. It is not good enough to answer that sort of serious allegation with silence. That is a matter for John Key who promised this House that he would uphold the standards of his members of Parliament to clear up. 
A second serious issue raised on that programme related to a clear conflict of interest. Melissa Lee had been selected as a National candidate. Subsequently New Zealand On Air gave her company of which she is the majority shareholder $1.2 million to produce a series called  
Asia Down Under 
 which included a specific episode on the election itself. Melissa Lee said yes she had a conflict of interest and she should not be involved in that programme. The staff member who went on television said that Melissa Lee stood behind her watching what she was doing while she edited that very programme. When the staff member expressed her discomfort at Melissa Lee who is a friend of Pansy Wong standing over her like that what was Melissa Lee’s reply? It was: “I’m the boss here. I can be anywhere I like.” That is a clear conflict of interest. It is absolutely against journalistic and professional ethics and last night it was labelled as such by the expert in this area Jim Tully. That cannot be tolerated. It is absolutely outrageous. 
A third question arises about whether the video produced by Melissa Lee was declared as an election expense by the National Party as required under the law. That does not appear to have been done. I invite the next National MP who stands up to categorically deny that that election expense was not listed. It is easy enough to clear it up; the National Party should do that. 
There are three things: a misuse of taxpayers’ money a conflict of interest and it appears that the programme on the election was not declared as an election expense. Is this the high standard on the part of parliamentarians that John Key promised New Zealand when he took office? This is unethical unprofessional behaviour. We saw it first from Richard Worth; now we are seeing it from Melissa Lee. This Government barely 6 months old is showing elitism and arrogance in its behaviour and also a disregard for the professional standards that members of Parliament or aspirant members of Parliament should be showing. I want to know why Melissa Lee would not front up to answer that allegation. I want the next National speaker to stand up and categorically deny that taxpayer funds were so misused. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Waterview Connection—Announcement of Preferred Option 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister; we are very keen to hear from him. But I want to raise a very serious breach of process of the House. The minute you had finished ruling on the application for an urgent debate from the Opposition and the minute the opportunity for an urgent question to be lodged was completed the Government released its decision about the Waterview tunnel option. That is a clear breach— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance on this. The member will resume his seat. That is not a matter for the order of the House. The member will not disagree with the Speaker—or he will not disagree for long with the Speaker. That is not a matter for the order of the House. The New Zealand Transport Agency is at liberty to release its announcements whenever it chooses in this House. As Speaker that is not a matter for me to get involved in at all and it is not a matter for the order of this House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree with you; it is not a matter for you in terms of the agency. This release was made by the Minister of Transport a member of this House the Hon Steven Joyce who is laughing about what he has done. I ask whether you are prepared to see your authority as Speaker treated in this way by the Government deliberately timing announcements— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Grow up! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Henare is busy interjecting; he should take his own advice. The Government knowing the House is about to move into urgency—there will be no question time tomorrow and we are in a parliamentary adjournment next week—has deliberately manipulated to the detriment of the House its announcement. The minute you finished your ruling Mr Speaker the Minister of Transport made his announcement. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 That is a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are going to get into debate here and that is what concerns me. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I submit to you that the shadow Leader of the House is trifling with the Chair by even raising this matter. The fact is that an urgent question has to be lodged prior to 1 o’clock and the member knows that. The second point is that a Government will make announcements at any time. If people have read the press releases from the Labour Party over the last couple of days they will think that the Labour Party somehow had some insight into this decision already. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to take this matter any further. We can see exactly the problem that arises when an invalid point of order is raised: we get debating material being brought into the point of order process. This is not a matter for the order of the House at all in any shape or form. But questioning my rulings is a matter for the order of the House. A point of order the Hon Darren Hughes but I warn him he had better not question my ruling. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
:  
I seek leave under Standing Order 379 to ask the Minister of Transport an urgent question relating to the decision the Government announced one minute after question time finished not to build tunnels at Waterview. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the honourable member to ask the Minister of Transport an urgent question. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Every Wednesday we come along here in the hope that Opposition members will want to talk about matters of import. They never want to talk about matters of importance to the country. Their latest example is that they want to talk about the timing of a press release. They flatter themselves hugely at the thought that the Government actually bothered to think about them in terms of timing its press release this afternoon. They absolutely flatter themselves. What is their view on Auckland governance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting the member. I cannot hear what the member is saying. I believe there is public interest in hearing what the Minister of Transport has to say on this matter and I think there should be a little reasonableness in the interjections. I do not blame members for wanting to interject but there should be some reasonableness because we want to hear what the Minister has to say. At least that is what I thought the member wanted when he wanted an urgent question. So let us hear what the Minister has to say. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Process for Urgent Questions 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but I was going to raise this point earlier. It is not possible for a member to stand up and use Standing Order 379 to seek leave to ask an urgent question. The question has to be put in writing it has to be given to the Speaker and it has to be given to the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance on this matter. The House by leave can do many things and that is why it is in the hands of the House. The House did not approve leave. The member is quite right. The normal process for an urgent question is exactly as he outlined but the House by leave has power to do all sorts of things; leave was not granted though. And I apologise for interrupting the honourable Minister. 
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of your ruling about noisiness during the Minister of Transport’s opening address from the Government side in this general debate I seek your indulgence to allow him to start his speech again. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think from the Opposition’s point of view we would be happy for the speech to start again. In fact we would be happy for that as long as the debate was extended for him to have the full 15 minutes that he would have if in fact there was an urgent debate on the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. The clock was stopped when the point of order was raised. We will continue. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 As I said Opposition members flatter themselves as to when the Government times its press releases—they absolutely flatter themselves. I want to know their view on Auckland governance their view on how to respond to the global recession their view on what should be in the Budget and their view on what should be cut to pay for a $3 billion roading project. You see mummy and daddy Labour have left the building and I worry for the Labour Party. There is nobody opposite who knows anything about financial matters in the Labour Party. If there was surely they would have told Mr Hughes that interest is real. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable Minister again. I ask members of the Opposition to be reasonable. They sought an urgent question and wanted an answer on this issue. The Minister is about to tell the House and the people of New Zealand about what sounds like decisions that have been made. I believe that the House deserves some courtesy. This is a matter of courtesy to the House. Interjections are fine but with that barrage I could not hear and I could see that the members of the Maori Party and other members at the far end of the House simply could not hear and that is unreasonable. That is discourteous to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think there is any need for further points of order on this matter. I invite the Hon Steven Joyce to carry on his speech. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a relatively minor point but one that is quite important. In your ruling you anticipated what the Minister was going to say. That is something that a Speaker should never do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me if I did that. I did not mean to. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I worry that mummy and daddy Labour have left the building and I worry for the Labour Party that there is nobody left who knows anything about financial matters. If there was surely they would have told Mr Hughes that interest is real that when you borrow money you have to pay interest on it that if you borrow money for a big project and are casting around to find a way to pay for it then you have to include the cost of carrying that debt. If you tell people that you are going to build a big project that you have promised them then you have to have a way of paying for it. It is actually being intellectually dishonest if you do not have a way of paying for the project—if you do not identify the 27c a litre petrol tax or the special rate on housing. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Calling you intellectually dishonest is beyond the limits of what is allowed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his valid point of order and I ask the Minister to remember that when he says “you” he is referring to the Speaker. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Surely if there was anybody left in the Labour Party who understood financial matters they would have told Mr Hughes that every spending decision carries an opportunity cost. That if you spend $3 billion you have not got it to spend somewhere else. If you go out there promising Transmission Gully massive Waterview tunnels massive amounts of public transport— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that you Mr Speaker have gone out promising things to the public. The member keeps bringing you into the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess that while the Minister keeps erring in that way he will be interrupted. The Minister should remember; it is quite important. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Labour went out and promised Transmission Gully massive Waterview tunnels massive amounts of public transport investments and anything else that opens and shuts and it pretended the country could afford it all. If there was anybody left in the Labour Party who knew anything about financial matters surely he or she would have told Mr Hughes that there is a global recession on—the worst the world has faced since the 1930s. Now more than ever is not the time to stay wedded to grandiose unfunded schemes which are cruel hoaxes to the people of any suburb or of any city. 
The New Zealand Transport Agency has announced its decision this afternoon on the Waterview Connection; it is a well-considered and balanced decision. It has taken the $1.4 billion option which strikes a fair balance between the needs of the local community and those of the country and the economy. The $1.4 billion proposed route includes building the motorway under Great North Road and in a tunnel under New North Road and under Avondale Heights. The resulting underground section represents about 60 percent of the length of the road. Then south of New North Road the motorway would run through the Alan Wood Reserve corridor to the west of Hendon Avenue. The road would run alongside the long-designated Avondale to Southdown rail link. 
This option is cost-effective but it is still important to note that this roading project will be New Zealand’s most expensive roading ever by a considerable margin. Although this option has very strong community and environmental mitigation I do acknowledge that it still significantly affects some members of the community. I encourage them to take part in the community engagement process that the New Zealand Transport Agency is about to commence. 
There are no easy options but I believe that this proposal will go a long way towards easing the concerns of many while being cost-effective for this country. And that is the point: the proposal has to be cost-effective as well because the whole country has to pay for it. Labour used to understand that. On the other hand of course I may be giving too much credit to mummy and daddy Labour before they left. In Labour’s last 5 years in office it did increase core Crown expenditure by 51 percent—51 percent—whereas the economy grew by just 23 percent. 
So perhaps Labour is only reaping what it sowed. The current Labour members have no understanding of financial matters no understanding of the value of a dollar and no understanding of the issues that New Zealanders outside of this House grapple with every day. That is likely to be one of the main reasons that people threw Labour out of office last November. Labour members do not understand the value of these projects and the value of money. New Zealanders looked at how Labour proposed to magic money out of thin air and I am sure they were glad they did throw Labour out. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 On 25 May 1978 the Government of the day led by Robert Muldoon authorised a massive force of police and army to forcibly remove 222 protesters from the ancestral land known as Takaparawhau—Bastion Point. The protest was—and remains—one of the most famous protest actions in the history of this land. It represented a direct confrontation between iwi the people of Ngati Whatua and the Government which was determined to take the last bit of uncommitted land off the people to be reconverted into a high-income housing development. The land was the same papakainga that was torched by the Government of the day in the 1950s. 
Ten years later the Waitangi Tribunal supported Maori claims to that land—a decision that was backed up by the Government. Last year in the special commemorative service held to reflect on 30 years since that first protest action there was much talk around the significance of the occupation and the historic impact made by the 507 days in which Ngati Whatua reclaimed their tupuna land. 
Who would have thought that one brief year later 25 May would again become associated with the call to protest and the rally to stand up for our rights? Yet that is exactly what is intended to take place in 12 days’ time as Ngati Whatua invite Aucklanders and others to join together to unite for the common pursuit of democratic participation and representation. The call has been broadcast across ethnic minority networks and endorsed by a Pacific fono held in Manukau just 2 days ago. The message was clear: “We Pacific needed to support Maori so that they aren’t forced to beg or protest in their own land for even one seat at their own table.” The aim sounds so simple and it could have been. 
The royal commission has recommended that of the 23 counsellors elected or appointed in Auckland two should be elected at large by voters on the Maori electoral roll and one counsellor appointed by a mana whenua forum. Yet just over a month ago on 7 April 2009 the Government announced that Maori representation would not be provided for within the new Auckland governance structure. A week later Ngati Whatua convened a hui to respond to the Government’s announcement and overwhelmingly called for guaranteed Maori representation on the Auckland Council. Representation is about the mana of Maori as mana whenua. It is about the mana of their ancestors and the links to the land on which Greater Auckland sits. It is about Maori being ignored rejected and insulted once again. 
How could any Government let this happen again? Has nothing in the history of this nation caused those in power to reflect on the foundation of assurances set in Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What are mana whenua—in this case Ngati Whatua and Tainui iwi—to make of the way in which the Government acknowledges the ancestral bond they have with this land and the precious role of guardianship or kaitiakitanga that requires them to care for the land and for all who reside in their rohe? 
The Maori Party is greatly saddened at the step back into our history which is represented by the failure to properly recognise the unique status that mana whenua possess stemming from the Treaty relationship demonstrated in the Auckland region. Ngati Whatua and Tainui iwi have a special interest and indeed an authoritative basis to be involved in any governance or decision-making arrangements in Tamaki-makau-rau. Mana whenua are literally the first occupants of the land. If the Government is to express any understanding of the rights of indigenous people it must understand as the very first principle the significance of political representation. 
We must have the political will the courage and the follow-through to recognise the vital role that strong Maori representation plays in creating a functional and effective democracy. We owe it to all those who stood up for the people of Takaparawhau 31 years ago that we learn the lesson of history and actively involve and respect mana whenua as the first people of the land we know as Tamaki. Kia ora. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I agree with the member who has just resumed her seat Rahui Katene and say that her speech was well considered. There was nothing I could disagree with in what she said. What is occurring is a disgrace; that situation is one of a list of things that are a disgrace. The only comment I could make to her is the reflection that on matters of confidence her party is the party that is supporting the party that is doing those things. That is something she will be considering—and I am sure the member sitting next to her will be considering—over a period of time. I think that will be important. 
I will refer to the speech preceding Ms Katene’s speech from the Minister of Transport. He is the Minister of Transport who was offered quarter of an hour to explain the Government’s position on Waterview. He roared like a lion in here but he is not prepared to knock on those doors in Waterview and tell them what is going on while those doors still exist. Before the houses are bowled before the parks are ploughed up and before the community is destroyed one would expect a Minister to have the courage of his convictions and at least to use the processes of this Parliament to make a statement to have an urgent debate and to front up for the things for which he is responsible. 
I will also make some comments about Melissa Lee. It is very important that we get some things on the record. Melissa Lee made an application to New Zealand On Air through the company she owned before she became a candidate. Her circumstances changed. She became a candidate and she did not declare that change of circumstances before the funding decision was made. She should have. It is a basic matter of ethics that someone who has made an application for funding and who stands to financially benefit from an application should be transparent with the organisation that he or she is making an application to. 
My next point is about Pansy Wong and the financial agent for the National Party. 
Paul Quinn 
: How much petrol did you pay the unions with to shift your billboards? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will answer that question very very quickly. Lots of volunteers volunteered for my campaign and I declared every bit of it that was appropriate. The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union declared the rest of it. That member knows that because he is a member who looked at it. 
I will turn to Pansy Wong. She featured on the video made by Melissa Lee’s company. She did not declare that she widely distributed around the electorate of Botany where she was a candidate—[ 
Interruption 
] 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This House has lowered itself to barraging and that is not acceptable in this Chamber. I cannot even hear my colleague speak. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member makes a perfectly good point but he may recollect that— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Where was he during the last speech? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: While I am ruling there will not be interjections. The member may recollect that the Hon Steven Joyce faced very sustained interjections—and I will certainly stop the members—but I do not think the interjections on the member were nearly as bad as what happened during the Hon Steven Joyce’s speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order I say to the member that he might want to come closer. I could tell that the Speaker could hear me because he was nodding and I do not think it was because he was going to sleep. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard will continue his speech. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am making is that Pansy Wong did not declare the video that she widely distributed by way of DVD in her electorate. That was an expense for her and it was undeclared. The National Party did not declare it in its expenses or on the donation side. I do not know whether it had to and I do not know whether the DVD cost $10000 to make. It looked like it was very professional and I am sure that if it was made commercially then it would have cost $10000 and should have been declared. Even on the expenditure side it should have been declared and it was not. 
I want to know why John Key has said to Melissa Lee that he supported her actions with regard to that company. Did he support her standing over the staff while they were editing a political programme? Did he support her not declaring to New Zealand On Air her relationship with the company when she became a candidate? Did he support Pansy Wong when she did not declare that DVD when it was distributed? 
What are the standards of ethics that John Key is now promoting? Is he saying “If you can get away with it it is fine.”? What is very very clear is that someone who was actively involved in that company and who was being absolutely straightforward on the television that she had had a relationship breakdown with Melissa Lee has given a lot of evidence of unethical behaviour on the part of a member of this Parliament. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 It is interesting is it not that during question time Labour members made attempts to have questions and ask for a special debate about the Waterview Connection and then the Leader of the Opposition gets up and has 5 minutes to make a speech and does not focus at all on issues that matter to this nation other than to criticise a member of the Government. Quite honestly we have to ask what in the world this Labour Opposition is thinking when that is the level it can get to in debate. There are some important issues happening in New Zealand. Waterview Connection certainly is one of them and our Minister of Transport explained it well. 
I also tell the House that we have an issue called Auckland governance happening right now today and tomorrow. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would want to debate that issue but no he completely ignored it. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked for a briefing on the legislation that is to be put through the House today and tomorrow. I was asked as I know something of the detail of the legislation to go and brief the Leader of the Opposition. It was arranged for 5.20 p.m. I turned up in the Opposition office and I waited and I waited. Finally at 5.30 p.m. I got not Mr Goff but the recycled member George Hawkins who came in. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will anticipate this. All members are honourable members and the description given of the member was not that. It is something that I think members will take offence at. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is right. Members should not be referred to in that way. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Hon George Hawkins who has been put back into his position was Minister of Local Government and is now Opposition spokesman on local government. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No he wasn’t. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well actually he was. He was accompanied by one of the members of the Opposition Mr Twyford who has been demoted from 26 to 42. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would have actually wanted to know about what is in the legislation. But obviously it is not important enough for him to even bother attending the meeting at all. I would have thought that as it is such an important issue he would want to know what the Government is doing about the legislation. But no he is not interested does not care and could not have cared less. 
This is an important issue and this Government is taking it very seriously. But there are a couple of interesting things. Yesterday the Prime Minister answered a question and advised the House that the member of the Opposition Mr George Hawkins said he supported the Auckland Council concept for the region. Well that is great; it is nice to know that Mr Hawkins thinks that that is important as it should be. But then today we get a press release saying that Labour will oppose the super-city as it is called for Aucklanders having been consulted.  
Hon Member 
: Why? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Because Labour says there is not enough consultation. But the fact is that there will be consultation on the second bill a select committee will be set up submissions will be called for the Local Government Commission will be asking for submissions; there will be so much opportunity for input from the Auckland public. This Government is interested in listening to what Aucklanders and other New Zealanders have to say on the reforms that are happening in Auckland. We will give everyone the opportunity to have the input. That is exactly what is going on. We are happy to brief people including the Opposition—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the bill itself just starts the process and they will have months between here and towards April and May of next year to actually have an input into the two pieces of legislation. I am not sure how much more the Opposition thinks it needs when it could not even turn up to a 20-minute meeting yesterday. 
Then of course we look at Ross Robertson who has made some comments to the effect that “Bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better” but then went on to say: “We realise there are some Auckland-wide issues. Many such as water and sewage already have citywide solutions. I think a supercity to deal with citywide issues is needed.” He contradicts himself. Then after two members have said they support it Mr Twyford who is now No. 42 says his party has not yet decided what is going on. And so it goes on. 
But we keep on reading about the support for this Government on the Auckland reforms. I put out a story on behalf of Waitakere Mayor Mr Bob Harvey who apologised to Aucklanders because the leaders of Auckland have dropped the ball and said that we have needed to do something for the past 50 years and have not. This Government will do so. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Yesterday I was challenged by the Wellington City Council to stop pushing fiction and to concentrate on the facts with regard to the civil defence of this city. This afternoon I intend to do just that. 
The Wellington City Council has been reviewing its civil defence arrangements for some time. A very “high-powered” review team has been engaged: a Mr Stavros Michael who was the director of infrastructure for the Wellington City Council a Mr Mike Mendonca who runs city operations—we know that as including the rubbish tip—and Ms Jennifer Collins from human resources. As a consequence of their review as of last Friday the five permanent staff at the Wellington Emergency Management Office had all left. Earlier as a consequence of the review the network of volunteers—ever diminishing—around the city had been advised that because there was no technical officer or training officer available all volunteer courses had been cancelled until further notice. 
When I challenged Mr Mendonca yesterday on that point he said “Oh but we’ve got coverage from two other people seconded into the office in the interim.” By the end of the interview that figure had mysteriously grown to four. The reality is the round figure of zero. Mr Mendonca went on to say in a media statement yesterday that Wellington City Council was now in the process of appointing a new team—so it is not actually in place yet—but also that it had a network of hundreds of people around the city and around the council ready to step into the breach in the event of a civil emergency in the city. 
