Volume 663 Week 44 - Thursday 3 June 2010 
Volume 663 Week 44 - Thursday 3 June 2010 
[Volume:663;Page:11595] 
Thursday 3 June 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Chamber Lobbies and Galleries—Audio System Technical Review 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I foreshadowed earlier in the week there will be sound technicians on the floor of the House today. I would particularly like to thank those members who have moved seats in order to make crucial seats available in the House for the technicians to hear firsthand the sound problems that we have been experiencing. I ask members to resist the temptation to have a neighbourly chat because the technicians need to focus very much on the sound quality while they are in the House. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will lift this afternoon for a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 June priority will be given to completing debate on the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill and the Policing (Involvement in Local Authority Elections) Amendment Bill. It is expected that Wednesday 16 June will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 When the House has completed its responsibilities with regard to the Budget debate and the financial review debates for Crown entities is it the Government’s intention to introduce legislation amending the Crown Minerals Act to take into account the consultation that the Government has been doing on schedule 4 lands? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Government’s intentions with regard to legislation will be well signalled in that regard. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Prime Ministerial Responsibility for Pecuniary Conflicts of Interest 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns question No. 8 yesterday and the issue of ministerial responsibility. At the time you ruled—absolutely correctly in my view—that the Prime Minister’s word as to whether he has responsibility ought to be accepted by the House. Mr Speaker you went on to say: “it is better for Ministers to tell the House where they have no responsibility rather than the Speaker intervene too much.” That is where the matter lay and that is where we left it. 
But you may want to take the matter into consideration and I am asking you to do so. It seems to me that the cascade of logic goes something like this: the Prime Minister is clearly responsible for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet therefore he is clearly responsible for issues arising from the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and therefore he is responsible for issues that come under the issue of conflict of interest. One of the many ways of managing a conflict of interest is through a declaration of interests to the pecuniary interests register and it seems to me that as far as Ministers are concerned—though not I suspect backbenchers—the Prime Minister has some obligation in that regard as well. I invite you Mr Speaker to reflect on that and perhaps either offer some sort of a ruling or reflect on it and not offer us a ruling and we will see how we get on in the coming session. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. The problem with the question asked yesterday was that it asked the Prime Minister about something that he as Prime Minister was not responsible for. The Prime Minister pointed that out. Speaker’s ruling 148/2 rules that a question that merely asks a member to confirm his or her private affairs is not in order. In the particular case of yesterday the question related to a matter that I suggest is even less of the Prime Minister’s responsibility than that because it asked about a company that the Prime Minister clearly has no responsibility for. The Prime Minister told the House that. I am not sure whether I need to reflect further on anything. I do not immediately see the difficulty. However that is not to say I will not think about it; I will undertake to do so. 
Questions to Ministers 
State-owned Assets—Government Policy on Sales 
1. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will the Government tell New Zealanders before the election which assets if any they will sell if they are re-elected? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has made a firm commitment to New Zealanders that there will be no asset sales in this term of office and that if the policy changes we will say so and campaign on the issue in the 2011 election. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer has the policy changed since yesterday when the Prime Minister said a decision on whether to sell Kiwibank would be made in the second term if National were re-elected rather than telling New Zealanders before they go to the polls what assets were on the block? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the policy has not changed. We made a firm commitment that if there are any policy changes we will say so before the election and we will put it to the electorate in 2011. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is Government policy regarding the sale of Kiwibank that it will not be sold that there is no rational reason for selling it and that there are no circumstances under which it will be sold as stated by John Key and does that represent a change of policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No it does not. 
Chris Tremain 
: What is the Government’s priority for managing the $220 billion of assets it holds on behalf of taxpayers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our priority is to fix the damage done by the previous Government’s very poor management of the $200 billion worth of assets. The taxpayer owns $59 billion worth of financial assets $52 billion worth of companies and $109 billion worth of housing schools hospitals prisons and roads. It is a top priority for this Government to manage that $200 billion worth of assets better. I have to say that we have been able to make a lot of progress because such a poor job was done by the previous Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is it Government policy to sell Kiwibank eventually as he said on 1 August 2008 before the election or is the policy to never sell Kiwibank ever as stated by John Key on at least nine occasions including May 2007 5 6 and 7 August 2008 21 and 22 October 2008 and 4 and 5 November 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has strong views on these things and I tend to agree with them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he agree with John Key when he refused to sign a pledge not to sell Kiwibank and then agree with him when he changed his mind and promised never ever to sell Kiwibank and is he aware that while John Key was sending mixed messages Ministers like Nathan Guy were busy signing the pledge on behalf of his party? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I outlined in answer to an earlier question the Government has made a commitment to New Zealand that there will be no asset sales in this term of office and that if the policy changes we will say so. As I have pointed out to the member we have spent our time on a much more important task which is fixing—[ 
Interruption 
] I think that demonstrates the point that the last Government did nothing to manage $200 billion of assets properly in the interests of the taxpayer and that is what we are doing with considerable success. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was his decision to raise the sale of Kiwibank a day after his Budget an attempt to foster debate about an asset sale or an attempt to foment trouble with his leader? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the context of a Budget that has gone down pretty well because it is good for the economy and good for families I was answering a question asked by the audience. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a pledge signed by Nathan Guy pledging that his party will not initiate or support the sale of Kiwibank. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a pledge signed by all party leaders except John Key who has now said that he would never ever sell Kiwibank anyway. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to correct a comment I made when I tabled the pledge. I said it was signed by— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. I presume it is to make a personal explanation. Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. [ 
Interruption 
] I have to put the leave to the House. Is there any objection to leave being given? There is no objection. 
Hon Annette King 
: When I tabled the pledge I said it was signed by all party leaders. It was not signed by the leader of the ACT Party. I said it was signed by all leaders of the parties. I apologise to the leader of the ACT Party; he has always stuck with what he believes in. 
Budget 2010—Economic Advantages for New Zealand 
2. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will the Budget help give New Zealand economic advantages over other countries which are being forced to increase income taxes and go deeply into debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 New Zealand has an opportunity to stand out from other countries in the next few years by having lower income taxes and bringing public debt under control. The Budget tax package leaves the vast majority of New Zealanders better off. It tilts the economy towards savings productive investment and exports and away from borrowing housing speculation and the excessive Government spending that were the hallmarks of Labour’s term in office. If we had followed its policies we would not be able to stand out compared with other countries. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: After the Budget tax package what will be the top marginal tax rate faced by New Zealanders on the average wage and how does this compare with the marginal tax rates of average wage earners in other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: From 1 October excluding tax credits someone on the average wage will pay a top marginal rate of 17.5 percent. In fact 73 percent of all New Zealand income earners will face a top statutory tax rate of 17.5 percent or less. In the OECD the average tax rate on the average wage is 36 percent. In the United Kingdom it is 32 percent and even in Australia it is 26 percent. So by comparison with those countries we have a much lower statutory tax rate on the average wage. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What would have been the economic advantages to New Zealand had the previous Labour Government cut taxes to the extent that the then Opposition National Party advocated prior to the global economic crisis and had not instead paid net debt down to zero? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The problem with the previous Labour Government was that it let spending get out of control and that made it difficult for that Government to cut taxes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why does the Minister allege that the previous Labour Government let spending get out of control when Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is forecast to rise under his administration to 33 percent of GDP? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should consult the Labour spin doctors who are all trying to argue exactly the opposite of that. The member says our expenditure is going to rise as a proportion of GDP. Labour’s general line contradicts him and says it is going to drop because we are slashing and burning. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does the Government’s current gross debt level compare with that of the same countries that the Minister referred to earlier? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: When the Government took office we were facing forecasts of ever-growing debt. This situation was first outlined in Labour’s last Budget where it showed a decade of deficits and rising debt. New Zealand’s gross debt as measured by the OECD’s internationally comparable data is about 30 percent of GDP. Government gross debt in the United States is 90 percent of GDP and it is 80 percent in the United Kingdom. Australia however has gross Government debt of 20 percent—so it is better than New Zealand—because it did not squander the last decade. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the fact that New Zealand is going more deeply in debt—$23 billion or 133 percent over the last 2 years—and substantially increasing indirect taxation is somehow not a problem and is better than what other countries are doing by going more deeply in debt and increasing income tax? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made some considered and balanced decisions about the extent to which it is willing to cut Government spending in a recession. We could have cut spending considerably. That would have dealt to some extent with the problems that the member is talking about but we decided to continue with Government spending to underpin growth in the economy and to protect people from the sharp edges of the recession. However as we come out of the recession we need to have significant fiscal constraint to prevent public debt from rising too rapidly. The Government is borrowing $240 million per week every week for the next 3 years to finance its deficits and refinance existing debt. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What economic forecast did the Government inherit when it took office just 18 months ago? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Far from one of a golden economy we actually inherited deeply worrying forecasts starting in the 2008 Budget under the previous Government which featured sharply rising debt a deepening recession and billions of dollars of unfunded Government spending commitments. In Budget 2009 we got on top of those difficult circumstances but now we need to make further progress as we have done in the 2010 Budget. 
Budget 2010—Gap Between Rich and Poor 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did he say that the gap between rich and poor is “about the same” as a result of Budget 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Because on a range of measures it is about the same. The Budget made sure that low middle and higher income earners receive roughly the same proportion of increase in income. This was achieved by tax cuts that more than offset any rise in GST at all income levels compensation for those who receive Government support and a series of revenue-raising measures that impact predominantly on high-income earners. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can the gap between rich and poor remain the same when a family with four children in Mangere will face additional childcare costs of around $100 a week plus a hike in power charges groceries transport etc. of around 6 percent while someone on $1 million a year gets $1000 a week back in tax cuts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said the Budget package switched tax from direct to indirect tax and we made sure that right across the income scale the income tax cuts are larger than the impact of GST increases on those families. The people who pay more out of the Budget package are smokers the overseas owners of New Zealand assets and anyone who invests in property—that is who pays more. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can he say that the gap between rich and poor is about the same as a result of the Budget when the wealthiest one-twentiethof New Zealanders get almost one-third of the tax back? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: At least two-thirds of the cost of the income tax package went on lowering the bottom two rates of income tax. For those who are on lower incomes the best news in the Budget is 170000 new jobs. It will provide new jobs for those people who have lost their jobs and job security for New Zealanders who are concerned about it. Most New Zealanders share the Government’s point of view that the Budget is good for the economy. 
David Bennett 
: How will the benefits of Budget 2010 tax changes alter through time? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There has been some discussion about the future gains for taxpayers. An average-wage earner for example will immediately be about $15 a week better off after GST in October 2010. By 2014 using Treasury’s forecasts for wages and prices the amount that that taxpayer has gained will have risen to about $1000 a year or $20 per week. That is the longer we apply the forecast as a result of this tax package the better off the average-wage earner will be. This will be the case for most households with the gains from the tax package getting bigger as their incomes rise. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that the Secretary to the Treasury Mr Whitehead had pre-cleared with the Prime Minister his comments on  
Q 
+ 
A  
that 15 percent GST was just a first step and since GST is a regressive tax that leaves hard-working Kiwis worse off how will raising GST further narrow the gap between rich and poor? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The changes in GST are part of a package of measures that will lift the growth rate of this economy and provide 170000 new jobs. If the member knows one thing— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister well knows that the Budget documents ascribe only 6 percent of that change to his Budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not use a point of order in that manner. If he disagrees with an answer the Minister is giving the member should question further with a further supplementary question. Has the Minister finished his answer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Kia ora e te Whare. Talofa lava malo le soifua. Does he agree that more-equal societies produce better health and education outcomes for people across all income brackets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand that that is a hypothesis put forward by some. It may be correct. Certainly one of the keys to equality in any society is that people can get jobs. The poorest people in any society are those who do not have jobs. That is why the Government has a strong focus on creating new jobs in a stronger economy and the Budget delivers about 170000 new jobs over the next 4 years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I apologise for not doing so earlier but I seek leave to table a report from the OECD that showed income distribution and poverty reducing under the term of the previous Labour Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the  
Q 
+ 
A 
 interview by the Secretary to the Treasury in which he advocates on behalf of the Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a recent television programme as I understand it. Members have seen that. There is no need to take that course of action. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table OECD research that shows the types of tax policy changes employed by the Government increase income inequality. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
David Garrett 
: Talofa lava malo le soifua. Is the Minister surprised that after Labour’s 9 years when low-income suburbs were left infested with criminal activity when large proportions of children left school illiterate and innumerate and when the tax burden on all workers steadily rose the underclass continued to grow and remains a problem to this day? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The key to opportunity for many of the New Zealanders whom the member describes is that they can get a job. That is why as much policy as possible that the Government is implementing focuses on getting businesses to create new jobs because there are no new jobs until a business decides to invest and to take the risk. That is why the Budget encourages 170000 new jobs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call question No. 4 could I just ask the Hon Ruth Dyson if she is going to conduct a mini-conference not to do it in the Chamber during question time. 
Job Ops Scheme—Increase in Numbers 
4. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Why has the Government doubled the number of Job Ops for young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Because Job Ops has been a huge success. We have added an extra 6000 places which takes the total number of Job Ops to 12000. This Government is committed to backing young people including those with low to no skills into opportunities to work every time. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What have been some of the successes for young people on Job Ops? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I advise that 1300 young people have finished their Job Ops and 86 percent of them have not gone back on to a benefit. Those are early results. Even those who did not complete their Job Ops have predominantly stayed off a benefit. We are still working with these young people but the initial data indicate we are making a real difference for them. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that as per her answers to written questions a third of the young people who have completed Job Ops no longer have a job and have rejoined the 60000 already unemployed young people; if so what is she doing about them? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As already indicated 86 percent of those who have finished their Job Ops have not gone on to a benefit. I can break that down for the member if she likes. Of those who left their Job Ops early 77 percent have not gone on to a benefit and I think that is really positive. Job Ops is really discovering opportunities for young people. I think another 6000 places are very much needed. 
Darien Fenton 
: Talofa lava. Is it fair that employers can receive a subsidy of up to $5000 through Job Ops presumably in recognition of their help in bringing down youth unemployment but now due to a change made by her Government they can fire that subsidised worker within 90 days with no fear of an appeal against unfair dismissal? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member may not understand Job Ops. What happens is employers get $2000 upfront and they get $3000 at the end of the 6 months. If for whatever reason that young person does not stay for the whole 6 months the employer does not get the payment at the end. Job Ops is about opportunities. Employers are stepping up and taking on young people. We will back them every time to do that. And the 90-day trial period is working for them. 
