Volume 618 Week 61 - Tuesday 29 June 2004 
Volume 618 Week 61 - Tuesday 29 June 2004 
[Volume:618;Page:13961] 
Tuesday 29 June 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Personal Explanations 
Scampi Fishery—Allegations 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Allegations were made against me during my absence from New Zealand last week. Those allegations are baseless and ridiculous and I immediately instructed my legal counsel to take action seeking damages and costs from those organisations and individuals who promulgated those allegations. Accordingly papers were lodged in the High Court in Auckland today seeking damages and costs from Television New Zealand Radio New Zealand Yvonne Dossetter Ken Shirley MP and David Carter MP. Those who would publish or repeat such allegations either do not know me or know nothing of what I have achieved in my political career. My only other comment is to say: 
Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something nothing; 
’Twas mine ’tis his and has been slave to thousands;  
But he that filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him 
And makes me poor indeed. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Corrections to Answers 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance in a matter for which I would like some redress. It concerns an answer given in this House on 25 May by the Hon Pete Hodgson Minister of Transport. During the course of question No. 7 that day he claimed that the numbers I had used for the amount of money that had been spent on new State highways and local roads in the Auckland area were incorrect—“in error” were his words. Mr Speaker at the time when I raised it you told me it was a debatable point but I have to say that any mathematician I have spoken to knows that whether one number is bigger or smaller than another is not debatable. Given that those numbers were provided by the Minister himself in answer to questions for written answer Nos 628 to 632 I then took a breach of privilege case to you but you have declined to act on it. I now seek your guidance on how I can have this matter corrected as the figures do show that the amount of money spent on new roading in the last year of the National Government was higher in real dollar terms than the amount spent in any year since that time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If a member disputes the accuracy of a question that is a matter for debate. This issue is still a matter for debate. [ 
Interruption 
] If I hear any comment like that the member will leave the Chamber. I rule having taken careful advice on issues and I make sure I do that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I seek leave then to table both the letters I wrote to you which include in great colour tables and graphs showing that the expenditure was higher in National’s last year in Government. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to give us a bit of a stronger lead on what we are supposed to do if we know in fact that a Minister is dodging the effect of a question by choosing to give information to the House that is patently incorrect. We understand that the only recourse we have is to seek a privilege hearing. But if matters of privilege are going to be thrown away on the basis that they have been brought on a debating point then effectively question time is not worth having. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say to the member that I inspect every breach of privilege allegation very carefully and take very careful advice from experts on the subject. I determined that there was no breach. That is where the matter ends. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I want to seek the leave of the House and let me explain very briefly what it is about. There has been a number of occasions recently—which are becoming more regular—when the answers given by Ministers have been inaccurate. The Standing Orders state that Ministers have to come down at the first possible opportunity and make those corrections to the House. The consequence of that is that the member who asked the question often is not here when the corrected answer is given. As a consequence I seek leave that we suspend the Standing Orders so that Ministers when they make any correction to answers that were given incorrectly give those corrections at the beginning of the next question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to suspend the Standing Orders. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
Parole Board—Confidence 
1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he have full confidence in the Parole Board; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In most respects. Both the Minister of Corrections and I have however foreshadowed a review of some aspects of the Parole Board and of home detention as introduced in 1999 by the very member who is asking this question. I do have confidence that the Parole Act of 2002 gives a very clear direction to the Parole Board that the safety of the community should be the paramount consideration in every decision and that an inmate who poses an undue risk should not be released. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What was the Minister’s reaction to the comments of the chairman of the New Zealand Parole Board who yesterday indicated he was unaware that for most offenders on parole their parole amounts to nothing more than weekly then very quickly monthly contact with their parole officer; and when the Minister appointed the Parole Board why did he not ensure that the board was properly briefed? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: My reaction to that comment is that the frequency with which the probation service will meet with the person who is on parole will depend on the risk that that released inmate is deemed to pose and also the amount of time that that person has been out in the community. The probation service sees every released person within 72 hours. That is what I am informed. It will then see the person weekly then fortnightly then monthly but that will vary according to the circumstances the perceived risk and the situation that the parolee is in. 
Tim Barnett 
: What actions have been taken around the ability of the Community Probation Service to carry out its role in terms of the implementation of Parole Board decisions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In Budget 2003 the Government voted more than $19 million over 2 years to boost the number of community probation officers by over 100—that is 22 percent—and to increase the training budget for Community Probation Service officers by over 80 percent. That resourcing was particularly important after many years of neglect of the service by the previous National Government. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister accept that it is the Government’s responsibility to appoint the Parole Board in terms of section 111 of the Act; and bearing in mind that the chairman of the Parole Board now says that he acts on the basis of taking risks when the Act itself makes it clear that risks should not be taken what steps will the Minister take to dissolve this board and appoint a new one? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Board is appointed by the Attorney-General for a term of office. I saw the transcript of the interview that the member refers to. The only form of risk that the Parole Board under law is able to take is to make an assessment as to whether the person to be released constitutes or not an “undue risk”. Anybody who constitutes an undue risk cannot by statute be released and I would be very concerned if the Parole Board were releasing any such person. But I do not think that that is what the judge was trying to say in the interview. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why should the Parole Board not insist on knowing that the probation service will reliably enforce and administer parole conditions before granting parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The role of the Parole Board if I can repeat it is to make an assessment as to whether the release of the person concerned would detrimentally affect the safety of the community and as to whether that person constitutes an undue risk. That is where the Parole Board’s responsibilities begin and end but there is nothing to stop the chair of the Parole Board asking the question of the Community Probation Service as to whether it is able to deal with the conditions set down. I would imagine that the Department of Corrections would advise the Parole Board if it were not able to do that. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister believe that the New Zealand public have been given any reason at all for maintaining confidence in New Zealand’s parole process given that we have an 86 percent recidivism rate in 5 years that recently there was an admission that the legality of 220 parole hearings needs to be reviewed and that we now hear from the board chairman—in a confirmation of our worst fears—that the board takes risks about whether the people released on parole are properly monitored; and does he think it is acceptable that the victims of the crimes involved are left without any reassurance that their concerns are being given the respect they deserve? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly the Parole Board must take into account whether the release of the inmate would affect detrimentally the safety of any individual. That usually means the victim. Indeed the Parole Board will often set in place an order that requires the offender not to go anywhere near the victim. With regard to the oversight by the Community Probation Service of the person on parole I say that that is the role of the service itself. Although that is not my responsibility as Minister of Justice I am informed that the probation service believes that the extra resources that it has and its additional training will make a huge difference in how the service is able to look after people on parole. 
But I go right back to the beginning: the Parole Board should not release anyone who is deemed to be an undue risk. The statute is absolutely clear in contrast with the previous statute which just said the Parole Board could release anybody it thought should be released. Now the board is given a very clear direction by this Parliament. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: With reference to the Minister’s answer to my first supplementary question in which parts of the Parole Board or its performance does he not have confidence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The area that the Minister of Corrections and I have already drawn attention to is the ability of the Parole Board to communicate with the public. It very much needs to be improved so that there is transparency and accountability. That is what the review is about. 
Stephen Franks 
: Referring to the Minister’s answer previously—that the Parole Board need not satisfy itself about the performance of the probation service—how can the board be confident about the risk presented by any offender given that it moderates that risk with conditions and if it has not inquired about and does not know the reliability and performance of the probation service? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Board will of course be informed by the Department of Corrections if there is anything that is set down as a condition of parole that the Community Probation Service is not able to carry out effectively. Obviously with the additional resources the service will be able to do that job much better than it has ever been able to do in the past. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In light of the fact that the vast majority of offenders released on parole reoffend how does monthly contact with a parole officer stop an offender on parole committing more crime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member looks at the annual report of the Department of Corrections for the last year—the most recent that is available—he will see that those people who are released on discretionary parole have the lowest rate of reoffending of any category set out there. Corrective training the one area that people used to be sentenced to and which the member insisted on keeping in place when he was in Government had a reoffending rate of about 92 percent I think it was within a year. That is how good the National Government was! 
Heather Roy 
: What proportion of paroled offenders fail to comply with all the conditions of their parole as it is easy enough to find out what happens after parole according to the Minister? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Looking at just one aspect of where the Parole Board directs people to—that is home detention— 
Stephen Franks 
: Not all of them. What proportion? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member wants to ask a question I suggest he takes the call instead of interrupting the answer I am trying to give to his colleague. If she looks at the question of home detention she will see that the reoffending rate on home detention is about 1.9 percent. Let me make this point clear to the member who asked the question: if somebody breaches the conditions of his or her parole that person would be immediately recalled as Justice Ellis said yesterday. The board would recall that person “at the drop of a hat”. That was the term used by Justice Ellis. 
Heather Roy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear but was not addressed at all by the Minister. It was: “What proportion of paroled offenders fail to comply with all the conditions of their parole?” and then I followed it with a comment that he himself had made. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister responded with a comment that got to the first part of the question. I invite him to continue. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I point out that I am not the Minister of Corrections so I am not responsible for parole matters. Therefore I cannot give those specific answers. If the member wants those answers she should direct the question to the appropriate Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister more concerned about the spin that the Parole Board puts around its decisions than he is about explaining the very poor and sporadic level of supervision of quite serious offenders on parole? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not in the least concerned about the spin the member alleges the Parole Board puts out. What I am concerned about is that when the Parole Board is asked why an individual has been deemed not to constitute an undue risk a clear answer should be given. What I have to say about the supervision aspect that the member raised is that we increased staffing by 22 percent and training by 80 percent—so what does that say about the state of the department that that member left to the successor Government? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How long has the Minister himself known that parole for most offenders amounts to sporadic contact with their parole officers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I said in my initial answer to the member that depends on the level of need and risk that the Community Probation Service deems to exist in relation to the particular individual. Can I say further that one marked change that will make a real difference—and is in a bill before this Parliament—is electronic monitoring which will certainly help with the surveillance of people released on parole. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked a specific question. The Minister wants to address that part of the answer. I would appreciate it if he did so. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was under the impression that I had answered the member’s question but if there is some aspect that he wants to ask again then I am happy to hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can restate the question. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How long has the Minister himself known that for most offenders on parole their parole amounts to sporadic supervision by the authorities? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I answered that question. I said that the degree of supervision depends on the nature of the person on parole and if that person needs regular contact he or she will get it. That is the answer I gave the member the first time. It did answer his question. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order—I am sorry was Mr Ryall about to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member called a point of order and he was the first to call. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Speaker you know that it is customary that if one is seeking to table documents then one does so after the final supplementary question. I was not sure whether Mr Ryall was seeking a further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member have another supplementary question? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No Mr Speaker it is a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In that case I was correct. 
Ron Mark 
: In light of the Minister’s comments that if offenders who breach parole or home detention are recalled at the drop of a hat I seek leave to table answers to written questions from Ministers that show quite clearly that people who breach home detention and parole are not necessarily charged and that some who are charged and convicted are given community service. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those answers. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I seek leave to table the record of Justice Ellis who said that one of the important things to remember is that a significant part of the parole system is the ability to recall and that that is done at the drop of a hat and on very slight misdemeanours. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
District Health Boards—Funding Petition 
2.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she going to act on the call of 125000 New Zealanders who have signed a petition calling on the Government to fund district health boards so they can pay nurses fairly and ensure safe staffing levels; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I understand the petition is yet to be tabled in Parliament. I will await the select committee deliberations and the Cabinet consideration of any recommendations from the committee. However I can say that this Government wants New Zealand to be a place where we can all work for fair pay. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that the gender pay gap in the health sector is 36 percent and given this will she commit to addressing the pay gap in this financial year commencing with a pay equity settlement for nurses? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think it is well known that there is a pay gap for many women in New Zealand. No the Government will not have a pay equity settlement in this year but it has made it clear that it is committed to pay equity. As the Prime Minister said yesterday nurses are at the early stage of salary negotiations. They are also mindful that following the review of pay equity issues in the public sector the Government is looking at a process of moving them forward from there and that is what will happen. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: What increase has there been in the numbers of nurses employed in district health boards under this Government? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Under this Government nursing fulltime-equivalents for all district health boards have increased by over 17 percent. 
Barbara Stewart 
: If money is to be made available to district health boards to pay nurses fairly and ensure safe staffing levels will she ensure that the money is dedicated to addressing only the nurses’ pay and cannot be used by district health boards to address perceived shortfalls in other areas? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am pleased to say that the perceived shortfalls are far less than they were with the district health boards coming in on target in terms of the predicted deficit. However any pay equity claim that is made and settled in the future would be settled on nurses’ pay. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree with the three in four New Zealanders who have said in polls that they believe nurses should earn at least as much as teachers police and junior doctors; if so where is the money to back up such a commitment? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said in my primary answer the Government has committed itself to pay equity in the public sector. In terms of preparing a pay equity claim nurses are already the first out of the blocks. That claim will be addressed in terms of the pay equity criteria that will be established. The money for that would then be the responsibility of the Government as a whole. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is she aware of the large amount of research that shows that nurse staffing levels directly affect patient safety and health; if so why is the hospital system still 2000 nurses short? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is certainly dispute about the shortage figure of 2000. However I can tell that member that we are encouraging boards to work with their clinical staff to ensure appropriate staffing levels. However as the Royal College of Nursing noted last year the capacity of the nursing workforce to provide good quality care does not depend solely on the number of staff. Other considerations such as organisational culture and clinical leadership are of fundamental importance as well. 
Economy—Reports 
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The May trade balance out yesterday showed a surplus of $656 million. That is some seven times the $91 million figure economists were expecting. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 described it as whopping and said it continued a string of dazzling economic news. The reference list to the March quarter current account and gross domestic product figures released last week shows both of those are also at the top end of or above market expectations. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What further reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I was delighted to see yesterday that the leader of the National Party was forced on the back of that data to stop the Jeremiah act and to concede the economy was “going well”. That was after moaning in his Budget speech and around the country that Government policies were destroying growth. I hope that he is feeling very uncomfortable about that. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister believe that the recent growth rate is primarily as a result of the policies of this Government or of those of the Governments of the 1980s and the 1990s and if he does think it is primarily as a result of the actions of this Government could he possibly give the House an indication of when it is likely that New Zealand will achieve the Government’s stated goal of getting back into the top half of the OECD? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am pleased to say that we are already in the top half of the OECD on more than two-thirds of all the social indices. That is what actually counts for many New Zealanders. It is of course the story from the National Party that this Government has merely been lucky. If we are always lucky then I invite New Zealanders to continue to vote for luck rather than the ill luck that has always dogged Dr Brash during his career. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not really ask the Minister that question. I asked him whether he could give us an indication of when this Government would get us back into the top half of the OECD. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address that part of the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware amongst all those reports of for example the Singaporean people exporting $65000 per capita per annum against New Zealand’s under-$8000 per annum or of the Irish economy last year coming in at $159 billion in exports as opposed to New Zealand’s $29 billion; and amongst those figures what would disguise the fact that we are heading for the Third World? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For the last 3 years we have had one of the highest growth rates in the First World not the Third World. We are catching up. Our exports are higher per capita than those of for example Australia or the United States. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Minister of Finance sought any reports on the increased growth and prosperity of the New Zealand economy that would occur on the introduction of a low flat rate of tax; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If ACT’s new leader cares to write to me giving his permission I would be very happy to run through the Treasury taxation model ACT’s proposal to give a $6.5 billion tax cut with no corresponding reduction in expenditure and to model that through. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that a two-speed economy remains in New Zealand; if so given the favourable economic conditions that currently exist will he now concentrate on addressing the ongoing problems hindering our export economy—for example the remaining $4 million charge on exports that is to be imposed with the bill that is No. 2 on today’s Order Paper? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Our exports run into tens of billions of dollars a year. Even the gloomiest of New Zealand’s business commentators would not believe that a $4 million impost would ruin that exporting success. I remind the member that the May figures just out showed a very substantial trade surplus. 