The plain fact is this: there is no civil defence structure in place. There is something called the Wellington City Council crisis management team which is actually culled from different parts of the council but relies very heavily on input from the Fire Service and the police. We have a team of operators at the Wellington Public Library who have apparently been trained to operate radio telephones but it is not actually clear to whom they report in the event of an emergency. When an official—one of those who has departed—was questioned by volunteers as to his assessment of the situation in Wellington his answer was a resounding no saying there is not enough help to help with the city in the event of a major civil emergency the police would have to take over and beyond that people had to realise that individuals would have to be responsible for their own areas for probably nearer to 3 months than the 3 days previously referred to. He also said none of the local civil defence centres were effectively operational and in large parts of the city there were no civil defence volunteers at all. 
I draw this to the attention of the House for two reasons. Firstly it is appalling that in the capital city of this country sited on a network of major earthquake fault lines this situation has been allowed to occur. Secondly and more seriously I accept that the council may be undertaking a review but why the secrecy? Why the lies? Why the threats to city council members and community board members that they will be up before the council on a breach of conduct if they dare to criticise council officers publicly? 
This issue is far too important for petty political games of this type. The Wellington City Council has to learn to accept some responsibility. It has to put in place an effective system. It has to stop the fob-offs that are going on at the moment when it says there is a mythical network of people out there to deal with the city in the event of a major emergency. Nature unfortunately does not sit back and wait for the Wellington City Council to be ready. I think those council members think it does. We have to have some clear and effective decisions. 
The Wellington City Council keeps offering to give me a briefing on the subject. I say that is fine; I am happy to accept that. I have said to the council that I will do so on one condition: that all of the people who have been expressing concern to me from around the city are entitled to receive the same briefing. The Wellington City Council’s answer to date has been a resounding silence. I am going to give it the opportunity. I am convening a meeting of all the civil defence volunteers this coming weekend. I am inviting the Wellington City Council to attend and to spell out to them the full and unexpurgated detail of the review—what is happening what the time frame for its completion is and what the structure will be when that is completed—and more important what the plan is in precise detail right now in the event of a civil emergency in the city. There are over 400000 people in Wellington. Their lives are at risk every day that this prevaricating bumbling and inefficient council—the best argument yet for a super-city—continues in this vein. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Members of this House have been treated with utter contempt by a Minister of the Government. Today when a request to have an urgent debate on the Waterview Connection announcement was declined the Minister of Transport issued a press release about the tunnel option a minute after the Speaker’s determination. It is absolutely disgusting that people living in the Mt Albert community who want some answers on this particular issue and who want it seriously addressed did not get the opportunity to hear the debate on this issue in the House today. 
The Minister has a lot of explaining to do but we should not be surprised. The Minister did not even talk about this issue to his own local candidate in the Mt Albert by-election. He did not bother to address any questions today in the House about this issue and then leave was denied for an urgent question by our spokesperson on transport. We understand that around 250 homes in Mt Albert will be affected. The Waterview Connection is a very important issue in Mt Albert. It is such an important issue that I am sure Melissa Lee is struggling to explain the decision of her Government. There has been no call on this issue in this House over the last week at all. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Not a word. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Not one—silence. So we should not be surprised or alarmed that Aucklanders are being treated in this way by the Government. 
On the issue of Auckland governance—the matter that I want to address today—local communities all over Auckland have asked to be consulted on the Government’s proposals. Many of those proposals have ignored the royal commission’s recommendations. People have been turning out all over Auckland to public meetings to express their utter discontent with the Government’s proposals on Auckland governance. They recognise that a strategic solution is required. Out of good courtesy to citizens in Auckland one would think that the Government would go back to those communities and consult about its own proposals. It is a departure from the royal commission’s recommendations. It is a departure from expectations some of which were quite well supported in the royal commission’s report about what representation may look like in Auckland. 
I want to address issues that relate to Hauraki-Waikato because three of those councils fall within my own electorate: the Franklin District Council the Papakura District Council and Counties-Manukau. I turned up to a meeting in Papakura which the Associate Minister of Local Government was at and about 600 people from across the Papakura community had turned out to express their discontent about the proposals the Government was ramming through without any participation from the public whatsoever. Many questions could not be answered. One of the most interesting questions at the Papakura meeting that could not be answered—that the Minister of Local Government himself when questioned by Phil Twyford could not answer—was about the cost for the Government’s proposals. The people there were absolutely astounded that here we had the Government turning up to try to convince people that this is the best way forward yet it could not address the issue of cost. As ratepayers people are left wondering why they have to pay for something that they will not even get a say on. Very simple questions could not be answered at all. 
Meetings all over Auckland and all through those three areas in my electorate have been held on Maori representation. That is a broader issue about how we ensure that good decision-making occurs at the highest level in Auckland. Most councils and certainly the three that I am talking about have established very strong mana whenua relationships in their own districts so it is not a departure from what existing councils are trying to do—strengthen their relationships with mana whenua and Maori in their communities. But from the Government we have had total rejection altogether that Maori matter when it comes to local decision-making and local government. It is absolutely unbelievable. I thought we were going forwards not backwards. 
Is this the bright future that National has promised for the country? Is this the bright future that is inclusive of all people? Is this the bright future that allows everybody to participate? At the TelstraClear stadium on Monday night we had loads of Pacific people also expressing their concern about how their views would be accommodated on the Auckland super-city structure. There is a lot of answering to be done and National is not doing any of it. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will talk today about the Waterview issue. On behalf of west Auckland I say “Thank you!”. West Aucklanders have been waiting for 40-odd years to be able to drive from west Auckland to South Auckland without having to go through Spaghetti Junction. We have been waiting for this motorway for years and years but there has been no lolly over the last 9 years. We were promised a double tunnel that would cost something in the vicinity of $3 billion. Members opposite when in Government would not say where they were going to get the money from. Where was the money going to come from? They led the electorate up the garden path. People in Mt Albert said “Thank God for Helen!” while the rest of the country said “Thank God Helen’s gone!”. That was the sort of politicking and pork-barrel politics that was in operation over the last 9 years. We in this country are patting ourselves on the back because we got rid of that sort of pork-barrel politics. 
I heard in the Chamber today that Darren Hughes wants to compensate not only those who will lose their houses but also those who will not lost their houses—just because a motorway will be going through the area. I tell the young whippersnapper Darren Hughes who really should be in seventh form— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think I can anticipate the point of order. Members should use appropriate titles for other members. The member should withdraw that comment. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member for the West Coast and at least two other members were calling out while you were on your feet. I ask that you deal with them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Members know well enough that points of order are heard in silence. Today we have had a few breaches in that area. Let this be a general warning. Those members who offended on that occasion know better. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I remind the young Darren Hughes that I was born and bred in a place called Otara. I had as my back lawn some corn and the Southern Motorway. Not one of his mates in Labour ever suggested that my old man and my mother be compensated because there was a blinking motorway in the backyard. For goodness’ sake! Is this what Labour members have come to? That member shakes his head but he said he wants to compensate those who will not lose their homes. What about the people in Waterview? Who asked the people of Mt Albert when the motorway was actually being put through their place— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’ve lost the plot! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I have lost the plot! Members on this side of the House do not lose the plot. “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. Does the member remember what mum and dad used to say to this side of the House? That lot on the other side of the House are not about progress; this side of the House is all about progress. 
The road from west Auckland to the south-east point of Auckland is good for the country. It is good for productivity. It is all about progress. If Labour wants to stand in the way of progress then so be it; it can stay in Opposition for the next 20 years. But this side of the House is about progress productivity and getting the country moving. Yes some people will be hurt by the removal of some houses. Some houses will have to be moved. We feel sorry about that having to happen but those people will be taken care of. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No they won’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes they will—through the Public Works Act. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s not the Public Works Act. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The member has not read what it states in the Public Works Act. I am really sorry that Opposition members have not done their homework. They have come to the Chamber unprepared with only a rant and a rave from Darren Hughes. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a point of order was raised against me and when a colleague of mine also had a point of order raised against him I wonder whether you turned the time off. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did but now the member’s time will be turned off. His time has expired. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 There are a number of immediate and important issues facing our country today such as the ridiculous Waterview Connection motorway project which will waste billions of dollars and the matter of Auckland governance. Today I will focus on some more positive long-term issues. 
Last week during the general debate my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons laid out before this Parliament the world view of the Green Party with its aspiration of a more harmonious and prosperous future steering us away from the dangers humankind presently faces. It is my intention today to elaborate on the economic dimensions of our philosophy. We contend first that green economics is the only way to achieve that aspiration. In the 19th century the classical theories of Smith and Ricardo freed societies from feudalism through a self-regulatory free market that claimed to be optimally productive. The potent partnership of capitalism and technology generated unprecedented industrial development liberating us from some of the age-old scourges of disease pestilence and famine. Freedom of the individual and the market were central tenets though of course the experience of the industrial working class was one of struggling to achieve these freedoms. 
In the early 20th century neoclassical economics developed these notions further with theories of profit maximisations consumer rationality and market information. In the 1930s macroeconomic planning through public finance management reflected the new reach of modern technology and the globalisation of economic supply and demand. Responding to the Great Depression Keynesian theory emphasised the role of the public sector in stimulating growth through active fiscal management—a lesson we have recently had to relearn. Welfare of the individual and the responsibility of the State were central tenets of Keynesianism. 
By the late 20th century monetarist theory had reverted to the free-market principles and the use of interest and exchange rates independently managed by central banks as the means to wealth. But its weak regulatory frameworks led to excessive corporate speculation and irresponsible investment practice. Thus we face the serious global financial crisis of today. The invisible hand miraculously appears to be begging for help. 
Neither of these economic theories has paid due attention to the natural world. Traditional economic theory demands continuous material growth. The classical theory of capitalism and compound interest rates requires limitless growth yet the planet is finite. This fundamental illogic if allowed to proceed spells disaster for humanity. Yet traditional economics ensnared in its own tenets remains blind to this obvious truth about the finite world. Since the mid-1970s although GDP has continued to increase the general progress indicator which includes social and environmental measures has steadily declined. The global economy far from strengthening has experienced negative marginal utility. We would be foolhardy to continue along the same path yet we hear no cry for any change of direction from National or Labour. 
Ecological economics the theoretical basis of the Green Party’s economic policy introduces a remedial element that is essential to our 21st century survival and prosperity. Its central goal which is sustainability can be attained only when its three component factors—economic social and environmental—are met. It understands that society is a subset of the environment and that the economy is a subset of society. Ecological economics differs from traditional economics in four ways: it values nature not as an object of productive exploitation but for its intrinsic worth to humanity; it accords equal importance to the well-being of the next generation as well as our own; it acknowledges the irreversibility of environmental change from economic behaviour; and it recognises the uncertainty of environmental outcomes from economic inputs. 
Ecological economics thus adopts the uncertainty principle which requires that an economic development project will not proceed unless it is clear that irreversible environmental damage will not occur. Although the international community embraced this principle 20 years ago no New Zealand Government has properly implemented it into domestic law. The result is that irreversible damage continues to be done to our national environment and thus to our long-term economic potential. 
Traditional economics takes into account three components: land labour and investments. Ecological economics factors in the fourth: natural resources. By omitting the fourth classical and neoclassical economics fails the test of the current age. The Green New Deal offers a new way ahead. The Green Party is developing a set of economic policies involving fiscal and budgetary measures that are suitable for our time. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is an honour to stand today to talk about the issues that matter in this Parliament; not to talk about scandals and personal politics but to talk about the things that matter. And Auckland governance matters. It matters because Auckland is the biggest city in this country and the economic driver of this country. We have to get it right and that is why urgency is pending. 
This afternoon we have heard many speakers talk about personal politics but I will talk about the Waterview tunnel because it is quite a pertinent issue for Aucklanders right now. The proposal that the Labour Government put forward would have cost $3 billion. That is twice the cost of the proposal that National is putting forward. What is the difference in cost—accepting that Labour’s proposal was unfunded and did not come up with any rigorous financial analysis? The difference in cost is $1.5 billion. I ask members what that would buy. How many hip operations would it buy? How many schools and how many early childhood education centres would it buy? Labour wants to invest $3 billion into all this dirt and infrastructure. That is an awful lot of money for a party that says it stands up for the workers and the children. This country is in a recession. The Labour Party has not realised that we are in a recession and that every dollar counts. I will tell members what $1.5 billion will buy: per household it will save $7.5 million. And what was it for? The previous Prime Minister stated that the Waterview motorway would happen over her dead body. Well it will not happen over her dead body but it will go ahead anyway. It will go ahead because the National Government is about cost-effective spending and listening to the voters. 
We have had consultation in terms of Auckland governance. Although Labour members stand there and say National has not consulted we actually have. Three and a half thousand people made submissions last year to the royal commission of inquiry. There were a number of public meetings. As the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said a thousand people went to a Papakura meeting. Guess what I am doing? 
Paul Quinn 
: What are you doing? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Guess what I am doing? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What are you doing? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I myself am holding public meetings and I have some leaflets here. I say to members opposite that they do not need to come into my office uninvited and take these leaflets; I will give them these— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A council meeting is not a public meeting—that doesn’t count. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I will personally give the Hon Trevor Mallard an invitation so that he does not have to come into my office and take my pamphlets. 
National’s Auckland governance proposal is about community board representation. We have put forward 20 to 30 community boards which will represent grassroots people. Do members know what the general electorate said last November? The general electorate said that it trusted National because National represents grassroots people. Forty-four percent of the country said that it trusted and wanted National and that it actually represented the workers unlike our friends across the aisle. 
As my colleague the Hon Tau Henare said motorways have been built across South Auckland. But what is the Labour Party doing for the people of South Auckland? Nothing! It was in Government for 9 years and there are motorways all over the place. 
This Government is hearing the people and taking action in order to benefit those people. I ask members how many hip operations could be performed for the $1.5 billion of excessive cost that Labour members would invest in the Waterview tunnel. I ask them why they would not put that money into the Onehunga foreshore. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will carry on shortly from what MP Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga said and talk about the tunnel—or should I say Councillor Sam Lotu-Iiga? In thinking about this issue in light of the fact that we are in the middle of a recession I say that perhaps the member could help one jobless person by giving up one of his jobs. I think that is a good idea. In talking about the money that we need for hip operations I say that perhaps we could have paid for a number of hip operations if we had not paid out tax cuts to a number of rich people earlier this year. Those tax cuts mostly went to the top 3 percent of income earners in New Zealand. Councillor and MP Sam Lotu-Iiga should say thank you for those two sets of tax cuts. 
The National Government’s actions in scuttling the proposed Waterview tunnel are the actions of a Government that is out of touch with the interests and wishes of the people it purports—as Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was just doing—to represent. The twin tunnel proposal was decided upon after an extensive consultation process between the previous Labour Government and local residents. That is something that the National Government would not know anything about. Now the transport Minister has decided to pursue a cheaper alternative though it is one that is undoubtedly more costly to the local community. This shows a refusal to relate to and accommodate the interests of ordinary New Zealanders. Unfortunately in this instance perhaps because the consultation took place under the previous Labour Government the Minister has decided it is more important to prioritise politics over the best interests of the community. 
In order to justify the decision to dump the plans for a two-lane tunnel the transport Minister has claimed there is a budget blowout. According to the Minister under Labour’s plan the tunnel would have cost $2.7 billion. That is pure deception. That is the cost of a three-lane tunnel and other costs that come alongside that which would have to be paid for anyway. Three lanes are not necessary. Further work on cycleways and improving the public transport system would have ensured that two-lane tunnels would not create bottlenecks and that the extra lanes would not be required. The transport Minister however has reduced the funding options for public transport despite the support of Aucklanders for an improvement of the public transport system. The Minister has also inflated the figure of $2.7 billion by including extra works on State Highway 16—works that must be done regardless of which option is chosen and regardless of the financing costs. 
We just heard the member Sam Lotu-Iiga say the figure is now $3 billion—from $2.7 billion to $3 billion. The Minister has manipulated the cost of the tunnel to suit his own political agenda. The tunnel that Labour proposed would have cost $1.98 billion. That is more than the $1 billion to $1.4 billion that the Minister is willing to spend but there would have been considerably less cost to the residents of the area many of whom under the current Government’s plans will lose their homes. We have just found out that now with the new plans approximately 365 homes will be lost—one for every day of the year. Thank you National Government! 
The previous Labour Government acknowledged that Mount Albert residents were overwhelmingly in support of the tunnel option over any surface road alternatives. In respect of the Transit New Zealand consultative process 76 percent of respondents were in support of the tunnel. The transport Minister not only disregards those findings but refuses to visit the Mount Albert - Waterview area and meet community groups despite their requests. Community groups support the tunnel as does the Auckland City Council’s transport community. Who does not support the tunnel? Business lobbyists and the National Government. 
The National candidate for Mt Albert Melissa Lee has claimed that Labour had not budgeted for the Waterview Connection. Labour had in fact explored many options to fund the Waterview tunnel including a regional fuel tax which would have allowed the Auckland region to invest local funds in local infrastructure projects; public-private partnerships; and Government bonds. Steven Joyce has replaced the proposed regional fuel tax with a national fuel tax. In respect of using public-private partnerships and Government bonds to accelerate infrastructure development he has been silent. Those are viable options to fund a tunnel that would be in the best interests of the Mount Albert and Waterview communities yet the National Government instead of exploring the options will not acknowledge them. 
Steven Joyce has used the excuse of a Budget blowout to halt the Waterview tunnel project yet the tunnel which was a Labour proposal that had the clear support of the local community would have cost $1.9 billion. That figure is far from the $2.77 billion that the Minister claims or the $3 billion that Sam Lotu-Iiga claims. The figure keeps getting bigger. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Today is a historic day for Auckland. I am proud to be part of a party that has the guts to move Auckland forward compared with a Labour Party that has lost all credibility in Auckland. Labour has gone absolutely barmy with the by-election. We saw that when Phil Goff instead of choosing to speak about one of the most historic days for Auckland spoke about Mt Albert and about trying to take out Melissa Lee. Why? Because his job is on the line. Phil Goff has to win Mt Albert or he is gone. He will be gone by lunchtime. Labour would put forward $1.5 billion to spend on a tunnel. That is the most expensive job in New Zealand’s history. That is how much Labour wants to spend to keep Phil in the job. 
Today is a historic day for Auckland. We have put forward legislation that will establish one council for Auckland. Labour has been polling in Auckland on local government and has found that it is 50 percent for and 50 percent against. That was in its caucus. Labour is so divided on the issue of Auckland governance that we have seen a mix of policy positions coming out from Labour. In fact George Hawkins and Ross Robertson were releasing different positions on Auckland. 
At the end of the day Labour members have been all over the place. At a time when they are saying we should support the royal commission they have come out against the at-large seats. We are not clear whether Labour supports Maori seats. We have seen different policy positions from Labour. Today is a time to move Auckland forward and Labour cannot even get its policy straight. Labour members are not talking about the issues that matter. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but at least three conversations are going on across the Chamber as well as the speaker. The rules are quite clear: interjections are permissible as long as they are rare and reasonable. We will not have three alternative conversations going on in loud voices. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: This is a historic day for Auckland but it is so poignant that at a time when we are moving Auckland forward—finally after 50 years of fragmentation—we see Labour wanting to spend $1.5 billion to save Phil Goff’s job. Do you know how many people would kill for some money right now? We are in a recession and you want to spend the money to buy the Mt Albert by-election. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know what— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I might have just missed it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She was suggesting that you want to spend some money. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member will mind her pronouns. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Labour wants to spend $1.5 billion at a time when we are in a recession. People are struggling out there but it is all about the by-election for Labour. Well I have news for Labour. When Labour members come to campaign in 2011 they will realise that Labour has sold itself out on the by-election rather than spending the money on health and education which is what National is interested in doing. We are interested in spending money on health education and core public services. Labour instead is interested in spending the money on bureaucracy. Labour is interested in buying the people of Mt Albert. But when Labour members turn up in 2011 they will find that the people of Auckland have seen that you have tried to bribe the people of Mt Albert at the expense of the rest of Auckland. It is pork-barrel politics— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Did I miss it again? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well in this particular case it was more serious. There was an allegation that you bribed people. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I know the member is quite enjoying her speech but she should just mind her pronouns please. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Labour members will turn up in 2011 and all they cared about was Mt Albert. Phil Goff will be gone. 