Economy—Innovation Growth and Export-led Recovery in 2010-11 
5. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is he taking in the 2010-11 financial year to foster innovation firm growth and an export-led recovery? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am doing many things. In particular last year I announced the establishment of the International Growth Fund. The fund is targeted at firms that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has assessed as most likely to contribute to New Zealand’s long-term growth. In the 2010-11 financial year funding will rise to $30 million from the $9 million provided in 2009-10 during which time we were in transition from previous types of grants. Science and innovation are at the heart of the Government’s economic agenda and I have worked with my colleague the Hon Dr Mapp on our budget package which is aimed at lifting firms’ investment in research and development. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why has the Government stopped talking about reducing the earnings gap between Australians and New Zealanders and is this evidence of the abandonment of the step change strategy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No—far from it in fact. The successes of the Government’s programme to increase our export base can be seen in the annual trade balance to the year ended April 2010 which was a surplus of some $161 million or 0.5 percent of exports compared with the average deficit of 10.8 percent of exports for the previous 10 financial years. I think the Government’s policies are working very well when it comes to raising our income through having more exports. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Given that esteemed commentators from the Business and Economic Research group have said to take out dairy take out forestry and take out fish are there any export levers for growth? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I totally reject that. I do not know what the member has been reading but he may be interested to know that for example oil is now one of our biggest export earners. It was third biggest in 2008 and fourth biggest in 2009 and is likely to be an even larger contributor in years to come. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Is the $226 million reduction in his budget from 2008-09 to 2009-10 evidence of innovation firm growth and an export-led recovery; if so how? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the member has got his figures quite wrong. We have gone from $53 million down to $30 million. I repeat for him that the April figure for our export or merchandise trade balance showed a surplus for the first time in 10 years. The member should be asking me why we did not take out more. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Talofa lava; malo le soifua. What role has the Ministry of Economic Development had in the deal with the foreign oil and gas company Petrobras which awarded it the sole right to explore and drill in the Raukumara basin; and what responsibility does the Minister have to ensure there was consultation with the hapu from within Te Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou about how that proposal fosters their innovation and growth? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Firstly the oil is a Crown reserve mineral so the Crown has every right to ensure that that resource is well explored; the benefits that come from it are accrued to all New Zealanders. I am reliably informed that consultation with the iwi started in September 2008 and that there was a period of some 40 days when there was an expectation that there might have been some response from the iwi. None was forthcoming during that time. At a meeting earlier this year there was an undertaking to let the iwi know when the block offer was being announced. There was a slip-up that I must take responsibility for and I have apologised to Dr Mahuika and to Mr Gage for that slip-up. But I point out that much of that block—the vast majority of that block—is in the exclusive economic zone not the foreshore and seabed. 
Overseas Investment Rules Review—Membership of Technical Reference Group 
6. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is a lawyer working for Hong Kong - listed Natural Dairy NZ on the technical reference group advising the Government on the review of the overseas investment rules; if so when was he alerted to this? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I understand that technical reference group member Andrew Petersen of Bell Gully is working on behalf of Natural Dairy in New Zealand. I am not aware of any other members of the technical reference group acting on behalf of the company. The technical reference group is made up of senior practitioners with expertise in applying the Act. When we considered improving the Act we decided to talk to people who know how the Act works. They know how it works because they handle applications. The member should keep in mind that they are providing technical and legal advice not policy; that will be determined by Ministers and Cabinet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the supplementary question I tell the Minister that the question asked when the Minister had been alerted of that. It was a straightforward question and I believe that the member deserves to have it answered if the Minister has that information. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I became aware of Mr Petersen’s connection with Natural Dairy Holdings only last week when it was made public. 
David Clendon 
: When the Minister met with members of the technical reference group on 18 February did any of them suggest raising the threshold required for business investments that must be approved under overseas investment law for citizens from China or Hong Kong? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not recall the details of those discussions but if the member is suggesting that individual lawyers were making propositions in the interests of particular applications that is absurd. The applications are not processed by me or by the lawyers; they are processed by the Overseas Investment Office in accordance with the law for which that member’s party voted I am quite sure when it was changed 4 or 5 years ago. 
David Clendon 
: Will the Minister consider releasing the information relating to the 18 February meeting to which lawyers from five corporate law firms were invited to give their No. 1 problem with the current screening regime so that the public can see how fair and open his review of overseas investment is; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As far as I am aware there is no information related to that meeting. I had a discussion with a group of lawyers about how they thought the Act could be made to work better. That is about it. There is no possible conspiracy here. They were giving some technical advice on as I recall it issues like the definition of land which is an uncertainty in the Act. Any applications are processed by the Overseas Investment Office in accordance with law passed by this Parliament in recent years. 
David Clendon 
: Do officials from Treasury and the Overseas Investment Office liaise with the members of the technical reference group; if so how are conflicts of interest handled? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I understand it they do liaise with those members. The way that any potential conflicts of interest are handled is that all the applications are handled by the Overseas Investment Office which is separate from Treasury separate from the Minister and separate from Cabinet and administers independently a law that was passed by this Parliament in recent years. 
David Clendon 
: Could the Minister explain how Treasury’s advice to the members of the technical reference group not to produce any formal report thereby leaving no paper trail reduces the risks of any conflicts of interest? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I could not. 
David Clendon 
: Will the Minister release all advice from the technical reference group members at the same time as the Government announces its plans for the next step of the overseas investment review so that the public can decide for themselves whether there were any conflicts of interest; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: This is an open Government and all of the processes of the Government including that one are subject to the Official Information Act. The member may be disappointed to find that the group of lawyers have provided some pretty narrowly focused technical advice mainly to Treasury. I had one meeting with them 4 or 5 months ago now. In case the member is not aware all applications are processed by the Overseas Investment Office. Any policy changes that are made will be debated by this Parliament in the same open and transparent manner as every other policy change that goes through Parliament is. 
Agriculture Minister—Suspicious Package Sent to Office 
7. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Did he or his office contact New Zealand Police about  
Farmers Weekly 
 journalist Alan Emerson relating to the incident in his office on 17 May; if so what information was passed to police? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 No definitely not. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Did he or his office contact the media and provide Alan Emerson’s name; if so does he think that compromised the ability of the police to investigate the cluster fly bomb incident? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No definitely not. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: How then does he explain Alan Emerson’s assertion that TV had been provided by his ministerial office with Mr Emerson’s name and is he attempting to clarify the actions undertaken by his office? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: This matter is an open police investigation. I do not think that it is in the public interest for me to comment on that question or on any allegations from Mr Emerson. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer that the Minister gave would be correct if the matter were before the courts as then it would be improper for any member to speak about it. Mr O’Connor asked the Minister a question about something that is merely a matter of inquiry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has an absolute right to assert that it is not in the public interest to answer a particular question; the Minister has asserted that and that is where the matter lies. Only the Minister can judge that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given that the bomb turned out to be a box of dead flies does the Minister consider that the response by the police was warranted when local rural people in the Wairarapa cannot get support from police for love nor money to address the many serious crime issues that are facing the region? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I answered before as this matter is now under an active police investigation it is not in the public interest for me to comment further. 
Prisons—Capacity 
8. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Can she provide an update on any major initiatives to avert the prison capacity crisis? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Talofa lava. Yes today at Rimutaka Prison I was delighted to open the first prison unit in New Zealand built using pre-loved shipping containers. Due to a lack of planning and action from the previous Government we were forecast to run out of baseline prison beds this year. The use of containers to provide prison beds as well as the expansion of double-bunking has successfully averted the crisis. We have also taken action to manage future growth in the prison muster through the redevelopment of Auckland Central Remand Prison in Mount Eden and the proposed public-private partnership at Wiri in South Auckland. 
Paul Quinn 
: What are the main advantages of using container cells to house prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The 60-bed unit was built in half the time and cost 30 percent less than a traditionally built unit. The unit was commissioned in August 2009 and only 9 months later we had the unit ready for its first occupants. Although the cells are basic and austere they are of much better quality than many of the cells in many of our older prisons. They also provide an effective plug in plug out option. If prison capacity is needed elsewhere the containers can simply be unplugged from their current location and plugged in where they are needed. 
Question No. 7 to Minister 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two documents. The first one is an article from Alan Emerson claiming that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When the member says it is an article from Alan Emerson does he mean an article in a publication? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which publication? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The publication is the  
New Zealand Farmers Weekly  
magazine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is readily available. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I seek leave to table the second document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the other document? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: It is Wellington Police District crime statistics showing that crime rates in the Wairarapa are going up and resolution rates are going down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Budget 2010—Grant to Pacific Economic Development Agency 
9. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Was there an open and transparent bidding process to ensure accountability for taxpayer funds before the decision was made to grant $4.8 million to the Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd in Budget 2010; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 Talofa lava. The member is making an assumption that a contestable process was required. In this instance the Government decided to fund the Pacific Economic Development Agency for certain economic deliverables and new money was appropriated in Budget 2010 for this purpose. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Were any of the well-established organisations that offer similar services to the Pacific communities in Auckland—such as the Pacific Business Trust the New Zealand Pacific Business Council the Manukau Institute of Technology the Auckland University of Technology Best Pacific Institute of Education and the Pasifika Education Centre—able to bid for the $4.8 million before the Government awarded it to the Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd; if so which one? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Those are all excellent organisations and yes they are all in Auckland. But as I said earlier this was a Budget initiative. New money was appropriated specifically for the provision of services from the Pacific Economic Development Agency. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What did the Pacific Economic Development Agency say it could deliver in return for $4.8 million of taxpayer money that other well-established organisations could not? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The Government is still to enter into negotiations for a purchase agreement with the Pacific Economic Development Agency and all of those issues will be sorted out in good time. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency throughout its negotiations with the Government which resulted in it being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funding in Budget 2010? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Ministers met with a number of people who are connected with that agency and we were convinced that it could offer certain services that would help the Government to achieve its priorities for Pacific people in Auckland. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was I think a specific and careful question about who represented it and I think that saying “a number of people” is not an answer to the question of who represented someone. Saying “a number of people” is not I think an answer to what was a careful and specific question without any spin around it at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the member makes a fair point. I think the question was a fair question that was totally focused on the primary question and if the Minister has that information it would be helpful to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is indicating that she does not have that information with her. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that I am placing myself at some risk here but it just beggars belief that the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will resume his seat right now. He cannot treat the House like that; that is not on. The Minister has indicated that she does not have that particular information and therefore she cannot answer the question with any more detail than that. People can make their own judgments about that but it is a perfectly fair answer to the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In support of my colleague I say this is an important matter. I seek clarification as to whether the Minister is saying she does not know— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. I am on my feet. The member is trying to litigate the answer. That is not on. It is perfectly within the members’ opportunity to ask on the next sitting day a specific question about whom the negotiations took place with and then the Minister will answer it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order was just that if the Minister had a document with her for example that she might have access to or might have quoted from then it would not be within the Standing Orders for her to say she did not have that information so— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. He will not litigate this. The Minister has indicated to the Speaker that she does not have that information with her. I must take the Minister’s word on that and so must the member. He cannot litigate the matter in that way. 
Environmental Protection Authority—Establishment of Stand-alone Agency 
10. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What decision has the Government announced today with effect to the establishment of a new stand-alone Environmental Protection Authority? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I was pleased to announce this morning at the Environmental Defence Society conference in Auckland Cabinet’s decision on Monday for a stand-alone Environmental Protection Authority. I welcome the fact that the Environmental Defence Society issued a release warmly welcoming the decision. This will bring under one roof a wide range of environment regulatory functions and will provide strong national direction to the environment roles of district and regional councils. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How does the Environmental Protection Authority fit into the Government’s broader plans for environmental management? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s overall environment framework is to have the Ministry for the Environment as a well-focused policy ministry to have the Environmental Protection Authority responsible for efficient regulation and to have the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as the independent auditor. This was a policy that National promised in the 2008 election. It is about ensuring this Government meets its goal of growing the economy while effectively protecting New Zealand’s environment. 
Brendon Burns 
: Talofa lava. When the Minister told the New Zealand Planning Institute on 8 May last year that he wanted “the expanded EPA fully operational by 1 July 2010” did he envisage an increase in the number of staff working on national environment standards—an increase not guaranteed in the Cabinet paper he has released today? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first phase of the Resource Management Act review on 1 October last year was for the national consenting function of the Environmental Protection Authority to start up and there is provision in the Budget for about $13 million for that function. The announcements I have made today involve transfer of about 50 staff both from my colleague Gerry Brownlee’s ministry the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment to beef up the overall capacity of that Environmental Protection Authority. I make no apologies to the member for the fact that this is not a Government that wants big bureaucracy; it wants efficient Government agencies and that is what we will achieve with the Environmental Protection Authority. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How will this new authority assist New Zealand to better manage environmental issues in its exclusive economic zone? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The authority will provide for additional functions to ensure that the huge area of ocean covered by the exclusive economic zone has world best practice environmental protection. I think we have all been reminded of the importance of that with the environmental tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government is determined to ensure that New Zealand’s marine environment is properly protected as we expand petroleum exploration and development in the exclusive economic zone. 
Rahui Katene 
: How would a new stand-alone Environmental Protection Authority or indeed any Government agency protect the interests of the hapu within Te Whanau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou in the event of drilling and exploration in the Raukumara basin such that any environmental catastrophe would be prevented? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I acknowledge the input of the Maori Party in today’s announcement particularly the strong advocacy by the Hon Dr Pita Sharples on behalf of Maori for the robust Environmental Protection Authority model that the Government opted for on Monday. This model provides for appropriate Maori input into the Environmental Protection Authority’s role. As well as that the Minister for Economic Development and I have commissioned an independent report to ensure that our exclusive economic zone regulatory proposals represent best practice so that we can assure those important people that their environment will be protected. 
Internal Affairs Department—Proposed Merger with National Library and Archives New Zealand 
11. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Will the positions of National Librarian and Chief Archivist be employees of the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and be accountable to him under the proposed merger of National Library and Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Once integration of the three departments is complete the individuals holding the statutory positions will be employees of the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs instead of the State Services Commissioner as is currently the case. The independence and integrity of the Chief Archivist will be preserved. The status of the statutory role of the National Librarian will also be preserved. 
Grant Robertson 
: In light of that answer how does the Minister think that the Chief Archivist will be able to maintain his or her important constitutional role to compel chief executives to deposit and maintain Government records if he or she is subordinate to another chief executive? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The statutory roles and functions of the Chief Archivist will be preserved and protected. I remind the member that when he looks around the world he will see that in Australia the archives function sits within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio in the United Kingdom it sits within the Ministry of Justice and in Ireland the Chief Archivist sits within the Department of Tourism Culture and Sport. Those officials continue to have statutory independence. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister think it is appropriate that the historic and constitutionally significant Alexander Turnbull Library will be led by a third-tier manager in the Department of Internal Affairs under the proposed arrangements; if so why? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I reassure that member that there will be a full select committee process through the change and the operational details of the merger are currently being worked through by the three very capable chief executives with some support from the State Services Commission. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that significant damage was done to the original copy of the Treaty of Waitangi the last time Archives New Zealand was part of the Department of Internal Affairs; if so why would he want to repeat that disastrous mistake? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I cannot confirm that for the member. I can confirm that since the 1990s there have been two Acts that will continue to be enforced—the Public Records Act 2005 and the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 which the National Party supported through this process. 
Broadband Roll-out—Rural Initiative Response 
12. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What response has the Government received to the Rural Broadband Initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the Government has received 39 responses to its call for expressions of interest in the Rural Broadband Initiative. Interest has come from a range of infrastructure companies in New Zealand and abroad and includes nine substantial expressions of interest covering rural areas across the entire country. The responses contain some innovative ideas for the deployment of fast broadband to rural communities and schools and Ministry of Economic Development officials will now consider them. 