Parole Board—Review 
4.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Will he ensure that the announced review of the Parole Board considers whether punishment should be part of the Parole Board’s consideration when deciding on parole and did he expect that punishment would be taken into account when he promoted the Parole Act 2002? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. The amount of punishment a crime warrants is determined by the sentencing judge. It is reflected in the overall sentence length and the minimum non-parole period a judge may impose under section 86 of the Sentencing Act if he or she believes the statutory minimum will represent insufficient punishment. It is not the job of the Parole Board to re-sentence offenders. 
Stephen Franks 
: Now that the chairman of the Parole Board has confirmed that punishment is no part of the Parole Board’s role will the Minister support my Supplementary Order Paper to ensure that parole decisions do not turn the Sentencing Act criteria into an elaborate charade? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No for the reasons I gave in replying to the member’s primary question. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What guidance is given to the sentencing judge in respect of how long the sentence should be and whether a longer period beyond the statutory minimum should be set before parole can be considered? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Section 7 of the Sentencing Act sets out guidance as to the things a judge must consider in determining the severity of a sentence and punishment. They include denouncing the conduct deterring the offender protecting the community and providing for the interests of the victim. Section 86 allows the court to order that up to two-thirds of the sentence must be served as a minimum to achieve greater punishment greater denunciation and greater deterrence. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What legislative provision is there to ensure that early consideration for parole is not given in the case of the worst offences such as murder especially those where there are aggravating factors? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Sentencing Act provides that those guilty of murder will not be considered for parole before a standard 10-year period but where there are aggravating factors the minimum period must begin at 17 years. Just a few years ago the standard non-parole period for all murders was 7 years which contrasts with the non-parole periods now being given of up to 28 and 30 years. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister think the chairman of the Parole Board is right to say that the board does not and should not give any weight to victims’ views on whether a court-ordered sentence should be cut short; if not will he urgently change the law to allow the board to have regard to the thing that most concerns victims—that is that a fair punishment is served? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Of course the member has not characterised accurately what the judge said yesterday. I can table in the House what the judge said yesterday for members’ benefit and in order to avoid going through all the detail but he did say for example that in some instances a considerable amount of weight is given to the victim’s statement to the Parole Board—for example when indicating there is no contrition on the part of the offender which would automatically make that offender an undue risk. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did this Minister change the law so that a rapist sentenced to 9 years in jail can apply for parole at only one-third of the sentence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I changed the law first of all because under the member’s previous law any rapist was automatically released at two-thirds of the sentence regardless of risk. Yes that was the case—regardless of risk. Under the current law the judge can determine that the minimum period before parole can even be considered for anybody committing that offence be two-thirds of the sentence. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister recall that New Zealand First opposed this Minister’s change to the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act in 2002 on the grounds that this Minister’s law is soft on law and order and allows people to get out of jail a lot earlier than New Zealand First would require which would be at a time much closer to the end of their sentence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What I do recall is that inmates now can be kept in prison to the very last day of their sentence. That was never the case. I do recall that New Zealand First did not oppose automatic release at two-thirds of a sentence. That has been changed. If the law is so damn soft why is it that prison figures are to rise by 20 percent by 2010 when the crime rate is down by 13.8 percent? Those are independent police figures. There is a 13.8 percent reduction in the crime rate since 1997. 
Simon Power 
: Crime is going up. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Members may baybut they cannot deny the facts put out by the police. 
Drugs—Mental Illness 
5.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement that “We need to face the fact that drug taking is widely accepted as a trigger for suicide by some people with mental illness.”; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I do. There is a wide base of evidence that supports it both nationally and internationally. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister seen the reports showing that all three suicide cases before the Coroner’s Court in Tauranga last month tested positive for cannabis and that the coroner believes that virtually all of the 13 suicides dealt with so far this year in the Tauranga region had some connection with cannabis use; if so is he concerned that the Government’s soft harm minimisation approach is simply not enough to prevent further deaths? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have seen those reports and they are concerning. I have always advocated a precautionary approach with regard to policy initiatives around all drug use including alcohol and tobacco and I would like to see all parties in Parliament embrace this approach. Evidence shows that alcohol and other drug use including cannabis appears to increase the risk of suicide among some people in two ways: first the short-term effects of intoxication increase the likelihood of impulsive behaviour including suicide; secondly through the indirect effects of longer-term use and dependency resulting in increased stress triggering or exacerbating existing mental disorders. 
Dianne Yates 
: Given the Minister’s statement what are the Government and the Minister doing to combat the present situation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As part of this coalition Government as leader of the Progressive Party I recently secured just over $20 million for initiatives aimed at preventing drug abuse and suicide. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What did it cost for the pamphlets? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Suicide and drug abuse cost the taxpayer a lot more than $20 million. One of these initiatives is aimed at depression the mental illness most associated with suicide with an eight times higher rate than for those in the general population not suffering from depression. Depression is the largest single risk factor for suicide. Another initiative is the establishment of a residential treatment centre in the central region for youth with alcohol and drug abuse problems similar to the one in Christchurch that I achieved funding for last year. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Has the Minister seen the research on suicide recently published in the medical journal  
The Lancet 
 by Ronald Maris which states: “Alcoholism seems an important risk factor for suicide” but notes that evidence on other substances is inconclusive and does he therefore think that those who want to maintain the criminalisation of personal use of cannabis while supporting the aggressive promotion of alcohol on television for example are hypocrites? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The abuse of all drugs including alcohol is a serious factor in mental health and suicide issues. I am happy to look at the article the member has indicated but I am relying on three New Zealand studies two by Dr Annette Beautrais and one by Professor David Fergusson and three international studies—one United States one Australian and one UK— that all point to suicide being exacerbated by the use of drugs and alcohol. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What is the evidence on which the Minister has based his statement? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I indicated to the House that there are six significant studies—three New Zealand and three international—and there are many more and I am happy to table those studies subsequently so that other members may access them if they wish to. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister concerned that efforts to provide credible messages about drug-related harm and the link between cannabis use and heightened suicide risk are being undermined by irresponsible statements made by groups such as NORML New Zealand the ideological cousins of the Green Party that “People who attempt or commit suicide have a high rate of using cannabis but that does not mean cannabis has caused their distressed state rather cannabis may be a therapeutic tool that offers some escape.”; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have no ministerial responsibility for statements like that and I agree that they are concerning. The Government has taken a precautionary approach to the link between drug and alcohol abuse and suicide and I recommend that precautionary approach to all members of the House. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that people who have never tried drugs are nevertheless capable of explaining to young people the potential danger of drug use or does he agree with the comment that current drug users have more credibility when promoting the dangers of taking drugs because: “Saying that drug users can’t provide education to others about how to use drugs safely and responsibly is like saying only an atheist can give spiritual advice.” or asking: “Can only a celibate teach sex education?” as claimed by Green MP Nandor Tanczos? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was too long a question. The Minister can comment briefly on the first part. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have never advocated that if one has not experienced some serious physical or mental disorder one is not capable of commenting on the serious nature of those disorders so I could not subscribe to the proposition that because one has not experienced something one is not able to comment on it with any authority. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware of the study by the Canterbury Suicide Project which found that when factors such as socio-economic status abuse behavioural problems and mental health problems were taken into account there was barely any association between cannabis and suicide and does he accept there is a difference between correlation and causality? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There are a number of associations with social and economic deprivation as well as drug and alcohol abuse in terms of suicide. But I tell the member again that a precautionary approach seems the most responsible approach to take. If we take a precautionary response to issues like genetic engineering for example I would have thought a precautionary approach to drug and alcohol abuse and suicide would have been equally valid. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister concerned that credible messages about drug-related harm such as the link between cannabis use and suicide risk are being undermined by statements made by groups such as NORML New Zealand such as: “The mental health of all cannabis users is threatened more by the current law than by the use of cannabis itself. The criminal law generates paranoia suspicion alienation and anxiety.” and would he endorse this kind of comment as a suitable premise for the drug education of our young people—a position equally espoused by the Greens? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have already commented on similar comments that the member has read out to the House. Again I am not responsible for them. I think that most common-sense New Zealanders would size up those comments and compare them against their experience of this matter and they would know on which side of the fence they fell on that one. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I seek leave to table some excerpts on a study on suicide by Ronald Maris published in  
The Lancet 
 in 2002. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I seek leave to table the documentation around six primary sources of evidence for suicides in New Zealand. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Prisoner's Release Nelson—Eligibility 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Was Arthur Alexander Gray’s original sentence of imprisonment taken into account before he was released under probation supervision in Nelson last year and subsequently attempted to kill two backpackers? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am advised that Arthur Alexander Gray was released from prison at his statutory release date. There was no discretion about his release. He was not released to the backpackers hostel in Nelson. Gray made contact with the Nelson probation office after moving from Auckland and finding his own accommodation. He had told the backpackers hostel owner about his background. The probation officer met with the owners and also informed the police of Gray’s whereabouts. Alternative accommodation was being sought when the subsequent offending occurred. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister of Corrections aware that Arthur Gray who was jailed for aggravated robbery and who killed an inmate whilst in Paremoremo prison had been paroled only 11 days prior to his vicious attack on Tobias Sieber; if he is what confidence does he have in firstly the Parole Board to protect the public from vicious criminals and secondly the rehabilitation programmes that we are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for and that clearly do not work? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I repeat that the Parole Board had no discretion as to whether to release Mr Gray. To keep him longer would have been to retain him beyond the period of his sentence. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that offenders who are released from prison are adequately resettled back into the community so as to reduce their chances of reoffending? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: My colleague the Minister of Corrections has recently announced in this year’s Budget additional funding for reintegration. An extra $1.25 million has now been made available for offender reintegration and this will rise to $1.4 million in July 2005. This funding is to pilot new resettlement initiatives aimed at ensuring that inmates are given the best chance of rehabilitation upon release by being assisted with obtaining such things as stable accommodation and employment. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does she believe that Arthur Alexander Gray convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 9 years in jail should be entitled to apply for parole after only 3 years? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: May I repeat that in fact the Parole Board had no discretion. Mr Gray had completed his sentence and therefore the law required him to be released. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister was confused. I was referring to his current sentence. He is now in jail for 9 years but under the Government’s law is entitled to apply for parole after only 3 years and that is what I was asking the Minister about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point. The Minister might like to answer that. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes Mr Speaker. I apologise for misunderstanding the member’s question. There is of course no obligation for parole to be given after he has served that period and in these circumstances of course the Parole Board will take into account that Gray’s sentences does reflect that he is a risk to the community. 
Ron Mark 
: Why will this Government not accept and implement the very popular and sensible New Zealand First policies that include— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member please come to the question. That is a little bit of extra fact that he does not need to add to render the question intelligible. Would he now ask the question. 
Ron Mark 
: —“three strikes and you’re out” and a requirement for violent and dangerous offenders to demonstrate their rehabilitation before they are even considered for parole; or do we all simply have to live in hope that the Government gets things right? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think the Minister of Justice in the House today has very ably outlined the policies that the Government is pursuing. I would make just one other comment and that is that anyone who has studied the “three strikes and you’re out” policy that is in effect in California should think again. 
Marc Alexander 
: Will the Minister in respect of the original question give the House an assurance that the Department of Corrections will not allow any more paroled criminals to be placed in backpackers hostels amongst unsuspecting travellers as was revealed by the Minister of Corrections and by the Department of Corrections Chief Executive Mark Byers at last week’s Law and Order Committee; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As indicated it is desirable that those released on parole find appropriate accommodation. I would point out of course that 0.25 percent of people have been placed or have placed themselves in backpackers hostels—that is three out of a muster of 1200 have had that accommodation. 
Lake Rotoiti—Water Quality 
7.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What action has the Government taken to help fix the problem with Lake Rotoiti water quality? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Minister of Health and I announced central government funding of $7.2 million towards improving Lake Rotoiti water quality. We are spending $4 million on urgent remedial engineering works and a further $3.2 million for reticulated sewerage to avoid leaching from septic tanks into the lake. The local and regional councils are sharing the total costs. These short-term measures should result in a marked and quick improvement in the lake’s water quality. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What factors led the Government to approve this funding? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The recent decline in Lake Rotoiti poses a threat to people’s health and New Zealand’s image as a tourist destination. These economic and health effects justify this funding in advance of the Government’s water action programme which will identify waters of national importance and manage the effects of land use on water quality. The final factor was the strong advocacy from my colleagues Mita Ririnui on behalf of Te Arawa and Steve Chadwick on behalf of the Rotorua electorate. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that prevention of water pollution is always easier than restitution of water quality; if so what steps is she taking to limit intensification of dairying in sensitive catchments? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I could not agree more and that is the agreement we have reached with Fonterra to manage water runoff from land into catchment areas such as Lake Taupo Waikato River and lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti. 
Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology—Investigations 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: Has he had any advice from Ministry of Education officials about their role in the alleged conflict of interest situation at Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology currently being investigated by the Office of the Auditor-General; if so what was that advice? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Acting Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): 
 I have been advised by the Ministry of Education of three interactions between the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit and Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology on this matter. Firstly the unit was first informed of the business arrangements between the polytech and Brylton Software during a routine visit to the polytech on 27 November 2003. Secondly within days of the conflict of interest allegations being made public on 5 and 6 May the unit contacted management staff at the polytech to advise that they would need to ensure that their processes and procedures had been appropriate and sufficient. Thirdly the unit spoke to the acting chief executive of the polytech in the week of 24 May. She again confirmed that any potential conflicts of interest had been managed in the appropriate manner. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did ministry officials accept assurances from Christchurch Polytechnic regarding the conflict of interest when Vicki Buck the director of development at the polytech introduced her own private company to the polytech sat on a joint venture overseeing the contract between the polytech and her private company—a $15 million contract—and personally promoted the contracted courses in public; why did officials accept assurances in the light of that information? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Managing conflicts of interest is the primary obligation of the polytech not the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit. Also the facts that the member mentioned in his question are as I understand it to be established and are subject to an Auditor-General’s report. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What instructions has the Associate Minister given to the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Education about how such alleged conflicts of interest of staff members in State education institutions should be handled in the future or is the Associate Minister happy with how this case has been handled? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit does not have any specific audit functions. However as I understand it the chief executive did tell the select committee—and I would endorse this—that if the Auditor-General’s report does suggest or require that changes be made to the current practices then of course we will comply with those. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What are the role and function of the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit is responsible for managing the Government’s ownership interest in public tertiary education institutions. It monitors the viability of those institutions by providing early warning of potential risks and it intervenes in the event of poor financial management. It does not however have audit functions or audit powers. I am happy to table a description of the Tertiary Advisory Monitoring Unit’s roles and functions at the end of the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: What kind of ethical vacuum do the Minister’s officials operate in when they come across an arrangement whereby a senior public employee stands to gain personally millions of dollars from a contract she is overseeing with her own private company but those civil servants walk away with bland assurances; and if they were not meant to investigate it who was? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Again the member refers to facts that are yet to be established. They will be established in the Auditor-General’s report. In fact the Auditor-General’s report is the appropriate place for this matter to be decided. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister now saying it is the Auditor-General’s job to sort this out when the Government never sought the Auditor-General’s participation and in fact he is involved because I complained and the Christchurch Polytechnic council agreed; in the light of that which public agency is responsible for the ethics of private contracting in educational institutions? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said the primary obligation for managing conflicts of interest is on the council. My understanding is that it did in fact call in the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General before Mr English made his complaint and the two inquiries then became one. I think it is advisable that we wait for its report because then all the facts can be put on the table. 
Police—Staffing 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he confident that police staffing numbers are adequate; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 Generally yes because there are record numbers of police officers crime rates continue to fall and New Zealand has a crime-resolution rate that is amongst the best in the world. Part of the improvement in resolution rates is due to using non-sworn specialist forensic evidence - gathering teams such as those traditionally used in serious crimes including murder for a much wider range of crime. 
Ron Mark 
: If the Minister is accepting that the police are so over-worked and under-staffed that they need to hire civilians to do police work—civilians who dress like police and drive police cars but who are not police—why does he not simply recruit more police? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the first and shorter answer is that there are more police being recruited. The second answer is that any sane person would not send two sworn officers to a crime scene when they could be out arresting criminals and when there could be someone who is a trained forensic expert picking up the material that is more likely to result in convictions. It would take a nutter to promote something else. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Further to the Minister’s answers to both the primary and supplementary questions what recent scientific advances are police using to solve more crime? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Police use of new technology is making life harder for criminals although some people appear to want to be able to protect them. For example over 9000 samples have been added to the DNA database in the 12 months to March this year. Police now identify people from crime scenes where DNA is collected in nearly 50 percent of cases. There have also been 280000 palm prints added to the police computer-matching system with the projection that that will result in the resolution of from 7000 to 10000 cases. There are some people who are Neanderthals and who do not believe in that approach but this Government is tough on criminals—unlike members opposite. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Ron Mark 
: Even you Mr Speaker laughed at that answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I laughed at the fact that there was laughter on all sides. 
Ron Mark 
: Why does the Minister not accept that given the escalation in violent crime methamphetamine production immigrant crime and the number of dishonesty offences and emergency calls to communication centres rather than increasing the use of civilian staff he should just accept that the police are grossly under-staffed and commit to doubling the size of the police force—as New Zealand First would? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Between 1999 and 2003 on a population basis overall the number of dishonesty offences fell by 9.2 percent of reported burglaries by 20.9 percent of car conversions by 14.2 percent of fraud cases by 13.2 percent of receiving cases by 9.6 percent and of sexual assaults by 14.5 percent. There are some people who would have police officers put their size 12 shoes all over crime scenes but some of us want the evidence collected. 
Peter Brown 
: Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask Mr Brown whether this a supplementary question. 
Peter Brown 
: No it is not a supplementary question. I simply ask the Minister: what happened to violent crime—because he left that one out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That was a supplementary question and of course it has to be counted as one by the member’s side because it is about an extra area. I will allow the member that supplementary question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The figure I have on assaults shows a falling of 3.1 percent. People will also be interested that given the very good work that police are doing out and about on the roads in April and May we had the lowest road toll for decades— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Violent crime he said. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it might be that Opposition members do not like the police stopping members of the Mongrel Mob and Black Power in their cars. Opposition members do not like that approach. They say that they want to set up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —the traffic cop service again— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —but they are soft on crims— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I tell the Minister to sit down he sits down. He had his say and he went overboard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Peter Brown distinctly asked for the figures on violent crime. He got one snippet of that but a whole range of other violent crimes were left out. The Minister has provisioned himself with every fact in respect of his own answer that makes the Government look good. How about the facts that make the Government look as it really is—quite bad? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that the member asked a question and the Minister addressed it. 
Ron Mark 
: In light of the Minister’s comments I seek leave to table pages 18 and 19 of the Police statement of intent 2004-05 with the two graphs showing that since Labour came to Government crime in all categories has gone up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Whilst you were putting the leave the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister stated to the House that that statement of intent was fiction. If that is fiction then the Government has clearly misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard what was said. The word “conviction” not “fiction” was used. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Mark was just questioning your statement in that respect. He was mouthing at you I think “incredible”—I think that that was the word he was using. He is in no position to question your statement in that regard which I can confirm in every respect. It never occurs to people to work it out that convictions can go up when crimes are going down if we are catching more crims and prosecuting them successfully. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. I heard the interjection which strictly speaking during a point of order was out of order. I heard the interjection; I put what the member asked. There was objection to it being tabled but the interjection certainly was not what the member said it was. 
Tainui—West Coast Harbours and Waikato River 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Can she rule out ownership of the Waikato River and west coast harbours being transferred to Tainui as part of a settlement of its historical claims; if not how does she reconcile that with the Government’s assurances to other New Zealanders that the foreshore and seabed will be placed in Crown ownership? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 The foreshore and seabed will be placed in Crown ownership through the bill that is currently before the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. The settlement of historical claims is a matter of negotiation between Tainui and the Crown and those negotiations will not be conducted in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it true that Government Ministers and officials have had recent meetings with Tainui representatives and have assured them that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill will not be allowed to affect their historical treaty claims to the Waikato riverbed and west coast harbours and does that mean that parts of the foreshore and seabed could potentially fall into private Maori ownership even though the Government claims the Foreshore and Seabed Bill vests the foreshore and seabed in the Crown? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes there is no contradiction between the bill and also the pursuance of the settlement of historical grievances. In addressing the other part of the member’s question I think it may be useful to refer him to the document  
Healing the Past Building a Future 
 which sets out the Crown’s position and process on those matters and with the Speaker’s indulgence I would just like to read a very short passage in order to get that accurately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked for leave to be given to read a short passage. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that the background to this problem lies with the settlement between the then National Government and Tainui in May 1995 for which that Government gave Doug Graham a knighthood for doing it and Bill Birch a knighthood for paying for it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes it is undoubtedly true that the previous Government settled the easy bits and left the difficult bits for this Government. That is what National normally does. 
Mita Ririnui 
: What progress has been made in the negotiations with Tainui to settle its historical claims? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There are ongoing discussions between Crown officials and representatives of the Tainui iwi focusing on issues around mandating and the Crown’s preference to deal with comprehensive claims from large natural groups. To date no mandating document has been received by the Government. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister tell the House when the policy decision was taken to transfer fee simple title over water bodies to tangata whenua such asthe return of Okahu Bay to NgatiWhatua and of Lake Ellesmere to KaiTahu as part of their negotiated treaty settlements; and has that policy now changed? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is true that the previous Government in settling the NgaiTahu claim had no difficulty at all in transferring ownership of those matters; nor did it in the matter of Lake Taupo. In terms of the policy changing no there is no change in policy. We negotiate with the claimants and on the basis of those negotiations come to a fair settlement. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can any New Zealander have confidence that should the Foreshore and Seabed Bill pass substantial parts of the New Zealand coastline will remain in Crown ownership when today she has told the House she is in negotiations to deliver some of the seabed and foreshore of this country into private Maori ownership? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I did not say that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We should be able to get from Ministers good information that leads to other questions. In that answer the Minister said that negotiations between the Crown and Tainui are continuing over that matter. The question came from Mita Ririnui. The Minister had previously said she would not reveal the content of the negotiations or have matters negotiated in the House. I simply asked whether that was effectively what was happening and the Minister gave a very bland answer like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. The Minister denied the member’s premise and that is an answer. 
State Housing—Elderly 
11.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received on security and affordability of housing for elderly New Zealanders living in State houses? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: I have received reports focusing on the fact that 300 Housing New Zealand tenants have been in a particular house for 50 years or more and stating quite categorically that that is “unacceptable”. What the report did not say was that these people are generally in their 80s—honest decent New Zealanders in their twilight years—who are proud to call a State house their home. If the policy were implemented it would see these people dumped on the street as they simply could not afford a new house. I am shocked that our senior citizens are being attacked in this way by the Hon David Carter on behalf of the National Party. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister received on housing security for vulnerable New Zealanders? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have received further reports that State house tenants with substantial assets or income should be told to move. I was particularly interested in those reports for three reasons. Firstly 90 percent of all State house tenants are on income-related rents as their income is low. The remaining 10 percent pay market rents. Secondly higher-income earners were the very people who were encouraged into State houses by the previous National Government’s policy. Thirdly this proposal appears to be yet another policy flip-flop for Don Brash whose party encourages those people into State houses now and wants them out later. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of the Minister’s answer he has no responsibility for. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister think it is desirable to trap people in welfare dependency by abolishing the previous Government’s home-buy scheme thereby denying a State house tenant in Manurewa currently earning over $80000 a year the opportunity of purchasing that State house and making it his own? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: This party does encourage people into buying houses and this is why we have a relationship with Kiwibank. But what this Government will not do is have the mass sell-off of State houses undertaken by the National Party—13000 State houses sold off and that party opposite cries crocodile tears about the people who cannot get a State house. There are fewer of them because of the 13000 State houses sold off by the National Party. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister accept that State housing overall including State housing for the elderly is in decline as a proportion of the overall rental market and does he realise that the decline in social housing combined with increases in the accommodation supplement is simply pushing up rents around the country? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I accept that there is a decline in the number of State houses as a proportion of the total amount of houses. I do accept that homeownership is a declining option for many people. What this Government is intent on doing is increasing the stock of houses as fast as it can so that those people who cannot afford a rental house can be taken care of by the State system. I have to say that it will take a long time to claw back the 13000 houses sold by the National Party. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the quite excellent press release from National’s housing spokesperson setting out National’s disappointment that so many people are in State houses for so long in contradiction to the claims made by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What are implications for elderly State house tenants of the policy suggestion that it is “unacceptable” for them to remain in their homes unless they buy them? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Clearly the implication of such a policy suggestion is that elderly State house tenants will be forced from their homes as they are unlikely to have the cash to buy them. Even though this Government has reversed the pension cuts the previous National Government made the relatively modest level of income for those on the basic pension means that they will be unable to purchase their houses. State house tenants are on clear notice that in the unlikely event that those making these unacceptable suggestions—the National Party—were to be elected into Government their homes would be gone by lunchtime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was going too far. 
Aquaculture—Moratorium 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Can he confirm existing marine-farming consent applications halted for over 2½ years by the aquaculture moratorium may now be thwarted in favour of the allocation to iwi of 20 percent of marine-farming space; if so does he regard the Government’s proposal as fair to everyone? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 In answer to the first question no there was never any certainty that applications put on hold would either succeed or be incorporated into future aquaculture management areas. In answer to the second question yes the proposal is fair to everyone. In the words of the  
Dominion Post  
of 24 June “The proposed solution is … a fair compromise. The 20 per cent figure is a proxy for the ‘spatial’ component of marine farming in line with the 20 per cent of quota given to Maori in National’s September 1992 fisheries settlement.” 
Phil Heatley 
: Will those marine farmers who have put their business plans on hold for now 2½ years because of the moratorium and who now lose out in favour of the iwi quota of 20 percent receive any form of compensation from the Government; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government will be taking no steps to interfere in people’s private commercial decisions. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Has the Minister received any reports of the industry’s response to the Government’s marine-farming proposals? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes the industry has responded very positively. For example in Saturday’s  
Marlborough Express 
 the general manager of the Port Mussel Company Terry Schwass was quoted as saying: “The Government has picked the best options of the alternatives available and if it means we can move forward as an industry then it is a good start.” 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: How will the decision as to which iwi whanau or hapu receive the 20 percent allocation be made and how long does he envisage that will take? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: As Mr Eckhoff will be aware if he has read the background material that decision is yet to be made but the allocation proposal if Cabinet makes a final decision to proceed in this direction will be made by Te Ohu Kai Moana with the final approval of that process to be given by the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister not consider a 2½ year moratorium to be interfering in commercial decisions and does the Minister concede that robbing Peter to pay Paul is inherently unfair to all currently involved in the aquaculture industry including iwi who themselves have had applications held up by the moratorium and iwi who are currently involved in the industry on their own merit and independent of a Government handout? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I consider the Government’s approach a sensible way in the first place to avoid poor use of our valuable environmental space—in this case marine space—and secondly no one is being robbed. This is a sensible compromise to complete the business that that member’s Government left unfinished in 1992. 
Relationships (Statutory References) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 24 June. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 In support of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I point out that the legislation meets obligations agreed to by this Parliament just over a decade ago. In 1993 this Parliament debated the Human Rights Bill which introduced significant changes to our human rights framework. I was extremely proud to be a member of this House on the day that bill was passed. I am the first to acknowledge it was a National Government Minister’s name that appeared on the bill that made it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital status and another National Government Minister’s name that appeared on the Supplementary Order Paper that extended the grounds of unlawful discrimination to include sexual orientation. I take my hat off to both those members and other members of the National Government of the day. The human rights legislation did a lot more than that of course but it is very relevant to the bill that is before us today. 
My pride in being an MP that day came in part from the fact that MPs from different sides of the political spectrum joined across that spectrum in order to do the right thing. Now by enabling a free vote on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill individual MPs across the political spectrum can again provide real meaning to the decision that took effect 10 years ago this year. 
The Human Rights Act contained a sunset clause. A period of 5 years was allowed to the Government of the day to assess the variety of statutes that contained discriminatory provisions and to make a decision about each—namely to repeal the provision to amend the provision or indeed to continue the discrimination if there was good cause to do so. If I were to express disappointment in the former National Government it would be that it failed to meet the time frame set by the legislation which is why two separate amending bills had to be introduced—one in 1998 and the other in 2001. 
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill generally provides that the law will be neutral in respect of relationships. As I said before the prohibited grounds of discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation were decided 10 years ago. We are not revisiting that issue today. We are introducing a bill that will take us through the process of determining how to address our obligations which we have already entered into as a Parliament. This bill promotes all three options. It contains repeal it contains amendment and by way of omission it allows for the retention of discriminatory pieces of legislation. 