Hon Members 
: No he won’t. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Yes he will; Phil Goff will be gone—that is right. He will be gone because as we saw he fixed the election in Mt Albert. Phil Twyford was gone by lunchtime for his best mate David Shearer. At the end of the day people can see right through it. We are interested in the issues that matter. We are interested in taking Auckland forward on a historic day for Auckland. All Labour is interested in is Mt Albert. We are interested in fixing Auckland. Historic legislation will go through the House today. All that you are left with is walking the streets of Mt Albert and you will continue to drop in the polls— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Where’s Melissa Lee? 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Melissa Lee is knocking on doors in Mt Albert. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You dropping even in the polls would be an interesting thing. I know the member is new but you have given her four warnings now I think. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No this will be the third warning. The member is aware I am sure—[ 
Interruption 
] I have referred to the fact that several conversations are going on across the Chamber. The member is actually competing with quite a bit of alternative noise but I ask her to just mind her pronouns. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Today is a historic day for Auckland. Today Labour has shown its colours. It is interested in winning an election in Mt Albert at the expense of the rest of Auckland. The rest of Auckland knows better. The rest of Auckland is interested in who will pay the health and education bill for core public services. The people of Auckland Central are not interested in Labour buying the Mt Albert by-election. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded Government order of the day No. 1 the introduction and passing of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and the introduction and first readings of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 
. These bills are those that the Government believes should be progressed with some haste. The first bill—the introduction and passing through all stages of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—facilitates the transitional arrangements that are to apply to Auckland City as it goes through the process of merging into one council. For the second bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which is the bill that will set out the size of the council and the nature of the electoral arrangements for the council etc. the motion relates to the introduction and first reading and referral to a select committee. That bill will be considered by a special select committee to be set up under the motion that is Government order of the day No. 1. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of Select Committees 
Appointments 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it on such legislation concerning the governance of Auckland that may be referred to it; the committee to consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand National 5 New Zealand Labour 3 Green Party 1 ACT New Zealand 1 and Maori Party 1 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 189 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
 The Government considers that in order for the people of Auckland to have the greatest say on the structure of Auckland governance and to make their views most clearly known to Parliament prior to a bill being passed into an Act that sets up the structure they should have an opportunity to air their concerns aspirations and hopes through a select committee process. A special select committee in the nature of the one we are proposing here has the opportunity to focus entirely on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. Those who have noted the motion will have heard that the committee will be completely unconstrained in the way it can take time in order to facilitate all of those who want to make a contribution to its work. 
The process is one that sees a group of parliamentarians nominated by their parties paying particular focus on the bill and on future bills that may be referred to the select committee. There is no specification as to the life of the select committee. The committee will be established with the open mandate of receiving from Parliament any bills that relate to the governance issue. 
We have heard a lot of debate this afternoon about issues that relate to Auckland. I cannot help thinking that each of the issues that has come up bit by bit can in some way be put down to the disparate organisation of local government in Auckland over a very long period of time. We have heard members from both sides of the House talking about the extraordinary length of time it has taken to build roads from one side of the city to the other when it would have seemed to people in most parts of New Zealand the most patently obvious thing to do. Although there is no point in pointing fingers at past generations it is important that in the future not only for Auckland City but for the whole country because of the productivity factor that a large city like Auckland represents we get this particular arrangement right. 
There has been a royal commission process. The commission as we know received thousands of submissions listened to hundreds of submitters and made some very good recommendations to the Government. The bit that was least clear in the commission’s report was the extent to which local representation should be accommodated in the new governance structure. The Government has rejected the idea of having six local councils and then nothing below them with the single unitary authority over the top and instead has looked at having perhaps a much larger number of local boards to represent the 1.4 million people who make up the city of Auckland. It is our view that the select committee process may well give a steer to the Local Government Commission which is ultimately responsible for striking those boundaries in indicating where the communities of interest lie around Auckland City. 
An issue that will also occupy the special committee is how representation on the unitary council—that is the council that sits over the top of the whole city arrangement—is to be determined. There are those who say “Let’s have 12 councillors elected from super wards”—they would be very very large areas bigger than most electorates that are represented in Parliament—“plus another eight or so who are elected at large.” Other people say “Let’s have the whole 20 on the council elected entirely from a ward structure.” and further there are people who say that 20 is too few and there perhaps need to be a few more. I do not doubt that there are people who say 20 is far too many and there should be even fewer councillors. 
Those are the sorts of issues that this special select committee will have to wrestle with. I am confident that the members the National Party sends to it—particularly the individual whom we expect to chair that committee and who will certainly go to its first meeting with National Party support—will be a person who has great knowledge of the proposed structure and great respect for the voices of Auckland so that they may be heard during the committee process. 
It is my hope that other parties approach this process with an equally open mind. It is disappointing to hear that Labour having had the foresight to commission the royal commission’s look at Auckland has decided that it cannot support the proposals that are currently on the table. It seems to me a rather churlish way to deal with such a big chunk of the voting population. It would be worse if Labour was to choose to mix up this particular issue of governance with the Mt Albert by-election which everyone knows is a pressure point for Labour. That pressure is natural: Labour holds that seat by a substantial majority and it appears that that will be somewhat set aside whatever happens in the by-election. The by-election creates pressure—we understand that—but it should not get in the way of proper consideration of what will effectively be the governance arrangements for Auckland for decades to come. 
Similarly we have heard this afternoon much talk about the roading issue in Auckland particularly the Waterview Connection. It seems to me the chosen project having been published by the New Zealand Transport Agency that we are now into a bit of an argument of “My tunnel is bigger than your tunnel.” Essentially there is little else that is different about the two proposals other than the extraordinary price tag difference. National has ruled out the very expensive option. We are delighted the New Zealand Transport Agency has put up an option that will save literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I bet that metaphor gets changed in the Hansard 
“Yellow”. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: However we get someone like Mr Hughes over there who tends to fixate on whether anything is bigger than his. He will no doubt run the argument all along that a bigger tunnel would have been better. Well all I can say is that our tunnel might be shorter but it is somewhat wider. 
I hope the special select committee does not get too embroiled in the sideshow issues that the by-election and the choice of project for the Waterview Connection may represent. Some big issues are coming up for Auckland and for New Zealand in the very near future. Our opportunity to run major events in this country which have a very positive economic effect will be determined by how successful the governance structure of Auckland ends up becoming. I know that Aucklanders are committed to the issue. I know they will turn up in large numbers to the select committee hearings. I indicate that the Government is delighted about that involvement. We are open to what Aucklanders have to say about the structure of Auckland’s governance and we will participate in an open-minded fashion with the select committee as it goes about its business. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “3” and substituting “4” 
. Labour rises to speak today to the Government’s decision to establish a special select committee to consider legislation relating to Auckland governance with some sense of irony having just listened to the Leader of the House who 2 days in a row has given a speech that is completely different from the sorts of speeches we were used to him giving when he was an Opposition member. My amendment relates to the entitlement of political parties in this Chamber to be represented on the select committee and I want to address my amendment first of all. 
Earlier in the week the Opposition was advised that National would take four seats on the select committee and Labour would take three and that the other parties would take one seat each. Today the motion from the Leader of the House gives National five seats Labour three seats and the Green Party the ACT Party and the Maori Party one seat each resulting in the National-led Government taking seven seats and the Opposition taking only four. That is contrary to the way we have generally run our select committees and that is why I hope my amendment will be supported by the Government because a bit of sloppy work I suspect has resulted in this particular way. It is particularly so seeing that the Labour caucus is over eight times the size of the ACT caucus for reasonable reasons; but on this occasion Labour will have three seats and the ACT Party—which did not even pass the 5 percent threshold—will receive one seat in that respect. The Leader of the House I think for the sake of the good order of Parliament should consider correcting the mistake that has been made with the imbalance of membership in terms of representation of the main parties— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no mistake here—no mistake. The numbers were four or five and the number chosen was five. As for the eight versus three— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No no. Please sit down. That was not a point of order as we were alerted to today with some of the Speakers’ rulings earlier in the day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: In fact it is true that the best place for that Leader of the House to be is outside the House because things generally work a little more— 
Simon Bridges 
: No no—you can’t do that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Of course you can. He said that as he walked out of the door. He said “I am leaving now.” so I think it is almost on the record that he is not here. So I think a little bit of preciousness from National is not required—oh he is back. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes I am reconsidering! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s just not on for him to threaten the House in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No we are not going to go there. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Can I say how good Gerry Brownlee looks on the Government back benches and given his competency he can choose any one of the seats back there. I think the sheepskin will be ordered— 
Hon Member 
: Paul Quinn’s. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well Paul Quinn will not be using that seat for very long I suspect but that is a matter entirely in the hands of Paul Quinn. 
The reality with this special select committee is that the Government has not handled either the process of the royal commission or the setting up of this committee in the kind of way we would expect for the fair representation of political parties in the House. The committee will be considering legislation relating to Auckland governance and it is worth pointing out at this point that the legislation comes from a royal commission which is the most serious inquiry that the Government can order into any topic. Royal commissions are the “gold-plated” inquiries if you like of the way in which we are able to consider a serious issue confronting the country. Indeed during the 9 years of the previous Government only two royal commissions were commissioned—one into genetic modification a very serious issue and the second one into the issues around Auckland governance. 
What concerns the Opposition so strongly is that having received a report into Auckland governance from a royal commission that worked very diligently and very hard on the matter the Government has acted in a very cavalier way to bring legislation to the House so quickly upon receiving that report. For example the royal commission’s report runs for over several hundred pages yet we are expected to believe that Government members received that report of several hundred pages read it considered it debated it reflected on it and announced their position on it within 10 days of the release of that report. I just do not think that that is credible—not one bit at all. So I will ask the Minister of Education as the ranking Government member in the Chamber whether she has read every page of the royal commission report into Auckland governance. It is unusual to have such silence from a Minister who just before said what a good reader she was. I am sure Mr Mallard will explore that particular point in the coming days weeks months—but not years in her case. That would be the fact. I want to know from National members whether they read this report cover to cover. Did the member for Auckland Central read the royal commission report before the Government made its decision? How much of it has she read? 
Nikki Kaye 
: Oh probably 80 percent. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She has read 80 percent of the royal commission report— 
Chris Hipkins 
: 8 percent. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —or did she say 8 percent? I might have misheard her across the Chamber. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Executive summary. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh the executive summary or the whole report—well I do not actually think that that is the case. I would be very surprised if she had read 80 percent of that. Would the member be prepared to table her copy of the royal commission report complete with her notes highlighted remarks and yellow post-it notes later today? Would the member table her copy? Well I think we have now established that the member for Auckland Central has not read 80 percent of the royal commission report but I want to know who has read the whole lot. Has John Carter read every single page of the royal commission report? Has he read every page? He will not answer that either. So we are rapidly establishing that having received a really good report which has been thoroughly investigated and had research papers attached to it—a decent report from the royal commission; the best thing a Government can ask any inquiry to provide—National members have not even bothered to read it properly and fully before they have made their decisions about Auckland. Then they have come to Parliament and asked us to set up a special select committee in order for them to do their work. It is just not credible for them to maintain that position; they have not done the work on Auckland governance in time for this. 
They have instead—and this is a bit of political advice to the Government—forced people into positions that they cannot back down from quickly. The Government has forced people into a position where they have to oppose what the Government is proposing because the Government has not been prepared to engage and listen and to allow a reasonable amount of time—rather than 10 days—before it has put its position out to the country. Quite why it has done that I do not understand and maybe Government speakers can outline that for us. 
In relation to this special select committee I tell the House that it is not without precedent for Parliament to have stand-alone committees. There was one looking into employment relations legislation back in 2000 when a new Government came in with a very full Order Paper of legislation. A lot of work was required to be done by the new Government so a special select committee had to be set up. I think that anybody even a National Party supporter with a cursory look at the Order Paper under this Government will see that it is not exactly taxed for work when it comes to new ideas the Government has put on the Order Paper or new legislation that the Government wants to see brought forward in this country. After 6 months we have very very few bills at all on the Order Paper that legitimately belong to the Government—that have been introduced by the Government or where the policy work has been done by the Government. The bills still remain the ideas of the previous Government. And that is after 9 years in Opposition as Mr Twyford said in which to come up with some ideas. 
So that is the reason why the employment relations committee was set up as a stand-alone committee. The existing Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was already busy with work. The employment relations committee of course was opposed by National members in Opposition who said it was a very dangerous thing to have. I happen to have some quotes here from members who are now very very senior members of the National Government—or to be fair they became senior members of the Opposition; then they were junior members and now they are back as senior members of the National Government. That is the sort of musical chairs we were subjected to as that period went on. 
Someone we do not hear a lot from today is Dr Wayne Mapp but Dr Mapp received a warrant to be a Minister in Government which I just relate to the House as breaking news. He was very critical of this when in Opposition—as was Ken Shirley who was the deputy leader of the ACT Party and as was Simon Power who is the workhorse—the “Bill Birch” if you will—of this Government. He has said that select committees are the backbone of democracy and that they should not be undermined in this way. 
Standing Order 184 sets out which select committees the House has in all their subject areas. We have one called the Local Government and Environment Committee. That committee considers matters concerning local government. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who chairs that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I will get to that. But that committee is clearly charged by this House to deal with matters for local government. But what was established in question time today was that that committee will not have any work at all once the reports on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill are finished later on in June and if I get out the  
Parliamentary Bulletin 
 I can see that the only work before the Local Government and Environment Committee will be a briefing from the Department of Internal Affairs on actions arising from the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. So the select committee has filled up its work plan with a briefing on a piece of legislation that it will not be given the chance to look at. The Local Government and Environment Committee could easily handle this work and there is no reason for us to have a special committee. The Local Government and Environment Committee of course is chaired by Chris Auchinvole and that may well be one of the reasons why the Government is not so keen to go with it. 
But I want to know from the Leader of the House in the remaining minute I have which Auckland members will go on this committee to represent National. I really hope that the Hon Tau Henare goes on the committee because one thing we know about Tau is his constant and perpetual state of anger and I think that it would not be too hard for Opposition members to convince him to come on our side on some of these matters. After Nikki Kaye’s speech today I certainly hope she is appointed to the committee. Sam Lotu-Iiga would make a great contribution but he is always busy with those draft annual plan meetings in his role as a councillor. We just do not know what the drainage board might have on that day which would mean that Sam Lotu-Iiga could not be there. But the member whom I really hope gets appointed to the committee is Steven Joyce because if anyone knows how to stuff up Auckland it is Steven Joyce and he could do some great work on the select committee in that regard. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Well there has been a lot of jocular laughing in this House as we consider Government motion No. 2 but in fact it is no laughing matter. Aucklanders need to be aware that what is happening in Parliament this afternoon and what will happen over the next 24 hours with the establishment of the special select committee on Auckland governance and the ramming through of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is nothing less than “Rogernomics Part 2: The Unfinished Business of Rogernomics”. It is no wonder that Roger is sitting here in the House with his newspaper happily watching what is about to unfold. 
The establishment of this committee and the passing of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill will strip eight democratically elected and well-functioning Auckland councils which represent over 1.4 million Aucklanders of all meaningful power within the next 24 hours. It will hand that power over to a few hand-picked mates of Rodney Hide. Those mates will be appointed to the Auckland Transition Agency and will be accountable only to Rodney Hide not to the people of Auckland. When the bill is passed within the next 24 hours all the important decisions made by the eight councils in Auckland or by any of their subsidiaries will have to be approved by the transition agency. It will have the power to exert almost total control over the eight councils with their combined assets of $27 billion their annual revenue of $2.3 billion and their 6300 staff. 
What a coup Rodney Hide is pulling off in the next 24 hours! It is no wonder he wanted to be the Minister of Local Government. He sensed that in the next few years there would not be an opportunity to flog off State-owned enterprises and assets so he said let us focus all our energies on local government instead come up with a radical new structure and prepare it for privatisation and contracting out. When we read the policy of Rodney Hide’s ACT Party on local government we see that at least that party is honest that its policy is to remove all commercial activities from local government and put them in private hands. 
Once the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is passed Auckland’s councillors and mayors who have been democratically elected by the people of Auckland will have their hands tied behind their backs. They will be effectively impotent. Instead of being answerable and accountable to their electors they will be answerable and accountable to the hand-picked transition agency which will have Draconian powers and will be filled with Rodney’s cronies. The transition agency will even have the power—if we can believe this—to control what councillors can discuss at meetings. It will be able to review council agendas and restrict what councils and all their subsidiary bodies can talk about when their members come together. This particularly offensive provision is a restriction on freedom of assembly. We can see the hand of Roger Douglas and Rodney Hide in this coup d’état and in the whole way that Auckland’s restructuring has unfolded to date. We can see it in the shock tactics that have been used to ram this legislation through before people have the ability and the time to understand its implications. 
Let us look at some of the tactics that have been used to pull off this remarkable coup. The first classic Rogernomics tactic was to not tell New Zealanders in your manifesto before the election that you were planning to radically restructure Auckland. Instead you implied that you supported the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and promised Aucklanders solemnly that once the royal commission’s report came out you would consult with them—that is what you promised— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You cannot use the word “you”. The matter has been canvassed by other speakers. Please do not use the word “you”. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The Government assured Aucklanders that all it was planning to do was to implement the royal commission’s report but once the report had come out the Government threw it in the bin after 1 week of consideration refused to allow consultation on the new and radical restructuring proposals and ignored the formal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act. Then the Government refused to allow anyone to see the bill and even this Government motion on the issue until a few hours before they were introduced into this House. 
It is a fundamental right of democratic governance that any change to a system of governance should be agreed to by the majority of the governed. That is why we had a referendum on MMP before we changed our system of governance. Aucklanders are being denied the fundamental right to agree or disagree by a majority with these radical restructuring proposals even though this right is enshrined in the Local Government Act. The Act says that before any significant local body reorganisation can take place a formal consultation process must occur including formally consulting stakeholders giving formal notification of the proposal calling for public submissions on the proposal and conducting a poll of electors which in this case would be those in the Auckland region to determine by a simple majority whether the proposal should proceed. That is all spelt out solemnly in the Local Government Act. This Government has thrown out all of the formal consultation rights that Aucklanders have under the Local Government Act. They are being denied the rights that every other New Zealander has when there is a local government reorganisation. 
Instead Aucklanders are being offered the crumb that we are considering here tonight. They are being offered the opportunity to make a submission before the special select committee that we are setting up which is conveniently stacked with Government members. It will be a very very busy committee because yesterday the Prime Minister gave an assurance in this House that every single Aucklander who wanted to be heard by the committee would be heard by it. We want a commitment from the Government—I see that Mr Hide is about to speak and perhaps he would like to make this commitment—that every Aucklander who wants to will be able to make an oral submission not just a written submission and to get a proper hearing not the couple of minutes that have been given to submitters to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
The Greens cannot understand why this matter has not been referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. Is it because the Government does not have confidence in the chair of that committee and does not have confidence that it can control and manipulate the committee? Why are we leaving the Local Government and Environment Committee with nothing to do and setting up this special committee? Nobody has explained that. Everyone knows that select committees are a complete waste of time if the Government of the day has made up its mind and will not listen to submissions. I fear that with the Government’s record to date on the issue of the super-city the establishment of the special select committee will be a pointless exercise. The Government has made up its mind and Aucklanders should be aware that they may be about to embark on a completely pointless and fruitless exercise. 
That is particularly so when we consider that once this supposedly technical bill on Auckland reorganisation has gone through Parliament within the next 24 hours the transition agency will have all the powers it needs to ram through the super-city plans long before Aucklanders have written any of their submissions and long before the special select committee has even met. Once this bill has gone through in the next 24 hours it will be a fait accompli. If the majority of Aucklanders appearing before the select committee reject the proposals it will simply be too late to do anything because it will be a done deal. It will have all gone through. The transition agency will be exercising its Draconian powers and controlling every decision that all the eight councils in Auckland make. Basically it will be neutering the Auckland councils and probably paralysing them at the same time. 
A month ago when the Prime Minister came back from Beijing he said that he would consult with all the mayors of Auckland. So did Rodney Hide. He met with them all. They spent a lot of time outlining their concerns and what has happened as a result of all that consultation? Absolutely nothing has changed. Some of the mayors I have spoken to have said that it was a complete and utter waste of time. They fear that the consultation through the special select committee that we are setting up will also be a complete waste of time because it is a done deal. The Government has made up its mind. Thanks to Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas we are seeing “Rogernomics Part 2”. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I apologise to Sue Kedgley because I have obviously sown some confusion in her mind. Let us be clear about the two pieces of legislation. The first sets up the transition agency—that is going to be done under— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Talk about the select committee. Follow the rules! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Jones has just clarified the process for Miss Kedgley who had asked about it. Yes the transition agency legislation is going through under urgency and that has been in response to the problem that once a major change like that is announced it is hard for councils and particularly their staff to be making decisions. They need somewhere to go to in order to get the OK for the decisions that they are making. That is a necessity of any change or reorganisation such as this. 
The second thing is that we are setting up this select committee in order to allow the people of Auckland to have their say. Indeed I might say here that the Prime Minister and I—and members of the Government—met with the mayors. I would be interested if Sue Kedgley would tell me privately which mayors have rung her up and told her that they have not felt engaged because every mayor at each of our meetings has individually said that he or she has never been as well engaged with a Government on a change such as this. I have been out to see them and this select committee is as a result of the discussions with the mayors. 