Todd McClay 
: What benefits will rural communities receive as a result of this policy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Rural Broadband Initiative will see 93 percent of rural schools connected to the Internet by fibre within 6 years allowing them to interact with specialist teachers by videoconferencing view high-definition documentaries and access international collections of educational resources. In addition most rural communities will receive fast broadband speeds of at least 5 megabits per second delivering an end to dial-up Internet and allowing online accounting farm management banking tools third-generation mobile services and access to popular video sites like YouTube and Parliament TV on both of which people can see their parliamentary representatives in action. 
Clare Curran 
: Will the Minister guarantee that his Government will meet the targets of the Rural Broadband Initiative given it is investing just $48 million of taxpayers’ money in its rural scheme compared with $1.5 billion in its urban scheme? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The new telecommunications development levy together with the direct Government investment will be around the $300 million mark. I point out once again to the member that we cannot directly compare the urban and rural policies because the urban amount is an investment that the Government ultimately expects to have returned to it whereas the rural network amount is a grant. The urban and rural networks start from different points. Many rural households and businesses are struggling on dial-up whereas the urban network is an investment in ultra-fast broadband. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to the Minister’s reference to YouTube I note that only four people have viewed his Federated Farmers speech on YouTube compared with 18000 who have viewed the analysis in this House of his academic record—is that why he wants to upgrade rural broadband? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I confirm that I am very flattered to have my academic record not only celebrated in this House but also viewed by so many people around the country and around the world in celebration of my zoology degree which included the study of animal behaviour and the mating behaviour of the mallard duck. 
Questions to Members 
Electricity Commission—Consideration of 5-year Review Report 
1. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the  
Report from the Controller and Auditor-General on Electricity Commission: Review of the first five years 
? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): 
 The Commerce Committee met on 6 August 2009 to consider this report and it agreed unanimously at that meeting to conclude its consideration of the report without report to the House. Standing Order 387(2) requires committees only to consider reports from Officers of Parliament; they do not have to report their findings to the House. 
John Boscawen 
: Can the chair confirm that the committee has received a letter from me regarding the recent increases in the price of electricity; and what options does the committee have? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that this question relates to a matter before the committee and therefore I do not see how the chair of the committee can answer. If the chair indicates that I am wrong I am very happy to sit down but I believe that the chair of the committee can answer questions related only to matters before the committee. Whether someone has written a letter to the committee is not a matter before the committee. I stand to be corrected if the chair of the committee thinks that I am wrong. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not sure that you are wrong. However I wonder whether it would be in order for me to respond to the question but not by referring to whether the letter has been received. Although it is not out of order for the member to say he has written a letter it may be out of order for me to say that it has been received. Perhaps it would be of assistance for me simply to say what the options would be if such a letter had been received. I do not think that would be— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That may be helpful to the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I think we should stick with the proper procedures of the House. Members cannot ask questions about matters that are not before the committee. I regret that the supplementary question cannot be answered. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it might be useful to sort this matter out for future questions. I think the chair is saying that a letter has been received and it will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the Commerce Committee. [ 
Interruption 
] It is before the committee at the present time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a matter of some interest. I am looking at Speaker’s ruling 149/2: “A question to a chairperson of a select committee can only be for information on a matter for which the committee has charge—that is on a matter referred from the House or that the committee has resolved to inquire into.” On this occasion the matter has certainly not been referred from the House and I do not believe that the committee has resolved to inquire into it. That is why such a question cannot be asked of the chair of a committee. 
Budget Debate 
Debate resumed from 2 June on the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Talofa lava. Fa‘afetai tele lava. It gives me great pleasure to speak in this appropriation debate following the Budget. There is absolutely no doubt that the Prime Minister John Key and the Minister of Finance Bill English deserve huge congratulations on a very well-researched very well-thought-out highly balanced and forward-looking Budget. It was very impressive that within the first few hours of this Budget being announced the Employers and Manufacturers Association said that this was the fairest Budget for years. It was refreshing to hear Bernard Hickey say: “This is the most comprehensive and coherent reform of New Zealand’s taxation system in more than 25 years. It goes a long way to tilting the economy back towards productive investment and away from property investment.” 
It is highly relevant that the three new major spending initiatives are in health in education and in science and innovation. The new funding in health amounts to over $2 billion over the next 4 years $512 million of which is in this financial year. That amounts to the biggest increase in health expenditure as a percentage of GDP in the history of New Zealand. It points to this Government’s focus on ensuring that health services in New Zealand are kept up. 
Yesterday I heard Kevin Hague from the Greens saying he wanted there to be more spending on health and for there to be more tax. He said that the socio-economic determinants of health were very important and that the poor are particularly badly affected—and he is absolutely right. But Labour and the Greens differ from this progressive National Government in that Labour and the Greens would take away money from successful people would curb incentives and would redistribute that money whereas this progressive National Government wants everybody to benefit from increased economic growth. 
Mr Hague should take note of Singapore. It is a tiny country the size of Lake Taupo with 4 million people to which we gave aid 40 years ago. It now has a per-capita income that is 1½ times ours. The significant thing is that Singapore invests 3.5 percent of GDP in health both public and private compared with our 8 percent but Singaporeans live longer than us and their infant mortality is less than half of ours. It is absolutely clear in that society that Singaporeans have benefited from sustained economic growth. They hugely value individual responsibility incentives and self-improvement. 
Those are vital ingredients for a healthy society and are quite different from the Green and Labour philosophies of redistribution and State dependence. 
National’s investment in health includes an extra $93 million for disability support services which is good and an extra $59.5 million to boost National’s record in improving elective surgery. It is great to hear that there will be 12000 more elective surgeries in the next year following Labour’s record of absolutely abysmal productivity in the field of health. When Labour came into power in 1999 and whipped up the personal tax rate from 33c to 39c it severely distorted incentives in New Zealand. In 1999 there were in the order of 35000 loss adjusting companies. They quadrupled in the succeeding years so that by 2009 there were 130000. That is just how bad the distortionary effect of Labour was right from the beginning. But it gets worse than that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How many now? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: There are 130000. Labour called for a taxation report and the Mcleod Tax Review was delivered. It was highly thoughtful but Labour totally ignored it. That is in stark contrast to National’s response when it called for a taxation report about the previous year. The Tax Working Group report said that the current system is “incoherent unfair lacks integrity unduly discourages work participation and biases investment decisions.” This Budget encompasses the main recommendations of that very timely and well-thought-out taxation report. But Labour ignored not only the McLeod Tax Review but also the Knowledge Wave Trust recommendations from 2002 which described the missing billion-dollar investment in science and innovation. For 9 years over the period of the Labour Government public investment in science and innovation remained static at about 0.54 percent of GDP below the OECD average of about 0.68 percent. But worse than that private investment in science and research and development which increased slightly from about 0.45 percent to 0.5 percent of GDP is one-third of the OECD average of investment in those areas. We know that countries with consistent economic growth and consistent investment in science and innovation—countries that are about the same size as us—have consistently shown higher economic growth than New Zealand. 
I acknowledge that Pete Hodgson who was the Minister of Research Science and Technology in the previous Labour Government had some worthwhile initiatives. He initiated the Venture Investment Fund he initiated the Centres of Research Excellence Fund with Steve Maharey and he promoted the commercialisation centres attached to our universities. But the Labour Government failed because it was not until its eighth year that it brought in the so-called Fast Forward Fund and the taxation credits but they were poorly thought out and were far too late. 
It is highly significant that National has focused on increased investment in science and innovation in the early stages of a long and progressive Government. It is highly significant that Prime Minister John Key has said that science and innovation will be at the centre of the new National Government. It is highly significant that the Government is investing in science and research and development its third-largest appropriation of new money. It is the key to driving New Zealand’s economy and the key to economic diversification. It is all about high-value low-volume exports and the enhancement of New Zealand’s human capability. This has come about by the efforts of hundreds if not thousands of scientists throughout New Zealand over a long period of time. I pay tribute to the Royal Society of New Zealand the Crown research institutes the universities and private institutes and a whole variety of individuals such as Professor James Watson Neville Jordan Sir Peter Gluckman Professor Dianne McCarthy and many many others. 
Budget 2010 is a great start for science and innovation but it is only a start. Indeed it is igniting our true potential. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 In 50 years of New Zealand television Paul Hutchison was the warm-up guy for every live studio audience at Avalon studio! Members saw the way he invigorated the House with that contribution and  
Igniting the Future  
was the name of the report he was referring to! He talked about the 39c rate of income tax. With the exception of the Hon Maurice Williamson whom I see is in the Chamber hanging around in the  
Jurassic Park  
- sort of way that he does every National member here came into Parliament after the 39c tax rate came into being. If taking on a job where one has to pay tax at the highest rate is a massive disincentive to hard work—although that is always an oxymoron with National—then I ask why any of those members came to Parliament if it was such a terrible thing for their labours in that particular respect. 
If this Budget was to be judged on spin slogans and politics then of course the Budget gets a pass mark. But if this Budget was meant to be about the economy and about trying to fix the wage problem in New Zealand so that people get to take home more money each week based on the work they do rather than on the taxes they pay then this Budget was an absolute failure. It was big on spin and big on slogans but there was nothing in it for the real economic challenges that the country faces. 
The Minister of Finance said today that having a job was an important thing. He should know; he has lost several of them. But one of things about the Budget documents is they show that in 5 years’ time the unemployment rate will be twice as high as it was when this National Government took office. In 5 years the unemployment rate will be twice as high as it was when National inherited the Treasury benches and there is nothing at all in the Budget to address that matter. 
Of course when National first became the Government it decided it would have the Job Summit. It was to be a “do-fest” not a talkfest. It ended up being a doofus “do-fest” because one could say that doofuses were about the only things that came from it. We found out this week that only 150 metres a week has been added to the cycleway in a country that is—how many thousands of kilometres long is this country? It must be 4000 kilometres or 5000 kilometres long or something; I do not know. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not that long. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is not quite as long as that but the 150 metres a week we are adding to the cycleway will not be the way to get people back into jobs if we are relying on it to do that. But that was typical of the Prime Minister. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It will be finished in the 23rd century. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: By that time this National Government will certainly be a footnote in history. No one on the other side of the House will still be here or still in Government at that point. 
This Budget under-delivered on all of the key things that the National Government said it was interested in. Sure there were tax cuts and the size of the tax cuts made some people happy. But what does that matter when the Government is borrowing all the money for those tax cuts? It might as well have been $2000 $3000 or $4000 a week of tax cuts if all we are doing is borrowing for them and there is no plan to pay back any of that debt. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s irresponsible. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: As Tau Henare says it is irresponsible. He is the one who crashed the XT network on his BlackBerry cellphone so quick was he to get to the website to find out what he would get from the tax cuts. That was his contribution—he could not wait to find out what he would get. 
There have been no ideas in any of the speeches made by members opposite on how to get the people in this country back into jobs or on how to make sure that the people who are in work are paid more in wages so that they can take home more money each week. You know if wages went up by just 50c an hour people would earn more from that than they will from the tax cuts that National gave in the Budget—50c an hour. Most members opposite would walk past 50c in the corridor if they saw it. They would think it was such a piddly amount that they would not even bother to collect it. But in actual fact a wage rise of 50c an hour would deliver to working people far more money to take home and spend on raising their families. 
What happened after the Budget? There was great excitement among all the commentators. I watched the Budget coverage and all the commentators were pretty happy about it. Do members know why that was? Those people were pleased because they were getting a tax cut. For the third year in a row people in New Zealand who earn over $100000 have had a tax cut. For the third year in a row people on over 100 grand have got a tax cut. That is a huge amount of money sloshing around for those in the commentator classes and for the members of Parliament over there. No wonder they were so happy about it because it was all about them. If there is one thing we know about the Prime Minister it is that he likes the show being all about him. 
People were pretty pleased with the Budget but when they had more of a chance to look through it the opinion polls came back and showed that 37 percent of people thought they would be better off personally—37 percent. That means that 63 percent of people in the country do not think that they will be better off as a result of the Budget because it did not actually affect them in the way that it had been sold to them. 
Paul Quinn 
: They said the country would be better off. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Paul Quinn says that if people think their neighbours might be better off when they are not that makes it OK. He had really better come and sit on the Labour side of the House if that is how in tune he is with the philosophy of his Government. When it came to individual choice when it came to personal responsibility about the Budget only 37 percent of people thought that they would be better off. 
The Budget is all smoke and mirrors. Every dollar given away in tax cuts is borrowed which means that someone else has to pay it back. We know what National thinks about savings in terms of KiwiSaver and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund because it has cut its way into those just as it did in the 1970s and 1980s in New Zealand when it cut the savings for the future. National members never govern for the future; they govern for tomorrow morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 headline. That is what they govern for. They govern for that because they think that it is $1.50 well spent because there are photos of them smiling away in the  
Dominion Post 
 the following day. 
I ask where is the Government’s plan for 5 10 or 20 years down the path. There is nothing in the Budget for that not a single thing. Let me give members opposite an example. I laughed when I heard Paul Hutchison say that members opposite were a progressive National Government. There is nothing progressive about those people. They are reactionary on everything. You know they put up the tax on cigarettes the other day. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Same old words. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Henare should listen to this. The tax on cigarettes went up the other day. It was a National Government initiative to charge more for tobacco. Do members know how long it took National to decide that was a good idea? It took 10 years to decide whether that would be its policy and now it has socked the policy to people as one of the other increases in the cost of living that this Budget has put in place. 
GST has gone up. National promised that that would not happen yet we will see GST go up. Power prices will go up with the cost of the emissions trading scheme. People will pay more for fees in early childhood education. Where was that in National’s manifesto? It is broken promise after broken promise after broken promise. Finally sooner or later the smile-and-wave routine of the Prime Minister will not be able to cover for all the broken promises. 
National members who clapped and cheered during the Prime Minister’s speech on the Budget gave us the most undignified spectacle we have ever seen. The Prime Minister was giving a rallying speech to his caucus not realising that he was on television trying to explain National’s single biggest policy of the year to the country. It was all a competition amongst the backbenchers as to who could whoop and cheer the loudest. Members should save that stuff for the caucus room. 
When one is the Prime Minister of New Zealand one should be able to give a dignified speech about one’s economic record. Instead there was a bunch of corny one-liners and the tragedy for National members is that they have to laugh and clap because they think corny jokes are funny. If they are trying to grease people up then that is fair enough—one or two members over there are I think pretty good greasers; they would know what to do. But the rest of them actually think that those corny one-liners are funny. Meanwhile the interests of the country are left to one side. 
I turn now to the issue of asset sales. They were not promised during the election campaign. In fact we were told there would never ever be a sale of Kiwibank—never ever. It reminded me of “no ifs no buts no maybes”. Members on that side of the House are genetic promise-breakers and they were even able to do it on Kiwibank. 
Let us look at Kiwibank which every single mum and dad in the country owns. Bill English commented that mums and dads could have the chance to own it. I ask members to name a mum or a dad in this country who does not currently have an interest as a citizen in Kiwibank. Who are they? Who are the mums and dads who do not currently own Kiwibank? Oh there is silence on that side of the House now because those members know absolutely that these assets belong to the country. 