There are other issues that have not been dealt with in this bill because they are being dealt with in the context of specific law reform measures. An example is the spousal immunity provision contained in the Evidence Act. That measure will be addressed in the reform of evidence law which the Government will be introducing later this year. For those members who were at my wedding they will know how distressed I am at knowing that that provision in the Evidence Act may be disappearing from our books. 
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill contains both minor and significant changes. I guess the most significant ones relate to the next-of-kin examples we hear about in the media where the next of kin has been denied the ability to be part of the most crucial aspect of his or her partner's life—in fact the ending of someone's life—at the time of death. For example the Burial and Cremation Act provides only for a husband or wife to be buried with each other. There is no provision for somebody in a de facto relationship same-sex relationship or otherwise to be buried with his or her partner. “Lifelong” does not matter how long a couple has been together; it does not count. This Relationships (Statutory References) Bill says that lifelong does count it does matter so the bill resolves that very serious anomaly in the law. 
Another really significant change in the bill relates to benefit rules which at the moment recognise opposite-sex de facto relationships but not same-sex de facto relationships. I believe that while the State does not provide a mechanism for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships then discrimination is justified. How could we say that a lesbian couple or a gay couple were not entitled to treat themselves under the law as separate and individual when the law does not recognise their relationship or give them a mechanism for recognising their relationship in any legal sense? So the provision of this civil union legislation resolves that issue. It does not matter whether individuals take up the option of civil union. The fact that the State has provided recognition for same-sex relationships addresses that matter. 
The laws to be amended by this bill largely proceed the obligation to make the law neutral on the question of marital status and sexual orientation. I do pay tribute to those who were in Parliament in 1993 and who voted to enable the law to be changed in order that this human rights measure could be put in place. It is time to face up to our responsibility to meet the obligations that were passed by this Parliament just over a decade ago. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I appreciate this opportunity to explain my personal concerns regarding this bill which United Future is treating as a conscience vote. The Prime Minister was quoted in the 11 February issue of  
Express 
 magazine as saying: “The omnibus bill will take out any discrimination so the Marriage Act will not have any practical effect. In essence we are carrying on the work started in the Property Relations Bill.” The omnibus bill she was referring to is now called the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and she is right—this bill will make the Marriage Act have no practical effect. 
My first question in relation to this legislation is where the Government’s mandate is to make marriage have no practical effect. Did the Labour Party campaign in 2002 with a promise that if it were elected it would remove any distinction in law for marriage so that it would have no practical effect? Was that one of its credit-card promises? No. Was that in its printed manifesto that I have here? No. All that Labour can claim is that it was on its website under “Rainbow Policy”. How will a dear sweet old lady know about this sinister plot if she has to get a computer and learn about websites to find out what the Government’s plans are? Even on that website there is no mention of making marriage having no practical effect. Something with no practical effect has become useless in anyone’s interpretation and I for one will not support this legislation. 
It is clear that a Government does have a responsibility to provide laws to enable the just and equitable outworking of many relationships in society. These vary from the relationship of marriage to employer versus employee client versus customer teacher versus student male versus female child versus parent Maori versus Pakeha new immigrant versus established Kiwi young versus old able versus disabled and a host of other relationships that we tend to take for granted. Many of those relationships require different treatment by law within the context of an equality of human rights. This bill seeks to treat marriage de facto and same-sex relationships as equivalent for the purposes of pensions social security taxation next of kin and other entitlements and responsibilities supposedly on the basis that we are removing discrimination on the basis of marriage. Yet in the Prime Minister’s own words we are in fact making marriage have no practical effect. 
The main problem this bill is supposed to address has to do with the need for people in relationships other than marriage to be able to make decisions on behalf of their partner in situations we refer to as next-of-kin issues—that is the right to give approval to cremate a deceased person’s body the right to visit a partner in hospital etc. There clearly are some issues that cannot be adequately covered by the enduring power of attorney legislation currently provided in law. We should address those concerns but we do not need two bills to address those issues. This response is like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. 
Let me first talk about de facto heterosexual couples. They are people who for whatever reason have chosen not to marry despite the fact they could legally recognise their relationship without any religious connotations at all. A civil celebrant could conduct a completely non-religious ceremony and then all the rights of next of kin would be theirs. The solution to any legal difficulties is entirely in their hands—that is get married or live with the consequences of a relationship that is de facto. The Webster dictionary definition of de facto is it means “without legal recognition.” That is the choice people make if they do not want to marry. And people should be free to make their own choices with minimal Government interference. This bill is not about choice; it is about removing choice. I have not had one single email from a de facto couple urging me to support this bill. 
The Government should be looking for all means possible to support and improve marriage relationships and to encourage more people to commit to marriage for the benefit of society—not elevating de facto relationships to the same status. Do the female members of this Government not know that all sociological research indicates that women in de facto relationships are many many more times at risk from violence than those in marriages? Their children are worse off by far statistically and in danger of abuse. Of course there are de facto relationships that are exceptions and not every marriage is a good one but it is still absolutely true that married couples are healthier live longer are richer and happier and have better sex lives than de facto couples by any means or measure by which sociological researchers look at it. The children of married couples do better as well. Why give support to legislation that would make marriage have no practical effect and treat de facto relationships as equal to those of married couples who have had the courage to front up before their families and friends to state and pledge their commitment to one another in a lifelong covenant of marriage? 
Whenever Parliament has sought to address problems in marriage by altering the law society has had to cope with many unintended consequences—no-fault divorce the domestic purposes benefit the Property (Relationships) Act and now this. Again I say that if de facto couples want the rights of married couples then let them marry. It is that simple. 
However when it comes to people in same-sex relationships the solution is not so simple because we know that they cannot marry. I have always said that I am concerned about their right to fair and just treatment by the law. It would have been a simple matter for the Government to make it possible for these couples to assign next-of-kin rights to each other under an extension of the enduring power of attorney provisions or some other similar legal action. I would not have opposed that and I do not believe that many who oppose civil unions would have any problem with it at all. 
However these next-of-kin dilemmas may arise not just for gay and lesbian partners but also for other single adults living together in relationships of care and support that are not sexual relationships in any form at all. Focusing the debate around sexual relationships and preferences in my opinion is far too narrow. As we suffer increasingly from family breakdown across society and as more and more never married separated or divorced adults grow older they often form relationships for companionship and support. These adults may share the same house but not necessarily the same bed and their needs in law deserve consideration by Parliament as well. Some may want the opportunity of transferring next-of-kin status to someone they trust rather than having to rely on their closest relative whom they may not know well at all. But to offer them a civil union as an option or recognition as a de facto couple is not likely to be an offer they would consider. This bill ignores their needs even though these issues are just as relevant to them as they are to gays and lesbians. 
These problems of inequality in law could be resolved by Parliament without civil unions and without this massive bill—this sledgehammer to crack a peanut of a problem. But it is clear from statements made by the Prime Minister and Tim Barnett that the real intent is to make civil unions equal with marriage and ultimately render marriage as a relic of the past with no practical effect. New Zealanders are tolerant and the majority are prepared to tolerate same-sex relationships and to give people in them the rights and respect every human being deserves but no Government can force me or the majority of New Zealanders to give our approval to those relationships. To do so would be to deny our rights of freedom of thought and speech and conscience. While many gays and lesbians cannot wait to run down the aisle to formalise their relationship I suggest that this desire is born out of not so much a legal need but rather the desire to gain approval from society. 
Under the disguise of addressing simple next-of-kin legal issues the Government is imposing on Parliament not one but two bills whose real intent is to legislate for the morality of same-sex relationships. People say that a Government cannot legislate morality; I say that a Government does it every time it passes a law and on this occasion it is clearly attempting to change society’s morality by law. Without learning the lessons from history we are now intent on moving towards a society that will no longer make any distinction between marriage and de facto relationships of people of the same or opposite sex. In the midst of appalling social statistics that portray New Zealand as one of the worst countries in the OECD on a whole range of issues the best that our leadership offers is to make laws to approve of the lowest common moral denominator treating all relationships as equal with an anything-goes philosophy. That is not leadership. 
Our children and young people deserve better. In my opinion discrimination in favour of marriage is justifiable. In fact it is essential in the interests of the public good and the health of our communities as a whole. When nearly 50 percent of our children are growing up in fatherless homes when the State— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have actually had my stopwatch running during my speech because I was concerned about the amount of time. The 8-minute bell actually rang after 7 minutes and I ask that you look into the timekeeping during that speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member thinks that I will give him another 20 seconds to finish off. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Thank you very much; I have one more paragraph. When nearly 50 percent of our children are growing up in fatherless homes when the State is supporting 100000 single-parent families and when we spend an estimated $6.5 billion on the cost of family breakdown this bill does nothing to address the real issues confronting us as a nation but is a very dangerous social experiment for the benefit of a small minority at the expense of our future as a society and I shall vote against it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief contribution to the first reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. May I remark on the previous speaker’s speech. I have a great deal of respect for the views that are shared by Larry Baldock and I pay due heed to what he has to say. He thinks about matters from his perspective sensibly and clearly and articulates them well. However I do disagree with many of the points that he made. 
In the first reading of the Civil Union Bill I mentioned the perpetuation of discrimination and prejudice that occurs particularly in relation to the particular matters dealt with in the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We cannot continue that discrimination. Albeit that some may consider that those who will benefit the most are in the minority that is no excuse to deny rights when they are sought. I am also quite often amused at the hysterical argument that is put out about the undermining of marriage due to both the bills that I have referred to in this speech. I do not think the situation is as dire as some people would make out. Quite simply I do not think this bill or the Civil Union Bill affect technically the powers of the Marriage Act. That Act of course currently holds the power of excluding people such as same-sex and de facto couples from being involved in marriage. The choice that I hear being talked about is for some no choice. 
This bill will support the Civil Union Bill in rectifying the discriminations that occur under the Marriage Act towards de facto couples and same-sex couples. I certainly hope the House will support this bill being scrutinised by a select committee. That referral will appropriately be done at the end of this first reading I hope. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I do not have my stopwatch running so I ask you to feel free to ring the bell when you decide it is appropriate. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Take your time. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Five minutes will do fine. Of all the moral issues that this Parliament will involve itself in I do not think that many will generate more controversy and bitterness than those concerned with homosexual marriage or as the Government would have us believe with the Civil Union Bill. I understand that this is a debate on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill but I cannot talk about that bill without at least referring to the Civil Union Bill because one is dependent on the other. I accept that the discussion around de facto relationships will generate less controversy but I put it to the House that this debate will continue to rage because any attack on the institution of marriage—a marriage between a man and a woman and by definition children—will for those who believe that minority groups are trying to re-engineer society in their own image simply not be tolerated. 
I am surprised—nay concerned—that until recently the churches have been spectacularly silent on this issue. I would not have thought they would be silent because the institution of marriage is core to their business. Notwithstanding that observation Cardinal Williams has now had the courage to speak out. What he has received for having had the courage to put a carefully considered position is criticism from the Prime Minister who said that his contribution was sad. This came from the Prime Minister who called for tolerance in the debate. I will not use the word “hypocritical” because I know it is not parliamentary but I would ask listeners to consider the veracity of the Prime Minister’s position. 
After voicing strong views on the Civil Union Bill I have been vilified by some sectors of society as being homophobic. I say to those people that that is simply not the case at all. I have no antipathy whatsoever towards homosexuals of either sex. Throughout a long business career I have known a good number of homosexuals and a good number I call friends. In the main I find these people to be deeply sensitive. So I pose the question: why am I opposed to this bill? It is simply an old-fashioned concept I hold: I believe it is morally wrong. There is nothing new about erotic attractions between members of the same sex. It has been happening for centuries. Although it may be tolerated maybe even accepted by some there has never been any suggestion over the centuries that it would be given the same parity as marriage within the State. That is why I believe that this bill and the Civil Union Bill have to be strongly opposed. 
I believe that the talk about de facto relationships is simply a smokescreen. The gay movement is seeking acceptance that its lifestyle is a satisfactory alternative to traditional heterosexual marriage. It is in my view the subject of a highly organised campaign with its protagonists deeply embedded in the Labour Party caucus. They do not seek understanding or fairness; they seek converts. It is the hard sell of the homosexual lifestyle. I will not buy it and I do not believe that mainstream New Zealand will buy it either. We were asked for tolerance regarding the Prostitution Reform Bill. Those of us who had the courage to rise and argue that it was evil legislation were told that we were intolerant and that if we legalised prostitution prostitution would be taken off the streets. One has only to go down the main streets of any city in this country to see prostitutes as young as 11 and 12 years of age plying their trade and that is a disgrace. I take no comfort whatsoever from those who say to us that we need to be more tolerant in our views on this issue. 
Let me turn specifically to some of the issues that have been raised in this bill. I have heard all sorts of self-indulgent drivel about marriage and its religious associations. I know of many—and there are probably many thousands of such Kiwis—who have been married in non-religious ceremonies and I have never heard any of them raise any concerns about their human rights having been breached. Another excuse that is often put forward by the gay movement is that their people’s rights are being impinged on in respect of property. I say to the House that in this country people can name their dog as the main beneficiary in their will. My advice to these parties is that they should go to their lawyer and sort it out just like the rest of us have to do. They should not ask the country to legislate to use—as Mr Baldock said—a sledgehammer to smash a legal nut. It is simply not necessary. 
Different-sex individuals living together have the same property rights under existing law. I accept that there are some situations where they will not have all their rights recognised but I say to them and particularly to those in de facto relationships that if they want what marriage can offer they should simply make the commitment and get married. That in my view is what marriage is all about—love and commitment. I will not tolerate those who want to argue that putting in place all sorts of alternatives to marriage is not an attack on the institution of marriage itself. It is and as I said I will not stand for it. 
The reason I am strongly opposed to what has been suggested under this legislation is that it is just a continuation of the slippery slope of casualising relationships. That trend has been in vogue in New Zealand for nigh-on 30 years and the consequences for some of our kids in this country have been disastrous. We see the damage everywhere we look. Every day we see dysfunctional families high crime rates welfare dependency women with four five or six kids fathers who do not know how many kids they have and all sorts of terrible abuse. I will not say that marriage is a perfect solution. I am not arguing that at all. I am saying it is a standard-bearer that says that at least this is a stake in the ground—that these are the minimum standards that society stands for and stands up for. Anything that erodes those standards just does not make sense. 
Why would we want to legislate to accelerate the trend of a breakdown in relationships? I do not believe when we think this through that this is really what society wants. Certainly where there are some anomalies that cannot be sorted out through attorney or client relationships then maybe we should look at changing those things but we should not change the standards that underpin a civilised society. 