The mayors said that we needed a process of engagement and we suggested that we do this. The difficulty we had was that we needed—and I think Miss Kedgley will appreciate this—the boundaries to be drawn up ahead of the 2010 election. The Local Government Commission needs the parameters within which it works. The way to do that would be first to do it all under urgency which would not give people a chance to have their say would be unfair and undemocratic and would not give a good result. The proposal is that we put the key things that the Local Government Commission needs to a select committee in order to draw up the boundaries the wards and the local boards so that indeed we do reflect the communities. 
I would have thought too that Sue Kedgley would agree with the Government that communities are important and that the royal commission made a mistake in not recognising that by having just six councils and doing away with local representation through community boards. The Government has said that that is unsatisfactory because we want a second tier in Auckland that will reflect communities’ interests and this select committee will be considering exactly how that is done. I can tell members that my view as Minister of Local Government and the view of the Prime Minister and my Associate Minister John Carter from speaking to them is that we are vitally interested in what the people of Auckland have to say because this is a matter of governance. 
Hon Member 
: You’re too late! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Nothing is too late! Yes we are working to a timetable we have announced the timetable and it needs to be in place I say to Miss Kedgley so that we can have elections in October 2010. That is important. It means we are working to a timetable that we have provided. Aucklanders and others with an interest will be able to make a submission and be heard and the select committee can make a recommendation. I imagine that this Parliament and indeed the Government will be vitally interested to provide what Aucklanders would like; that is the purpose of the select committee. 
Maybe the problem that Miss Kedgley has is that she is used to another Government that actually never listened to what people had to say on things like the Electoral Finance Act and other matters. This is a Government that provides some leadership provides some direction and sets up a process by which people can genuinely interact. I draw Sue Kedgley’s attention to clause 49 of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act which sets up referenda on reorganisation. But that relates to a specific proposal: when the Local Government Commission makes a proposal for a reorganisation. 
This issue is not about the Local Government Commission making a recommendation for a reorganisation; this is because the previous Government was not satisfied with local government in Auckland spent $4 million and set up a royal commission whose report landed on this Government’s lap. The report was very good. We considered it we discussed it at length with the commissioners we made high-level decisions and thought it important that the people of Auckland had their say. And what is the best way of doing that? It is through a select committee process where everyone can come along. 
I can tell Sue Kedgley that we have an open mind on the arguments in terms of the north and south boundaries in terms of those elected at large the number of those the pluses and the minuses of that and indeed the functions of the 20 to 30 local boards. Why did we have that? It is important that we get a good outcome and the way we get a good outcome is to establish a very good process with leadership. Indeed the process has to be good for people to feel a sense of ownership—and that is important. I remind Sue Kedgley that the problem New Zealanders have with the Electoral Finance Act which the Greens and the previous Labour Government supported and now only the Greens do is that no one feels a sense of ownership. People went along to the select committee and they were railroaded. Having suffered from the Electoral Finance Act I have to say I am not a Minister who is going to railroad stuff through the select committee. 
We are setting up the select committee to learn about the proposals and the various arguments for and against the options that are on the table. I say to members that if they can come up with a better process than a properly functioning parliamentary select committee I am all ears. I took the trouble to meet with Edward Rooney editor of  
The Aucklander 
 and I was very interested in what he said because he had a very good point. He had concerns about the Government making decisions and rushing off. I said: “Here’s the timetable; here’s the process. We’re going into the select committee and I’m genuinely interested in hearing what people have to say. If you can come up with a better process I’d love to hear it.” This is what Parliament is for; it is about providing leadership it is about representation but most of all it is about listening to the arguments listening to what the people have to say and then on the basis of that making an informed decision. I know that that is a shocking way of thinking about the select committee given the last 9 years of experience but it is the way that I propose to proceed and it seems to me that is the best way to proceed in this case. 
Sue Kedgley also raised the point that somehow we are following in the footsteps of ”Rogernomics Part 2: The Unfinished Business of Rogernomics.” Again I hate to disabuse her but I remember recently coming across a news report about the difficulties of Auckland governance being fragmented an inability to get decisions and an inability to provide for the people. A previous mayor said that it was a joke the current mayor said that Auckland needed to speak with one voice and the Minister concerned said that what was needed was for Auckland to sort itself out and if Auckland would not sort itself out then Parliament would. The news report was from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 it 
was dated September 1959 and the Minister concerned was the Hon Bill Anderton—Roger Douglas’ grandfather. Almost nothing has been done to fix Auckland governance properly in the previous 50 years so if Sue Kedgley wants to accuse us of “Rogernomics Part 2” I say that we are just finishing what Roger Douglas’ grandfather started when he was Minister of Internal Affairs in the—what would that be—second Labour Government. 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is fabulous that we are going to have a select committee representing the parties in this House able to meet regularly to consider this issue. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa ano e te Whare i tenei po. On initial appearances the first item on the Order Paper—to consider Government notice of motion No. 2—could seem to be just a matter of procedure and the routine business of the House. Indeed issues of representation of democratic participation and of inclusion should be at the very least the core business of this Parliament. Democracy is best realised when there is an opportunity for all members to have equal access to decision making and when all members are enabled to participate. 
In order to give the House a real insight into political participation I say there would be few amongst the members of this Parliament today who would not appreciate the historic impact of the United States elections last year and the symbolic crumbling of the walls of discrimination division and segregation to be replaced by the call for unity for change and for hope. As we of Aotearoa have faced our own newly erected barriers against the ideals of democracy and equality I was inspired to read a comment by an Obama supporter the civil rights activist and former politician the Rev. Jesse Jackson. He said this: “Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of democracy.” I will say again that deliberation and debate is the way we stir the soul of our democracy. 
That concept fits pretty well with Te Ao Maori as well. We have a saying that goes: “He aha te kai o te rangatira? He korero he korero he korero.” In other words what is the food of the leader? It is knowledge it is communication it is discussion and it is talk. It is deliberation; it is debate. It is because we understand the importance of korero in Te Ao Maori that the Maori Party will support this motion. 
Let me make it quite clear from the outset that our vote of support for urgency to occur and for the new committee to be established is not and should not in any way be misinterpreted as a vote of support for the super-city bills that are to come before the House soon. Our vote to allow this motion to proceed is purely and simply about the mechanism for deliberation and debate to occur as has been referred to by the Hon Rodney Hide. In case there is any doubt I say we do have an agenda. It is to stir the soul of democracy through our participation on this important committee. 
We ask the House to consider the wider issue of representation not for ourselves but for tangata whenua throughout the land. Decisions that we make today and tomorrow in this House will have major ramifications and major implications for future relationships between the Treaty partners. I note with some distress that in the explanatory note of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill we are told: “Auckland is home to some of the most important commercial educational and business organisations in the country”. Yet the explanatory note appears to either wilfully or erroneously overlook the fact that Auckland is also the largest Polynesian city in the world. One in four Maori lives in the region of Tamaki and one in three Maori is under the age of 15 years. The question is: where is the guarantee that the voice of Maori as the indigenous people of this land—te iwi taketake—will be heard? The soul of democracy is about having a say. In the bills that are to come before Parliament under urgency that sort of wisdom seems to have been rejected but it is very positive to see that the value of inclusion rather than exclusion is promoted in this motion. 
There is much that we will have to contribute to the debate around the governance of Auckland as hopefully this Parliament expects—in particular about how tangata whenua can expect to be involved when there is no attention given to representation issues. We were greatly pleased that a royal commission was established for such an important inquiry at the one into Auckland governance knowing that royal commissions are established under royal prerogative and bring with them a very clear set of expectations. Royal commissions are the product of legislation. The powers they have are delegated by the Crown and therefore the Treaty obligations should reside there as well. 
We held great faith in the stature of the recommendations that would evolve out of the royal commission into the arrangements in Tamaki-makau-rau. The royal commission did not disappoint us. There was a specific Maori consultation process implemented from the outset of the review not as a desperate afterthought later. The commissioners were also supported ably by Professor Wharehuia Milroy a Maori academic a Tuhoe kaumatua a Waitangi Tribunal member an assessor for the Maori Land Court and a consultant across a wide range of agencies and sectors. So when the recommendations from the royal commission included the specific advice to provide for three Maori councillors—two elected from the Maori roll and one appointed by local iwi—we felt confident that the commission was basing its recommendations on good authority. We believe that such recommendations were based on solid foundations of justice. They were seen as explicit signs of a commitment to improve Maori representation in Auckland. 
All of us in this House know that the existing mechanisms in the Local Government Act have proven to be rather ineffectual in providing for Maori representation across the motu. Yet I am sure that all in this House would also say that Maori need to participate in decision making across the full breadth of local and central government—specifically in this case in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
As the local member for Waiariki I can say hand on heart that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council tried to do things differently but that was done through special legislation not the existing Local Electoral Act processes. The enactment of special legislation in the Bay of Plenty came after longstanding concerns expressed by iwi about the lack of Maori representation on its 11-member council. The council and iwi engaged in robust consultation across the community and eventually three seats were established—Mauao Maori named after Mount Maunganui; Okurei Maori named after the point at Maketu; and Kohi Maori named after a point in Whakatane. Councillor Raewyn Bennett for the Mauao Maori constituency was a keen supporter of the concept. She believed that having established seats meant there was certainty over representation for Maori. This is a crucial aspect that underpins the movement for participation in democracy. If we understand the connection between political power and well-being we will understand that having specific provision in place creates the certainty that there will be at least a discussion on how to advance the well-being of the community. 
The challenge of course is how well councillors can work together across their communities how they can facilitate relationships between iwi and councils and how together the people can work for the betterment of their communities. This is about the relationship between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga. We need mechanisms that honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi not just through effective consultation but also in taking opportunities to improve Maori involvement in governance. This is a very important time to be considering any moves we can take at a central level to encourage greater civic participation and particularly to ensure adequate Maori representation in the rohe of Tamaki-makau-rau. In fact the decisions in Tamaki-makau-rau will no doubt have a ripple effect across the whole of the country. 
The Maori Party has pleasure in announcing that Mr Hone Harawira whose Te Tai Tokerau electorate constituency encompasses Maori living in the broader Auckland region will represent us on the special select committee. We have every confidence in his ability to live up to the aspirations of fellow activist Jesse Jackson when he talked about how to stir the soul of democracy. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 One of the interesting things about this debate and the debates that will follow is the air of disappointment from the Opposition at what this Government is doing. That is because when the royal commission submitted its findings to the Government and then the Government responded some 10 days later the first things we heard were that the Government was ramming things through with no consultation and that this dreadful Government would pass these bills in the dead of night rough riding all over democracy and the people of Auckland. All of a sudden much to their dismay the opponents of this bill—the likes of the Green Party the Labour Party and others who have made a fist of opposing it—are suddenly finding that that is not what this Government is doing at all. In fact all we are doing today with this first bill is starting the process. The legislation merely says a couple of things. It says there will be one unitary authority for Auckland and there will be a transition committee to ensure that there is smooth progress towards the 2010 election and beyond. Other than that the first bill actually does little else. Although Sue Kedgley has exaggerated—as unfortunately those who oppose bills tend to do—the power of the transition committee the committee will have the opportunity to oversee the decisions of the local authorities that are currently in Auckland but it will not interfere unless the local authorities do something outside of the norm. 
As long as the local authorities have provided for the proposals they are to undertake under the long-term community council plans then they will be entitled to continue with that. The only time the transition committee would have a view is if it was something that was going to be detrimental and if it was an extraordinary decision made by the local authorities. The second bill gives a whole lot of opportunities to people in Auckland and across the country if they wish to make comment and submissions to the Government on how Auckland should look. That is why we are setting up a special select committee today. I put these facts into this debate: no matter what we had done no matter what the Prime Minister had done and no matter what the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide had done we would have been criticised for it. If we had said that we accepted the royal commission’s report but we will not make any decisions for 3 or 4 years while we consider it or if we had said we would not make any decisions for 12 months while we consider it we would have been criticised by the Labour Party and by the Greens for not acting fast enough. If we had said that we would refer the matter to the Local Government and Environment Committee we would have been criticised and those members would have said that we need a special select committee. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Ruining representation! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: We think this is such an important matter that even people like Shane Jones should be pleased that we will have a special select committee. Of course what worries those members is that this Government is finally allowing democracy to take place. We will allow the people of Auckland to make their point of view known. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to those members who are interjecting that there are a number of things that need to be considered. Most of the views of the people in Auckland that are useful can be accommodated. 
I know that the next speaker from Labour will stand up and say a whole lot of things are not in the bill and a whole lot of things might happen. That is exactly the very point of having a select committee. That is why the bill is in the shape it is. It allows for the people of Auckland to have an input and for us to consider those things. I am certain that during the time of the select committee hearings on the second and third bills this Government will be able to accommodate a lot of those things. 
Let me give an example of the sort of thing that might happen because I know that George Hawkins will be interested in this comment—even if his colleagues who are interjecting do not care. One of the things we are interested to learn from the public of Auckland is what they think the functions of the local board should be. I will explain the difference between a community board and a local board. We will prescribe in legislation the functions of local boards. We will not leave it up to the unitary authority to delegate. Although the authority will have the right to do so we will prescribe in legislation the functions that those boards can undertake. Therefore it is likely that the people of Waiheke who will have a local board may well have a different need or view on what its functions should be as opposed to the people from for example Howick or Waitakere. We need to consider how to accommodate that. For example we may—but it is yet to be decided—say: “Here is a whole list of functions that are prescribed in the legislation that the local board could do.” but at the end of the day the boards will make that choice. For example if out on Waiheke we put that one of the functions prescribed is— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: They won’t have any money. Who will fund it? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I wonder whether the member might just listen to this because it is actually quite important. He is not used to listening or worrying about things that are important. Let us say that one of the important things that is prescribed is swimming pools. One community may not have a swimming pool or a local board may not have a swimming pool in its area. It would not want that as a function so it would negotiate with the unitary authority as to what functions are relevant to it. Therefore we will end up with boards carrying out functions that their people want at a local level. That is the point with this exercise. We will put the “local” back into local government. One of the people who asked for that to be done is none other than the member who is about to speak George Hawkins. He said that we must put the “local” back into local government and he is dead right. The Prime Minister supports that the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide supports that I certainly support that and I know that this Government supports that. We are having this select committee to allow the public of Auckland to make their point of view known to allow their local views to be represented and to allow them to have a say in the local issues that are important them. 
It is very easy for Opposition members to yell a lot and make a lot of silly comments but they are not making any constructive comments. This Government is taking this matter very seriously. We intend to ensure that the voice of Auckland is heard and it will be. There is a second bill that will go to the select committee and people will have the right to have an input on it. There is a third bill that people will again have a right to make submissions on alongside the Local Government Commission which will be carrying out its work. People will be able to make submissions. 
The silly thing is that those Opposition members are saying that we should have a referendum. I ask them what the wording would be. What would it be if we said: “Maybe we should ask Aucklanders whether they want better local government?” I wonder what the answer to that would be. I imagine the referendum would be overwhelmingly in support of that but the criticism would be that we got the wording wrong. That is the point with a referendum—what would the question be? If we did not get it right then the people would not be engaged in it. It is a far better system to have a special select committee that allows the public of Auckland to have their voice. I am confident that we will be able to accommodate most of the sensible suggestions put forward by the people of Auckland. 
I am looking forward to the next few months as we make progress on this matter in the face of those Opposition members who have nothing better to do than oppose oppose oppose. That is unfortunate. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting all words after “That” and adding the following: “any legislation concerning the governance of Auckland be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.” 
 I think that is perfectly reasonable. 
However before talking about that I just want to note how interested the Auckland members of the National Party are. We have Dr Paul Hutchison as sole representative and he is regarded by his party as being not good enough to be in the executive—a backbencher for life—but there he is sitting there as the sole Government representative from Auckland. Where are those other members? Where is Pansy Wong? Where is member Bakshi—probably looking after his houses that he had to rent out as brothels. Where is Paula Bennett? She is probably squirming around with people who oppose what the Government is doing. She will be agreeing with them as she runs around looking at the earrings of the person she has appointed to the Families Commission. Her focus has been taken away by some fancy earrings. Where is Dr Jackie Blue? Dr Jackie Blue should be in here fighting for Aucklanders. 
It is good to see that the Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter is here. But of course he was not talking about what we were meant to be talking about; he was talking about other things. Judith Collins went to the great Papakura meeting on Monday last week where there were more than a thousand people. When they were asked “Who supports what the Government is doing?” three hands went up—three hands. Those people were very brave people. There were three of them but there is only one Nat here at the moment from Auckland; I think that is shocking. And then of course there is Nikki Kaye who is National’s answer to Barbie dolls and I think she should be here. Where is Melissa Lee? She has probably got cameras around taking videos for a campaign being paid for by the Government. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon George Hawkins’s speech as pleasant as it is but if George Hawkins is going to engage in the important issue of running through who is not here from the National Party we may have to start doing the same and run through who is not here from the Labour Party because they are busy trying to secure Mt Albert. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: It certainly is Mr Deputy Speaker. You cannot comment on people who are not here which is what George Hawkins has been doing for 3 minutes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those points. Yes I ask the member to confine his comments to the setting up of this special select committee [ 
Interruption 
]—I am speaking. The member has on occasions mentioned members who are not here. Members are not allowed to talk about people who are not here so I ask the member to come back to the motion and confine his comments to that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who was speaking compared another member of this House to a Barbie doll and I find that offensive. I find it sexist and offensive. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: In that regard only the member who is affected by that can take offence under Standing Order 116. I understand the point you have made. If the member were here and took offence then that would be her prerogative. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think it is very important that we look at the set-up of this select committee. National is not very confident so it has put up five members for the committee. It was going to be four but National is worried. There will be only three Labour members on the committee but I can tell the House that three Labour members outscore and outpoint five National members—of course they do. 
But let us see why this legislation is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This motion is a vote of no confidence by National in that select committee which was set up to look at local government. National does not have confidence in that committee. The chairman the National member for West Coast - Tasman said today in the House that when the Local Government and Environment Committee gets rid of its current workload it will not have anything to do. So I ask why the legislation will not be going to the select committee already set up to examine it. It is because National does not have confidence in that committee. Then there is its deputy chair National list member Nicky Wagner. Well I cannot say that I blame National; I do not have much confidence in her either. 
We come to Nikki Kaye. What does she do all through select committee time? She is on the cellphone that latest Barbie doll accessory— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that the member cannot use that term. I ask him to withdraw that. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I withdraw. She is on the cellphone all the time. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard you say that you asked the member to withdraw and he ignored— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: He did withdraw. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What actually happens is that she sits there sending and receiving text messages and the real worry is about whether she is getting text messages from Government colleagues telling her what to do or ask. I think it is terrible if that happens; we cannot have people doing that. 
I am probably the only person in the House who went through the last reorganisation in Auckland and who was directly involved. I was Mayor of Papakura at the time. Some people will not disagree with what the Government is doing in Auckland—there needs to be change in Auckland—but the very big difference is that we have a bill coming up later on tonight that will castrate Auckland local bodies. Will anyone have anything to say? There will be a bit of yelling and screaming from the councils themselves but people will not have the opportunity to make submissions about the legislation to a select committee. 
David Garrett 
: Why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Because the bill will be passed under urgency tonight. I do not think the ACT member knows what is going on. 
We have this motion to change the way that local government things are dealt with and there will be a new select committee. Who came up with that decision? Was it the Hon Rodney Hide? He could not have taken it to Cabinet because he is not a Cabinet Minister. It could not have been John Carter because he is not a Cabinet Minister. Who was it? Was it the Hon Gerry Brownlee? Was it the Hon John Key? Or was it the Hon Bill English? Someone would have taken it after coming up with the idea. I think that the first bill later on tonight will get rid of those councils and from then on those councils will not be able to make any really big decisions. That is understandable. 
But who will be on the transition committee? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Who? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Oh well I suspect Mark Weldon will be on it—the Prime Minister’s mate. John Key will have his mate on it. You know it is like Batman and Robin. I think Weldon is more like ribbon than Robin. However when we look at what is happening we see a Government that is bulldozing legislation through tonight. National is not too keen on using bulldozers to build tunnels as it will have to in Auckland but it is very interested in using bulldozers to knock over people’s homes. 
I am surprised that the Maori Party is supporting this legislation because that party has missed out. When it came to Maori representation Dr Sharples has been sold down the river by National. But Maori will get their people there and have a hikoi and they will be meeting in South Auckland in Papakura on Monday or Tuesday morning; I will be there. People are having a hikoi not because they are delighted with this Government or because they agree with it; the Maori Party the National Party and the ACT Party must remember that a lot of people are hugely dissatisfied at the way they are being treated. They are being treated as though they do not count. Well they do count; they count on election day. When it comes to election day they will remember. 