National members opposed the creation of Kiwibank at the time because they are not progressive people and they always oppose new ideas. How did Kiwibank work? The previous Labour Government put in $80 million 8 years ago. Today the bank has 800000 customers and it is worth $800 million. 
Kiwibank has worked. It is a success. It has proven its value and every single New Zealander owns that success. The previous Labour Government was a Government that was ambitious for New Zealand. We started Kiwibank so that New Zealanders could own it. Then fees came down which meant that mortgage rates for working families stayed lower. It meant that in rural areas and in towns and communities around the country bank branches were not closing; they were staying open because Kiwibank was in town. It is an example of a public asset that works hands down. We saw $80 million turned into $800000 million in just 8 years. 
Although the National Party campaigned on protecting public assets now that it is in Government it has a secret agenda to sell those assets to what it calls “mum and dads”. Well mums and dads already own Kiwibank and that is why the Budget has gone down so unpopularly with the public. 
People know that when it comes to the Budget affecting them personally they have been ripped off because whatever tax cut they have been given on a lower wage the money for it is all being borrowed from overseas anyway and they will have to pay it back as taxpayers down the generation. They know that the assets we all own together are being taken from us. They know that the cost of living—the thing that actually matters when they are in the supermarket queue—will go up. Those things will be hitting families all over the place. 
People will pay higher GST there will be higher costs for working families and the Government does not care about that because unemployment will still be twice as high in 5 years as it was when National took over. I support the motion of Phil Goff that there be no confidence in this Government. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. May it please the House as it pleases my friends on this side of the aisle that I can advise that reports of my resignation are an exaggeration. I know that Trevor Mallard will be disappointed in that and certainly others in the Opposition will be but I am here to stay for a little longer. 
Thursday 20 May 2010 will go down in history as one of the great days in this House. We had presented to us a Budget that brought a seismic shift in the tax structure and the tax system of this country. We moved from a system that was unsustainable lacked coherence and lacked fairness and equity to a Budget that delivered what the people of New Zealand wanted. It was delivered by a Minister of Finance whom I have no doubt history will show as being one of the great finance Ministers that this country has ever seen. Of course that was followed up by one of the great and endearing speeches that this House has heard. It was by the outstanding leader of this country Prime Minister John Key. His speech tore to shreds the Leader of the Opposition who floundered around trying to look for an argument having had all his points destroyed following the Budget’s presentation. I was humbled to be part of that momentous occasion on 20 May. 
The feedback on the Budget bears witness to its excellence. We have heard some figures from Opposition members but what they have not told the House is that people care about others; they are not in it for themselves. The TV polls show that people by a clear majority thought the Budget was good. In fact an overwhelming majority felt it was great for the country. All the newspapers polls show over 80 percent support. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development that left-wing organisation from Labour’s own side even had to concede there was 78 percent support for the tax changes. There is no poll that can demonstrate that this Budget was not good for this country. I pause for a moment and acknowledge the great support of Maori Party members for this Budget. They were glowing in their praise. In fact Tariana Turia said in her speech that the Maori Party was in for the long haul and that it was the path to success that mattered—not the short gains but the long-term vision. I offer my congratulations to the Maori Party because I think it should be congratulated in that respect. 
We need to ask ourselves why this Budget has received overwhelming support. Let me tell members. Firstly it allows people to make their own decisions about their own money. That is fundamental. They earned it; they can make the decisions about their own money. The Budget ensures that the very high-income people pay their fair share of taxes and it brings balance to investment choices. That is why people overwhelmingly support it. How does the Budget do this? Well 75 percent of the package is dedicated to the lowest two tax brackets; 75 percent of income earners will get to keep 82c in every extra dollar they earn. The average tax rate—not a figure that has been often shared—for these two income brackets will now be 15 percent. But Opposition members sit over there and say that the wealthiest gain the most. The first point is that the wealthiest actually pay the most tax and in fact these tax changes have taken the figures back to 33 percent. They were 33 percent earlier they went up to 39 percent in 1999-2000 and now they are back to 33 percent. That is where the rates are now. When we look at it in mathematical terms and I know that is quite difficult for some in the Opposition the biggest winners are those in the income bracket between $14000 and $48000 who receive the 17 percent reduction. Those in the nil to $14000 bracket receive the 16 percent reduction in their tax. That is way ahead of the other income brackets. I know that is a bit difficult for Opposition members to comprehend so I will give them a little example in Economics 101. 
Simon Bridges 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Carmel Sepuloni keeps holding up visual aids. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that that can be done only sparingly by a speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did not notice but the member ought not to have been holding visual aids. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Let me give members an example. Let us take for instance the example of the  
Biggest Loser 
 match-up. We all know what the  
Biggest Loser 
 match-up is—right? If I take my friend Tau Henare I tell members that in doing the  
Biggest Loser 
 match-up he has had a 7 percent reduction when the weigh-in came. In the red corner I have Parekura Horomia—OK? He had a 5 percent reduction—right? In relative turns Tau has won because he has had the greatest level of reduction. But we all know that in absolute terms Parekura has won. But will we be jealous? Will we be envious? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Of course not. We will rejoice at the fact that in absolute terms Parekura got more because he had more to give. It is as simple as that—he had more to give. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Absolute—ha ha! 
PAUL QUINN 
: I know that Darren Hughes is lost in all this but it is actually pretty simple—all right? It is as I said. 
Before I conclude I will just comment on the Greens’ contribution to this debate. We heard Russel Norman the Greens’ male leader say that New Zealanders want prosperity and that economic growth is the basis for their increased opportunity. On the other side is Metiria Turei who says that we New Zealanders like to think of ourselves as an egalitarian society where everyone gets a fair go. OK? But let me say that egalitarianism is not the same as mediocrity and that is a fundamental issue. In fact National is not about averaging down; it is about aspiring up. The Government’s responsibility—our responsibility as the Government—is to provide a safety net yes but a lifestyle—no. It is to give a hand up yes but to spoonfeed—no. That is the problem with the Green Party: it wants to average down; this side of the House wants to aspire up. Egalitarianism is about equality of opportunity; that is what it is about. It is important that we provide the tools for people to use and that we show compassion and aspiration. It is about creating the environment where everyone—and in particular our youth—has every opportunity to achieve his or her potential. That is what is important and that is what we are here to govern for. This Budget provides the greatest opportunity for all New Zealanders to be able to achieve their potential. 
I will conclude if I may by reflecting on a visit last week to the Pinehaven School in Upper Hutt— 
Simon Bridges 
: With the Prime Minister. 
PAUL QUINN 
: —by the Prime Minister and me. The school was opening its new administration block and it took the time to share with the Prime Minister its value statement. The value statement about inspiring and looking up was being achieved. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Policies that ensure a truly brighter future need to embrace economic social and environmental policy as equally important components rather than as competing considerations. Two weeks ago Bill English stood opposite and gave a 45-minute speech about tax. But switching indirect for direct tax is not an economic policy. Throwing together spending and revenue assumptions based on growth projections that will just disappear if God forbid the global financial crisis is not truly over is not an economic policy either. Cuts in real terms to research and development spending education and health spending do not make for social policy. 
Those were not the worse things about the Budget. Bill English proved last week that he and the Government in which he serves are truly anchored somewhere back in the 20th century when in his entire 45-minute speech he did not mention the environment even once. The Government’s rhetoric continues to set up the false distinction between the environment on the one hand and the economy on the other. We saw that as recently as this morning in remarks made to the EDS conference in Auckland by the Minister for the Environment. The reality is that only by starting that transition to a lower-pollution economy now can we ensure ongoing prosperity in the future. The warning signs are there for anybody who cares to see them. We had the KPMG report last month which warned that our farmers’ efficiency will be surpassed by those of developing countries like Uruguay in fewer than 5 years’ time if we do not provide farmers with the means and the encouragement to really innovate. 
Many of our leading business people have already called on the Government to promote cleantech investment but at the same time the Hamilton-based BioVittoria company can raise only $8 million on-shore of the $20 million it needs to commercialise its brilliant zero-calorie fruit-based sweetener. Those sorts of initiatives are the ones in which our future prosperity lies but they cannot get funding on shore. Our trading partners are starting to build border tariff provisions into their domestic trade and climate change legislation to deal with imports from countries and jurisdictions that do not price greenhouse gases and carbon or do not do so adequately. There is very high environmental awareness amongst inbound tourists and the purchasers of our goods in affluent off-shore markets. But 2 weeks ago Bill English turned a deaf ear to all those concerns and to all those signs. 
Research and development to promote innovation reduce primary production emissions and support the cleantech industries we all know are the path to future sustainable prosperity should have been the priority in the Budget. But the Budget resulted in an almost complete absence of new business research and development spend. Why is that? It is because businesses will get assistance to conduct research and development through vouchers and grants—Government handouts in other words. In comparison the tax credit that the Labour-led Government put in place would have more than doubled New Zealand’s business research and development spend over its first 4 years. It would have provided a heavy incentive for businesses to invest in research and development rather than just get the handouts that members opposite are so used to asking for from the Government. Predictions remain that that spending will just be static under this voucher policy put in place. 
It was a massive missed opportunity to increase our business research and development spend which is woeful when compared with other like-sized countries. National’s decision in 2008 to axe the 15 percent tax credit for research and development is one that we will live to regret at our leisure. Bill English was obsessed about the possibility of tax credits being gamed but Treasury thought it could close those loopholes. That is exactly the approach that the Australians themselves took to research and development in their Budget only a couple of weeks ago—closing the loopholes rather than cutting off the incentives through the tax system. That is why the Government should have kept the research and development tax credit system. 
There is another absence of investment in the Budget in the cleantech area. Again this contrasts poorly with the record across the Tasman last month. Australia despite its much greater mineral wealth than here recognised the importance of cleantech investment as a source of future prosperity by providing a decent amount of Government support for it. Some of our most innovative business leaders have been urging those members opposite—John Key Bill English and their colleagues—to recognise the urgent importance of future-proofing our economy by making a similar investment and what a tragedy it is that those calls have been ignored. 
The plain truth is that this Government has no sustainable vision for New Zealand’s future. Its actions show that its only strategy is to promote more intensive food production and more intensive minerals extraction by getting it out of the ground shipping it offshore to be consumed and hoping that that helps to fix the balance of payments deficit. On the way the Government wants to shift as many costs as possible on to the taxpayer and away from polluters themselves as they intensify their production or their extraction. Never mind the environmental consequences or our international reputation. Never mind whether the allocation of risk is fair between taxpayers and offshore businesses. Never mind if the profits stay in New Zealand to be invested in our future here. 
If the Government was not willing to invest in new environmental initiatives then at the very least it might have compensated for the cuts it made in last year’s Budget. The Budget documents contain no new initiatives to make up for the funds taken from Vote Environment or Vote Conservation last year. There is nothing to restore great initiatives like Enviroschools which had its funding slashed. There is nothing to make up for cutting any encouragement for Government accounting for one-third of this country’s economic activity to work in a carbon-neutral way. It is instructive that all Kate Wilkinson’s press release about the Budget could do was trumpet the building of cycleways and walkways. She failed to mention that there is no new investment here. The Department of Conservation is expected to find funding for these initiatives out of its existing budget. 
There is no new funding for conservation or for energy efficiency outside of money already announced to meet the increased demand for home insulation by the Warm Up New Zealand scheme which itself is a reworked version of Labour’s home insulation scheme. That was one of Labour’s first complementary measures to be funded from the emissions trading scheme we put in place. National has replaced that scheme with a taxpayer-funded initiative worth less than half of what Labour legislated for with no guarantee of ongoing funding after 4 years. The Government needs to ensure that everyone has access to warmer drier healthier and more energy-efficient homes but there is no initiative in the Budget to ensure that this will happen. Adequate initiatives to encourage energy efficiency across the board like truly smart meters accompanied by the availability of differential tariffs are absent from the Budget. 
I will give a final word on the evident lack of commitment in the Budget to fulfilling our country’s climate change obligations. There is no money budgeted to pay for New Zealand’s contribution to the mitigation and adaptation funds which we agreed to contribute to at the Copenhagen conference. This contrasts with the A$200 million committed for that purpose in the Australian Budget on 12 May. Assuming New Zealand will need to make a comparable contribution on a pro rata population basis and on an exchange rate of 80c to the New Zealand dollar there is just under $50 million missing from the Budget on this score. There is no provision made for the elevenfold increase in firms eligible for a free allocation of carbon credits. The Minister for Climate Change Issues has fudged the figures but people will see through this. There is over $500 million carried forward to provide for the value of credits to foresters. Misleadingly the Government described this as payments to plant trees. The new figures are said to be based on a 67 percent uptake in credits rather than a previously forecast 50 percent uptake but no explanation is given for the change in assumptions. There is no provision for the financial impact of the emissions trading scheme after 2012. The excuse is that there are no international obligations after 2012. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Boring. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Henare thinks it is boring to talk about climate change and sustainability. Does he not show the true colours of this Government? He should speak up more; the country needs to hear more of this. Let us hear his commitment to the environment. Let us hear what he really thinks about the planet. The more that member is caught out on telling the truth about this Budget and its lack of commitment the better. 
This was an irresponsible Budget. It has no vision for a brighter future for New Zealand. At the next election New Zealanders will give their verdict on it. I am very proud to support Phil Goff’s amendment to the motion to read the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill a second time. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill 
Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill 
Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill be now read a third time 
. These three bills are the result of the division of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill in the Committee of the whole House. Their purpose is to complete the legislative framework that will deliver one council one mayor and one vision for Auckland by 1 November 2010. 
I do not need to remind the House that the Auckland region’s governance arrangements have been a cause of concern for the best part of a century. Michael Joseph Savage recognised the problem back in 1919 and called for a unification of the region’s disparate and ineffective councils. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance agreed and found that Auckland’s eight councils lacked the collective sense of purpose constitutional ability and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. Aucklanders have had too many missed opportunities and important decisions affecting the lives and the well-being of our largest population base have been delayed or not made at all. Services are poor and cost more than is necessary. Councils across Auckland cannot agree on or apply consistent standards and plans. 
But this will be no more. Today is the day that Auckland ratepayers at long last get to win. The new Auckland Council will be more effective more accountable and will provide world-class service to its residents. Why? The new Auckland Council will have a single vision under a single leader who will make decisions regionally plan strategically and act decisively in Auckland’s interests. I ask members to imagine one vision for the waterfront one vision for the motorway system one long-term council community plan one spatial plan one district plan one rating system one rates bill one council one mayor—one Auckland. 
On 1 November day one Auckland’s potential will begin to be realised. Working with the Auckland Council’s mayor will be 20 councillors elected across Auckland’s 13 new wards which will guarantee a spread of councillors from across the region. There will also be 21 local boards making decisions on local issues activities and facilities and working as part of a structure that will be unique in New Zealand to ensure that community interests are properly represented. Local boards will have their own decision-making responsibility for local matters while the council will take responsibility for the wider picture on regional matters and addresses the need for grassroots decision-making and accountability. There will be no more endless disagreements about the location and funding of regional amenities and the provision of necessary infrastructure. Auckland’s traffic woes will now be dealt with by a single body. There will be no more costly duplication of functions across eight rating authorities seven district plans and a multitude of different by-laws. 