I call on members of the House to reflect on some of these views and comments and to have the courage to stand up and articulate those views. I am not suggesting that people who oppose this legislation do not have the high moral ground; they do. But I want them to have the courage of their convictions to stand up and make a stand. If anyone feels very strongly that those who argue against this legislation are right then they should stand up as well because we cannot do it by ourselves. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I stand to commend the bill to the House on its first reading so that it may be referred to a select committee for no other reason than that rates of social security payments are sometimes higher and the ability to engage in beneficial tax arrangements is sometimes greater for non-married couples. There are over 300000 Kiwis in de facto relationships. The Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 requires Government activities to comply with the anti-discrimination standards set out in section 19 of that legislation. This bill has nothing to do with the range of matters raised by the member who has just resumed his seat. 
I commend the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee where we can have a meaningful and fruitful conversation. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 77 
Anderton (P) 
Duynhoven 
Laban (P) 
Simich 
Barker 
Dyson 
Locke (P) 
Smith L 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey J 
Sowry (P) 
Benson-Pope 
Fairbrother (P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton (P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey (P) 
Swain (P) 
Bradford 
Gallagher 
Mahuta (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Brash (P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tanczos 
Burton (P) 
Gosche 
Mapp (P) 
Te Heuheu 
Carter C 
Hartley 
Mark 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
McCully (P) 
Turei (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hereora (P) 
Okeroa 
Turner (P) 
Clark (P) 
Hide 
Parker (P) 
Ward (P) 
Copeland 
Hobbs (P) 
Peck (P) 
Williamson 
Cullen 
Hodgson (P) 
Pillay 
Wilson (P) 
Cunliffe (P) 
Horomia 
Rich 
Wong 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
Ririnui (P) 
Yates (P) 
Donald 
Hunt (P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley (P) 
Robson (P) 
Duncan 
Key (P) 
Samuels (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne 
King (P) 
Shirley 
Pettis 
Noes 42 
Adams 
Collins (P) 
McNair 
Ryall 
Alexander 
Cosgrove (P) 
Newman 
Scott (P) 
Ardern (P) 
Eckhoff 
O'Connor 
Smith M (P) 
Awatere Huata 
English 
Ogilvy 
Smith N 
Baldock 
Field (P) 
Paraone 
Stewart 
Brown 
Franks 
Perry (P) 
Tisch 
Brownlee (P) 
Goudie 
Peters J 
Woolerton (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Peters W 
Worth(P) 
Carter J 
Heatley 
Power 
Catchpole 
Hutchison (P) 
Prebble 
Teller: 
Coddington 
Jones 
Roy 
Connell 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Customs and Excise Amendment Bill 
Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed from 22 June. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation before the House was originally the Border Security Bill. The Government has now split that bill into the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill—relating to the customs and excise part—and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3)—relating to the small part involving immigration. It is my understanding that the changes were made because of problems the Government was having with the Greens in terms of their supporting the legislation and finally the Government had to split the bill in that manner. 
The main purpose of this legislation is set out in the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill which New Zealand First opposes. We do support the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) which includes a number of machinery matters to ensure that immigration is well administered in this country. It is ironic that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill will pick up about $20 million from the exporters of this country or thereabouts. [ 
Interruption 
] How much then I ask the Minister. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: $4 million. The rest is on imports and re-exports. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well it will pick up about $20 million from the exporters of this country and the importers of this country. All right? Allow me to finish my sentence. I was saying that it is ironic because these two bills will cost the taxpayer about $20 million. One could almost say that the Civil Union Bill and all the time it will take to go through Parliament and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which is going through Parliament will be paid for by the importers and exporters of this country who are being levied $20 million for the purposes allegedly of good import and export control. But is it not ironic that on this very day the provisions in these two bills—affecting about 0.3 percent of the population—will be paid for effectively on a contra basis by the money that is collected in taxes from importers and exporters? 
The Customs and Excise Amendment Bill is just another impost on the hard workers of this country whom the Labour Party does not like. If Labour members see a worker they believe it is their duty to tax that person. A worker is just another excuse for this Labour Party to tax. 
Various people are involved in imports and exports and we have just seen that industry hit a record month in overseas trade figures. That was mainly because agricultural commodity prices which were depressed 16 months ago have increased to record levels. Does the Minister of Finance deny that? The main reason they have done so well this month is that agricultural commodity prices have risen from their low of 16 months ago and are now at high levels once more. That is why we are doing so well in this country at the moment. It is because of importers and exporters—the people working out there—who have brought New Zealand’s terms of trade back to a position better than it has ever been. 
What credit do they get from this minority Labour Government? It taxes them even more. The Government sees them as a group that ought to be taxed more. That is all this minority Labour Government can think about instead of introducing say export incentives and export credits to try to help people—which can all be done regardless of what is said at various international levels. Instead of doing things to encourage exporters to give them the benefit of what they want to do—as New Zealand First would do specifically through our export trade incentives—this minority Labour Government in this legislation is taxing exporters and importers once again. 
One of the first pieces of legislation I was involved with when I came back to Parliament in this session and which was passed in September or October 2002 was a bill in which the Labour Government introduced a tax of $20 million on importers in respect of new computer machinery. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: That’s wrong. 
DAIL JONES 
: Is the member saying that that customs and excise legislation was not introduced by the Labour Party and by Jim Anderton in 2002? Rick Barker says that of course I am wrong. He said I was wrong when I said for example that people had to pay fees to use the Employment Court. Rick Barker said: “No no no there are no fees in the Employment Court.” Well I had to remind him that there are fees in respect of the Employment Court and I remind him once again that customs and excise legislation was passed towards the end of 2002 and it introduced more taxes on importers. Less than 2 years have gone by and this minority Labour Government is again putting an impost on importers and also on exporters. 
The border control of our country—of any country—must be the primary responsibility of the Government with taxation and payment for it collected in the ordinary course of events. That is one of the primary jobs of a Government—to ensure the borders of a country are well patrolled and taken care of. It is historical. It goes back donkey’s years—to the 1500s the year 1000 and right back to BC times. Governments have always had to make sure that their borders are patrolled and that they collect taxes from people coming in and going out. But they did not add an extra impost on the people who had to export things and import things. That is what this Labour Government does. It puts special charges on people who are working their guts out for the benefit of this country and the only response they get from this Labour Government is that as usual they will be taxed more. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise and support the passing of these two bills. I will pick up on a couple of points the previous speaker made. He said absolutely rightly that border security has been a function of the Government for a long time and he said that people used to collect taxes on the way in and way out. He might care to think about that a bit further because these days we do not collect many taxes on the way in. The average weighted tariff is two-thirds of 1 percent in New Zealand. That is why we now have to actually charge for some of those services. 
In terms of border security the biggest increase in charges on exports is because of demands made by the United States for increased security and that is not a charge that will fall to the New Zealand Government. We might as well argue that we should pay for all the freight costs for exporters—who argue that they have to pay for the costs being imposed by the United States’ security requirements. 
What is the cost of this bill? The total cost on the export sector is $8 million a year. The Government is paying $4 million. The remaining $4 million represents .0000001 percent roughly of the total value of our exports. The Opposition just like every Opposition party says that every bit of money can be found from somewhere just like that. New Zealand First argued for a billion dollars extra on police this afternoon. Just like that! A million here a hundred million there a billion there—what does it matter? That is the Opposition’s response and that is why they are over there and we are over here and we will stay here. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Voting 
Correction 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 On the question before the House previously on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill Mr Peck’s proxy vote was inadvertently omitted from being recorded with the Ayes. I would seek leave for Mr Peck’s vote to be recorded as being in favour of the first reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. It will be so. The new result is Ayes 77 Noes 42. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill the Meat Board Restructuring Bill the Visiting Forces Bill the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) and the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill and of any bills into which those bills may be divided; the first readings of the Electoral Matters Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill and the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill and any bills into which those bills may be divided; and the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill 
.  
The motion is moved first of all to complete all stages of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill the Meat Board Restructuring Bill and the Visiting Forces Bill which all have commencement dates of 1 July 2004. In relation to the other matters the motion is moved to ensure they are dealt with before the House rises for the 3-week July adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Local Government 
: I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee examined the bill thoroughly and has referred it back with majority amendments which have been shown. 
The bill aims to promote increased integration of decision-making processes for integrated Auckland regional transport. It establishes two new council-controlled organisations: the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings. The authority will be responsible for the integrated planning funding and development of Auckland’s land transport. The holdings company will own and manage the transport assets and other assets for the Auckland region. Overall the responsibility for the Auckland regional land transport strategy remains with the Auckland Regional Council. 
This is a bill that seeks to make some dramatic improvements to Auckland’s infrastructure and it deals with a past lack of investment. Indeed the Government is now providing an additional $1.62 billion to be spent on Auckland transport over the next 10 years. The bill deals with the necessary changes in the governance structures for Auckland transport and in the way in which transport decision-making is incorporated into wider issues such as land use. The Investing for Growth package and the transport sector review address these funding and governance issues at the national level. Together these proposals consolidate transport governance in the Auckland region and provide a firm foundation for integrated safe responsive and sustainable decision-making. 
Under the bill the Auckland Regional Council will have overarching responsibility for the Auckland regional land transport system. The council will continue to be directly responsible for the regional land transport strategy but will undertake its operations through a new arm’s-length council-controlled organisation: the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Because of the importance of the authority governance arrangements must be clearly transparent. The board of directors will govern the authority as a council-controlled organisation. The authority will be required to agree to a statement of intent with the council. 
The select committee has added provisions to the bill so that both the council and the authority will be required to provide the reasoning that underlies any proposed change to the authority’s statement of intent. The authority will be responsible for planning funding and developing the Auckland regional land transport system including setting land transport priorities in the region. Consequently the bill precludes the council from including a list of activities or their prioritisation in the regional land transport strategy. The authority will assume responsibility for public transport from the council. 
Auckland’s bids for Transfund funding will be made by the authority through its land transport programme. The authority will also set out a common view on the relative priority of projects across the Auckland network. This will mean that the nine separate land transport programmes for Auckland will be consolidated into just two for the authority and Transit New Zealand. 
The bill will also reduce the number of transport funding decision-makers by disestablishing Infrastructure Auckland and transferring its responsibilities to the Auckland Regional Council. The new council-controlled organisation Auckland Regional Holdings is to take over Infrastructure Auckland’s $1.3 billion asset-management role. Infrastructure Auckland’s liabilities for stormwater grants go to the Auckland Regional Council and for transport grants to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority which is to take over the job of deciding how the funds from those assets are spent. Good governance will again be critical. 
The select committee has made some amendments to further improve the transparency and effectiveness of the governance of Auckland Regional Holdings. Although the council will appoint directors to Auckland Regional Holdings and set the ground rules by which the board may operate it will be able to appoint a maximum of only two council representatives to the board of Auckland Regional Holdings. This provides an appropriate balance between the council’s ability to govern Auckland Regional Holdings and the need to minimise the potential for any future conflict of interest between the directors. As well as having a statement of intent Auckland Regional Holdings will be also required to agree to a long-term funding plan with the Auckland Regional Council. 
The committee has recommended that the bill specify the detail that must be included in Auckland Regional Holdings’ long-term funding plan. This would not include how those funds are used which is a matter for the Auckland Regional Council. Both the council and Auckland Regional Holdings will be required to provide their reasons for any significant proposed changes either to Auckland Regional Holdings’ statement of intent or to the long-term funding plan. The committee has also included new transitional provisions to ensure that Auckland Regional Holdings must prepare its first long-term funding plan as soon as possible but that in the meantime the council can access Auckland Regional Holdings’ funds. This will ensure that the funding for any existing Infrastructure Auckland grants will not be disrupted in the transition. 
The committee has strengthened the safeguards around public ownership of the 80 percent of Ports of Auckland shares currently held by Infrastructure Auckland by maintaining the current restrictions under the Local Government Act 1974. The bill also provides for better alignment between land transport and land-use decision-making by requiring changes to the Auckland Regional Council’s regional policy statement and regional plans and to territorial authorities’ district plans. The bill provides that local authorities will have to prepare and publicly notify changes to their planning documents in order to achieve this alignment. The committee has recommended that the local authorities have an additional month—until 31 March 2005—to do this in light of the local body elections in October and the holiday period over December and January. 
These changes must give effect to the growth concept in the Auckland regional growth strategy. They must also contribute to a range of objectives that the committee has detailed under the new schedule 4A. These objectives include firstly increased certainty in the assessment of resource consents designations and plan changes related to the transport and urban form and secondly facilitating a multimodal transport network and integrated management. The bill provides a streamlined process by which submissions on these planned changes are to be heard by a single joint panel—I am sure that the member Maurice Williamson would support this—and also removes the need for a multiple parallel process. It is also proposed by way of Supplementary Order Paper that the bill facilitate the integration of the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd within the new governance arrangements and that the matters that can be included in the regional land transport strategy be further clarified. 
The enactment of this legislation provides a firm basis for improvements in Auckland transport and as someone who lives outside of Auckland I can say that I wholeheartedly endorse this bill and recommend it to the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 For the benefit of the people who were listening to that debate they need to know that the previous speaker was the member for Tukituki the Hon Rick Barker who showed about as much interest in solving Auckland’s problems as—I will not even begin to go there. The reading of his speech was appalling the context was hopeless and there was no passion. I do not think there is a member—[ 
Interruption 
] Now Labour members are showing some passion now we are getting them rarked up. How come the Minister did not show that when he was reading the bill? 
I think that anybody who has either lived in or visited Auckland is in no doubt that the one issue that now consumes Aucklanders’ minds is solving the transport dilemma. Auckland has perpetual gridlock. It used to occur only at peak times at very specific points in the corridor but as traffic volumes have grown year on year it now happens anywhere anytime. We need only for a tin of paint to fall off the back of a utility or for someone to have a little bit of a nose-to-tail ding and the gridlock works its way right through the network. 
So I was really pleased when the Government announced in December a package to solve the problems in Auckland. One thing the Government announced that I thought really read well was that Auckland needed one agency to deal with its transport matters. I think most members from Auckland would agree that that is the general public’s view. There is a plethora of agencies at present that deal with Auckland transport. Let us go through them. There are seven territorial authorities such as Pukekohe—or Franklin as it is called at the bottom—through to Manukau City which is New Zealand’s most progressive city according to Sir Barry Curtis. We have Waitakere we have Auckland City we have North Shore and we have Rodney—there is just a plethora of these city councils that are all currently responsible for roading. One would expect that to change and that they would now be gone under this new bill because we do not want seven of them. No they are not. No there will still be seven councils responsible for local roading in Auckland. 
There is a heap more agencies. Let us go through them. There is Transfund and Transit the two major Government agencies that are respectively the funding arm and the provider of State highways in New Zealand. Surely they would go under this bill. There would not be a need for Transit in Auckland anymore if one body was running Auckland transport. Oh no when we look at this bill and check it again sorry but there is still a Transit. The same old boundary problems have applied year after year whereby one local council wants this and another one wants that and Transit which runs in the middle wants a third option. The bill will not solve any of those things. 