It is good to see Mr Peachey here because he can go back to his people in his electorate and tell them why they were not given the opportunity to speak on the legislation that will go through the House under urgency tonight. That is what the select committee should have done. It did not need to meet for a long time and we the Opposition would not have held it up for ages because we know the mechanics of things that have to get through. But at least we would have given people a chance to speak. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. Firstly I stand to support those of us who have the good sense to see that this motion is a terrible slur on Chris Auchinvole and Nikki Kaye. Goodness knows what they have done to earn the ire of the front bench and the other strategists because this would have been a brilliant opportunity for the Local Government and Environment Committee—Mr Hide has been soldiering on with it looking at resource management changes—to hear the views of Aucklanders tangata whenua and Pasifika stretching from Pokeno right through to Wellsford. John Carter no doubt is quietly working away and endeavouring to convince Rodney Hide that Wellsford should be cut loose and given to the north. That is why we do not support the motion. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt my colleague but I think his microphone is not on as the sound is not coming across on this side of the House. It may be that his words need to be broadcast to the country so I wanted to give him a hand and ask the sound people to please look at that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that point of order. We will ask the sound people to look at that issue. Otherwise the member might like to move to another position. I have stopped the clock for you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Rest assured my whanaunga from the Maori Party will hear loud and clear what will follow as a consequence of their foolish agreement to support the creation of this committee. Apparently Hone Harawira is being put on the select committee. He is being dubbed the “Father of the Rainbow Coalition” yet no other person would embody more qualities that are an abnegation—a denial—of what “rainbow” means: respect for people of other colour righteousness and hope. I doubt whether Mr Harawira with his busy schedule in the Pacific and his obligations to Melanesian politicians will actually be at the committee on a regular basis. I will say one thing for him though. As a consequence of being told that Dr Pita Sharples himself— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Other members have earlier raised points of order in respect of whether it is appropriate to make comments about members who are not in the House. I ask you to ask Mr Jones to think about that judgment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is correct. Members cannot refer to somebody who is not here. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I was not alerting either you or the House to the member’s absence. I was simply referring to the fact that Dr Pita Sharples had a role to play in the flow of this legislation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please continue your speech. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: As a consequence of being told about the legislation Dr Sharples who is a Minister but is not in Cabinet and other Maori members of Cabinet did not stand up for and did not support the inclusion of Maori representation or other elements legitimising the Maori presence. They did not support it. 
Hon Member 
: Rubbish! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Members should ask Rodney Hide what he has been telling Aucklanders. Dr Pita Sharples and the great friend of Christine Rankin Georgina te Heuheu—who is about to be eclipsed by the “Queen of Persia” Hekia Parata; I should say “Lady Hekia”—did not support Maori representation. They forced the issue. Mr John Key pointed out to them that they will be embraced for as long as it suits National’s purpose to sustain the powers of Government but he also said they will not be given an appointed Maori representative or elected Maori representatives. Mr Harawira as part of the general dynamic of improving the legislation—and I am not drawing attention to the man’s whereabouts—then decided to stimulate interest in a hikoi because the Maori Party cannot achieve simple concessions in its governmental relationship. 
I can say one thing for Mr Hide: he has been overt. Mr John Banks will not be the next mayor because the more the man promotes the notion of a super-city the more it starts to appear as something completely disagreeable. But Mr Hide has not concealed what he really thinks which is that there should be no representation for Maori. He is straight-up. But our friends in the Maori Party want the opportunity to extol the virtues of hanging out with John Key and crowd. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is normal for a member to have a lead-in to a debate but this debate is about setting up a select committee. The member has yet to refer to what the debate is about. I ask you to bring him back to the subject matter. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the purpose of this select committee is to consider legislation that impacts on over 1 million people a significant percentage of whom are tangata whenua. This group has been conspicuously absent throughout the process of this proposed legislation. There has been not one single reference to tangata whenua. It is not unreasonable to draw to the House’s attention— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is not a speech. A point of order is a matter of process. We are referring to a motion that sets up a specific select committee. I ask the member with 5 minutes to go to please confine his comments to those points. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I shall endeavour to do so. 
Hundreds of speeches and thousands of amendments will follow me until the end of the week as a consequence of this egregious attempt to taint democracy with this slur upon representation. As I look at these proud esteemed wreaths around the walls of this Chamber I say that the bill we are about to deliver a verdict on and the existence of this select committee are a denial of all the fine sentiments that hang around us in this Chamber. That is how important this issue is. 
The committee will at one level go out and meet Aucklanders but Aucklanders deserve far more than that. They deserve for National to put into practice what it promised to do in its manifesto. We have come to accept that Mr Key is a breezy affable sunny sort of dude but that the man never completely delivers on what he says he will do. This motion is just another small example. The real test for this select committee will be whether Aucklanders turn up and say anything apart from the fact that their democratic rights are being denied and that their assets are now in danger of slipping into the hands of the privateers the frustrated merchant bankers and the other critters who have ruined the finance industry. All of them will flock up like beasts at a bar. 
But what about the garden variety fair dinkum Maori and Pacific Island ethnic communities and the people from South-east Asia etc.? If as a consequence of the establishment of this select committee which will lack the guile and leadership of Auchinvole this bill is unable to boost its profile and cause people to flock to bring their submissions forward then I fear for the standard of democracy in Auckland. The Government is attempting to foist this committee on people in order to obfuscate and obscure the fact that it is not giving the people of Pokeno Port Albert Matakana and other such far-flung Queen Street - orientated places which will soon be gobbled up into the area of Auckland the chance to have their say. What will become of them? [ 
Interruption 
] No no—many more speeches of this character are to follow. Members need have no doubt about that. 
I listened to what Mr Carter said. Mr Carter pointed out that this is an opportunity for Aucklanders to be consulted yet he stood in this House and said we have had enough consultation. He said the royal commission was the consultation. But National is not following the process the objectives the goals—even the vision for that matter—of the commission. What it is hoping to do—and I sadly conclude that it might get away with it as a consequence of the foul acquiescence of the Maori Party and the agenda of the ACT Party—is to ram this legislation through with the half-baked idea of having a select committee. Labour will bring three or possibly four strong people who will enrich the intellectual quality of the committee no doubt but it is still a terrible situation. Nikki Kaye the poster girl of the rangatahi—the young people—of Auckland has been swept aside. That is why we do not agree with the establishment of this special select committee—and Mr Auchinvole sits there with all the guile of a Beatrix Potter character. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move 
 That the following words be added to the motion after the words “Maori Party 1”and before the words “and that the committee”: “all members of the committee must have been elected to represent a seat in the Auckland region or have registered a permanent home address with the Parliamentary Service which is in the Auckland region”. 
This is an important amendment to Government motion No. 2. It appears that the Government is very determined to do away with the Local Government and Environment Committee and to attempt to ram through a special select committee. Standing Order 184 establishes the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is that very committee out of 13 select committees that is charged with the powers rights and privileges to determine all matters concerning local government. This afternoon we heard from Mr Auchinvole the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: If the Government is so intent on ramming through a motion for a special select committee without listening to the voices of Aucklanders then it is important that we have Aucklanders on that select committee. 
As other members have stated there is currently a Local Government and Environment Committee which was established under Standing Order 184 for the purpose of considering matters of local government. We heard earlier this afternoon from the chair of that committee Mr Auchinvole. After my colleague the Hon George Hawkins had questioned Mr Auchinvole about the committee’s work Mr Auchinvole said that it was currently working on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. But that work will be completed and reported back to the House by 19 June so why are we setting up a special select committee? That is the big question. Why does the Government want to ram through a motion to set up a special select committee on the proposed super-city when there is already a constituted parliamentary committee to carry out that work? 
I believe that this is a display of naked arrogance by the Government. There has been a consistent pattern of arrogance after only 6 months of it being in Government. Sure Mr Key says he is listening but all the time his offsider the Hon Rodney Hide is rushing through significant bills that will have an effect on the lives of over 1 million people for the next 50 to 100 years. These people are not even being given a voice. In my view it is pure blatant naked arrogance. This Government believes that because it has the numbers in the House it can do whatever it wants. That is what Government members have been saying to the public. The message that this Government is sending to the public of Auckland is that the Government has the numbers and is going to do whatever it wants to do. That is the message that is going out. 
But in setting up this select committee the Government is sending out another message to the public of New Zealand. That message is that the Government does not trust Mr Auchinvole the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust him to administer local government matters. It is also—and this is the sad thing—sending a message to the people of the West Coast - Tasman electorate whom Mr Auchinvole represents. It is telling them that the Government does not trust its own MP. That is the kind of message that is going out. The message is also that this Government does not trust its other MPs on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust Nicky Wagner the deputy chair. It does not trust Nikki Kaye the MP for Auckland Central. It does not trust Jonathan Young the MP for New Plymouth. It does not even trust Louise Upston the MP for Taupo. I give those members my deepest sympathies. Their Government colleagues do not trust those members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
If this Government does not trust any of those members whom does it trust? It certainly does not trust Aucklanders enough to give them a voice. Let us consider the MPs of the Auckland region. The Prime Minister the Hon Mr Key is quite happy to say he is listening to people but is he really listening and whom is he listening to? The community tells me that he is listening to big business and the elite and is not listening to ordinary working people. Earlier tonight Newstalk ZB released the results of a poll conducted by Research New Zealand. It showed that 45 percent of respondents said no to the super-city and 41 percent said yes. Is Mr Key listening to those people? He might be listening but is he really hearing the voices of ordinary hard-working Aucklanders? I doubt that very much. 
Mr Hide said he wants to give people the opportunity to have a say. The problem is that the first bill that he has introduced on this issue rips the guts out of local government as we know it today and the general public have not had a say about that. I tell the public who are listening to this debate to make sure they send their faxes emails and letters to Mr Hide to let him know what they think about the decision to rush this bill through the House under urgency. 
I do not know whether the Hon Maurice Williamson will have time to be on the new select committee. He does not care one iota about the people of Pakuranga and their view on this matter. If he did he would have called a meeting with his electorate. But I understand from members of that community that he has not called a meeting because he just does not care. 
Will the Hon Dr Richard Worth be on the select committee? I am not sure. He has been quite busy of late with his private or public business trip to India. He will be ducking and dodging that issue for a while and will not be too interested in Auckland. Will the Hon Judith Collins be on the committee? No I doubt it. She has her hands full because she has just worked out that speaking tough on crime does not actually solve crime. I am not sure whether Melissa Lee will be on the select committee. She has been quite busy doing TV interviews of late so I think she will not be available to sit on the special select committee. I am not sure whether my friend Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga will be available; he is still trying to figure out which job he should do. 
Dr Paul Hutchison—now there is an MP. He is the only National MP who I have heard has called a public meeting with his constituents. The message he heard was that they do not want the super-city. In fact the good people of the Franklin District Council do not want to be part of the super-city. They want to go south. Will Dr Paul Hutchison give voice to what he has heard from his community? More important will the National MPs on the proposed select committee have a voice? Will any of them have a voice on that special select committee? 
The Hon Paula Bennett is one of the few National MPs whom I have heard speak out on the Government’s super-city proposal but she is now busy restructuring the Ministry of Social Development through 200 redundancies. People who were employed by the ministry will now become clients of it. 
The public wants its voice to be heard but because this Government is not listening let us at least let the Auckland-based MPs consider the Government’s super-city proposal. That is what my amendment is about. I hope that members of the Government and other parties who are listening will ensure that people who live in Auckland are part of the new select committee. The Prime Minister says he is listening but his offsider the Hon Mr Hide is ramming through the House in urgency the first and probably the most important bill about this issue. 
AARON GILMORE (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 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There are a number of amendments to the motion and they are taken in the order that they are moved—members can check that in Standing Order 126. The first amendments are in the name of Darren Hughes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting “11” and substituting “12” and omitting “3” and substituting “4”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; 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. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We come to the amendment in the name of George Hawkins. The question is that the amendment in the name of George Hawkins be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question 
 That the motion be amended by omitting all words after “That” and adding the following: “any legislation concerning the governance of Auckland be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.” 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; 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. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The question now is that the amendment in the name of Su’a William Sio be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by adding after the words “Maori Party 1” “all members of the committee must have been elected to represent a seat in the Auckland region or have registered a permanent home address with the Parliamentary Service which is in the Auckland region”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; 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 the motion to establish a select committee on Auckland governance be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill is the first of three I intend to bring to Parliament to resolve the decades-old problems with Auckland’s local governance. Together the bills answer the calls for action to allow Auckland to develop into a world-class city supported by effective local government. Time is of the essence; we need to get the process of change under way. We therefore need to deal with this bill which is largely mechanical as quickly as possible. I will recommend that the later bills go before a select committee for public input especially on the critical issue of local representation. 
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance found that the Auckland Regional Council and seven territorial authorities lacked the collective sense of purpose constitutional ability and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. The royal commission recommended a single Auckland council headed by a mayor with governance powers to replace the eight existing councils. It recommended action now to allow the changes to be in place by the 2010 local government elections. The Government agreed with the royal commission about the identified problems and the need to act now. 
Fifty years ago the problems of conflict between regional and local issues were identified and for 50 years Auckland has struggled to find a solution. The former Auckland Regional Authority which later became the Auckland Regional Council was established in an attempt to resolve these issues. In the late 1980s many local councils were amalgamated. These moves were in the right direction but did not go far enough. They did not go far enough because they did not recognise the reality that the many communities of Auckland together are one region. They have common interests and needs around transport recreation development water infrastructure and links to central government. The Government has decided to move now to do what needs to be done. It has decided that after 3500 submissions to the royal commission and 18 months of deliberation the time for action has arrived. The Government does not intend to wait until the elections of 2013 2016 or 2019; it intends to act so that the Auckland Council will be up and working by November next year. 
Auckland as the home of more than a third of all New Zealanders is the engine for the country’s economic growth. New Zealanders will reap the benefits of Auckland becoming a world-class city. This bill is the beginning of the end for the competing leadership duplication of facilities complex and fragmented decision-making processes and weak accountability that have been the recent hallmarks of Auckland local government. Getting Auckland right is critical to Aucklanders and essential for New Zealand. Local government has a significant role in enabling growth and prosperity through its decision-making structure and policies. Good governance enables civic leaders to think regionally plan strategically and act decisively. Governance arrangements affect the ability to solve larger and longer-term challenges effectively. The Auckland region needs decisive leadership robust infrastructure and facilities and services to cater for its people. 
I will now deal with the detail of the Government’s intention with this bill in the context of its wider high-level decisions on Auckland’s governance. The commission recommended the establishment of a single region-wide unitary authority to overcome fragmentation and coordination problems; the Government agrees with that approach. The Government has accepted many of the commission’s recommendations but in some cases it has made significant changes especially in response to concerns about the level of truly local decision-making. The Government’s key high-level decisions are: first one unitary Auckland Council as the first tier of governance; second one mayor for Auckland with governance powers elected at large by the region’s residents and ratepayers; third 20 councillors to sit on the Auckland Council eight elected at large and 12 elected from wards; fourth 20 to 30 local boards across the region as a second tier of governance; and fifth the final number of local boards and the boundaries of the Auckland Council wards and local boards to be determined by the Local Government Commission. 
As I have said the Government intends to put the new structures in place in time for the October 2010 local government elections. Legislation is required to give effect to these decisions to be introduced as three separate bills. This bill along with the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which will also be introduced into the House this week focuses on the transition period until the Auckland Council and local boards come into being on 1 November 2010. This urgent bill provides the necessary legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland governance arrangements which needs to happen as soon as possible to establish the Auckland Council by 2010. I will propose that the bill proceed through all stages under urgency and without select committee consideration. This bill provides for the establishment of the Auckland Council as a unitary authority governing the Auckland region on and from 1 November 2010; the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency as the body responsible for the transition to the new core Auckland local government arrangements; the placing of safeguards and constraints on the decision making of existing Auckland local authorities and their subsidiaries; and the disestablishment of existing local authorities on 1 November 2010. 
The second urgent bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill establishes the legislative framework for the ongoing governance of Auckland. I will propose that this second bill goes through a compressed select committee process. It will need to be enacted by 24 September 2009 to enable boundaries to be set in time for the 2010 local government elections. This legislative approach balances the need to provide sufficient certainty to enable the design and establishment of the new structures in time for the 2010 local government elections while providing the opportunity for people to submit their views on the Government’s proposals as part of the select committee process. 
These bills enable the reorganisation process to commence but do not yet contain all the legislative provisions that will need to apply to the change on 1 November 2010. Further policy work by officials and investigation and analysis by the Auckland Transition Agency is needed to identify what other provisions will be needed at that time. Additional provisions will therefore be included in a third bill to be introduced around October this year and enacted by May 2010. 
It is imperative that this bill before us be considered and enacted under urgency. That will enable the Auckland Transition Agency to commence its work to establish the new structures so that members of the Auckland Council and local boards can be elected in October 2010. Urgency is also required to ensure that the decisions and actions of existing local authorities take proper account of the changes soon to be made and the role of the transition agency. 
We must work together to create a city that will encourage our children and our grandchildren to build their futures in New Zealand. I agree with the Prime Minister when he said “The price of doing nothing is far too high not just for Auckland but for New Zealand. Let’s make a great place even greater. Let’s make Greater Auckland great.” Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Tonight we are witnessing an outrage. There is twittering and laughing on the other side of the Chamber but the reality is that we are going to change the governance of $28 billion worth of assets and of one-third of the country’s population. We do not exploit the arcane rules of this House to ram through legislation that the majority of Aucklanders do not want or legislation that has a sign at the front door saying “Maori representatives not welcome. Only blue and white apply.” That is what we are seeing in this House. The rules are being exploited. 
There are many examples where this Government is afraid to consult the garden variety salt of the earth ratepayers and citizens of Auckland. They did not ask for much. They agreed with the very sensible and cogent arguments expressed in the community newspapers. It was good enough for the royal commission to come up with a set of proposals requiring engagement so that the new system is legitimised through the people speaking and having an opportunity to give informed consent. They had all of that but none of that will be witnessed this evening. That is why this is evidence that the Government has failed to consult. It is trying to get away with it by stigmatising and demonising the mayors—with the exception of John Banks who is capable of doing that to himself anyhow. The Government is picking on Mr Len Brown the man of Waitakere and the erratic man from the North Shore. The Government has taken this chance to stigmatise and insult them because it knows that they are closer to the ratepayers. 
Three things are happening today but this is the most egregious of them all. The second is the Waterview Connection. There will be no tunnel motorway through the neighbourhoods but in order to get away with that the Government needs to strip those people of their democratic right to have a say. That is what is intended. In addition to top it off they have been given an indication of the quality of person who will be appointed to the Auckland Transition Agency. It will be in this foul legislation in the form of Christine Rankin. We have had the female form doing damage in the social arena and we will have the male form no doubt doing damage in the civic arena. 
Why do John Carter and Rodney Hide—I am saying this for the benefit of Mr Carter who is a long-term member of the House—fear scrutiny? They use weasel words: “Oh there’s a sense of urgency. Oh Aucklanders are doing this to us.” They should read their own poll results. Aucklanders are not requiring those members to race off and do this. Unfortunately they mistakenly believed the words in National’s manifesto. National said it would go out and consult. There will be no consultation over this issue—none whatsoever. It is an example of arrogance an example of how that has gone to their heads and an example of a false sense of importance. The Government is ramming through its agenda. 
As my colleagues said earlier John Key went out there and buttered up the ratepayers. He said he was listening. He met with Dr Pita Sharples and a variety of others at Orakei and said “You know we’re still listening but if I agree with you guys from the Maori Party I will lose my core vote.” He is out there but Rodney Hide despite him agreeing that they are listening has not changed a single thing in this bill in terms of what he has said will happen. John Key has legitimised him to spread that falsehood. That is why this is a terrible example of arrogance. That is not to say that Labour is not positive about this. Labour had the foresight to establish a royal commission. It chose a highly skilled jurist and two others and they came back with a proposal. The proposal required a judicious approach in its implementation. It did not say “Do it in the parliamentary equivalent time of a rugby match.” That is why we are hearing so much from Mr Quinn but Wayne Peters unfortunately showed him the door. 
Labour supports the existence of a unitary authority but it does not support the legislation being rammed through or the rejection of the people’s will. It is very sad that the party that sought to campaign on letting people speak is denying them the shortest and most modest of opportunities to comment on who will be the new tsars running this committee and who will be on the governance board. This is the committee that will now control all the councils. This is the committee that Mr Hide is sneaking through in the dead of night and it will have more power than those councils elected by the ratepayers. Aucklanders are not being given an opportunity to make even the most modest of contributions. They will not forget this; in fact this is the night when the paint began to be chipped from the National waka. People are not worried about Rodney Hide because there is nothing really secretive about him. He is pro-privatisation he is anti-democratic and he is into a personality cult which is why his ilk will never control the council of Auckland. The people are really dedicating their anger and disappointment at John Key. 