A full third of the submissions to the royal commission expressed real anger despair and frustration over the regulatory red tape and the cost of complying with different district and rural plans across the region—it was a process that was blocking development. The focus will be on lowering fees and costs and simplifying the paperwork under a single district plan. I can confidently say that ratepayers can now expect efficiency gains in the years ahead from integrated long-term planning and decision-making. The intent is to make Auckland the most exciting vibrant metropolitan centre in Australasia. Auckland can become No. 1 in the Mercer world cities rankings. 
But what people also care about is the cost. The Auckland Council’s cost will not only be lower but also it will have better customer service. There are a bewildering number of fee categories across the region. I take dogs as an example. There are 60 categories in Auckland for registering impounding and adopting dogs. There will now be half that number with charges dropped to the lowest levels. Building inspections which are currently charged at an hourly rate varying from $110 to $178 will drop to $110 across the region. That is real money being saved. What about resource consent forms? I ask members to imagine this: there are over 850 forms used by councils at present and that will be reduced to just 120 simplified forms. This will improve consistency across the region and the consent application fee will be the same wherever one lives. 
There will also be a single building control authority delivering standardised control policy and acceptance criteria which again will produce a consistent review and application process. There will be full service centres operational on day one in central Auckland Takapuna Henderson and Manukau and they will be supplemented by local service centres at Orewa Waiheke Island Papakura and Pukekohe. There will also be neighbourhood service centres at Warkworth Huapai Helensville Great Barrier Island and Waiuku with more to follow. 
Starting numbers will fall and a fat and flabby upper management structure will be streamlined thereby creating a smaller and tighter top management team to drive the necessary improvement and consistency across the region. Front-line staff members however will not be reduced. Fears about the powers of the council-controlled organisations or CCOs have been removed. Council-controlled organisations in Auckland will now be the most accountable of any council in the country. They will have boards appointed by the Auckland Council which may also dismiss the directors. The Auckland Council determines the policy and appoints a board to ensure that its wishes are carried out. If those wishes are not carried out it can sack the lot. Furthermore there is no impediment to the Auckland Council disestablishing any of the council-controlled organisations except for Auckland Transport which is the only statutory entity. All council-controlled organisations will now be required to have two board meetings open to the public. The public can participate in these board meetings and speak directly to board members. I thank George Hawkins for his amendment in respect of those provisions. Those meetings will concern the council-controlled organisation’s statement of intent and whether it has achieved its goals during the preceding financial year. The council can increase that number if it so desires but there will always be that two-meeting minimum guarantee. 
We know that the people of Auckland want their rates to be kept low. We know that they fear having a lack of local community involvement in local democracy. We know that they are looking for an improved transport system and they will get it on 1 November. Aucklanders can now go to the polls in October to elect their mayor their councillors and their local board members without any central government interference. They can do so confident in the knowledge that the new Auckland Council will have the tools to take the vision forward. It will be a united prosperous and dynamic region of which all New Zealanders can be proud. 
I thank all of those who have helped to make this possible but there is someone special to thank and that is Mr Mark Ford who has led the transition in Auckland in the Auckland Transition Agency. I believe that all Aucklanders now and in future owe that man a huge debt for the job and the work that he has done. I think that we are very very lucky to have a man of his calibre and ability heading the transition team. I am pleased to say that he is in the House for this important day for the passage of the third readings of this legislation. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Talofa lava. This day has not taken as long to come as many would have thought. But if we go back to the findings of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance we see that the Government has acted very quickly. It never had time to gather any dust. There was no referendum for the people of Auckland as had been promised. What was most surprising was that there was no direct representation for Maori. There was a dust-up—a very public dust-up—between Dr Sharples and Rodney Hide with John Key the Prime Minister intervening. It turned out that from then on Maori people did not really think that they would have an opportunity to be well represented. It turned out that the squabble or fight between Dr Sharples and Rodney Hide— 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re not getting paid by the minute George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well if the member wants to extend my time I am happy to go on even further. There was a fight between Dr Sharples and Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide turned Dr Sharples upside down on his head and dropped him as is his wont from time to time. From then on the Maori Party lost its way a wee bit and I think that is really sad. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Because it will not have any representation. On 1 November a lot of people will see what will largely be an all-white council. They will also see a lot of families where the workers and income earners for a family lose their jobs. Fewer people will be working for local government in Auckland. Many people see that as a good thing but each time a family is involved. 
On the other hand we do not need eight chief executive officers. At the moment there are eight chief executive officers and we have to look back to see what happened in the past. Waitakere City Council had a chief executive officer a few years ago who collected $700000 in redundancy as he walked out of the door. I ask what will happen with this measure. With redundancy—[ 
Interruption 
] Well my brother does not lose his job like that member did in the past—from this House. I remind him of that. That chief executive officer probably collected 3 months’ redundancy but the average worker will not be getting the over $1 million that some of those chief executives will walk away with. It takes the average worker in my electorate who is on $40000 25 years to earn that amount of money. It would take the media a mere eight phone calls to find out how much is going out of ratepayers’ purses and wallets to pay for the redundancy of those people. I have to say that that is a pity. 
One of the interesting things about this legislation has been the level of debate from members of the public making submissions. These people have been very good. They have planned they have worked away and they have presented to the Auckland Governance Committee. Some of them were very nervous but they were all very passionate. When people are very passionate they expect their MPs— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How to be an insomniac’s friend! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well the member might have trouble sleeping but if he closes his eyes as well as his mouth he will do well. 
These people want Aucklanders to represent them and what has happened? Where have all the National members speaking up about this legislation been? John Key has not taken part in this debate. Judith Collins—the strong silent type—found that it was easier to walk away and say nothing. People like Paula Bennett and Allan Peachey have not contributed yet people look to their local representatives to get stuck in. I acknowledge that Pansy Wong and Maurice Williamson had something to say. It was not on the big important issue but on a little side issue. That is the work of a local MP and I acknowledge that but here was an opportunity for people to get up and explain why the National coalition Government was so intent on making changes. When that happens people feel that they have been well treated. The polls show that people do not feel that they have been well treated. They do not feel that at all. They think that they have been cast aside. 
I thank the Minister of Local Government for adopting my amendment to open up the council-controlled organisations to more public scrutiny. One thing I learnt when I was mayor was that people like to be able to come and have their say. They like to be able to talk through issues. Auckland will lose seven mayors and the chair of the regional council. People will not be able to see our new mayor as easily as they have seen our mayors in the past. The mayor will become far more remote. Given that much of the council’s work will be done by council-controlled organisations and 75 percent of the council’s spending will go to those council-controlled organisations it is important that people have the opportunity to go along a couple of times a year and not only listen in to what is going on but have their say. That is the really important thing: to have their say. That was one of the things that the National coalition Government missed out on. It did not appreciate that people want to be participants. They want to be involved. We have a Government that had forgotten that. I thank Minister Rodney Hide for realising that was a shortcoming and being prepared to take on board the amendment. 
People can sometimes be difficult to deal with; they may be pests. I think of Penny Bright from time to time who goes along to meetings. People shrink in their seats because they feel like “Here she goes again!”. But I remind the House that she found out that Metro Water was giving the Auckland Regional Council $25 million a year in charity payments. People like Penny Bright really make a difference. 
I will talk about the people of Rodney who have not really accepted what is happening. People like Bill Townsend are very very passionate. He thinks that the Government will at the last moment allow Rodney to stay outside the super-city. Unfortunately that will not happen for Bill Townsend and his followers. But they will carry on petitioning and having meetings as they feel they have been dragged into Auckland. 
It is a pity that so many people are not rejoicing at the fact that we could have one prosperous city rather than seven local councils they know so well. I think at this time of Sir Barry Curtis who so passionately built Manukau. I do not want to see what he built disappear. My plea to the new council is to take on board the things that Barry Curtis and Bob Harvey felt passionate about that made the westies different. I think that is very very important. I hope this legislation works well but I sometimes have my doubts. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 First of all I will thank a few people. I thank the Mayor of Waitakere City Bob Harvey for his diligent service over the last 8 years; Penny Hulse the Deputy Mayor of Waitakere City; Assid Corban the former Mayor of Waitakere City; Councillor Linda Cooper; Councillor Warren Flaunty from the Massey Community Board; and three people whom I think the whole of Te Atatu should applaud for their hard work in our community: Elizabeth Grimmer Leo Nobilo and Bob Stanic. I thank Andrew Williams and Len Brown for their sterling efforts in their own cities. I also thank members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee the staff of the committee and the departmental officials who I believe have done more than a sterling job in getting us to where we are now. 
We are limited only by our lack of unity and lack of vision. I stand in the Committee and say that I for one will vote for John Banks at the first election because he is a man of vision. He is not worried about pandering to something that he is not like some other mayors in the great city of Auckland. In fact I will hold a breakfast for John Banks and I tell members that there will be hundreds and hundreds of people in West Auckland lining up at the RSA in Te Atatu just to listen to “Banksie” because he has a vision. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is he coming to the breakfast? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: What a silly question! The Hon David Cunliffe asks whether he is coming to the breakfast. I would have thought that a man who is after the top Labour job would have something better to say than that. So I now leave that job to somebody else. 
The thing I like about the new organisation of Auckland is that the local boards actually have to get together set out a plan put that plan and the budget together and send it off to the council. The councillors do not just say yes or no; the councillors and the mayor have to enter into a contract about the budget and the plan. I think that contract is very forward-thinking. In the past Auckland has not been able to get to grips with itself because there have been four little fiefdoms. South Aucklanders have been the poor cousins of everybody else in the city—the poor people living out in South Auckland. I was born and bred in Otara—in fact I was born in Onehunga and 6 months later we were shipped off to the new suburb of Otara. It was always the case that South Aucklanders got the rest while the others had the best. Out in west Auckland for the past 25 years we formed an identity so to speak. That will not go on 1 November; there will still be people living out in west Auckland. No one in Auckland will have an identity crisis. The North Shore will still be the North Shore over the Auckland Harbour Bridge. South Auckland will still be down Great South Road. What will change is that it will now be about economic growth for Auckland for the North Island and for New Zealand. I am reminded of Shakespeare when he wrote— 
Simon Bridges 
: That great Otara scholar! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That great Otara scholar when he said: “for Harry England and Saint George!”. 
Simon Bridges 
: What play? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I think it was  
Henry IV 
. I am not sure; I cannot remember. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Part 1 or Part 2? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am not sure—Part 1? I digress. As I have said many times in this House I only did fifth-form history. These changes are for Auckland the North Island and New Zealand. If any members in their right mind are thinking we are through the recession I say we are not. There is a long way to go and there are steps we must take to get this country back on track again. We did the first thing which was to get rid of that lot over there the previous Government. In Te Atatu 42 percent of the party vote went to National which is quite cool. It is about unity and vision. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: This is a random walk. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It is a walk in the park of Auckland that great city which will lead the economic revival of this country. Decisions that should have been made 40 years ago were put on the back-burner. I heard George Hawkins talk about Barry Curtis. Let us go even further back to Mayor Robbie when the vision of light rail in Auckland never came to fruition because there were too many people in our scattered city who were worrying about their own backyards their own fiefdoms and their own little power struggles. At the end of the day if Mayor Robbie had been the mayor of one Auckland we would have had a decent public transport system. We would have had that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: A great Labour mayor. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Regardless of whether the man was Labour National or whatever he would have been mayor of a united Auckland rather than what we have had for the past 150 years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Since the 1900s. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Whenever it was. This legislation is about getting rid of the old patch protection. It is about getting rid of the old fiefdoms. I think that 1 November 2010 will signal a day when Auckland’s potential will be released and New Zealand’s potential will be realised. I am certain that we cannot have national economic recovery without Auckland. Auckland is central to the nation’s path to economic revitalisation. 
I again thank all those councillors and mayors and the people who have served on our local community boards. Their time may be up but let us look at this as an opportunity to take Auckland the North Island and New Zealand ahead. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make some acknowledgments in this speech. I acknowledge the people of Auckland. I acknowledge the people who turned up to public meetings all over the city in places as diverse as Pukekohe Warkworth Wellsford Kumeu New Lynn Waitakere Papakura Grey Lynn Mount Albert Milford and Birkenhead—have I missed any out? There were dozens of public meetings over the last year and a half. I acknowledge the thousands of people—I think 3000 Aucklanders—who submitted to the royal commission and the more than 1000 people who made submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the second and third bills. I acknowledge the 10000 people who took part and voted in the people’s referendum which was put on by the Our Auckland campaign group 97 percent of whom said they rejected the Government’s super-city model. I acknowledge the 8000 Aucklanders who marched down Queen Street in the hikoi demanding a democratic Auckland and guaranteed representation for Maori on the new council. 
All of these people all of these Aucklanders asked for a democratic super-city to be set up that would look after their communities and give them a voice in the future of the city. They were told by this Government that they were scaremongering. They were told repeatedly that the Government was listening to them and that it would put the “local” back into local government. John Carter said on many occasions in the select committee that the Government was listening and it would do what they wanted. He said that the Government was going to give local boards real powers and make the council-controlled organisations accountable. 
Well what do you know; the final outcome is every bit as bad as people feared and suspected a year ago. The Government has not heard. It has listened but it has not heard. Sure in these bills that are about to be passed into law we have seen a number of minor concessions. The fundamental provisions in the bill have been tweaked in an attempt to convey the impression that this Government has heard the people of Auckland but it has not. I say to the Government that having a couple of public meetings and publishing a brochure is not accountability and transparency as we know it in our system of Government. It is more like public relations. When Mr Hide says that he will consult mayors and the people of Auckland about the people he is appointing to the directorships of the council-controlled organisations he should forgive the people of Auckland for being cynical because for the last 18 months they have had direct experience of Mr Hide’s definition of consultation. 
Allowing the council to appoint the chair and the deputy chair is not accountability as we know it in our system of government. These things are just tweakings; they are minor adjustments around the edges. The Government has not altered the fundamental course that it chartered when it brought this bill to the House for the first time. It has insisted on going ahead with its corporatisation agenda which will consign three-quarters of the city’s assets and operations to the control of handpicked appointees. It is fundamentally shifting accountability and control of civic life in Auckland out of the public domain and into the boardroom. Aucklanders made it very clear that they did not want a bar of that. This Government has not listened and it has continued with its agenda. 
For the last 12 months the people of Auckland have demanded that the voice of local communities be preserved in the super-city. They have asked that the powers of local boards be enshrined in legislation to guarantee that local boards have real decision-making powers. For the last 8 months the Government has been promising that it would heed those requests. It has not. It has gone ahead and retained the framework it put in place with the second super-city Act and it has created 21 toothless talk shops instead. 
I want to talk about who should be held accountable and who should be held responsible for these changes. It is very interesting to see that the Prime Minister has kept a very low profile in relation to this issue in recent times. We have not seen him front up alongside the Minister of Local Government but let us make no mistake about it; the Prime Minister is cheek by jowl with Rodney Hide on this effort. The Prime Minister and Cabinet have signed off every single piece of this reform agenda. National is responsible to its boots for what it has done to Auckland. The people of Auckland will hold it responsible. 