But there are lots more. I said something to my wife the other night about ARTNL. She asked: “Who’s ARTNL?”. I said that ARTNL was the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd and did she not know that. No she had never heard of it. I bet that if we went out there and did a survey of people about the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd they would not have a clue what it is. It is the organisation that provides things like railways stations some of the rolling stock and the— 
John Key 
: Shopping malls. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The shopping malls at Britomart Place—that was a good one from Mr Key. But will Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd go under this bill? No it will not go. We will still have Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd. I am getting really confused. The Government said that only one body would be responsible for Auckland’s roads. Here is a great one. TrackCo will be the owner of all the railway lines in Auckland. Surely it would be integrated into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority so that the authority could make decisions about transport networks. No. Again TrackCo will still exist. I am getting really perplexed. Connex runs the trains. Will Connex go? How about— 
John Key 
: They’re French. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: They are French they might go. Let us take the ferries. We have Fullers Auckland Subritzky on the Hauraki Gulf and I think there is Pacific Ferries. I think there are three ferry operators. Will they all be amalgamated with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority running the ferries? No. What about all the different bus companies—Stagecoach and out my way Howick and Eastern Buses? No they will still be running buses and so on. What about public transport funding mechanisms—will they change? No. 
This bill is the biggest con the world has ever seen. The Government came out with an announcement—and I have its words if members want me to read them out. The Prime Minister was one of the announcers: “What Auckland needs is one agency to fix its transport.” National agrees. We wholeheartedly agree with that statement made by the Prime Minister. 
This bill does nothing of the sort. There is more. There is the Auckland Regional Council. To be fair one body that will go is Infrastructure Auckland. That is one. But it will be replaced by Auckland Regional Holdings which is the same sort of organisation—it owns assets on behalf of the public to fund transport and stormwater drains. How can we make any great change by replacing one body called Infrastructure Auckland which owns the Ports of Auckland shares and the America’s Cup village? How can that fix Auckland’s problems? The bill states that it will go but instead of being gone the bill just replaces that organisation with another one. 
I can refer members of this House and the public to no better diagrams than the spaghetti diagrams that the Automobile Association has drawn. Those diagrams make the Cook Islands’ wiring diagrams for tax evasion look simple. There are just lines responsibilities squares and boxes all over the page. The Government—the Prime Minister Michael Cullen Paul Swain Chris Carter and Judith Tizard—came out in December with its announcement saying that it was hopeless; that it could not fix Auckland’s problems with a governance system in which there were a multitude of organisations. 
Which ones have gone? Let us go through them again. Have any of the seven territorial local authorities gone? No they will all still be responsible for local roading and so on. Will the regional council be gone? No it will still be there. Has Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd gone? No it will still be there. Is Transit gone? No it will still be there. Is Transfund gone? No it is there. Is TrackCo gone? No it will still be there and it will not be part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. TrackCo is not part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Transit is not part of it. So the biggest funders of some of the major suppliers of infrastructure and transport solutions in Auckland are not included. How mad is that? 
The Government said that it would bring in one body to solve Auckland’s transport problems. National would have been fully supportive of a Government move to do that because I do not think anyone in this House would deny that it is a serious problem. The serious problem lies around this multiplicity of various bodies all with their own little hobby horse. For goodness' sake! Thank God these organisations do not run railway lines or we would have had seven different gauges of roads in Auckland with every one of the local authorities wanting to have their own little bit. And now we have fights about whether North Shore will get its busway because Auckland City does not want that and so on. 
What the goal should have been and what this grubby little bill should have done was to bring all the bodies into one and to drop Transit and TrackCo in there. But I do not seem to be able to get through to the Government that we have this artificial delineation of some roads. In my electorate of Pakuranga we have a thing called the Pakuranga Highway. It is six lanes wide—three lanes either way. It carries more traffic than any other road barring motorways in a day. I think the number of 64000 cars was the last car count I saw for that highway. It is massive. Is that a State highway—that massive big wide huge arterial road? No it is not. Pakuranga Highway is a local road funded and run by Manukau City. Yet I can take members of this House out into the boondocks of the back of Taihape and they will find a State highway run by Transit. So “State highway” does not mean main road or artery and when we get to those main arteries in Auckland—and the Pakuranga Highway has to be an absolutely central part of that road network; but it is not a Transit road—Transit will be included in some roads but it is not included in that body. 
Now one would have to be some sort of mad scientist to sit down with a clean white sheet of paper and say as I am sure the Government was told by its advisers that Auckland’s one problem is that it has far far too many bodies making decisions—far too many. That is Auckland’s one problem and what we need to tell Madam Prime Minister and Ministers is that the best thing they could do is bring a bill to this House that brought all those bodies into one. We could then have centralised decisions that prioritised what was needed first and which of the roads would happen. That is what would really have been quite a sensible move. 
I was talking to the New South Wales Minister for Transport in Sydney and when I told him how many bodies were responsible for the funding of roads here— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Name him. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Carl Scully is his name if the member wants to know. He is a good guy. I have been to a number of ministerial conferences with him. When I told him of the number of bodies that will be responsible for funding transport here in Auckland he just laughed. He said that I could not be serious and that we would make no progress whatsoever. 
In conclusion I want to say that the National Opposition will most vehemently be opposing this bill. Sometimes we just oppose some legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well there is Judith Tizard saying that we are opposed to solving Auckland’s problems. This bill does nothing to solve Auckland’s problems. It just adds one more body called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to the huge list of other bodies there and gives a few more jobs for the boys. The National Party is totally opposed to the bill. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 It is a great honour to speak on this bill. I come from a region that is not known for its passionate support for Auckland but our people do appreciate the need to sort out Auckland’s problems. 
We have just heard a speech from a member who I think was the Minister of Transport at some stage. In fact I think he was Minister of Transport almost throughout the 9 years of the National Government. He is also I believe an Auckland MP. I would think that that member for all his preaching now would have been able to do something about a major infrastructural problem this country has faced for many years. Now he has the cheek to stand up in this House and criticise a Government that has put money into transport and commitment into solving this problem in Auckland. He has the cheek and audacity to challenge this Government. Well I am proud of my Auckland colleagues because time and time again they have got up in caucus and said that they needed to sort that problem out and that they needed some more resources. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This bill doesn’t do it. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Mr Williamson who was Minister of Transport for—how many years? 
Government Member 
: Nine. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: —9 years—could not do anything to solve that problem. He walked away from Auckland. He was the person who proposed a solution that would commercialise the roads. Does the member know what? Has he been reading the papers lately? He commercialised the rail—he and his mate John Key. They flicked it off to their mates and what sort of job did they do of managing key infrastructure in this country? What happened to New Zealand Rail? Do members know the only good thing about the National Government? It was so incompetent that it could not even get through its commercialisation of the roads. Thank God it did not because we would have seen the same disaster with Auckland roads and roads around the rest of the country as we have seen with rail. 
I am proud of Judith Tizard and all the other Auckland MPs who have fought hard to get resources for Auckland roads. Those of us who come from other areas of the country know that if we travel to Auckland get caught up in a traffic jam and have to go round those dinky little back streets on our way from the airport to the central business district what sort of chaos and bizarre situation created the mess that we now have to sort out. This Government is prepared to sort it out. We are putting in an extra $2.97 billion into roading and we are prepared to spend another $1.6 billion in Auckland. We will be spending on average about a third of the country’s roading money in Auckland where about a third of the population resides. My constituents in West Coast – Tasman are prepared to accept that because after 9 years of National Government—under Maurice Williamson who has the cheek to stand up in this House and criticise—we have ended up with total chaos. Mr Williamson should get up and support this Government for this bill and for putting in place a very good infrastructure that will sort out finally and for once and for all the infrastructural issues around Auckland transport. I am proud to support this bill as is this Government. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the Hon Maurice Williamson and thought about the 1990s and what sort of overall framework and vision the National Government had for transport. My first thought was Tranz Rail. My next thought was Fay Richwhite—advisers to Tranz Rail in March would-be owners in May and eventual owners by sleight of hand. I thought of the numerous papers and checked them at the weekend to make quite sure I did not have it wrong. But in 1999 that former Minister of Transport had not solved one issue in Auckland. The white papers the green papers and all the thinking that came through in 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 and 1999 showed that the issue was left unsolved. So I find it rather rich for someone to stand here and claim that that National Party had an answer for Auckland. The real issue is that it had no answer. In 1999 in the last desperate days before the election that was even more evident than it is today. 
Therefore with that in mind New Zealand First came to the issue—first of all because the deputy leader of New Zealand First Mr Peter Brown is the transport adviser to our party; and secondly because we have worked and are working still on a major transport initiative for our policy for the next election whenever that may be. We are looking at a policy new directions 
  
which will set a different pathway from what New Zealand has had in the past. In that policy is ample provision for Auckland. 
When this bill first came to the House we in New Zealand First felt that it was not the answer. On our party’s part we agreed that it should go on to the select committee but in the course of the committee’s deliberations I felt on behalf of New Zealand First that this legislation was but a partial answer to what is a very major problem. I want to look at those issues that developed around the bill with regard to the select committee submissions. 
The first was the one touched upon by the Hon Maurice Williamson. Was there to be the integration of a local authority land transport system for Auckland or was there to be a policy of national networks with one major entity rather than the one proposed? There was some support for the grand idea of one entity incorporating rail water transport and all the various modes. But I believe that quite sensibly the Government of the day has rejected that and instead is taking the approach that first one must walk before one can run. 
 Also in that regard we felt that if that was to be so in some ways—and I said so and was pleased to see that it was partially acknowledged and the changes are in the proposed Supplementary Order Paper—there ought to be a real clarity and consistency in order to make this thing work and it is our belief in New Zealand First that this can work. It can work if there is goodwill and if there is a real attitude and a will to make it work. It will not be so successful if we begin with the assumption which has been made by the National Party that this will not work and that the answer is not a diminishing of the number of authorities involved in transport which it is but instead looking for a more radical answer which I really suspect disregards the whole nature of local government in the Auckland region. 
To come back to the bill therefore we believe that the bill does set out sound objectives with regard to the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system. The management of funding is a major issue for transport. The care of assets and the issues with regard to water quality are all covered in the bill. We believe that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will do the task in the way that it has now redesigned and reset. 
One of the issues that came up and was advanced to members of Parliament who met with the Auckland Regional Council was the fact that for some reason there was not sufficient recognition given to the nature of the work of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee; and particularly there did not seem to be quite the appropriate acknowledgment of the importance of a regional land transport strategy. I am pleased to say that the Government has acknowledged there needed to be some changes in the bill as it comes to the Committee stage which should ensure there will be greater clarity and objectivity with regard to the way Auckland transport matters are viewed. 
I want to say our party supports the role of the Auckland Regional Council. We support the whole nature of the Auckland local bodies. In saying that we acknowledge there are issues. Those issues will be resolved district by district and region by region in October. We support a democratic response by Auckland ratepayers; that is the election of their duly elected councils. We therefore support the whole structure—as advanced here—of a regional land transport committee being set up to cover the territorial and other groups as modified by the bill of 2003 and that that body ought to have a role in setting the broad framework not the fine detail. This bill envisaging a detailed objective implementation role for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is a sound approach. 
So at this point we give our support to the bill. We will make some submissions on the floor in Committee but the bill seems to us at this stage with all that is known to be a reasonably honest attempt to try to make a breakthrough in what has been a historically obscure and obstinate problem for people who live in Auckland. To come back to the Hon Maurice Williamson that problem is not one just for 2004. There has been a problem in Auckland from 1987 and it was there through all those years. The problem has been there ever since and it ill behoves any responsible member who represents an Auckland electorate to come to this House and not give this a reasonable understanding and recognise a reasonable attempt by the Government to try to meet the demands. 
This is not an answer for 2005 or 2008; it is a gradual development in trying to overcome the inertia lack of funding lack of will and lack of Government direction especially over the last two or three decades. No bill no matter how great it is in substance will be able to do that without care and great deliberation. New Zealand First supports this bill to the House in Committee and we will make further comment there. We believe it is a reasonable attempt at this stage to try to do what has not been done in Auckland before. With that will come problems as one can envisage but the bill is at this point one that New Zealand First can support. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill recognises that Auckland is a special case with special transport needs and circumstances that are different from other parts of New Zealand. While overall responsibility for land transport will continue to reside with the Auckland Regional Council through its regional land transport committee a new council-controlled organisation the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be established to undertake the integrated planning funding and development of Auckland’s land transport. The bill will also require Auckland local authorities to change their planning policy documents and make the land-use provisions consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy and the Auckland regional land transport strategy. 
The bill has the support of all Auckland local authorities and the overwhelming support of the majority of submitters. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority must plan fund and develop Auckland’s transport system in a way that contributes to an integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system for the Auckland region and a system that is consistent with the New Zealand land transport strategy and the Land Transport Management Act. 
Auckland with a million people and 700000 cars and growing has to transform itself from an overwhelmingly motorcar-dependent city with all the congestion safety health environmental and economic downsides that such an approach imposes to an integrated system that leaves Auckland with a much wider range of choices about how to move products and people including by car and truck where that is appropriate but on roads that have the space to accommodate them and without the delays air pollution inconvenience or enormous cost on personal regional or national budgets. 
We are concerned that while New Zealand has a great deal of expertise and experience in the business of designing and building roads our expertise in other areas is much more limited. We need look no further than Wellington to see how well public transport can work and how it can be made attractive and effective. However when it comes to car pooling or pedestrian and cycling strategies our efforts have been piecemeal. None the less one can travel to Nelson to visit the Broadgreen Intermediate School and check out its cycle stands—they are full. Along the back of Broadgreen Intermediate there is a cycleway. Put in place good cycling facilities and people will make those choices. Auckland could do it just as well. Of course cycling and walking are not just good ways of moving; they are also healthier ways of moving and they take the heat off the motorways. 
While we may have little expertise at persuading people to use their feet and their cycles or to use buses and trains we have even less when it comes to any of the elements that demand management or land-use mechanisms for changing transport behaviour. While the capital costs of demand management are much less expensive than the motorway model they none the less require expertise and a substantial shift in mindset. The Auckland growth strategy is an attempt to plan a more coherent future for Auckland—one where people are better able to live work play shop and go to school first and foremost without the need to spend too many hours every week sitting in their motorcars moving very slowly and many more hours working to earn the money to pay for the experience but more important simply to be able to live in their own communities without moving at all. 
The Land Transport Management Bill charges the Auckland Regional Land Transport committee and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority with providing sustainable healthy integrated options. Providing Auckland’s local body leaders can see beyond the motorcar and motorway model long enough to make their resource management documents consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy that most beautiful city could go from being a seriously dysfunctional urban sprawl to an intelligently connected series of attractive and unique communities but it will require vision imagination and flair that has not been seen there since the days of Mayor Robbie. 