How many people as a consequence of having no submissions process will know that there will still be councillors—eight at large—but no full ward system? Those things aside all the organisational decisions about the stewardship of the capital assets—the stewardship of the new system the protocols etc.—will be in place as a consequence of this circuitous exercise this evening. By the time the second bill eventually gets back to the House the council will already be in place. We cannot agree with this type of urgency; not only is it an abuse of this House but also it makes a mockery of the proud heritage that surrounds us—the names encircled by these wreaths. 
Mr Hide says he is implementing what the royal commission stated but he is not. I have said enough about the Maori side. The Maori side will take care of itself; I have no doubt about that. But most important there is no opportunity for those like for example the man who came from a community board on to national television this evening and made a plaintive call: “Can our neighbourhood be saved? Is there no end to the thumping of the jackboots and the bulldozers destroying our homes ruining our parks and now worsening our lives with this bill?” That poor man does not even know that his democratic rights—the rights he is struggling to uphold as a consequence of being a community board member—will be redundant as a consequence of this bill. 
Of course those Government members do not care because they believe that this legislation can be rammed through before any opposing forces can organise themselves. Well in actual fact the biggest organisational response will come in the future when Aucklanders have a chance to vote against the party that did not tell the truth in relation to its own manifesto. Its members have spent a great deal of time spreading a falsehood: “We’re listening”. But they have changed nothing. Then because National cannot trust its own members on the existing Local Government and Environment Committee it will create a special committee and will put someone from whichever section in the National Party represents the Stasi on to that committee. National’s influence will be moderated by that of Mr Twyford and one or three others from our side. When Aucklanders go to that committee at least they will have a modest opportunity to see friendly civil and democratic faces. Tonight they see stony arrogant uninterested people— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: They do not like it! The reason they do not like it is that they are receiving that information in their own feedback loops. In addition to that the Auckland MPs are running scared. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The member Shane Jones who just sat down did not tell the House that those stony uninterested arrogant faces are of course all on that side of the House and that is the problem. If that speech was a bid for leadership then I have to say it was a very poor start. It worries me—it actually does worry me— 
Paul Quinn 
: Brought David down—David came down. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well that is right. Mr Cunliffe came down to make sure—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right. The other interesting thing about that last speech is that if we look at the election results up in Northland we see that Shane Jones did not win the vote in his own home town. He could not win the votes of his own family up north. They voted for National and they voted for John Carter. So I do not know how he will win the votes of the Labour caucus. 
The point we should really be concerned about is if Labour is taking this issue seriously why is the Leader of the Opposition not leading the debate? He may take a call later on—I do not know. But we have to ask ourselves why the Leader of the Opposition would not take a call or indeed why Labour would not start off the debate with its spokesperson on local government George Hawkins. How come the person who used to be the spokesperson—but is not now—is leading off the debate? That is the first point we need to make. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The pretend leader. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The pretend leader—that is true. There is one thing that is very important to say and to have put on the record. Mr Jones has made comment about the fact that we have not put in the legislation the issue of Maori seats. Well I want the House to know that Mr Jones told me as we were walking across the walkway from the Beehive to Parliament House: “Of course John you’ve got to understand that Labour wouldn’t have put the Maori seats in place either.” Labour would not have accepted the royal commission’s recommendation; Labour could not have done that. That came directly from Mr Shane Jones to me and we need to put it on the record. We need to put it on the record so that when those members stand up and speak we can remind them of what that member said to me about that issue. 
Paul Quinn 
: Scurry down! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well he is still here. But that is the important thing. The next thing we need to ask is who actually ordered the royal commission. 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Labour did. Labour members ordered the royal commission. They were too frightened to make a decision themselves so they kicked for touch. They decided to call for a royal commission rather than make decisions. The one point I want to make in this House tonight is that this Government this Prime Minister and this Minister of Local Government are not frightened to make decisions because we know that making decisions is absolutely essential for Auckland and for the future of this country. We have picked up what the royal commission said. It said there should be one council in Auckland and that is what this bill creates. We are not frightened to implement it; we think it is absolutely essential. What is more the Opposition spokesperson on local government agrees there should be one council and the member Ross Robertson agrees there should be one council. Indeed if we talk privately to most of those members most of them say “Yes there should be one council.” 
So what is this debate about? Oh it is because we are putting the bill through the House in urgency. That is the terrible misdemeanour we are doing. Well we must remember that this legislation just starts off the process. All it does is put in place one unitary authority for the Auckland area. It also makes sure that the local authorities currently in existence can function that their staff are looked after and that the people of Auckland can still be represented by the people whom they democratically elected at the last local government election and those conditions will endure during this local body term. But we want to make sure that when the new council is in place in 2010 it can govern Auckland. We do not expect it suddenly to have to put in place a structure that will allow it to govern Auckland. This bill allows that to happen. That is why we have put in a transition committee. Of course we need to take precautions so that someone does not make a decision that is out of step so the transition committee has the ability to step in. 
But the most important thing that we need to make sure is recorded in this House tonight is that this Government believes in putting “local” back into local government. Members on the other side—George Hawkins for example—also believe that we need to put “local” back into local government. I agree that we need to do that and that is exactly what will happen. 
Nikki Kaye 
: And he’s their local government spokesperson. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: He is the local government spokesperson for the Labour Party. He believes that; so do we. That is why the next bill we put before the House will allow the democratic process to take place so that Aucklanders’ voices can be heard and they can have their say. Quite honestly—much to the disappointment and amazement of the likes of Mr Shane Jones who is worried that this process actually will be democratic—this legislation is not going to be rammed through and the people of Auckland will have their say. We will be able to accommodate most of the wishes of the people of Auckland. The bill is on the Table. We want submissions. In fact we urge people to make submissions. We ask the people of Waitakere to please come to the special select committee and tell us what their needs are and tell us what their board’s functions should be. We ask the people of Papakura and Waiheke to let us know their views. We want to hear from them so that those matters can be considered. 
Indeed we are not prescribing the functions of the boards. We are leaving it up to the people of Auckland to tell Parliament and this Government what functions will be in their interests from a local perspective. We think it is absolutely important that their voices are heard and reflected in the legislation that is to follow. For that reason we have set up a special select committee. We will be working with the people of Auckland. We will be working with the communities of Waiheke Waitakere and Papakura and with other communities. We will ask them what they would expect from their local boards. I ask members to remember that we will not allow the unitary authority to say yes or no; we will prescribe in law those functions that the communities have asked for. They will be prescribed in law. 
Nikki Kaye 
: And we’re doing public meetings. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: You bet. We are having a whole series of public meetings. We will have a whole series of select committee hearings in Auckland on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. The Local Government Commission will be holding a whole series of discussions in Auckland. And the third bill will include a whole lot of details about how it all works. It is impossible to say that this is not consultation as it should be. It is exactly what should be happening. Parliament should be listening. The silly suggestion that we should hold some sort of referendum with some sort of wording would not solve the problem at all. The fact is that this Government recognises as do most members of Parliament that there is a problem with local government in Auckland. Even the local government leaders in Auckland know that there is a problem with local governance in Auckland. Bob Harvey recently spoke out about that fact and apologised to his people— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He’s always apologising. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: He has apologised a lot about the fact that they have mucked up Auckland for so long. He at least has had the decency to front up and say they have got it wrong. He and other mayors have said we should get on with this change. They want to have a roading network that works for Auckland. They want to make sure that Auckland has a water supply system that supplies the demands of Auckland. They want to make sure that in terms of social issues work on which will be led by the Hon Paula Bennett people are listened to and supported. All those sorts of things will happen. Members opposite and other opponents of this change are concerned because we are doing exactly what they asked us to do. They have been asking us to listen and that is exactly what this Government will be doing. Over the next 6 9 12 and 15 months we will be out there listening to hearing and implementing the wishes of the people of Auckland. I do not think we can do better than that. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I move an amendment to the motion to refer the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill to the select committee: to omit the word “now” and insert the words “in 3 months’ time”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think that is out of order. The way in which you have moved the amendment is out of order. You can move a delaying motion. The member may like to seek some advice and maybe get a subsequent speaker to do that. The manner in which you have done it is out of order. The member should continue with his speech. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] Can you stop the clock Mr Assistant Speaker? I am very sorry to be out of order but it has to be said it is the people on the other side of the House who are truly out of order. 
I start by saying what Labour supports. We support one unitary authority for Auckland one plan and one rates bill. In fact we support most of the very good recommendations that were produced by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance after 18 months of careful thought research and analysis. The royal commission’s report was largely trashed by the National Government in less than 18 days. It was the fifth Labour Government that established the royal commission. Why did we do that? We did it because we recognised that Auckland can and must do better for the good of New Zealand. But we do not accept the flawed version that this National Government is imposing on Auckland which robs Aucklanders of their voice guts local democracy threatens to leave dozens of Auckland communities unrepresented and is being rammed through in a highly undemocratic way. 
This bill is not as the Government is fond of saying a technical bill. It actually imposes on Aucklanders the major elements of the National Government’s strategy in this area. It establishes the Auckland Council as a legal entity. It establishes the transitional authority and it constrains the existing mayors and councillors and the Auckland Regional Council. It is the biggest power grab that we have seen in living memory. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Since when? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: In living memory. The transitional bill will take away the rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders and will set up a small authority based on a handful of hand-picked mates of this Government with wide-ranging and unchecked powers. The bill removes the right of Aucklanders to have a referendum and a vote under the terms of the Local Government Act on this major restructuring. It leaves wide open the question of the future ownership and control of Auckland’s major public assets such as our port waterfront water infrastructure public transport and transport infrastructure. That is why Labour will be introducing amendments to this bill. 
The current councils will be powerless as soon as this bill is given Royal assent. The democratic rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders are being taken away at the stroke of a pen. Only 18 months ago Aucklanders went to the polls and voted in their mayors and councillors and the Auckland Regional Council. What have we got now? Now we have the “Little Emperor” down there telling 1.4 million Aucklanders where they can shove their democratic rights. The Auckland Transition Agency is under no obligation to consult with anyone except the Minister of Local Government yet it wields enormous power over $28 billion of Aucklanders’ assets. 
I want to comment on the democratic process. This debate is about democracy. Earlier this evening Mr Brownlee said he wanted political parties to approach this bill—[ 
Interruption 
] 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been sitting here for some time listening to a number of the interjections. If the member I have in mind would turn to Speakers’ rulings 63/1 and 63/3 he will note that they relate to members who have moved from their seats in order to facilitate interjections. Under those Speakers’ rulings that is seen as bad form. The member should either desist from interjecting under Speaker’s ruling 63/3 or he should remove himself back to his own seat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. The member who raises the point of order is factually correct but that situation has occurred on both sides of the House. Rather than shut down all interjections I from time to time have tried to control them and stop the barraging. I probably should have moved to do that a little earlier in this instance. I ask members to accord other members some level of courtesy. I know that there is a high level of passion about this particular bill that we are in urgency and that there are a lot of factors involved there. But members just need to be a little cognisant that we are actually having a debate and that barraging is out of order. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not asking the member to desist; I am asking him to remove himself to his seat if he continues to interject in the way that he does. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: [ 
Interruption 
] I do not need any assistance. It has happened on both sides. It is just that we have a speaker on the other side. I have said that members need to show some courtesy and that is how I have ruled on the matter. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This is a debate about democracy and it is worth spending a few moments reflecting on the democratic process involved in the way this National Government is ramming through its policies. Earlier this evening Mr Brownlee said he wanted the political parties to approach the issue with an open mind. Is that the same open mind the National Government has brought to this process? After an 18-month process by the royal commission the National Government took fewer than 18 days to trash the report. From 169 recommendations it slashed the number down to about 20. National’s manifesto during the election campaign last year promised in black and white to consult Aucklanders on the findings of the royal commission; it has done no such thing and it has no intention of doing anything like that. National is about to legislate away the right to a referendum set out in the Local Government Act; it is stripping Aucklanders of that democratic right tonight. 
Mr Hide in his speeches has been going around saying the Government is going to do exactly what he announced on 7 April it would do. Mr Key the smiling assassin has been going around town and meeting the mayors meeting community groups— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Does the member want to reflect on that and withdraw it? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: OK I withdraw Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Key “Mr Smiley” has been going around town saying— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We will have proper names. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I withdraw that Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Key has been going around town smiling and saying he is going to listen and nothing is set in stone. Is this a carefully orchestrated double act—a kind of good cop bad cop routine—or is Mr Key just preparing Rodney Hide for what will occur when he gets out on the limb of the tree and Mr Key chops the branch off and lets Mr Hide fall to the ground? 
Even more galling about this abuse of the democratic process is that Aucklanders are being forced to pay for this mess. Aucklanders do not want it they do not like it they have not been consulted but they are going to have to pay for it. It is now 5 weeks since the Government released its proposals yet neither Mr Key nor Mr Hide is able to tell this House what they are going to cost; all they can tell Aucklanders is that they are going to have to pay for them. 
National has gone about this mess in a totally undemocratic way but even worse is that what National is doing is profoundly undemocratic. Let us consider just how undemocratic it is. The Auckland Council is due to have 20 councillors 8 elected at large and 12 elected in single-member very large wards. This is a gerrymander that if implemented will put the National Party John Banks and their right-wing mates into permanent control of Auckland government. That is why Research New Zealand released a poll today that showed that Auckland is divided: 41 percent of its people support the super-city and 45 percent reject the super-city. Interestingly enough a majority of the people who earn over $70000 a year are more likely to support the super-city; those who earn less than $70000 are significantly less likely to support it. Aucklanders know that this scheme is a gerrymander to put National and its mates into permanent control of Auckland government. 
The second thing is that these changes gut local democracy. Unlike the carefully thought out and researched recommendations of the royal commission the National Government has set up a second tier that is no more than a cacophony of community boards with no powers and no significant resources. Those boards are charged with advocacy and community engagement and their members are no better than elected lobbyists. That is all they are. 
Third the National Government is denying representation to Maori. In spite of National’s much-vaunted mana-enhancing relationship with the Maori Party it has ridden roughshod over that relationship. It has rejected the royal commission’s careful recommendations about Maori representation and it is not prepared to do anything about it. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 This is one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation I have seen come before this House in my 10 years in this Parliament. It is going to be rammed through all its stages in 24 hours and Aucklanders—New Zealanders—will not have any opportunity to have their say or to make submissions on this Draconian legislation. It is the sort of legislation that was rammed through Parliament during the dark days of Rogernomics and mark my words this is Rogernomics Part 2. As others have said this bill is going to strip eight democratically elected councils representing 1.4 million Aucklanders of all meaningful power and hand this power to a hand-picked inner cabal of Rodney’s cronies on the Auckland Transition Agency. The legislation will neuter the eight democratically— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Members are to be referred to by their full names. We have had that ruling and also quite honestly any other statement— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: We have been very consistent on that and the member must desist. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Rodney Hide—thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The legislation will neuter the eight Auckland councils and it will paralyse Auckland local governance over the next few years. Instead of being accountable to electors from tomorrow onwards the councillors and mayors will be accountable to the hand-picked cabal in the Auckland Transition Agency which will have powers to review almost any decision that any of these councils make over the next 18 months. The agency will even be able to silence any dissent that it deems may prejudice the reorganisation because it will have the power to review what councillors and board members are able to discuss at their meetings. Some listeners may not believe me but this is what it says in the bill: “The Transition Agency may review—(b) any item on the agenda for any meeting of an existing local government organisation or any committee of an existing local government organisation to be held during the transition period.” And it will be able to do most of this in secret because the legislation says it will have to provide information to the public or any section of the public only as it thinks fit in relation to the organisation—as it thinks fit! 
There is a laundry list of items in clause 31(3) that can be reviewed by the Auckland Transition Agency and if members read that long list they will see that it is very clear that councils from tomorrow onwards will have to go cap in hand to Rodney Hide’s cronies in the agency every time they want to sign a contract for a rubbish pick-up. Councils will not even be able to adopt their long-term plans that they are presently finalising—all strategic and long-term planning will have to be put on hold as of tomorrow. 
This amounts to a radical restructuring and we do not even know what it will cost! Rodney Hide has made a crusade out of the fact that the Government should not take any action—as he has said in his Regulatory Responsibility Bill—until there is gold-plated proof that the savings will outweigh the costs. But in this case we have no idea what the alleged cost savings will be; the Government is refusing to tell the people of New Zealand. How outrageous is that? But we know that all of the costs of transition will be borne by Auckland ratepayers. Sure as the Minister of Finance said in the House today initially the costs will be part of the Crown debt but the Crown debt will be handed over to the Auckland ratepayers once the Auckland Transition Agency winds up. So Aucklanders will have to pay to have their local democracy gutted by this Government. And the legislation has also been set up in such a way that we may never know the true cost because not only does the agency not have to share any information that it does not want to share but also it can second staff from any local government and the local authorities will have to pay for them. 
One thing we do know is that this will not save any money. All over the world the alleged savings that were going to come from forced amalgamation such as this have never materialised. The South Australian Government promised savings of 74 percent; it achieved 2.3 percent and those savings did not take into account the huge indirect cost of forced amalgamation. The same thing will happen here. 
In this bill the Government is setting up what academics refer to as “the strong mayor” model. This is a new model of local governance that concentrates power on the executive and gives the mayor excessive unprecedented executive powers unlike the powers that any other mayor in New Zealand has. There will be no checks and balances on that executive power of the mayor other than from these toothless impotent local boards which are not even set up in statute in this legislation. At least community boards are set up in statute and have a legal basis. These new local boards will exist only at the whim of the super-city. They will be able to be abolished or have all of their already feeble powers clipped by the Auckland super-council. The local boards will have no power and no resources; they will not be able to hire staff and they will not be able to own anything. They will not be able to levy rates make by-laws borrow money or develop annual plans. They will be little more than grandiose residents associations that will be able to lobby in their area. 
Aucklanders need to be aware as do all New Zealanders of the hidden agenda in all this restructuring. That agenda is to set Auckland up so that when the eight councils are amalgamated into one as much of the $28 billion of assets as possible will be able to be put into arm’s-length boards then privatised. The board meetings will not be open to the public so there will not be any scrutiny of the activities—of the commercial and trading activities such as the airport and the ports. All of them will be put into these corporate boards and readied for privatisation. 
If people think that maybe I am scaremongering then I will let listeners decide for themselves by reading from ACT’s policy on local government. The first one is “Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity”. Did members get that one? “Roads and … water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis”. Local government will have its powers of general competency abolished. ACT will promote the contracting out of council services. If anyone would like to read these I am sure that they are still up on the website under ACT’s policy on local government. It is no wonder that Rodney Hide chose to be the Minister of Local Government and that his focus this term is on restructuring Auckland and getting as many of those assets as possible ready for privatisation. I am sure that ACT’s campaign donations will be rolling in if he manages to ram this legislation through and set up the bloated inaccessible huge remote bureaucracy that will be the Auckland Council. 
Rodney Hide is pretending with his soothing words that this legislation is all “fine and dandy”. It sounds like Orwellian double-speak but I urge Aucklanders to read the fine print of this legislation. I urge them to read about the draconian powers of this transition agency and to understand that over the next 18 months the Auckland Council and Auckland governance will be paralysed. This will all happen so that we can set up this huge centralised executive Auckland City super-council which will be counterbalanced only by the toothless impotent and rather pitiful local boards. Thank you. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Auckland is a city that I like many love. Auckland is a city that I like many do not think has reached its full potential. Auckland is a city that can grow be dynamic and take on any other city in the world. We are taking the first step towards making that a reality. Like many Aucklanders I feel the frustration at times when I am in my city and trying to get around it and see that disjointedness between the areas of our city. 
The royal commission itself put it in the best way possible when it stated: “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. Disputes are regular amongst councils over urban growth and the development and sharing of key infrastructure including roads water and waste facilities and cultural and sporting amenities. Councils cannot agree on or apply consistent standards and plans. Sharing of services among councils is limited yet there is a scope for so much more activity in this area.” That is the Auckland that we are striving for—one that joins together is dynamic and gets the things done that it needs to get done. 
We have heard from the Labour Party that it now supports “One Auckland”; it now supports the unitary authority. But Labour members have stood up and orated against the establishment of the Auckland Council as a legal entity which is what this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is actually doing. The bill we are putting through the House at the moment will establish the Auckland Council as a legal entity will establish the Auckland Transition Agency to oversee the move to the new structure and will define how the region’s existing councils should work during the transition period. These are all things that I am sure we agree need to be done at this time. 