The Minister of Local Government is an easy target. He is an easy target because of his extremist ideology and because of his status as a fallen perk-buster. That makes him a convenient whipping boy for everybody who wants to find whoever is responsible for what this Government is doing to Auckland and hold them accountable. But John Key and his Cabinet have signed off every single thing and they will be held accountable by the people of Auckland for this assault on our democracy for the weakening of our public institutions and for the contracting out of local government to hand-picked appointees. All of this must be laid squarely at the feet of this National Government. 
Next I want to talk about the issue of costs. What sticks in the craw of Aucklanders more than anything is that they did not ask for this whole thing. They were not given a say in the shape of the city they were not listened to when they raised serious objections but they sure as hell will have to pay for it. We managed to get hold of a copy of the  
New Zealand Herald  
for 2012 and this is the story on the front page: “Rates explosion. Thank you Rodney”. That headline is a prediction from the Labour Opposition. That is what will happen. The “Minister of Ratepayers” as Rodney Hide likes to be known—the champion of accountability and transparency—has had to have every little piece of financial information dragged out of him in the last few weeks. A month ago the only thing that Aucklanders knew was that there was a $34 million loan for the Auckland Transition Agency. But over the last few weeks more and more information has come out. When the Budget was released we found out that there was another loan to fund the Auckland Transition Agency. Subsequently as the Minister told the House last week we found out that the costs were up to $160 million. But the Minister refuses to acknowledge that other costs have been incurred that are part of the transition exercise. He will not accept that the $14 million spent by councils doing transition work at the behest of the Government is a transition cost. He will not acknowledge that $26.5 million spent establishing the water organisation is a transition cost. So this self-styled “Minister of Ratepayers” is trying to define away $40 million - odd of transition costs. He refuses to accept that those costs will be borne by the people of Auckland. 
There is a bombshell waiting for the Auckland ratepayer and that is the next story I predict about the cost of the Auckland super-city; the cost of redundancy. Dozens of senior executives will be made redundant; that is a fact. There are dozens of them and they have gold-plated redundancy agreements. The Minister will not acknowledge this but the cost of those redundancies I am informed by sources in Auckland could be as high as $47 million. It beggars belief that this Minister refuses to acknowledge that any modelling or projections have been done about the costs of redundancies. We are coming to the end of this debate— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 When this review of Auckland’s governance began people in places like Pakiri and Tomarata probably did not pay too much attention. People would talk about going to “town” and mean Warkworth or Wellsford. I suspect people at Clarks Beach or Ararimu did not pay too much heed to it either because when they go to “town” it is generally to Papakura or Manukau City. However these people along with 1.3 million others will now be privileged to wear a T-shirt that says: “Proud to be a JAFA” because something like one-third of the population of this country from 1 November will have the status of being a JAFA. I have been very happy to wear that label for a number of years but of those 1.3 million I suspect that quite a number will come to realise that they are not. 
Mr Henare in his walk through the park made a comment about identity and I take issue with him on that. People will feel very closely the loss of identity. These identities that have built up within the cities and districts over the last 20 or so years not least in Waitakere City where people are actually proud of that identity. They have contributed to it and they have felt something from it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Tell us what a westie is. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: That is a very long story I say to Tau and we will talk about it another day. 
A distinct sense of identity and of place evolves only over time. Having lived and worked at different times on the North Shore in Waitakere City and in Auckland City I understand that each of those areas each of those places has a distinct feel and a distinct identity. Whoever gets on to this incoming council or the councils following will have the very difficult task—and it will take a great deal of time—of establishing a sense of community a sense of shared purpose and the sense of vision that is necessary if this new city is to succeed and fulfil the potential that we are told it may have. 
A shared sense of purpose and vision is critical to the success of any urban conglomerate and it is difficult to see how that sense of identity of community interest will arise. We know that the hub of this new city is to be Queen Street and by that I mean Queen Street Auckland—not Queen Street Onehunga; Queen Street Pukekohe; or Queen Street Northcote. It will be Queen Street in downtown Auckland. If this was a business it would be seen not as a merger but as a takeover—and potentially a hostile takeover at that. The choice of Auckland Town Hall as the accommodation for the new council is a very graphic symbol of the fact that Auckland is taking over the other cities and districts and bringing them in to one centralised organisation. 
The furthest reaches of the new city will of course be represented. Each of them will be able to send one councillor to the meetings in Auckland Town Hall. Councillors from the north around Wellsford or Te Hana way will have a 1¼-hour drive off peak. To be at a business meeting at the town hall for 9 in the morning they will have to be early risers. There is a similar journey from the southern boundary. It is a shorter distance but probably a slower journey. From the south to the north of the new city will be a distance by road of some 140 kilometres which is roughly the distance from this Chamber to Palmerston North. I will return to that point later. It is very difficult to see how a community of interest can evolve over that spread of difference—the geographic distance the diversity and the differences in ethnicity income socio-economic status and beliefs. All of those things make places different from any other place. 
The number of electors per councillor will clearly create some tension; indeed it already has. A voter in Rodney will be one of 54000 who might be trying to get the attention of their single councillor. A person in Orakei will be one of 81000 people endeavouring perhaps to get the attention of a councillor. The plus or minus 10 percent population formula has gone seriously out of the window with nearly a 25 percent difference in terms of Rodney 13 percent in Orakei and many of the other wards pushing very hard the boundaries of that maximum allowable under-representation. Auckland is going to grow and we wonder at what point we will be allowed to get more representation to accommodate that population growth. 
Given that something like 38 MPs live in and around the Auckland region compared with 20 councillors the likelihood of people in the street bumping into an MP and having some sort of personal contact with their member of Parliament is probably greater than the likelihood of having any sort of real meaningful relationship or even occasional contact with the local councillor who is meant to represent them. 
We are told that the Auckland Council of 20 and the various local boards will form one seamless integrated decision-making body. In fact that is a myth. The local boards will clearly be seen as what they are: a second-tier almost second-class citizen in terms of representation. We still do not know what their responsibilities their powers their funding or their remuneration will be. We do not know where they will be meeting. There are just too many unknowns. The whole language of the bill the way in which it has been formulated the way in which the debate has rolled out and the outcomes of that debate give the local boards very much the status of second-class citizen. They will struggle. Despite the best efforts of people who are no doubt talented and committed who will take up the onerous task of sitting on those boards they will struggle to genuinely represent the interests of their constituents. 
Owen McShane is gentleman with whom I seldom agree it must be said but I think he is on the button this time. He knows a great deal about local government and particularly resource management in that context. He says the new city is simply too big. He has a nice phrase. He said that people will be disenfranchised by distance. He uses the example of someone living in Albertland. How will they have any connection with what is going on in Queen Street? McShane references a survey on resource management efficiency and finds that in New Zealand there is a negative correlation between the size and efficiency of resource management providers. The survey finds that unitary authorities are uniformly worse than regional councils and the very large regions had the greatest difficulty in terms of meeting the requirements of the Resource Management Act and in delivering services efficiently on time and under cost—or at least at cost. 
The Minister of Local Government in beginning the third reading of these bills made reference to us owing a huge debt of gratitude to the head of the Auckland Transition Agency Mr Mark Ford. I offer no disrespect to that man. He is an extremely capable and skilled gentleman and I am sure he has worked very hard and will continue to do so. However the huge debt that Aucklanders will focus on is that which has been referred to by Mr Twyford—the $266 million and climbing before the cost of redundancies. That will have to be paid for by the newly appointed JAFAs collectively. There is significant human cost. For months people have not been able to make decisions about their own futures even down to where they might be able to live if they wish to keep a job. 
Who is next? That is the final question I leave members with. I spoke to a seminar earlier this week about the super-city. It was a Wellington-based seminar and probably 90 percent of the people were Wellingtonians. The question came unprompted by me about who I thought would be next. I was asked whom I think the Auckland super-city model might next be imposed on. I mention again the distance from here to Palmerston North some 140 kilometres. I suspect that if any people in the Hutt or Porirua—or indeed over the Rimutakas—believe they will retain their local authorities intact when this legislation inevitably goes through they are living in a fool’s paradise. 
Perhaps the last word must go to a gentleman in Auckland who made a submission with a North American accent—it was clear where he came from but he is a Kiwi through and through. He thanked Mr Hide and the drafters of this bill for offering him an opportunity to experience something he could not experience even living in America which is the opportunity to live not in a city but in a corporation. Kia ora koutou. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the third readings of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill. I would like to congratulate the Ministers Rodney Hide and John Carter on all their hard work and all the officials and the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee staff on all their very hard work. This is the final legislation and it completes the governance arrangements in the Auckland region which will bring enduring unity and progress to Auckland for the next 50 to 100 years. Although the legislative process began over a year ago the actual process began with the royal commission. The royal commission after 18 months of consultation and much advice and discussion uncovered significant problems such as suffocating red tape transport bottlenecks delayed development and lost opportunities. The commission found that many things were holding up Auckland and in particular the way the city was run. Doing nothing was not an option. The royal commission was concerned that there was a lack of leadership that there was no single vision for moving Auckland forward and that important regional issues were getting tangled up in political red tape. That is why this Government has acted swiftly. 
I was privileged to be part of the select committee. We went to all parts of Auckland and listened to Aucklanders from all walks of life. There were many concerns about these bills and as a result there have been significant changes. Indeed in the Committee stage a number of amendments were considered. An excellent amendment by the Hon George Hawkins was adopted. Mr Hawkins’ amendment increases the public accountability of all council-controlled organisations of the Auckland Council. It makes all council-controlled organisations have two board meetings a year open to the public at which the public can speak directly to board members. I am pleased his amendment was adopted. 
The Government is serious about ensuring the council-controlled organisations are accountable and there are many provisions to ensure this. Concern has been expressed that there has not been accountability for council-controlled organisation. There has been concern that they are a power unto themselves doing their business in secret and at arm’s length. Perhaps it is not appreciated that council-controlled organisations must produce a statement of intent that outlines the objectives and plans ahead. They must account to the council in meeting those objectives. Council-controlled organisations will be held to account by the council. Only Auckland transport has been set up as a statutory council-controlled organisation and it will require an Act of Parliament to disband it. Watercare Services can be disbanded after 2015 but otherwise the new council can disband any council-controlled organisation it sees fit. In addition the council will have a specific accountability policy for council-controlled organisations that spells out what is expected of them. 
The select committee also recommended that all council-controlled organisations are subject to the council’s long-term plan. Under the Local Government Act meetings are subject to the Official Information Act but they do not have to be open to the public. The amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins means that all Auckland Council council-controlled organisations must have two board meetings a year open to the public at which the public can speak directly to board members. It is important to note that the council-controlled organisations are not new entities. They have been around since the Local Government Act 2002. Indeed Auckland has 40 council-controlled organisations. Bob Harvey Mayor of Waitakere City praised council-controlled organisations in a letter to the  
New Zealand Herald  
in March of this year. He said: “For the record CCOs have worked well for Waitakere City. In 1989 we were born with few assets and CCOs helped us bring up capital from almost nothing. There are many questions to be asked and many relationships to get right on how CCOs will work but they do.” 
Local boards will be a crucial link. They will be the face of local government. It is true that the mayor and the 20 councillors will focus on the big picture and make decisions that affect the Auckland region but it is the local boards that will represent communities at the local level. They will have an integral role in Auckland’s overall planning process. Auckland boards will have a significant and wide-ranging role. They will make decisions on local matters provide local leadership and build strong local communities. Local board members will be locally elected from people who understand their community’s hopes and aspirations and understand what makes them tick. Local boards will be required to meet regularly with the communities they represent understand their needs and help deal with the things concerning local people. They must formally consult communities when developing their local board plans which will be done every 3 years. Each year the local board will have to agree with the governing body the council the local priorities and the funding. There will be much consultation and it will be two-way consultation. 
Prior to the local body elections in October the Auckland Transition Agency will publish the local boards’ baseline list of responsibility functions and funding. Local body roles and functions have not been defined in the legislation. There is good reason for that which I will explain. Instead the Government has inserted in law the principle that decisions are best made at the local level unless there is good reason not to. Initial roles and functions of the local boards will be set out by the Auckland Transition Authority which is designing the super-city. The select committee concluded that a prescriptive approach would be far too difficult complex and restrictive. The committee considered that a principle-based approach would allow for flexibility and provide for the ability to adapt to changes of local preferences and demographics. The Auckland Transition Agency’s discussion document on local boards shows it has a very good understanding of the role of local boards in their community. I am confident that when the list is published it will be appropriate and a wise choice. The new Auckland Council will be able to review the local boards’ responsibilities after it comes into being on 1 November. It has the ability to add new functions and devolve more responsibilities but importantly it cannot take away responsibilities. The select committee added new section 87A to provide for this. The select committee felt that this would give local board members and the communities they represent more certainty about their roles and functions. We felt this was the right thing to do. 
The commentary on the bill provides examples of what might be local board non-regulatory activities. The examples provided are vast and wide ranging. The examples provided in the commentary which literally went on for pages and pages emphasise that the detail required to legislate would be prohibitive. The committee is confident that a principles-based approach is the way forward and the best way to allocate functions as appropriate. It may well be that the new council will devolve some regulatory powers to the local boards and I certainly hope this is the case. I know that alcohol is a huge issue in local communities and I am confident that this will devolve to local boards where they will have their own decision-making powers to look at local bans and outlet licensing. Certainly the Auckland Transition Agency document indicated that this issue could be a very good one that local boards should adopt if the council sees fit. Local boards will need to be flexible and respond to their community’s needs. Being prescriptive and defining in legislation would have potentially the opposite outcome and that is why the select committee outlined a non-prescriptive approach that would allow for flexibility. That certainly would be an unintended consequence. 
Just before I conclude I say that I am wearing the All Whites T-shirt today in honour of our soccer team and I wish them all the very best in the World Cup which begins next week. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I would like to say that I am wearing a Maori All Blacks jersey but they are too tight to share them around. 
Simon Bridges 
: I thought you were going to say they’re too tight to fit your body. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Oh cut that out! Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Huri rauna. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. 
This weekend is Matariki weekend. I hope to be celebrating it at home in the far north where the weather is always good the land is always bountiful the oceans are always warm and the people are forever beautiful. Te Tai Tokerau is a region worthy of protection and in my desire to protect the beauty of my great homeland from the ravages of the rapacious mob from Auckland fleeing to the north for the long weekend I extend a special thanks to all of those Rodney-ites who are protesting against this “Rodney Bill” by blocking the roads from Puhoi to Warkworth with a convoy of tractors. Unfortunately I suspect the message may not be very effective because long weekend journeys to the north normally begin with a 10-mile-an-hour trip from Orewa to Warkworth anyway so a reduction to 5 miles an hour behind a wheezing procession of tractors will hardly be noticed. Still I wish the Direct Action Group well although it is unlikely that the Government will take any notice. Even though it promised the Government has reneged on the deal to leave north Rodney out of the super-city. 