The bill provides a framework. I mentioned earlier the lack of expertise. I know that the Ministry of Transport is aware that it does not currently have the expertise. It is a gap that will need to be filled urgently if Auckland and the rest of New Zealand are to measure up to the new responsibilities. 
 During the hearings and since I have suggested a need for the equivalence of Transit but with expertise in the alternatives to roading. We now know that Transfund is obliged to fund a wider range of transport alternatives. It is going to do that only if the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority have a similar level of expertise as that provided by Transit New Zealand. How else are they going to come up with the other strategies? The alternatives to roads may be cheaper and they are certainly healthier but they are not free and they will require the Auckland local authorities to talk to their communities and work out ways to make the alternatives more attractive. 
Recently Auckland City contemplated turning itself into a motorcar racetrack. Had I been an Aucklander I might have been a tad upset. My reaction however was tempered by the thought that if Auckland City was capable of reducing its demand on roads or tempering its motorcar fetish for even long enough for something as frivolous as a motorcar race how could it possibly claim that it might be too difficult to effect a similar shift in behaviour if it meant a healthier cleaner less congested city? 
This bill and the Land Transport Management Act that underpins it are bold moves to create a more sustainable New Zealand. Most of the things we do are highly unsustainable—they use up more energy than we can continue to provide and they use up future generations’ share of the planet’s resources. They also pollute and undermine the capacity of the planet to sustain and undermine our capacity to enjoy life. 
Sustainability has never mattered as much as it matters now. With oil running out and prices becoming higher it is inevitable that it will become even more expensive as a way of getting around. Barely a day goes by without attention being drawn to the reality of global warming and climate change. While New Zealand with a population of 4 million and Auckland with a population of just 1 million may have little to contribute on a planet with 6 billion people that does not excuse us from our responsibilities to play our part on this overcrowded and overheated planet which is crying out for examples of an intelligent approach to transport. Auckland could just provide such an example. 
But even if global warming turns out to be a myth—and I do not believe for one minute that it will—Aucklanders actually deserve real choice. This bill at least provides an enhanced likelihood of that choice. It is not just a choice of another road or 10000 models of motorcar but an opportunity to live in self-reliant communities that minimise the need to travel—a choice between fast regular and frequent bus services and comprehensive rail services. The motorcar option has served nobody particularly well but it has served the transport-disadvantaged particularly badly. Those who travel outside the daylight hours those who are too old or too young or too poor or those who simply prefer not to drive or those who would like to cycle or walk have particularly limited choices. So the Greens are pleased to support this legislation and look forward to an Auckland that is a more pleasant place to visit and a more pleasant place to travel around. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 That last speech was like listening to a Hans Andersen fairytale. We can imagine how Auckland would be if we all moved around it by lying on our backs on bicycles pedalling with our feet in the air. Would it not be a glorious city then! In that situation it really would deserve the name “Dorkland”. That is the patronising sort of drivel we have come to expect from the Greens who expect everybody to be herded into public transport. They forget that most people in Auckland who are trying to move around are just mothers picking up their children from different schools going to the supermarket or dropping children off at soccer. They cannot use a bus or a train. The Greens would say that we should walk everywhere. I have actually heard one of the co-leaders of the Greens say that we should not be allowed to drive to the corner dairy—we should be forced to walk. Well that is the whole point of the Greens’ philosophy: not to care about individuals but just to save the planet. 
Courier drivers have to make a living by getting around Auckland. The physical nature of Auckland means it is impossible for public transport ever to be a serious alternative to the car. Aucklanders do not have a motorcar fetish. Aucklanders hate being stuck in gridlock. They loathe the fact that they cannot get to where they need to be on time or else have a clear run and are half an hour early. One cannot plan anything in Auckland any more. That is a disgrace and a disaster but this bill will do nothing to fix it. This Government had the ability to fix that problem with the Land Transport Management Bill. I agree with the Greens that just building more roads will not solve the transport problem. If we build more roads then yes people will pour on to them. We will never solve the transport problems in Auckland unless we have pricing mechanisms. As soon as people have to pay to go on a congested road they think twice or three times about using it. 
This bill has gone through without enough thought as to what it will mean. It will set up two new organisations to plan fund and control transport in Auckland—to make decisions. Decision after decision will be made but nothing will be done until this Government does something serious to address the Resource Management Act because while resource consents are needed for every little kilometre of road for every culvert and for every little stretch of roading that is improved or built we will never get anywhere. If this Government was really serious about addressing the Resource Management Act instead of setting up a cosmetic damage-control type of review led by David Benson-Pope it would stop the iniquitous funding that goes on shown by this Government employing in the offices of one of its senior Ministers Gary Taylor who is known to be anti the Resource Management Act. Gary Taylor is the head of the Environmental Defence Society and he actually hires himself out as a consultant to people who are objecting to resource consents. That person was hired to work in the office of the Minister who is Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Control and was paid by the taxpayer to be an adviser. At the same time he was lobbying for funding from the Government for grants from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment to set up a website—$50000 for a website to advise people on how to use the Resource Management Act to object to resource consents. 
How on earth can New Zealand take seriously this Government’s proposal to look at the Resource Management Act and what it is doing to block development when on the one hand it sets up a review committee and on the other hand it is happy to fund lobby groups and lobbyists to actively campaign to oppose developments? The Government also gives money to the Forest and Bird Protection Society. It funds the society’s legal costs when it opposes resource consents under the Resource Management Act. It funds a whole host of lobby groups that set themselves up to object to developments. Many of those developments are new roads or are connected with transport infrastructure. That is the crux of the problem and that is why we are opposed to this bill. 
Many of the things in this legislation are anti-Auckland. It is patronising towards Aucklanders. I do not usually agree with Brian Rudman who writes for the  
New Zealand Herald 
. He is usually on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me but I totally agree with his column on 5 April this year when he said that Aucklanders should decide how to spend their assets not this Government here in Wellington and not people who do not even go near Auckland. The assets that will be taken out of Infrastructure Auckland belong to Aucklanders. Those assets were paid for by and belong to Aucklanders but Aucklanders have not been allowed to decide what happens to them since the previous National Government was in power and Jenny Shipley decided that Aucklanders would not be able to decide that. This Government had the chance to turn that around. Instead of Government members criticising National why did they not take the opportunity to do something and let Aucklanders decide what happens to those assets? Not only will Aucklanders be unable to decide what happens to those assets but 15 percent of the assets will be given to the Auckland Regional Council to do what it likes with. We know what that means; it means propping up the bottom line. It means propping up the Auckland Regional Council’s shortfall if it comes to that. That money and more should be spent totally on solving Auckland’s transport problems. 
There is no reason why more money from the consolidated account cannot go to pay for fixing Auckland’s transport problems. It is all very well for the rest of the country to sneer at Auckland and say that it should solve its own transport problems. It has actually got to the stage where Aucklanders are prepared to pay for their own transport solutions because they are so desperate. However Auckland’s transport problems cost the New Zealand economy an estimated $2 billion a year. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Oh made up! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That is how much the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues cares about Auckland. That Minister asked the  
New Zealand Herald 
 why the eastern motorway should proceed just so the people in Pakuranga can have an extra half-hour in bed. That is what she said to the  
New Zealand Herald 
. She now denies that and says she has been misquoted. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: She just said: “I don’t deny it.” 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: She accepts that she said it? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That is good. She has changed her tune then. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What happens to the three queues of cars when they hit the queues— 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The Minister should get some pricing mechanisms introduced for the road problems. She should look at some of the private-public partnerships that were originally in the Land Transport Management Bill. All the submitters who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in support of that proposal put forward very clear and good reasons to go for public-private partnerships and congestion tolling. But no this Government had to do a deal with the Greens. So Auckland does not have those mechanisms and money paid by the poor old motorist is being siphoned off and put into cycle lanes and walkways so that as the spokesperson on transport from the Greens says we can save the planet and do not run out of oil. People have been saying for the last 50 years that we will run out of oil but motoring just gets cheaper and cheaper. 
The ACT party is opposed to this bill which will not do anything to solve Auckland’s transport problems. When the National-ACT Government is in office then members will see what really can be done to solve those problems. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to say that we are very pleased to support this legislation. Auckland is a unique place. It is a large expansive area and of course has the challenges of being an urban area comprised of many cities. One of the challenges in terms of roading issues in Auckland is that various local bodies have been doing the very best for their areas but very few have been standing back and looking at the overall picture of what needs to be built and what is needed in order to control the area as a whole to keep transport and people moving through it. I agree with the Greens that we need to look at rail bicycles buses and all those things. However I challenge members who rubbish the motorcar and ask what good it has done for anybody to speak to trades people like mechanics panel beaters car dealers and everyone else who is employed in the motor industry. As it turns out the motor industry is one of the largest employers on the globe and I think that those members would be seriously challenged on the good that the motorcar has done for it. 
Any structure that is set up—and we are supportive of these structures—is only as good as the people within it. My hope is that the people who set up these structures will be forward thinkers and that they will stand back and look at the overall picture and begin to strategise on what will be good for Auckland and our nation over the next 20 30 40 or 50 years. For example I have always failed to understand why it is that when land is bought to build a motorway the left and right lanes are built from the centre point of that land instead of those lanes going out as far to the left and as far to the right as is possible on that land and why the surplus space is not left in the middle for future development. Whether that land is used for future lanes or for rail cycleways or whatever other purpose why are the two lanes each way plonked in the centre and why is the surplus land on the right and left sides sold off back into private ownership perhaps enabling people to build houses on it? We then find 20 years later that that land has to be purchased back again and that makes no sense to me at all. I hope that forward-thinking people will begin to think about traffic flows and about the importance of clearly numbering the exits on every off-ramp around Auckland City. Traffic does slow because motorists do not know whether they are at the right exit. If Auckland had a simple numbering system like that of many of the large cities in the world showing No. 7 No. 8 or No. 9 off-ramp for a motorist to exit from it would make a large difference. 
I believe that Auckland City has had forward thinkers prior to now. Sir Dove-Meyer Robinson a former Mayor of Auckland planned a rapid rail system that was years before its time and had everything laid out yet the Government of the day abolished that plan. I am sure that Aucklanders regret that. I hope that when the Government begins to review the overall strategy for Auckland it will look at things that make a lot of sense such as retaining Whenuapai airport and other structures that will be needed for our great city in the days that lie ahead. 
Previously each council has promoted its own pet project. Thankfully through the passing of this legislation we will see that fade away as the councils now work together collectively look at the overall good of Auckland City and begin to lay out the roading rail and bus structures that Auckland needs. As I heard one previous speaker say I would like to see any Auckland MP who does not support this legislation stand before the citizens of Auckland hold up his or her head and say that he or she does not support this legislation which will make the way forward to progress solutions to the challenges that Auckland has had for many reasons and for many years. Personally as an Aucklander I am thankful to see that roads are under way now. I am glad that this type of legislation is going through the House and will make a pathway for those who are appointed to various authorities and give them the power to make the correct decisions. Once again we always have to deal with people. I really hope that the ones who come here are forward thinkers who do not just look at the issue today but also consider and think through the issues of tomorrow. Auckland is an expanding city and there is no doubt about that. 
When my friend from the Green Party said that we were running out of room on the planet I wondered whether he lived on the same planet as I do. If he thinks that New Zealand is overpopulated with 4 million people he had better travel to other cities of the world. I will stand corrected on the space allocated here but I have read that we currently have enough space on our planet that if every person was allocated his or her portion of land he or she would be living on a 10-acre block. Yes we do have many challenges on the planet. Often people say millions of people are starving. We have enough food; it is just that it is not distributed correctly. 
To come back to the Auckland roading issue we have a fantastic city. Auckland is a buzzing humming city that will hum even better once we hear the sound of the thundering V8s running around the streets of Auckland as they used to run around the streets of Wellington. I would welcome that. We need wisdom in our choice of a circuit. Maybe the planners will see the wisdom of putting a central Auckland motor racing circuit right in the city and I would support that. Or perhaps we could put it out at Whenuapai. 
United Future supports this legislation. We believe that it makes a way forward. It will enable planners and strategists to think together. I hope that they think not just 2 or 3 years out but 10 20 and 30 years out into the future and that Auckland will continue to expand and become the great city it expects to be. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
I want to thank United Future New Zealand First the Greens and the Progressive Party which support this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. What on earth do National Party members think they are doing? They have said that they will not support this legislation. According to Don Brash petrol taxes are unnecessary but also essential rates funding for roads is awful but necessary road tolls will help to pay for new roads but will not raise any money and public transport is good but there is no reason to fund it. The complete two-facedness of National Party members on all that will land them in incredible trouble. It reminds me of a former Minister of Local Government Warren Cooper. When he started the mauling of Auckland’s regional local government arrangements in 1992 he said to me: “What you’ve got to understand girlie is that if Auckland ever gets its act together it will be a serious threat to central government.” So what are National Party members doing? They are continuing to say that no one should raise any extra money and no one should actually have the power to do anything in Auckland. But they will go on moaning about the fact that Auckland is not working and that a dollar wasted in Auckland is 66c that is not available to the rest of the country. 
According to Deborah Coddington we are wasting $2 billion; she has doubled Maurice Williamson’s apocryphal number. We now have $2 billion being wasted in Auckland but at the same time ACT will not support this bill. ACT members tell us there is no reason why more money from the consolidated account cannot go into Auckland. Presumably they want to take money from the consolidated account that they are also giving away in taxation cuts spending on defence and all the other Mickey Mouse Budget arrangements they are trying to pull out of a top hat—rabbits or anything else they can find to try to confuse New Zealanders with. 
I am delighted to support this bill. I want to thank the officials from the Ministry of Transport the local government section of the Department of Internal Affairs the Ministry for the Environment Treasury and from Auckland local government—the territorial local authorities as well as the regional council—who have worked so hard to bring the best partnership and the best solutions for Auckland’s transport needs together. It is the first time ever in history we have seen central government and local government work in partnership to solve a problem—not by grandstanding not by saying that it can be solved overnight and not by putting out outrageous proposals with outrageous costs associated to them but by a clear strategy and vision with funding and practical rearrangements of organisations so that we can implement it. In fact the goodwill that we have seen in terms of Auckland’s transport needs over the last 5 years should be commended as a first in history. 