Then we will have an important job to do. We will have the job of working out exactly what happens to that second tier and how we actually make sure that that representation is there and where those powers are. Time and time again from previous speakers from the Opposition we have heard that local boards will have no power. Well we have not decided the powers of the local boards so how can we say they will have no power? We simply cannot say that. Ideas are going around and we will hear many many more through the select committee process. We will hear what those powers should be how we make sure those voices are there and what that representation will truly look like. We need to see people standing up having their say and having their voices heard through the select committee process in the next part of the development of the boards. 
I have put a few ideas forward and I make no apologies for that. As Minister for Social Development and Employment and as a proud proud Westie I have ideas on how I think we can look after those community interests in order to have a voice heard there and to make sure that local stuff is being done locally. We like to do stuff a little differently at times in the west and that actually gives us strength makes us unique and gives us a flavour within such a fine city. I know that in the electorate of my colleague Judith Collins people like to do things a little differently out that way as well. They have different interests different flavours and different things within their own community that will address the needs there. We have to step up make sure those voices are heard make sure we keep local flavour and make sure we support those organisations that are working at the grassroots. We know when we look at social well-being in how a city works and how a region can be at its best that it is a matter of place coming together as well as people and that that happens through a sense of community. We have a responsibility through these local boards to make sure that that will be happening. 
Some of the suggestions that we have thrown out there have included the one that maybe this new unitary council should establish a ring-fenced fund for local initiatives to be distributed to local boards to use at their discretion. It is an idea we can throw out there; it is something that I hope gets discussed. How much should that fund cost? What should that fund look like and how should it be distributed? Who should be on the local boards how should they be elected and what sorts of powers would we give them? They are all questions that we will be putting through in the second bill and allowing Aucklanders to step up and have their say about them. 
Another option for social well-being and for making sure that those communities have their voice is a fund to be distributed perhaps from the council almost as we do in Government now. The local boards could actually “do a bilateral” to that council and the social services committee serving underneath it and say “This is what is needed in our area; this is what we want to do in Waitakere.”—in Papakura or in Auckland Central—“This is how we want to spend that local money.”; then put forward that budget to them. Those decisions will be made and it will be distributed through that way. That is another idea. We could actually do a combination of both to address those issues as well. 
Another challenge I would like to put out there—and I certainly know that it will get discussed in the second bill to go through; Aucklanders of course will have a fine say a big say in how this actually looks—is that perhaps we need to ring-fence a fund as well for those larger items for communities to think about. So something we need to talk about as we get into that second bill is what happens if people wish to build a community hall in their area—if they need some assistance from the council to do that if they think it is a good use of spending and if it is something that is really needed in their local community. People should be able to present that need to the council put a case forward have it considered against the other options there—in my opinion—and actually have it looked at. That is something that will happen through the second bill. 
We hear that we agree now on the unitary council which is vitally important will move Auckland forward unite us as one and make us a dynamic world-class city that can make a real difference. We actually hear that the Opposition agrees with that so we are presenting a bill tonight that can work toward making that happen for us. We need a transition authority to make that happen. It is not rocket science to work that out yet somehow the Opposition—Labour members—are really really struggling to grasp that. This is not about sneaking through those powers and doing all those sneaky things that we are hearing about. We are quite upfront in what we are accomplishing. What we are doing is setting up the authority to make sure that that one council can happen. From there we have heard that a second bill will be coming through; that is where Aucklanders will get to step up stand up and have their voices heard. I think that is vitally important as do my colleagues and certainly as does the Minister of Local Government. 
The commission said that failure to take action will result in citizens and businesses continuing to incur high transaction costs in dealing with councils in important decisions either not being made or being made too late and in central government being unable to develop an effective partnership with Auckland local government. This bill is the first step towards a unified governance structure to bring unity and progress to Auckland for the benefit of its citizens for the next 50 60 100 years. It is certainly something that I stand up and celebrate. But it does not mean that we have to lose the local flavour of what makes Auckland so unique. Westies wish to be westies and they will stay that. They need a voice; they need to have that say. Their local voice will be kept. It will be protected and it is vital that it is there. I can tell members that plenty of people in this party will be fighting for that. 
Who asked for the royal commission and how much was spent on that? I think it was a bit of a lobby coming across from Labour members who said: “We know we’ve got no shot of winning the next election. This is too big and too difficult for us to manage; let’s call in the royal commission and hope.”—yes? That was it pretty much. We have heard a lot about democracy at the moment and what that means. In fact one of the previous speakers who did not get a chance to stand for the seat that he had been hoping to stand for was given a pretty sharp lesson on what democracy was not about when people are in the Labour Party—back in your box Mr Twyford! We saw what happened with democracy when the Electoral Finance Act was put through. It actually destroyed democracy and the chance for New Zealanders to have their say during an election period. How long was it I ask my colleagues before Labour members stood up and said “Whoops we got it wrong.”? And the public spoke to them quite clearly at the election last year. 
Let us be really really clear about what we are trying to do. This is about taking notice of the royal commission. This is about having a unitary council. This is about one voice for Auckland that can pull together the very infrastructure and dynamism that will make this city great. I support it; I encourage Aucklanders to have their say in the second bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. In opening the debate on this bill the Hon Rodney Hide spoke on a number of occasions about the historical background to this bill referring to the decades-old debate about how Auckland should be restructured which reminded me about a comment made by one of my own whanaunga Paore Tuhaere a chief of the Ngati Whatua o Orakei who said: “Let us be admitted into your councils. This would be the very best system. The Pakeha have their councils and the Maori have separate councils but evil results from these councils not being one.” That could have been a submission to the royal commission on Auckland governance but it was not and it is timely to note that Paore Tuhaere’s comments from the late 19th century are as relevant to today’s debate as they were when they were first spoken because they speak against the evils that result from exclusion marginalisation and isolation and they speak of a system whereby councils would include mana whenua a system in which the relationship between mana whenua and development land use and environmental matters are embedded in the heart of local government and a system where communities are involved in the decision making and communities are strengthened not reduced or eliminated. 
I am proud to be of Ngati Whatua descent and I am proud to stand alongside my whanaunga from Ngati Whatua o Orakei who come to this bill with a very clear understanding of the way in which Maori representation can be achieved. They recommended first and foremost that a mana whenua committee be established consisting of at least the following hapu and iwi interests in the Auckland region: Te Uri o Hau Ngati Wai Ngati Manuhiri Nga Rima o Kaipara Ngati Rehua Ngati Wai ki Aotea Te Kawerau-a-Maki Ngati Whatua o Orakei Ngati Paoa Ngati Tamatera Ngati Maru Ngati Te Ata Ngati Tamaoho Te Akitai and Ngai Tai and that the mana whenua committee then be empowered to do three simple things: first to appoint the three mana whenua members to the regional authority; second to be consulted on the appointment of the nomination by the Waipareira Trust and Manukau Urban Maori Authority of the fourth Maori member from taura here; third to appoint a member to all principal committees advisory boards community boards and area committees of the regional authorities so that Maori have a voice at every level. 
These are practical concrete suggestions about how to achieve basic democracy. They are not acts of protest. They are not hocus pocus. They are not separatist. They are practical concrete suggestions. Indeed further up north last year the Far North District Council also held a hui to discuss the challenge of Maori engagement at local government level. We were told by Maori that there were four simple principles that would guide a positive process of Maori engagement: first partnership working in good faith between both parties; second participation a duty to consult as a way of acting in good faith and reasonably toward one another; third protection recognising and protecting Maori rights to land and water; and fourth pragmatism achieving sound decisions for the whole community. 
It seems to me that these four principles—partnership participation protection and pragmatism—are as good a basis as any on which to include Maori representation in Auckland governance yet when we look at the impact statement of the bill we see there is no mention at all of the concerns raised by Maori communities and Maori people to the royal commission. Neither is there any mention of the royal commission’s recommendation for three Maori seats to be allocated on the proposed Auckland Council. Even though there has been huge controversy over the decision it does not even get a mention. The whole debate has been totally marginalised despite the bill acknowledging that one of the major problems identified by the royal commission was poor community engagement. 
Mind you poor community engagement is not anything new for Maori. In the 2007 local government survey only 3.6 percent of elected members were identified as Maori even though 15 percent of the national population is Maori. One of the main reasons for that can be found in a study by Dr Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tawhai. It shows that Maori do not vote in local body elections because they do not see local authorities as being connected responsible or accountable to Maori communities. All of these core principles seem to be missing from the Government’s approach to the Auckland governance debacle. It seems that the Government has not blinked at spending more than $500000 on a pamphlet called  
Making Auckland Greater 
 advertising and a website to ram through its case for a super-city not only against the wishes of mana whenua but also clearly against the wishes of the citizens of Auckland themselves. 
After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi 170 years ago it seems that the Government still fails to take its obligations seriously under the Local Government Act 2002 to ensure the active involvement of tangata whenua in all levels of decision making about changes to the structure and organisation of the Auckland region. This new bill clearly states that its priorities will take precedence over any issues arising out of other local government legislation such as the Local Government Act 2002. This new bill contains no provisions that require the Auckland Council or the Auckland Transition Agency to take into account the Treaty or provide for a Maori contribution to local government decision-making—again as provided for in the Local Government Act 2002. That Act at least provides a foundation for encouraging Maori representation and I quote: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local government decision-making processes Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and requirements for local authorities that are intended to facilitate participation by Maori in local authority decision-making processes.” 
The legislation is there albeit not used as well as it might be. Even if councils were struggling to implement it that is not an excuse to get rid of it. If anything it should have been a wake-up call to the Government to enhance those provisions rather than toss them in the rubbish. Indeed one of the fundamental concerns raised at the 15 April hui hosted by Ngati Whatua o Orakei at Takaparawhau was the deep concern at the haste by which the decision to move on this was taken. That hui attended by Maori politicians community leaders and more than 500 others also expressed deep concern that it seems that the Government cannot even bring itself to honour the world’s greatest Polynesian city by giving three seats to the people who have been giving land to the settlement of Auckland for more than 200 years and who continue to graciously share what little land they still have with the people of Auckland right through to this very day; to honour the blood sweat and tears that the tangata whenua have shed to help make Auckland a jewel of the Pacific; to honour the partnership of the Treaty of Waitangi; or to honour the fact that Maori seats actually encourage Maori to participate because they see people in a system that is connected responsive and accountable to themselves. 
In the final analysis all we want is a guaranteed Maori presence at the table. The Maori Party has already proved that the only way to guarantee independent intelligent thoughtful and honest Maori representation at the national level is through the establishment and maintenance of independent Maori seats. What we seek for the good people of Auckland is nothing more nothing less. This bill is a tragic reminder that 170 years after our tupuna signed the Treaty of Waitangi the basis of partnership in this great country of ours we still have a very very long way to go. This bill is an insult to due process an insult to partnership an insult to justice and an insult to the mana whenua of Auckland. The Maori Party will be opposing this bill every step of the way. Kia ora tatou. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words “this day 3 months”.  
Earlier this week this House was united in standing in silence to mourn the death of an officer of the law who was killed in the line of duty. I felt that it was right to do so and I was proud to stand united with all the other parties in this House to mourn the loss of that officer. 
Tonight however I stand sadly to indicate that Labour opposes this bill. I feel sad because this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill guts—takes away—local government in Auckland as we know it. I feel as if I am standing to mourn the death of the Manukau City Council. If a farmer was to gut an animal he or she would be very careful not to penetrate the intestines with the knife because then the faeces would stink and make the meat bad. I feel this bill rips the guts out of the Manukau City Council and all other local authorities without a care in the world about what happens to the people. 
Nathan Guy 
: Not true! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It is true. 
Nathan Guy 
: No it’s not. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Well the Prime Minister Mr Key and his National Government keep saying he is listening but this bill is a significant change. It will establish the super-city once and for all and Aucklanders have not had a say. 
Despite the results of the polls that have been promoted in the local  
Manukau Courier 
 and all the other suburban newspapers the Government is still not listening. In the poll that we conducted in Mangere the first question was “Do you agree with the plan to have a super-city?” and 66 percent said no 22 percent said yes and 12 percent said they were unsure. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Out of how many? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I will get to it; I will let that member know soon. That is the response that is coming out of Mangere. 
There is a similar response throughout Manukau City. When this bill passes under urgency without our having heard the voice of Aucklanders and without public consultation we are doing away with Manukau City. We are doing away with the councillors who represent Mangere. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Otara. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Papatoetoe. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Manurewa. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the wards of Botany Howick Pakuranga and Clevedon. That is what this legislation is doing. We are also doing away with the work and effort that past generations have put into this city and into the culture of this city. Why? Because Mr Hide is not prepared to give Aucklanders the opportunity to say what they have to say. 
The Government is not even listening to the recommendations of the royal commission on for example the Maori seats. I acknowledge the Maori Party for standing up for the three Maori seats that the royal commission asked for but I ask that party what sort of relationship it is in. To the outsiders our kaumatuas of Te Puea Marae of Tamaki-makau-rau of Pukaki Marae they feel that that is an abusive relationship in which the Maori Party gets dealt to by the National Government—and still it stays in coalition. Our kaumatua said three Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council were a good start. But this Government’s proposal is zilch—none at all. That reflects badly on the National Government. It is not recognising the special status of tangata whenua. 
That is why at a meeting earlier this week the tangata Pasifika—the people of the Pacific—in Manukau said that as much as they wanted a seat on the new Auckland Council they felt it was best that they support Maori because if this is the way that the National Government treats Maori—who must beg and go out and protest just to have one seat at their own table—what does that mean for the rest of the minority groups in New Zealand? Where is that going? It is not good. 
Community boards as Aucklanders know them will be gone under this legislation. The people who freely contribute their time and advocate for the local community will be gone. So I stand here to mourn the loss of Manukau City and to mourn the loss of our community boards as we know them. If the Government is so intent on sending this bill through—it is very confident that it has the numbers and that it is doing the right thing—then it should give Aucklanders the opportunity to have a say on the super-city. 
This bill also legislates for the Auckland Transition Agency. What will the membership of this agency be? Who will be on the agency? We have concerns from the local community— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Christine Rankin. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It could be Christine Rankin. I do not know; I hope not. We in Labour want to know who will be on the agency. What conflicts of interest will these people have? Will they be buddies of Mr Rodney Hide? Will they be the next-door neighbours of Mr Key? Who will these people be and whose interests will they be pursuing on the transitional authority? What is at stake is significant; it concerns billions of dollars in assets. In Manukau City the people are concerned about these assets. We currently have a significant amount of money invested in shares in Auckland International Airport. For the past several years those airport shares have contributed significantly to our free swimming pools our libraries and our free parks. Under this bill these assets will now be lumped in together as part of the assets of the new super-city. Who will control these assets? Our fear is that if it is not one of us from the wards of Manukau City then our interests will not be considered in the discussion of these assets. 
There are the issues of how much the transition will cost and how much the super-city will cost. I will again share with members the survey I undertook in Mangere. In answer to the question “Do you think that the royal commission’s plan for a super-city will lead to an increase in rates?” 79 percent of our people in Mangere said yes 7 percent said no and 14 percent were not sure. Let me give members a further statistic. Another question asked: “Do you think there has been enough consultation by central government about a super-city for Auckland?” and 80 percent of our people in Mangere polled said no they have not been consulted by central government 11 percent said yes and 9 percent were unsure. 
In respect of the cost of the super-city the transition and the ongoing cost I heard Mr Hide say that he wanted to cap rates for the sake of Aucklanders but is he prepared to cap the costs of the transition to the super-city? I doubt that very much. The costs are in the millions of dollars. The ongoing costs will be several millions of dollars because one also has to consider the 7000 employees of local government in Auckland who could lose their jobs. We want to make sure that those workers throughout Auckland are being looked after. We do not know what those costs are. This Government is ramming through legislation for a super-city without even telling the public how much it will cost. At the end of the day it will be the ratepayers of Auckland who pay for this. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I ask members to picture if they will CNN BBC News or even Fox News. Newsflash! Breaking news! The class war that people like Phil Twyford would like to believe is still going on has been won and lost. I tell all those members of the Fabian Society that the war is over. There are no victims whom they can prey on. The people of Mt Albert will sleep well tonight after the speech by Phil Twyford. 
A long time ago my ancestors got together even before my uncle and auntie were born and said: “Let’s have an arranged betrothal. Let’s have an arranged marriage.” They sorted out in the period before my uncle and auntie were born that they would marry at some stage. In time they grew up and were betrothed. 
Hon Members 
: What are you talking about? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: This is a story that the members on the other side of the House should listen to very carefully. My uncle and auntie grew up in the 1920s and they were married. Even though they had their troubles—they had to run a farm and raise a family and one went off to war while the other stayed home and looked after the farm—they were able to stay together for some 60 years. That says to me that the transition committee the organisation of our elders was able to put in place some things that would help them along the way. 
Kelvin Davis 
: A select committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it was not a select committee. The story tells us that if we put in place a transitional authority then the marriage may—I am not saying it will—last a long long time. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: That’s a very long bow. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It may very well be a long bow. Let us also look at the situation 50 years ago in 1963 when I was only 3 years old. That gives away my age—a very young 48. In 1963 we had the development of the Auckland Regional Authority. Since then we have had umpteen dozens of other tries at organising Auckland into the super-city it always has been. Auckland has always been in the minds of a whole lot of people the super-city where the engine room of New Zealand is—and I am not forgetting the provincial areas of New Zealand. 
We have got it wrong for so many years. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: And you’ve got it wrong again. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh! That comment was from the intellectual member of the Labour Party. Let us look at what Auckland really needs. Through all the hyperbole we have heard from the Labour members tonight we have never really heard what Labour stands for even though in the last 9 years it had an opportunity that most of us never have—an opportunity to put Auckland on the road to recovery. 
Auckland has for a long long time been a failure. It has failed its ratepayers. It has failed the community—[ 
Interruption 
] Especially where? Out in west Auckland did the member say? Let us talk about west Auckland then. It is a shame that the only opposition to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill we have heard has been from those people who want to protect their patch. In the parlance of young people the south side is trying to protect the south side from the west side the east side and the North Shore. That is what the opposition to this bill has all been about. It is about some people in high places trying to protect their patch and forgetting about where Auckland should be and how it should be progressing. 
I am proud to be part of a party that sees that the progress of Auckland is in the nation’s interests. It is not in one mayor’s interests; it is in the nation’s interests. That is why this side of the House is the progressive side and the productive side. Governance arrangements for the Auckland region have been a debacle for the last 50-odd years and it is time we sorted them out. We will sort them out in a manner in which we will try to take everyone with us. Yes there will be those who say no. Yes there will be those who are perturbed at their patch being taken. 
The previous speaker Su’a William Sio who is from Manukau and is an old school buddy of mine talked about South Auckland and the issue of representation. How many Pacific Island people serve on that large council for South Auckland? How many have served on it for the last 20 years? It is a handful of people and I could most probably name them. In fact I could most probably count them on one hand. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: What’s the point? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The point is that so-called democracy and patch protection actually does not work. We need an authority that is looking forward for everyone. 
I turn now to what my whanaunga and colleague Hone Harawira talked about: the issue of Maori representation. It seems to me that there are two schools of thought: one is from those who are interested in the debate about having representation and one is from the truck drivers courier drivers and council workers who want to get on with their jobs so they can put bread and butter on the table. I have a funny feeling that there are not as many victims of what we are trying to achieve as Labour members would have us believe. 
I am hopeful that there is a way forward in terms of Maori and mana whenua representation. By sitting down with people and talking through the issues there may be light at the end of the tunnel. But to go off on a tangent and say there will be no representation—none of this and none of that—is disingenuous. The bill’s proposed changes are what have to happen to Auckland. Auckland is the engine room of the country and we need it pumping 24/7. It cannot be the old dog that it used to be; it has to be the engine room of this economy and this nation. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour as an Auckland MP to speak in the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. This is the most far-reaching revamp of governance in Auckland and we appreciate that. The process of change was set in motion by the establishment of a royal commission. It has produced a very large report and has recommended radical reforms. 
The important facts that telegraph the real interests of this side of the House and that started some time ago are the concern about Auckland and the attempt to develop a long-term plan for addressing the problems that others have spoken about. Some have said that they do not understand or appreciate what our position is. I do not know how many more times we need to say it because we have said it quite clearly speaker after speaker but perhaps I should say it again: the Labour Opposition accepts the need for change in some aspects of Auckland’s governance. Clearly there is a need to integrate infrastructure such as transport water roading and the like. There is no doubt about that and we accept that. A unitary council has been proposed and we broadly support that recommendation. However the royal commission did not put a high enough value on local participation. Therefore the people of Auckland are demanding—they are demanding—meaningful participation in setting up the governance system. They are also demanding a system for the future that they as Aucklanders cam continue to participate in. 