While I am praising those from the northern end of the super-city for standing up for their rights I also reaffirm the support of the Maori Party for the rights of the indigenous forebears of Tamaki-makau-rau to seats on any council that is charged with overseeing the development and growth of what is undeniably the jewel of the South Pacific albeit tarnished somewhat by the racism inherent in the denial of seats to those who have given the lands for the establishment of Auckland City. In this third and final reading I acknowledge the mana whenua—and indeed all Maori—for their commitment to full seats for tangata whenua at the top table and their support for a Treaty-based framework for the governance and management of the new city. 
Nobody can say that we have not tried hard to get this legislation to be consistent with the expectations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We attended hui right across the region. We met with iwi and not only did we march on the hikoi; we helped to organise it. We read all the letters and submissions we responded to the media and we did the behind-the-scenes negotiations with iwi and with the Crown. We tried to negotiate directly with the Ministers concerned. We attended the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee hearings to encourage Maori participation. We helped draft an alternative in the form of an advisory committee. We tabled our minority report. We tabled Supplementary Order Papers to try to inject the Maori presence right up until yesterday. We have spoken at every stage of this legislation. Yet the Maori presence and the Maori participation critical to a positive future for Tamaki-makau-rau have still been ignored. Still the fight goes on because it is a just battle for the rights of tangata whenua consistent with our status under Te Whakaputanga o Niu Tireni Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—the declaration that guarantees indigenous people the right to take part in all decisions affecting their rights through representatives they choose by their own methods. 
It is great to hear John Banks talk about including a Maori liaison role in his office if he gets the mayor’s job just as it is great to hear Len Brown say that he wants Maori around the table if he gets the job. But I note the cautionary tale from Ngati Whatua’s spokesman Ngarimu Blair who said of the advisory board that it sits a very long way from where decisions are going to be made but that anything that gets Maori closer to the No. 1 field has to be a good thing. I remind the House that Maori aspirations are for dedicated Maori seats not for having to make do with second best. Maori do not want to be dancing monkeys at anyone’s table and we will not support the use of a Maori liaison or a Maori advisory board to deny the expectations of tangata whenua or the recommendations of any other entity representing Maori opinion. 
We are disappointed that Rodney Hide can talk so blithely and so dishonestly about the so-called integrity of one person one vote when his party has five seats in this House because New Zealanders have the right at national elections to one person two votes. We are disappointed that Mr Hide cannot bring himself even to encourage Maori participation in Auckland by allowing them to exercise their one vote in a way that would enable Maori participation in a process that has seen only eight Maori councillors in Auckland in 150 years. We are disappointed that Mr Hide can force the Government to bend to his will by threatening to walk on the coalition if he does not get his way in blocking the Maori seats. We are disappointed that this Government can enter into a coalition arrangement with the Maori Party that says “Both the National Party and the Maori Party will act in accordance with te Tiriti o Waitangi” and then so easily give way to Rodney Hide’s demand that it ignore the agreement. 
Ours is not a call for special privilege for Maori; it is a call to recognise the under-representation of Maori at all layers of local government a call for the inclusion of tangata whenua in their own land a call for the inclusion of the special character of this nation that is found nowhere else in the world and a call for involving the special talents that Maori bring to the table in business in education in governance and in all walks of life. These talents could only enhance the future that Auckland might have had. It is for those reasons that we express again our disappointment that the Government has chosen to ignore the overwhelming support for the Maori seats of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance all of the mana whenua groups in Auckland the two major iwi groups in Auckland 100 percent of the Maori submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee 80 percent of the non-Maori submissions to that select committee the majority of Auckland’s councils most of Auckland’s mayors three of the five major parties in Parliament and every intelligent political commentator in the country. 
According to the 2009 statistics 40 percent of Auckland’s kids are Polynesian—that is Maori and Pasifika. Failure to recognise those dynamics—by refusing to have dedicated Maori seats by refusing to plan for formal Pasifika representation and by ignoring the spectacular blossoming of Auckland as a multicultural playground to be proud of—suggests a mindset that we used to condemn in South Africa’s and Australia’s treatment of their indigenous peoples. But that mindset sadly lives on in this nation a nation that can so vociferously condemn comments about white m - - - - - f - - - - - s made by a Maori but blithely ignore comments about darkies horis and coconuts when made by a Pakeha. 
Fifty years ago Maori rugby players were excluded from the All Black tour to South Africa—a decision we condemn the South African Government for. Fifty years on Maori people are being excluded from having their own seats at the top table in their home town—a decision we condemn the New Zealand Government for. It took 50 years to get an apology for this country’s meek and cringing acceptance of the demands of a racist Government overseas. How sad it is that in this supposedly bright and shining new millennium we have learnt nothing from that embarrassing period in our own nation’s history. 
The Maori Party reiterates its commitment to fighting for dedicated Maori representation at every level of governance and we commit our support to ensuring that Maori will one day take their rightful place at the top table in Tamaki-makau-rau. Kia ora tatou. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to support the third readings of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill. This afternoon we are ending the final chapter of reform of local government in Auckland. Let us not forget why we are here. We are here to deliver what the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance asked us to deliver—that is a city that is able to compete successfully with Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane for people and investment but also a city that has world-class standards and quality of life. Our Government listened to the royal commission when it said that “Maintaining the status quo or tinkering around the edges is not the answer. Bold change is required”. Problems the commission identified included “Messy and inefficient urban growth infrastructure constraints social disparity and poor urban design …”. Our city has a third of New Zealand’s population and with 2 million people on track to be living in Auckland by 2050 it was not an option for this Parliament to keep the status quo. 
The royal commission initiated by the previous Government cost $4 million and took 18 months. After three pieces of legislation thousands of submissions and hundreds of hours of Auckland Governance Legislation Committee hearings we are near the end of this parliamentary process. We are on the cusp of what we all hope is a new era of local government for the people of Auckland. After 3 years of consultation decisions have been made. There are some bold changes but Aucklanders are presented with a workable structure and one that has the potential to offer greater representation better access to services for disadvantaged people and ultimately a more secure prosperous and sustainable city. 
I think it is important at this point to recognise why the legislation has been challenging and I acknowledge my colleague Hone Harawira and his comments on Maori representation. The first relates to the scale and the magnitude of the changes for people to legislation and to policies. This is the greatest change to Auckland in a generation and it will have an impact for generations to come. The other reason that this has been challenging to this Parliament is that we have been effectively engaging with the rearrangement of power. The change from eight mayors to one from over 100 councillors to 20 and from a few community boards to 21 local boards was never going to please everyone. These changes cannot be looked at in isolation. One must view the whole system to understand the shift to a better balance of power between local and regional government and to understand how Aucklanders may be better represented. It is one of those areas that puts an obligation on parliamentarians to act responsibly; it is legislation dealing with people’s rights and how they are represented. I am confident that although it is not possible to please everybody we have acted responsibly to deliver a system that will lead to improved representation for all Aucklanders. 
Parliament has worked alongside the Auckland Transition Agency. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and Ministers have recognised that whatever Parliament chose not to address within this legislation has had to be addressed by the Auckland Transition Agency. I acknowledge the huge dedication and commitment by the agency and in particular by Mark Ford for the task they have completed. 
As I have worked on the legislation I have been acutely aware of the following principles. The first was to ensure that we achieve the appropriate balance of delivering a structure while not exerting excessive central government control and prescribing every last detail. This ensures maximum flexibility for a city that will continue to experience great change in terms of our people and our environment and enables improved autonomy for local body politicians. The second principle has been to ensure that Parliament has put in place what may be interim arrangements to ensure the council can operate from day one. After listening to Aucklanders the select committee has made significant changes to the council-controlled organisations both in terms of accountability and by ultimately giving back to the Auckland Council the responsibility as to whether most council-controlled organisations should exist. The third principle has been to take into consideration that any unique features of the Auckland Council may have implications for the rest of New Zealand. Some of these variances are evident in areas like the new obligation for the mayor to engage with people who are too young to vote. This is entirely appropriate for one of the youngest cities in the world. Auckland is unique in New Zealand in terms of its demographics and size. However we are confident that although it is not this Government’s intention to initiate the process with other regions in New Zealand the model could work in other areas if they want it. We have aimed to deliver an enduring flexible structure that will last for generations. 
The fourth principle is diversity and it is reflected in the local boards. We know that even within my Auckland Central electorate there is incredible diversity from Waiheke to Great Barrier Island and to the central business district. What is right for each of these areas could not necessarily be prescribed within legislation. Given the number of changes to people places and legislation I think it is inevitable—and I am happy to stand up and say so—that it is not likely that we will get it perfect. There probably will be implementation issues. But I hope that the people of Auckland are able to be patient and grasp some of the extraordinary opportunities that lie ahead for our city—in particular in the area of planning. We heard today that we are moving from a system of having over 800 consent documents to 100 consent documents. This is about making people’s lives simpler in Auckland and making businesses’ lives a lot more efficient and less costly. 
I would like to be clear that although Parliament has put in a system of local government it cannot control the candidates that step up. I encourage all Aucklanders of all ethnicities and ages and in all places to step up at this exciting time and make a contribution. I acknowledge the members of the royal commission for the huge contribution they made to this process. I thank my select committee colleagues Jackie Tau and Simon for all their hard work and also all the other National MPs and Ministers who contributed to this process. I acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide in particular for his ability to listen to Aucklanders and to make changes to the council-controlled organisations. I acknowledge the Hon John Carter for his uncanny ability to negotiate through troubled waters and find agreement. 
I want to finish on this note—the opportunity that lies ahead. This is a time of opportunity for Auckland and it is time when I believe we could be on the cusp of some very transformational things happening in Auckland. In particular I note the ability of having one spatial plan in Auckland and what we may see as a result. It is time for Aucklanders to finally be able to come together and discuss what kind of public transport system they want. It is time for Aucklanders to finally be able to come together and decide where they want the cultural fabric of Auckland to exist. It is time for Aucklanders to finally be able to come together and look at the poorer areas and communities in Auckland. Our city is gifted in both people and environments. This evening we have the pleasure to deliver to Auckland a new system of local government. I hope Aucklanders will look back and say that although the process was hard and at times it was painful this was the day that Aucklanders emerged stronger and with greater opportunity for our greatest city. Thank you. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I will begin with some pleasantries. E nga mana e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha e nga karangaranga maha tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. Talofa lava. Ou te fa‘atalofa atu i lau afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai fa‘apea sui mamalo o le Maota Fono ae maise fo‘i le paia maualuga o Samoa o lo‘o fa‘afofoga mai. 
I take this opportunity to briefly thank the House. This is the last day of the present sitting block. I appreciate—and I reflect the appreciation of the Samoan community—the acknowledgment of Samoan Language Week in the House. I am particularly grateful to all members who attempted to use the language here and I hope they continue to use the language outside of the House. 
I now express my appreciation to my colleagues on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: the Hon George Hawkins Phil Twyford and the Hon Shane Jones. I thank my various colleagues from the Auckland region who participated throughout the consultation process. I think it is important that I acknowledge them because in the Committee stage they were able to convey what the people of Auckland were saying. To be fair I also acknowledge the chair of the select committee John Carter for the way he conducted our proceedings and I acknowledge all the members from the other side of the House. 
This afternoon I have been somewhat reflective as we have been debating the third and final readings of the bills derived from the third bill to set up the new Auckland structure. I have listened intently to the submissions made by MPs from around this House. There are two Samoan sayings that come to mind that I want to expand on in my speech. The first one is: “Ua aliali le va‘ava‘a o le tuli”. It means that when the bird called the tuli reveals its insides all one sees are bones—nothing more—but when it closes its wings it looks nice and fluffy. The other saying is: “E le falala fua lau o le niu e ala ona falala ona ua agi le matagi”—“The leaves of the coconut tree do not move without reason; they move because the winds are blowing.” I have to say when I reflect on the first bill the second bill and now the third bill that change is coming. The winds are cold outside and I have a feeling that it is going to be colder for the people of Auckland. 
I have a picture in my mind of Manukau City and the Auckland region. I got this picture on Monday when I attended the premiere of a movie called  
Groove City 
. It is a movie made by people from Manukau and it showcases the wealth of talent of people in Manukau. One could not help but cry laugh and be overwhelmed by the joy that that movie showed. I recommend it to the House when it comes out. That film showcases what I think is the best of Manukau City. There are many murals that also reflect that. My experience is that when we put up a beautiful mural on the wall of a town centre or by the library as showcased by the  
Groove City  
movie the minute some idiot some inane creep tags it whether it be a yellow white black blue or red tag it destroys the beauty of that mural—it really does. 
In the beginning of this process when we talked about uniting the region when we talked about our vision for the future of enabling Auckland to be competitive with the other significant cities of the world the people of Auckland felt some hope and some desire that it would be a good thing. But since then the first bill was rammed through this House in urgency without consultation. The people of Auckland were up in arms and they asked where the consultation was. The Prime Minister broke a pre-election promise. He said that he would consult Aucklanders when the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance became available. Aucklanders did not like the fact that the first bill was rammed through this House without consultation. The sad thing is that laid the foundation for the death of the eight local territorial authorities that exist in the Auckland region. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: So Labour’s against it? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I say to the member “Hold your horses!”. That is the sad story about this whole affair. In respect of the second bill because National members had listened to and heard the anger of the people of Auckland they decided to consult. But instead of maintaining due process in respect of that consultation National collapsed the process and shortened it and people again were not happy about the way it was done. I listened to the consultation. Many Aucklanders were not happy about the second round of consultation but they felt that they should be polite. I heard the chairperson of the select committee say that they should wait for the third bill—there would be some changes. That did not happen. In respect of the third and final bill legislation from which we are debating and are about to vote on today people lost their patience. Some significant individuals in the Auckland region were quite angry and they pointed out to the chairperson of the select committee and the members of the Government what they truly thought. In my second reading speech I listed what many of those significant Aucklanders said. 
As an Opposition party Labour has fought tooth and nail on the first bill the second bill and the third bill. The third bill was introduced for consultation during the Christmas period. Most people were not focused on it; they wanted to spend time with their families. It almost felt as if introducing the bill during the Christmas period was the deliberate intention of this Government so as not to reveal everything to the people of Auckland. People submitted to the select committee that they were unprepared and that they had not been given enough time to make their submissions. 
I repeat what Aucklanders have said to me and to the other members of the select committee. The National Government’s third bill is seen as designing a corporate governance structure for the Auckland region and its peoples. The majority of Aucklanders are opposed to this corporate design. The majority of Aucklanders believe that the Government’s super-city structure is about positioning the Auckland region for a hostile takeover of its strategic and significant asset holdings. Submitters have described—and I repeat—the third bill as the third strike against this Government’s recidivist determination to abuse undermine and ride roughshod over the democratic principle of good governance structures based on power by the people of the people for the people. The majority of Aucklanders did not vote for a National Government to flog off assets that they had put a lot of sweat and energy into acquiring. This legislation is the final nail in the coffin. 
I say that for Manukau City the third bill seals up the fate of that wonderful city and its people to the unknown. We will no longer see the Manukau sun shining in the Manukau sky. It will not be Manukau air that we breathe from here on. They will not be Manukau parks that our children play in any more. Groups and small businesses will have to redesign their names and logos at their own cost. We will lose a part of our identity because of this measure. 