I love Auckland. I have been there for 45 years now; that is how far back my linkage goes. I believe that Aucklanders want to be involved. They want to participate and they must be enabled to participate. There can be no doubt about that. The facts speak for themselves. I will repeat the facts. This is proper research—the scientists among us understand that this has validity. A total of 63 percent of people say that the Government has consulted too little. That in itself ought to be something we should stop and think about. A total of 61 percent say that the mayor should have the same power as he or she enjoys now. Almost half of Aucklanders think that there should be Maori seats. A total of 71 percent think that the Government should be funding the proposal. A UMR Research poll shows that almost half of Aucklanders disagree with the Government’s proposal. If I were on the other side I would be concerned about that. A total of 72 percent of people in Mr Key’s own electorate do not want what the Prime Minister is imposing on them. 
If we look at all of that we see that it is very clear that Aucklanders want to participate and are not happy with what is being proposed. That does not detract one iota from the need to address Auckland’s issues. We accept that; we started the process that has got us this far. But the only logical conclusion one can reach is that as presented the current proposals for Auckland governance do not have broad support and that has to be garnered. Therefore this is a serious matter. Any major public policy that has this level of dissatisfaction and concern should have its designers stopping thinking again and undertaking further work and consultation. That is good practice and good science anywhere in the world. 
The Government says that the royal commission together with the select committee to come constitutes adequate consultation. That might ordinarily be enough for change within an ongoing system as is the case with most legislation that comes to the House. That is so and the process for that works very well. However when the change is of a first order more extended consultation must be part of the process. The people of Auckland—the 1.4 million people who live there—must have buy-in. That is the only process by which over a million Aucklanders can be confident that their interests have been reflected in the final plan. It is the only way of doing that. In our kind of democracy we must place a very high value and priority on this process. We disregard it and first order change of this kind at our peril. The current process is therefore deficient as the research tells us and as Aucklanders have told us in meeting after meeting. But there is still time to correct the process if the Government wants to guarantee overwhelming support from those who will live with this major reorganisation in Auckland’s governance for the next 50 or so years. We need to get that buy-in and we need to get it now. 
The royal commission completed its work when it developed its thinking and made its recommendations. That is why we set it up. It got the best information it heard as many people as it could and it came up with its own thinking and its own recommendations. Yes some people participated in that process but that can never be the end of consultation on such a major change for so many people. It can never be the end. These changes have the potential to affect every aspect of the lives of many families neighbourhoods communities and businesses over the next 50 or so years. 
The next stage in consultation is a level of participation where people are offered some choices on what might happen as indeed the royal commission suggested and has been developed further. They are not required perhaps to develop further options but they must have their say on which option they prefer. That again is democracy and that is nothing to be frightened of when we are planning this kind of change. There is no rush. We can take a little bit longer. This is— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: There is a rush. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well there is no rush. The Government must take the time to remedy the lack of consultation. The real value of participation—and this is really the hallmark of the 21st century—stems from the fact that mobilising the entire community rather than engaging people on an individualised basis or not engaging with them at all leads to more effective results. That is the science. That has been done. Simply stated change is more likely to be successful and permanent when the people it affects are involved in initiating and promoting it. 
The upside for Auckland citizens in participation is enormous and will touch on many aspects of their lives. How will a poor family living in South Auckland in Otara or anywhere else feel part of this process of participation? How will it happen? How will tangata whenua feel part of this participation? How will immigrants feel part of this process at the present time? The Government has to get buy-in from all those people. There is a wide range of empirical evidence that the quality of public life and the performance of social institutions are powerfully influenced by norms and networks of civic engagement. There is still time to fix this. We can do much better. We must expect much better as parliamentarians—especially with such a major change that if appropriately carried out will have enormous effects in any home right now. A select committee process alone will not give 1.4 million Aucklanders the chance to participate in a meaningful way.  
This bill is more than a technical bill; it sets in place very firm decision-making which this group will decide on. I believe we can do better. Aucklanders deserve better. This matter is too serious to be captured by petty politics and point-scoring. I urge the Government and Ministers responsible for the bill not to treat lightly the high expectations people have. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Barker thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important and timely Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I acknowledge the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance for all the substantial work it did over 18 months—work that the previous Labour Government did not do over 9 long tedious years. I also acknowledge the Prime Minister John Key who unlike the previous Labour Government has got on with the job of making Auckland the great city it could—and should—be. 
I acknowledge the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide and his associate the most honourable member for Northland Mr Carter. They have done the very hard yards that have made the technical import of this bill. They have been very very helpful Ministers. They have spent a lot of time going round Auckland attending meetings and being absolutely assiduous to the democratic process we are seeing unfold before us. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I knew that would give Labour members a good deal of difficulty. Earlier on we heard the Hon Shane Jones whinge and whine about this urgency motion. But I point out to the Labour Opposition the  
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance: Executive Summary 
. It states in paragraph 89: “The Commission respectfully urges the Government to view its recommendations … which needs to be adopted with urgency so that changes can be implemented in readiness for the October 2012 local body elections.” It goes on to state: “The Commission has consulted widely and believes that overwhelmingly Auckland is ready now for positive change.” 
I heard Phil Twyford speak on this bill. He wanted a referendum. I happened to be looking at the biggest local government reform which took place in 1989 under the Hon Michael Bassett. It was very interesting. Michael Bassett made the point in his opening remarks that it was the largest reform of local government for 112 years. They reduced 486 councils down to 89. Was there a referendum? No there was not. Was there a royal commission? No there was not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was Phil Goff there? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Phil Goff? Well he might have been around. Yes he was a bit of a problem at that stage of events. Also earlier this evening I heard Su’a William Sio make mention— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Good man that one. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He is a good member the excellent member for Mangere. He made the point that the excellent member for Hunua had held a public meeting very soon after the Government’s response to the royal commission. That is absolutely right. It was not just one meeting; it was two. One of those meetings happened to be down at a place called Te Puru which is in the northern part of the excellent Hunua electorate. It is between Beachlands and Maraetai. A modest number of people attended the meeting. They said they wanted good representation acknowledgment of the rural nature of part of their electorate and acknowledgment that part of their community of interest was in the Howick and Pakuranga area. 
In the southern part of the electorate of Hunua—deep in the heart of Franklin at Pukekohe—I held another meeting. Over 500 people were there. They came with a very clear message. Firstly they wanted to retain the name “Franklin”. This is where the royal commission got things slightly wrong. The commission wanted to put this vast rural area under the Hunua council. One of the reasons they wanted to retain the name “Franklin” is that “Hunua” means high infertile ground. It is diametrically opposite to the fertile lush soils of Pukekohe and its surroundings; it is the food basket of Auckland and New Zealand. Franklin is absolutely diametrically opposite to Hunua. 
The other point was that the people from this part of the electorate are of the view that they want to stay with the Franklin District Council. This is where the second bill absolutely comes into its own. It will allow the select committee that was set up earlier this afternoon to hear submissions from right around Auckland. This is the democratic mechanism. Aucklanders are allowed to come to the select committee and express their highly diverse views. It is inappropriate for Opposition members to suggest that the democratic process is being held up. This is a perfect mechanism and it is the traditional mechanism of Parliament to allow the democratic process to carry on. 
The royal commission said that failure to take action on Auckland local government will result in citizens and businesses continuing to incur high transaction costs in dealing with councils. It said that important decisions are either not being made or being made too late and central government is unable to develop an effective partnership with Auckland local government. There was no doubt that the commission believed that it was absolutely vital that we act now and not later. The Labour Opposition would have us go into a foray of referenda of consultations and of powwows that would only hold up what is clearly necessary right now. I say that it is an absolute indictment on Ports of Auckland Ltd that produce from my electorate —the onions the potatoes—is sent to the Port of Tauranga which is many hundreds of kilometres away from Pukekohe because it is more efficient and cheaper than sending it to the Port of Auckland. That is an indictment on the organisation of local government in Auckland. It is must be fixed and this bill will allow it to be fixed. 
The expected 18-month time frame for the establishment of the Auckland Council is ambitious but achievable. The royal commission said that it is important that the deadline is met. Thank goodness this bill is driven by a fresh forward-looking National Government instead of by that lazy languid previous Labour Government. Thank goodness because Labour would have let it go on for month after month. This bill is the first step towards a unified governance structure to bring unity and progress to Auckland for the benefit of its citizens for the next 50 to 100 years. There is no doubt that it is timely it is important and it is appropriate that we get on with it. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and in bringing this first reading to a close to build on the common sense and rationality of speakers like my colleagues Paul Hutchison Tau Henare and the excellent Associate Minister of Local Government John Carter. The rational debate from this side of the House is in such marked contrast to the hyperbole the exaggeration and frankly the crocodile tears of Labour members opposite. That will not be lost tonight on the people of Auckland. Aucklanders are ready for a change. They want change in their governance structure. They made it very very clear at the last election that they wanted a change in Government and the National Government is delivering change. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Fingers in the till! Bad look! Falling apart! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Listen to that Mr Speaker. Did Mr Cunliffe not notice the seats that fell to National in Auckland? Aucklanders wanted change. What seats were they? Auckland Central Maungakiekie and Waitakere all fell to National. Let us think about what Aucklanders said to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. There were 3500 written submissions and 500 oral submissions. The call for change has been loud and clear. The royal commission has listened and now the Government is listening. One thing that the Labour Opposition has not done is explain what part of the royal commission process was not consultation. In addition to listening to Aucklanders the royal commission received advice from experts in a wide range of fields. It made a considered report. The royal commission visited other international cities to see how they were governed including studying the transition process. The transition process is vital. 
You know out on the streets of Auckland in the shopping centres in the streets and in the parks of my own electorate Tamaki the message is clear: “Do the job. Get it done. Above all else display leadership and make decisions because that is why we put National into Government—to show leadership and to make decisions. And give us”—this is the message from the people of Auckland—“a unified governance structure that will benefit Auckland not just now but for the next 50 to 100 years.” I realise that thinking in terms of 50 to 100 years is impossible for Labour members. They cannot even think beyond the next election because they do not know whether they will even have a future. If they continue down that line their Auckland electorates will speak even more loudly next time. “Do the job show leadership and get the job done. Set up our city for the next 50 to 100 years.” That is what ordinary Aucklanders are saying out on the streets of Tamaki and other constituencies. 
You see what Aucklanders are asking for we are giving them. This bill delivers to Aucklanders what they have asked the royal commission for and what they now expect the National Government to deliver. For years now—decades—Auckland and its citizens have looked in vain for the leadership organisation and structure that will solve their problems. I can run through their problems. For example there are endlessly increasing rates usually driven by Labour councillors; suffocating red tape—and of course Labour loves its red tape does it not; maybe it is just the colour but Labour loves its red tape—transport bottlenecks in the region; delayed development; and lost opportunities. Those are the problems that Aucklanders want fixed and they were all identified— 
Phil Twyford 
: You’ve put David Bennett to sleep Allan—look look! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note with interest that a different Phil is barracking from the Leader of the Opposition’s seat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. It has been quite a noisy and boisterous sitting on both sides. The member is being heard. I invite him to continue. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a point of order when a member moves seats to take advantage of the position to participate in the debate. Although members of this House may not have any choice but be forced to listen to the Hon David Cunliffe who is barracking from his own seat others including Mr Twyford and the fellow behind him have shifted seats to advantage themselves in engaging in the debate and I ask that you bear that in mind. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Yes I will bear that in mind. I will not take any more—[ 
Interruption 
] No I am OK; I do not need any assistance. There has been some robust debate on either side. The speaker currently speaking has been in many ways provocative. He has been making points against the Opposition and in doing so he invites them to respond and retaliate. It is a well-known rule in this House that that happens and although the noise was getting up it was not in my opinion beyond the threshold that would cause me concern. I invite the member to continue. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have ruled on the matter. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Yes that is right but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is this a fresh point of order? 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes it is a fresh point of order because the matter you ruled on was about the nature of the debate and how the level of interjections and the nature of the material that was being presented created the crossfire. Actually the point of order that I raised was the fact that members had moved from their seats to gain an advantage in contributing to that debate in the manner you described which is contrary to the Standing Orders and that was the ruling I was seeking Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member recalls correctly the member invited me to keep that in mind. We can check the  
Hansard 
. That is what the member did. I do not need to rule on that; I am keeping it in mind. If I feel that the speech has got out of hand and the noise has got beyond that I will certainly keep it in mind and I will tell the members I will do so. I certainly do not need to make a ruling on keeping something in mind. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are quite right; I now ask you to rule. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: My ruling is that I invite Mr Allan Peachey to continue with his debate. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I just felt that that point needed to be made. 
Aucklanders and New Zealanders generally will no longer put up with the cumbersome way in which the Auckland region is run. Important Auckland-wide matters have for too long been tangled up in the competing interests of local councils. Community concerns get tangled up in the local councils’ perspective of Auckland-wide issues. There is a lack of leadership and no single vision for moving the Auckland area forward. 
The royal commission has warned of the consequences of the failure to take action immediately—not when Labour gets around to it but immediately. And the warning that the royal commission has delivered is dire so dire that no responsible Government with the interests of New Zealand at the forefront of its mind—not the interests of Labour ideology but the interests of New Zealand—can ignore it any longer. This is what failure to act will mean for the Auckland region: citizens and businesses will continue to incur high transaction costs in dealing with councils and important decisions that need to be made will either not be made or be made too late. Central government has been unable to develop an effective working partnership with Auckland local government. 
That is why we need to act. All we need to do is look towards the type of New Zealand that will emerge from the current financial crisis that was inspired by the previous Labour Government. We need to look ahead and determine that if our people are to be prosperous if our economy is to grow and if we are to compete internationally for our prosperity and standard of living the country needs an effective efficient and functioning Auckland region. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is not just about today and tomorrow it is about the next 50 to 100 years. It is about the prosperity and standard of living of all New Zealanders. That is why the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is receiving its first reading tonight and that is why I support the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Before I put the question there is an amendment in the name of Su’a William Sio. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words “this day 3 months”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; 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. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I remind members that votes are to be heard in silence. The House has ruled on a number of occasions that it is not proper for members to make comments about how people vote. There will be quite a number of votes and I thought I would set the scene right from the beginning so that everybody is reminded and clear on what the rules are. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be now read a second time 
. The Government has considered the report of the Royal Commission into Auckland Governance and it agrees with many of the report’s recommendations. These include the recommendation to create through legislation the Auckland Council as a single governing body for the Auckland region a second tier of local boards to recognise local communities within the region and the Auckland Transition Agency to effect the necessary changes. This urgent bill provides the necessary legislative mechanisms for transition to the new governance arrangements which are required to be in place as early as possible. The bill will enable the Auckland Transition Agency to commence its work in designing and establishing the new structures so that members of the Auckland Council and local boards can be elected at the October 2010 local government elections. The bill will also provide effective safeguards around the decisions and actions of existing local authorities in the Auckland region. These measures must be in place as soon as possible. 
Let me remind the House why timing is so important. The Government has decided that the time for action has arrived. It will act now so that the Auckland Council will be up and working in November next year. In the time before then we must ensure that boundaries are set local government elections are arranged and candidates are in place. We cannot wait until the following year as the country leads into a general election and prepares to host the Rugby World Cup. We will not wait until 2013 2016 or 2019—as the Labour Party appears to propose—as a longer time frame means too much uncertainty and disruption for council staff and the public. We have resolved to act now. 
The bill establishes the Auckland Council and disestablishes the existing local authorities on and from 1 November 2010 it allows the Auckland Transition Agency to commence work towards having the transition to the new core arrangements significantly completed by the October 2010 local government elections and it puts in place safeguards and constraints on decision making by existing Auckland local authorities and their subsidiaries. 
I will give a brief explanation of the different components of the bill. Part 1 provides for preliminary matters including the bill’s background and purpose and a general outline of its provisions. Part 2 establishes the Auckland Council. Its initial establishment under legislation will provide context and the directions for the transition agency to work towards in putting the new governance arrangements in place. This part does not come into force until 1 November 2010 that date being after the next local government elections. At these elections the citizens of Auckland will vote for the inaugural mayor and members of the Auckland Council. Once established the council will assume the responsibilities roles powers assets and liabilities of the Auckland Regional Council and of course the seven territorial authorities in the Auckland region. Part 3 of the bill is concerned with the transitional arrangements that must be made in order for the Auckland Council to be ready to assume its role in late 2010. Accordingly this part commences on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. 
Subpart 1 of Part 3 of the bill establishes the Auckland Transition Agency which will be responsible for making arrangements to enable the Auckland Council to operate once it is established. This work will involve planning the council’s structure and operational arrangements and determining how the systems plans and policies of the existing local authorities and their subsidiaries will be integrated within that structure. The bill sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities of the transition agency. The transition agency will be a statutory entity and given its short-term existence will be named under the Public Finance Act. The transition agency will have an interim governing board appointed by the Minister of Local Government and it will hold office only until the new council’s elected members take office. The transition agency will be disestablished when the Auckland Council comes into existence. 
Subpart 2 of Part 3 sets out the obligations of the existing local authorities and other local government organisations during the transition period between the enactment of the bill and 1 November 2010. The bill requires that in certain situations the existing Auckland local authorities and their subsidiaries obtain the consent of the transition agency before implementing decisions. Such situations include decisions that may impact significantly on the reorganisation or the capacity of the Auckland Council including the assets and the liabilities it will inherit. The bill also provides that existing local government organisations are required to cooperate with the transition agency in responding to requests for information and for the secondment of staff. Subpart 3 of Part 3 of the bill deals with miscellaneous matters relating to the setting up of the Auckland Council including dissolution of the current local authorities and consequential amendments to other legislation. 
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which is being introduced at the same time as this bill provides the high-level framework for the structure of the Auckland Council and establishes local boards. This other bill also provides powers for the Local Government Commission to determine the region’s electoral boundaries. 
These bills focus on the transition period before the Auckland Council and local boards come into being on 1 November 2010. Much of the content of these bills will become redundant at that time and will be repealed by Order in Council. A third bill which we are expecting to introduce in October this year will provide for the ongoing governance structure and for the detailed legislative framework of the governance arrangements. 
This bill will enable work to get under way to shape the future of Auckland and New Zealand. It is imperative that this bill be enacted as soon as possible. I commend it to the House and in particular to the Labour members who must be interested like Auckland and the rest of New Zealand in the future of Auckland and in providing Auckland with the good governance it so desperately needs and so richly deserves. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and adding “this day six months” at the end of the question 
. We will table that amendment for the House. 
Titirangi te maunga Te Whau te awa Waitakere te rohe. 
[ 
Titirangi is the mountain Te Whau is the river and Waitakere is the region 
.] 
Waitakere is my city. I am here tonight with the voices of the vast majority of the 200000 residents of Waitakere ringing in my ears. I know that they are standing behind me. Seventy-two percent of the people of Hobsonville—the Prime Minister’s own electorate—70 percent of all the citizens of Waitakere and 62 percent of all Aucklanders oppose the moves that this Government is making. 
Yes the Government has the numbers to bulldoze this bill through the house just as it is bulldozing 300-plus homes in Mount Albert. It will get the bill through the House despite our best efforts. But the Government will pay for it at the next general election. As every local MP knows when 250 people come out on a wet Monday night to a public meeting or 1000 people march in the streets at short notice it means they care. When the hikoi comes from the north the south and the west to central Auckland in the next week all New Zealanders will know that the people have risen up against this anti-democratic move. The Government has shrewdly put the bill in the hands of Rodney Hide a Minister who is not from the National Party because he is expendable. If the heat gets too hot by the time of the next election the Prime Minister will bounce from cloud to cloud and the Minister will be left to carry part of the odium. 
But it will not be enough to take away the anger of the 200000 Waitakere residents who will say that those white men who represent the interests of Remuera have stolen their city. The member for Port Waikato whose people of Franklin will desert him said this is a bill to set Auckland up for the next 50 or 100 years. You bet it is! But it is not about making Auckland greater; it is about making Auckland bluer! It is about gerrymandering the Auckland Council; it is about stacking the deck with eight at-large councillors whom it will cost $250000 to send a letter to every resident. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How much? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It will cost $250000 for one letter drop across the households of Auckland; only the rich need apply to be an at-large councillor—quarter of a million dollars for a letter drop! Which member of the Opposition can afford that? Clearly for the member for Port Waikato it is the equivalent of a day’s work but my constituents cannot afford it. Waitakere City gets two out of 20 councillors. Waitakere people are marginalised they feel silenced and they will get even with this one-term Government. I do not often get angry but I am angry about this bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)