I now finish by saying that this Government got it wrong. This Government got it wrong by not consulting Aucklanders. It got it wrong by having only 20 councillors. It got it wrong by having powerful council-controlled organisations or CCOs. It got it wrong by not having the powers of the local boards enshrined in legislation. It got it wrong by not having Maori representation. That was a significant submission from the people of Auckland—they wanted Maori representation. That has been a missed opportunity by this Government. It got it wrong by not giving clarity to the Pacific communities to the ethnic communities to the youth to the many disabled people in the community— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: The seniors. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —and to the senior citizens as Ross Robertson said. It got it wrong when it did not provide any certainty to the business improvement districts. It got it wrong and the people of Auckland will have to pay for it. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Deputy Speaker. The previous speech from Su’a William Sio was heartfelt. I thought it was thoughtful. I say seriously that I enjoyed and was touched by the Samoan quotations. I thought that in many ways it was a good speech from the member. It was genuine. But I have to say that although I agree that change is coming— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! He thinks he’s Obama. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —I say to the member Darren Hughes that it is change we can believe in. Far from it being a cold wind it is a warm wind of change. It is a positive thing that we are doing for Auckland. 
Before I finish talking about Su’a William Sio’s speech although substantively I did not agree with what he said I think the members who were on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee can all agree despite our disagreements that it was quite a harmonious committee. I thank all the members for that. The committee was in good humour nearly all of the time. I thank the officials. I thank the Auckland Transition Agency or ATA for what it has done in getting us to the point where we are now and we will be much further ahead by October-November of this year. 
But I would suggest that the legislation that we are dealing with now and have already dealt with to bring us to the reformation of local government in Auckland are really about a dichotomy if you like between the regional and the local and empowering both. I think that is excellent. Someone else said of this legislation that at the regional level we cannot have a waka with the various rowers on it all going in different directions. We need the rowers on the waka going in the same direction. I think that is an apt metaphor for what we have done at the regional level. We have empowered the region to get over the differences that the various councils have at the moment so that it can come together on regional projects like having a fantastic first-class waterfront and big-ticket items for the cultural and the sporting success of what is a very good city now but could be a first-class great city. I do not think that what we are doing at the regional level can be underrated or undervalued. It is not possible to overstate the importance of that point. In his book  
The Rise of the Creative Class 
 
Richard Florida talks about how very important place is at the regional level. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What a joke! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: The member can verify that; I read it on the plane. What we are doing is very much in the spirit of that book—one city and one vision for that city. 
The paradox of course is that as the regional level becomes more and more significant so too does the local level and so does the need to preserve it and to give it flavour because it is where people live day in day out. The local level is as important as ever or maybe even more important and the local boards will do a good job of empowering local communities in villages like Devonport; like Avondale; like Te Atatu peninsula where I grew up; like Birkenhead. They will flourish I believe under what we are putting in place and what the Auckland Transition Agency is doing. What we are doing at a regional level could not be more significant and what we are doing at a local level could not be more significant. 
This is a significant day for Auckland City the biggest city in this country. It is a good city but I think that with what we are doing it stands every prospect of being a first-class great city. This is a proud day for this House. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak in opposition to this legislation which aims to make Auckland governance less transparent less accountable and less responsive to Aucklanders. Before I get into it I would like to acknowledge the Labour members on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. I think we had a fantastic team representing us on that select committee. I acknowledge the work of our spokesperson on Auckland issues Phil Twyford. I also acknowledge the work of George Hawkins Su’a William Sio and Shane Jones. Unfortunately although they did the best job possible it came down to numbers and we were outnumbered. 
I also acknowledge many of the fantastic local body representatives particularly the Mayor of Waitakere Bob Harvey who has been mayor for 18 years and the Deputy Mayor of Waitakere City Penny Hulse. They do a fantastic job in terms of they way in which they represent Waitakere and the way in which they work effectively with community groups and with central government to achieve the best things they can for their community. 
It should be no surprise that Labour opposes this bill and I am sure that it is not a surprise to anyone in this House. We believe that the Auckland governance structure needs to be changed—we have thought that for quite some time—but the way in which the National Government has gone about it is undemocratic and smacks of a hidden agenda. We believe in a democratic process and we believe in delivering local government that is in the ownership of people not corporations. We have heard that from a number of people. For us it is about community not corporations. But unfortunately the other side of the House thinks differently. Labour members believe in local governance structures that communities can trust. This bill delivers none of those things so it is no surprise that Labour MPs—who do believe in transparency proper consultation and the democratic process—will be voting against this bill. 
It has been surprising that Auckland National MPs are not joining us to voice opposition to this legislation. If they had been talking to their people in their electorates they would know that Aucklanders do not support this legislation. Why have they not in all the speeches we have heard today acknowledged the concerns of the people of Auckland? Why are they assisting Rodney Hide to ram this legislation through without proper consultation and why are they seeking to take the control of three-quarters of local government away from the people and put it in the hands of corporations? National MPs were elected to represent their electorates but they are sitting back and watching while this legislation goes through. 
There were a huge number of submissions against this bill from all over Auckland but I want to start by talking about the submissions from people from Auckland Central which is Nikki Kaye’s electorate. Given her nauseating over-the-top greasy conduct with regards to Auckland Central submitters one would think that she would know what her constituents are concerned about. But she pretends that what her Government is doing is OK with her electorate. She stands in this House misrepresenting the views of her constituents not relaying the real views of Auckland Central but relaying the Government’s views of this legislation and pretending that those views belong to the constituents of Auckland Central. 
Auckland Central people were worried that council-controlled organisations will take away their democratic rights. That came through in the submissions. They were worried about the corporatisation of local government which this Government is encouraging and they are now also worried about the fact that they have a local MP who has done nothing to address their concerns. 
Nikki Kaye 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member opposite has been making some wild allegations saying that I am not representing my constituents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Those are debating points. This is a robust debate. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: My colleague Jacinda Ardern put forward an amendment that would have placed a responsibility for waste management with the local Waiheke board which is part of Nikki Kaye’s electorate. As MP for Auckland Central including Waiheke Island she must know about the poor handling of the island’s waste management contract by the Auckland City Council so why did she not support the amendment? 
My colleague Jacinda Ardern also put up an amendment that would have amended the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill to ensure that youth were consulted in the decision-making process of the governing body and local boards. The amendment would have formally established an Auckland youth council at governing body level territorial youth forums at local body level and requirements for consultation with them. Did Nikki Kaye support that amendment? No she did not. She thinks that it will suffice that the mayor has the power to speak to those who are not of voting age. What does that mean in the first place? How can she look in the mirror and honestly say that she has advocated for those whom she purports to represent? 
Another MP who has been unusually quiet over the super-city is the member for Waitakere Paula Bennett. I have been out in the Waitakere electorate talking to the people about the super-city legislation. I do not know whether Paula Bennett has been doing the same thing but if she had been she would have heard loud and clear that the people of Waitakere do not like what the Government was trying to do. 
One issue I want to raise which is important to people from Waitakere is with regards to the Waitakere Ranges. We understand that the ranges belong to Aucklanders and Waitakere people want reassurance that that will not change. I put forward an amendment that would have safeguarded the legal protection afforded to the ranges. Why did Paula Bennett not support that? West Aucklanders are protective of their ranges. They fought hard for a law change to give ownership to the Auckland Regional Council because they wanted the ranges to be recognised for what they are: unique and in need of special protection to ensure that that uniqueness is preserved for generations to come. 
That was the spirit behind the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act which my colleague and former Waitakere electorate MP Lynne Pillay can justifiably be proud of. For many people in Waitakere it is painful to watch all their hard work being undermined by the undemocratic process that has been the establishment of the super-city. The submitters from that area put forward a number of messages very clearly and one of those messages was: “Do not mess with our Waitakere Ranges.” I know how much the people of Waitakere love their ranges. I know how much they want to see them stay in Auckland ownership. The ranges are part of Waitakere’s identity and that is what the area stands to lose with the passage of this legislation. Paula Bennett should be standing up for her constituents. Instead she is choosing to ignore their concerns and that is not good enough. 
Another issue that I want to discuss is that the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance recommended that a social issues forum be set up but the Government ignored that recommendation as it did with so many of the other good recommendations. The Government ignored the recommendation for a social issues forum. It adopted only the ideas that fit its own agenda. Never mind what is good for Auckland. But Paula Bennett as an Auckland MP and as the Minister for Social Development and Employment should have pushed for the social issues forum to be established. Why did she not do that? Because she obviously treats Aucklanders who have concerns about the social impacts of the super-city with the same disdain that she has for beneficiaries who dare to challenge her policy. 
The third MP whom I would like to talk about is the National MP for Maungakiekie who has largely been absent from this debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Be careful. You cannot refer to someone who has not been here. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That member is Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. Where has Sam been with regard to advocating on behalf of our Pacific community? They raised concerns about the Pacific advisory board and he was silent. They did not want the sunset clause in the bill and they did not want the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs deciding who would be their representatives on that board. Yet that member National’s one and only Pacific member in Government was silent on the issue. 
So many submissions were made by residents in Maungakiekie. Submitters clearly articulated high levels of concern over the corporatisation of our city and the diminishing of their fundamental democratic rights. Yet the member for Maungakiekie stood up in the House last night and told us that this bill was wonderful. He praised his colleagues for what he sighted as a job well done but I have no doubt that the vast majority of Maungakiekie residents do not share his opinion on this legislation or on the job his colleagues did with regard to this legislation. 
I have talked about some of the amendments. I want to acknowledge Carol Beaumont and the amendment she put forward. It would have amended the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill to ensure that protection against the sale of the ports of Auckland was retained. Maungakiekie came out loud and clear and said it was opposed to privatisation yet the member for Maungakiekie Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga ignored that and kept silent. Yet here we have my Labour colleague working hard for those people. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It falls to me to make the last contribution on the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill which started their journey in April of last year. Indeed the legislation goes back prior to that when the previous Labour Government decided to instruct a royal commission to look at the issues around Auckland. Labour considered that in the same way that this Government does issues needed to be addressed that were causing concern to Aucklanders and indeed to all New Zealanders. This Government decided when the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance reported—and it must be remembered that the previous Labour Government postponed the delivery of the royal commission’s report until after the election because it did not want to grapple with it itself—to take up the challenge and lay down the opportunity for Aucklanders to move forward and for Auckland to become a greater city than it already is. This legislation is the structure we now pass on to the people of Auckland. 
Aucklanders wanted a council that actually worked on regional issues. They did not want the present system which as far as I am aware everyone in this House acknowledges causes conflict and disarray. We see that so often with the present structure. They wanted a council that could deliver and make decisions on regional issues. So we have set up a council with a mayor and 20 councillors to focus on those things that matter from a regional perspective. 
Then Aucklanders said that they wanted to make sure their local issues those things that matter to them on a day-to-day basis in their townships their streets and their suburbs would be dealt with. So we set up the local boards and empowered them to ensure that those functions that matter to the people are addressed. At the moment that work is still being concluded by the Auckland Transition Agency because the issues are so complex that it is beyond the ability of Parliament and its select committee to deal with them through legislation. Another thing we were told by Aucklanders was they did not want Wellington to instruct or prescribe. Again we took great care to get the balance right. 
The third area they asked for was an efficient way of delivering the services that Aucklanders require on a day-to-day basis such as their water their roading and those other things that matter to them from a social perspective. So we took great care to ensure that when we set up the council-controlled organisations or CCOs we gave the Auckland people the right to have an input into what happens with those organisations. We have given the Auckland Council more power than any other council in New Zealand. The council sets the general policy of the council-controlled organisations. The council is in charge of its council-controlled organisations. It will set the parameters under which the council-controlled organisations operate. It will set the policy. The board of directors of the council-controlled organisations will then take that policy refine it and administer it. But the Auckland Council will constantly be monitoring it and will have its hands on the policy on behalf of the people of Auckland. Indeed we were so concerned to make sure we listened to the people of Auckland that when a good amendment was put up by the Opposition that we thought improved the legislation we adopted it. 
The point of all of this is we intended to have a structure that allowed the council to look at regional issues we wanted a structure that allowed the local people to have their local voice heard in their local democracy and we wanted a system that was efficient at delivering services for the people of Auckland. So we made sure that all of those connect through the long-term council community plans and that they have to work together and recognise each other. One cannot work without the other. 
I stand here today along with my colleague Rodney Hide and all the rest of the Government to say that we are proud of the structure we have put in place and delivered to Aucklanders. But I make this point: our having put the structure in place it is now over to Aucklanders to make it work. It is up to them to decide who will be their mayor their councillors and their representatives on their local boards. It is up to them to decide who the directors of the council-controlled organisations will be and how they want those organisations to be run. We have given a structure to make sure that from day one Auckland has a local governance system that can work for the people of Auckland but the ultimate responsibility comes down to the people of Auckland to choose who should lead them to make sure that those things are delivered. I am proud to have been part of the Parliament that has made the biggest change in local government history in New Zealand. I am proud to have been part of that. Although we hear some mistruths and misinterpretations deliberately put forward by the Opposition on how all of it will work I am absolutely confident that we will end up with an Auckland that will work for Aucklanders and for New Zealand. 
I conclude by saying some thankyous. First I thank the Clerk’s Office for the work it did for the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. I will not name any names because to do so would leave others out but I must say the staff were a big part of this whole structure and I think all the members of the select committee would recognise that. I thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for all the work that it did. We would not be here today without the sterling work that parliamentary counsel gave to the select committee and to Parliament. I thank very much the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs and all the other departmental representatives; they played a huge part in giving us advice and assistance as we worked our way through the submissions and those things that the people of Auckland felt were absolutely necessary. I thank the staff in the office of the Minister of Local Government because they played a big part as did the staff of my office. I thank them for the work and the hours that they have put in on behalf of the people of Auckland. 
We have already acknowledged the work done by Mark Ford and the Auckland Transition Agency but I add my thanks to that gentleman and to the people he has brought around him to make this whole thing function. Quite honestly I do not think we would have got here without the fine leadership that he and his team have given us. 
I also thank all the staff of the councils. It is a difficult time for them. Quite honestly I am pleasantly surprised at the way in which they have responded to the challenge of setting up this change which is the biggest change to local government in New Zealand. I also thank the mayors and the councillors for the work they have done. They could have been very difficult but in the main they have been supportive. Apart from the odd one ducking behind a tree every now and again they have actually been very supportive and very helpful. 
I am proud to have been involved with the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and all of its members. It has been a great privilege to work with the select committee and to have the opportunity to chair it. 
Finally as I say the last few words in the third readings of this legislation it needs to be acknowledged and recorded that I thank the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide. I thank Rodney for the energy the thought and the dedication he has put in. Pretty much every day he has been liaising with Mark Ford the Department of Internal Affairs and the people who matter in order to make this reorganisation work. He can stand proud and take a huge bow for the work and for the structure that we have delivered to Auckland on behalf of this Government. I am proud to stand beside Rodney Hide and all the members of this Government to deliver a structure to Auckland that will see it improve in the future and will make sure that the finest city in this country continues to be so. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bills read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 The House has made good progress on the Auckland governance legislation. I seek leave for the House to rise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.