In 1992 Warren Cooper in the then National Government introduced the Auckland Regional Services Trust which expropriated Auckland’s regional assets. Auckland was the only region in New Zealand that had its assets stolen from public use and put into the Auckland Regional Services Trust. Why was that? It was because that National Government said that all our regional assets should be flogged off. Warren Cooper said they would be sold for so little that whatever was left could go to the arts because they did not matter either. What did we have? We had about $1 billion worth of assets and revenue. In 1998 the National Government suddenly decided that that should not go to the arts. We had Maurice Williamson leaping about like a whirling dervish—but without the spiritual interest of a dervish—and he said he would give all that money away to Auckland. He was still going to flog off the port company but he was going to give about $1000 to $1500 to every Aucklander. His own colleagues said: “For God’s sake Maurice don’t be so bloody stupid. Pull your head in and get on.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Only Christine Fletcher and John Banks! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I notice that all the rest of his colleagues voted for that. So the National Government set up Auckland Infrastructure which was another attempt to put in a barrier to Auckland solving its own problems. At the same time Maurice Williamson as the then Minister of Transport was to put in better transport and better roads. What did we get? We got neither. Maurice Williamson spent the whole of the time of the Ministry of Transport and a big chunk of the time of the Ministry of Commerce and of Treasury but he did not build one centimetre of road in Auckland. Nor did he put one seat on one bus in Auckland. He did nothing for Auckland in respect of better transport and roads. 
What has this Government done? We have worked constructively with Auckland with regard to the present chaotic system that it has. In the last 5 years we have built the Puhinui interchange on State Highway 20. We have seen the Grafton project finished. We have started the huge project in the central business district to put in the links that are necessary so that we can actually get from the harbour bridge to the western motorway which the National Government did not bother to do. We have put the work in on State Highway 18. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What about the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT)? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes certainly the National Government built the ALPURT one but what did it have left in 1999 to do after that? It had absolutely nothing left! Did it put the North Shore busway in? Did it heck! Who kept public transport funding capped? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Me! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Maurice Williams proudly says: “Me!”. We have seen a trebling of the public money going into buses and a huge increase—over 30 percent—in public transport use across Auckland. We have seen walking school buses and the start of the refurbishment of the rail network in Auckland with the start of the double-tracking of the western corridor and the upgrading of the stations. That has all led to the investment in growth that this legislation will put into place. 
It is absolutely wonderful to see everybody working together in Auckland. This bill links up the organisations that have planned the solutions. Transit and Transit have put their 10-year capital indicative plans out there. We have the growth strategy the regional land transport strategy and the partnerships. Now we will have the organisations with the power to make the links and we have put the funding in place. I am delighted to support this excellent legislation which for the first time will establish one agency with the clear responsibility the power and the funding to carry out the projects that Auckland needs. It is about time that Auckland received its fair share of the fundingand got the Government’s foot off its neck—which was put there for the whole of the 9 years of the last National Government—so that we can get on and solve our problems get Auckland moving and make sure that Auckland— 
Opposition Members 
: Five long years! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Are the Opposition members not tragic? One project in 9 years and they are chorusing: “Five long years!”. 
I am delighted to say that this bill has overwhelming support not only from all the agencies that work with Auckland but also from Auckland itself. It is about time! We will do the job. We have started it already and this legislation will continue it through. I congratulate the Minister of Local Government who introduced this legislation. I can see why the National and ACT members are so upset because not only would they not fund this work but they would not do it and Auckland has got that message. I endorse this bill and commend it to the House. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 That was a party political broadcast brought to us by the Labour Party similar to the propaganda campaign it had for the Budget. Hopefully that speech did not cost $21 million like the Budget propaganda did. 
I have no doubt that in years to come that people who follow politics and are moderately interested in Auckland transport issues will look up that speech made by the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. They will spend a long time looking for it and I will give the House the reasons why that is the case. They will need to find it in the fiction section of the library because this Government loves the spin. It loves to tell everybody that it has Auckland under control that it is fixing the problem and that it cares. This is a Government that cares so much that it was prepared to pass the Land Transport Management Bill which was a complete sop to the Greens. 
When the Minister brought the legislation into the House privately he was going up and down the country in buses cars trains taxis planes in any form of transport he could find begging people—he was not asking them he was down on one knee begging them—to put in strong submissions and oppose his own legislation. That is how much the Labour Party cares about fixing transport. That is how much it cares about finding a solution. It had the audacity to bring into this House legislation that it knew was doomed to fail knew would never work and knew would never find the solutions. The reason the Government did that—and did it for one reason alone—was to keep the Greens happy. Heather Simpson had an agreement with the Greens and the Labour Government needed them or thought that one day it might need them. That is why it happened. It was not because the Government cared about the people of Auckland or cared about getting a solution. 
I look across at the other parties in the House that are supporting this legislation. I say to them to go back and look at the Land Transport Management Bill. It was such a disgrace that afterwards the Government had to set up the joint official group. This bill is the result of the joint official group. Even that move completely failed to find a solution. Even that was a complete cop-out. It will not work. 
National will get some billboards and during the election campaign it will put them up on the side of motorways all around Auckland. I make this promise: my constituents will be able to get out of the north-western motorway. These are the same constituents that Chris Carter has in his neighbouring electorate of Te Atatu. They will be able to get out and look at the billboards. They will be able to read the fine print. They will be able to see any kind of message that might be there. They will be able to get back in their cars because their cars will not be moving on the north-western motorway—just like the cars do not move on any night. They will not be moving because this bill is all about a cop-out. It is all about failing to find solutions. It is all about party-political politics. 
No one in Auckland is rejoicing. The reason why Newstalk ZB is so popular in Auckland is that people get to listen to the entire Larry Williams show. Even if they leave work to go home at 4 o’clock they get to listen to it all way through to 7 p.m. I am regularly on Newstalk ZB with Larry Williams. What a wonderful talkshow host he is. Whenever I am on that show I get thousands of emails because everybody in Auckland hears it. Nobody is at home playing with the kids or getting to do other things because the Government cannot fix the problem. 
No one said that the problem in Auckland was easy to fix. It is a difficult issue. Auckland has a difficult topography. It is a very widely spread out city. It has low density rates. It has an incredible number of issues to cope with. It has seven territorial local authorities and the Auckland Regional Council. This bill is not the solution. It does not go even halfway near the solution. This bill goes nowhere towards finding a solution to Auckland’s problems. 
I challenge those parties in the House who have come to the Chamber like lapdogs for the Labour Government to try to say they support this bill. They are terrified to read the legislation and work out that it will not work. They do not have the guts and the temerity in their own Parliament— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. To imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection and it is out of order. 
JOHN KEY 
: I did not refer to a member; I referred to a political party. Those political parties lack the temerity to come to the House and argue why this legislation is wrong. They have not even read it to work out that it will not work. This bill is a complete failure. 
Let us look at the things that are not in the legislation that might go some way towards solving the problem. Is the Resource Management Act tackled in this legislation? It must be because that would be the reason that Transfund last year could not spend $250 million despite the fact that fixing Auckland’s motorway network will cost $10 billion. Transfund could not even spend the money it had last year because the Resource Management Act prevented it from doing so. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You’re kidding. 
JOHN KEY 
: I am not kidding. There is no Resource Management Act amendment clause in this Auckland bill. There is nothing in there because it is not going to happen. There is a $5 billion shortfall in funding for Auckland’s projects and that excludes the Auckland motorway network. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
JOHN KEY 
: The Minister laughs. I thought the Minister had a calculator in his office. He could add it up or do elementary arithmetic. But if he wants me to come around to his office any day he likes I will add up in front of him the amounts that will add up to the $10 billion to fix Auckland’s motorway network. That excludes the eastern corridor and the alternative harbour crossing. It is $10 billion. 
There is no solution to the problem in this legislation. What we have done is rewarded failure. We have gone to the Auckland Regional Council and said: “You haven’t done a tremendously good job in your planning. You haven’t done a tremendously good job of finding a solution to Auckland’s problems. We do not want a commercial entity that could have independent directors;that could find the problem put all the people inside the tent and actually get a solution that Aucklanders can be proud of. No we want to play party politics. We want the Auckland Regional Council with all the members on its regional committee. We do not want the real people in the tent.” 
This is no different from the Land Transport Management Bill. This is all about propaganda and spin. We are back to the same old problem we had with the Land Transport Management Bill when the Minister was here. It is all about trying to tell people we are fixing the problems but the real solutions are not coming today. They are not coming tomorrow. They are not coming in 6 months or in 2 years. They are not ever coming as a result of this bill because this bill fails to address the real issues in Auckland which relate to whether we can get in more private sector capital by having public-private partnerships. Can we do that? There is no response to that question. 
These are not radical right-wing ideas. These are things introduced in the United Kingdom by a left-wing Government. These are things introduced in every state of Australia by Labour Governments. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Every one of them is Labour. 
JOHN KEY 
: Every one of them is Labour. Public-private partnerships have been introduced all around the world. We cannot do that. There is no provision for that in this legislation. We do not see independence in this bill and a real framework and a real willingness to make the problem go forward. We see party-political politics in here. This bill is a tremendous failure. 
I want to finish on one other point. I ask anyone who might even question my last statement—and I strongly urge the United Future party and New Zealand First that it is never too late to change their view—to read the bill have a look at Auckland Regional Holdings and ask themselves one question: “If this is not about a slush fund and not about politics why do 85 percent of the funds of Infrastructure Auckland have a definite direction—a definite earmarking to them—that they will go to either transport or stormwater? What happened to that other 15 percent? 
The answer is that even Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Council will not tell us. No one will tell us because it is the political slush fund. [ 
Interruption 
] It is 15 percent of billions of dollars and that is the very reason why Infrastructure Auckland did a good job when it was previously set up. It was prepared to stand up to the likes of Judith Tizard who wanted to go there and use political influence. That is why it is doomed to failure. Auckland has been badly served indeed by this propaganda. Every party in this Parliament should be campaigning strongly against the bill. National will not support it. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. Having been asked only a few minutes ago to give a short speech on it I am very happy to do so. It is also a pleasure to follow Mr Key an Auckland member. He mentioned the UK experience— 
John Key 
: A positive experience. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: —he calls it a positive experience—in terms of the construction of new roads new motorways etc. I want to give Mr Key a little of my experience of the UK. I well recall the ring roads around London the congestion that occurred there in the 1980s and the huge construction efforts undertaken by the roading authorities in the UK at the time which resulted in a motorway called the M25. 
John Key 
: I know it well. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Mr Key would know therefore that the M25 was dubbed almost as soon as it was completed the largest car-park in the world. I had the experience when this brand new motorway was less than a few months old of sitting in a coach for several hours as the traffic inched gradually along. 
 The point I am making is that Auckland’s problems will not be solved by a very simple recipe of building more and more motorways. I am not for a moment saying there is no need for more roads. Clearly the Government has recognised that but it has a balanced mixture of policy that sees roads public transport by way of buses a rail system integrated ticketing cycling walking and walking school buses—all those things—as part of a greater whole. But at the same time we are making the investments that are needed in an area of the country that for many years has been neglected in terms of the amount of infrastructure being built. 
I think it is absolutely instructive to look at some of the comments of the National Party members. Just to give members one very short example before I sit down I refer to Mr Brash’s comments. He said we should remove petrol tax and reduce rates levies etc. but acknowledged that we need to build a roading network within 10 years. If one actually looks at the detail of the comments made one sees it is quite clear that one cannot remove taxes and spend more money at the same time. It is simply not possible yet that is what National members are asking us to believe. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 If this bill is the answer it must have been one dumb question. The idea that we will fix the ginormous transport problems in Auckland by creating two new bureaucracies could only have come out of a left-wing Labour caucus. I was amazed to hear the contribution from the Associate Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven. He says that the answer as much as I could make it out to Auckland transport issues is walking buses—walking buses for kiddies. Well my daughter Hazel is proud to be part of a walking bus but I have to tell the Associate Minister of Transport that if his answer to Auckland’s serious traffic woes is walking buses it is no wonder we have a flaky bill like the one before the House. 
It further amazes me as National’s local government spokesperson. I have talked to a great number of the citizens and councils of Auckland and if there is any local authority—I would go so far as to say anywhere in New Zealand—in which there is a lack of public confidence it is the Auckland Regional Council. Everybody I speak to says it is a bureaucratic monster out of control that delivers little. Yet the Government—Judith Tizard and Chris Carter—believe that our worst public authority is the answer to New Zealand’s biggest problem. That is absolutely extraordinary. I am not surprised that those Auckland members of the Labour caucus are not down here defending this bill; they know it is a failure and they know it will not address the very serious transport issues that are costing Auckland and New Zealand a billion dollars a year. 
But I want to go further down this track of extra bureaucracies not being the answer. If there is any aspect of Auckland’s transport issues on which the editorials the councils and the important commercial transport organisations agree it is that there already are too many organisations trying to deal with Auckland’s transport woes; that there already is a lack of accountability and no one organisation is prepared to put up its hand and say it is responsible for the mess that is Auckland’s transport woes. So I ask Mr Carter again: how can creating two new bureaucracies possibly make a positive difference to those transport concerns? 
It is interesting to note that despite all the increased taxes that this Government has imposed—not just on the road users in Auckland but on the road users in New Plymouth in Nelson and throughout the country—and despite this Government telling New Zealanders that that extra money would be spent on Auckland roads it has been quite comprehensively proved by my colleague Maurice Williamson that this Government is spending less on Auckland roads than was spent in the last year of the National Government. That is a fact it is an embarrassing fact and it is time that both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Local Government fronted up to the people of New Zealand as to why they are taking more money off the road user and spending less on roads. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There was a 32 percent increase in revenue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague points out that 32 percent more money was taken off road users and less money is being spent. That is why we say Auckland’s transport problems have got worse every year under this Labour Government. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Because you did nothing for years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I will tell that Minister what we did do. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We introduced a Resource Management Amendment Bill and that member is part of the Government that rejected that bill. It is interesting that Judith Tizard the failed Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues is getting a bit tetchy. It is not surprising she is getting a bit tetchy; if I had her track record I would probably resign. She is getting tetchy because this Government has done a U-turn on the Resource Management Act. If we go back to 1999 we find that National introduced quite a comprehensive bill to make some key changes to that Act and this Minister and this Government pooh-poohed it. They said that no the Resource Management Act was beautifully written and beautifully crafted and did not need to change despite the fact that key Auckland transport projects had been tied up by the Resource Management Act for 7 years. It seems it is acceptable to Government Ministers including Judith Tizard that it takes 7 years to get a consent to build a new road. Well members on this side say that is not acceptable and that is why Don Brash in his leading speech on Auckland transport issues pointed out— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It’s all laughable! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Judith Tizard obviously has not read the  
New Zealand Herald.  
I read a stunning editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that stated there was more sense in Don Brash’s speech on roads than it had heard on that issue for years from Judith Tizard or the four Ministers of Transport. We on this side of the House are proud of that speech and proud of the fact that that speech recognises that we will not make substantive progress on Auckland’s transport issues without substantial amendment of the Resource Management Act. That is something this Government does not recognise it is something this Government has continually kicked for touch and it is something that National and Labour view very differently. 
The further issue is public-private partnerships. We on this side of the House have held the view that they offer real potential to solve Auckland’s transport woes. Where in this bill do we find any mention of the potential for public-private partnerships to do the job? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: They were in the last bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the Minister how many public-private partnerships there have been. It is 5 years since that member picked up her ministerial warrant. How many public-private partnerships do we have? Could the National transport spokesperson fill me in? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Um um it’s zero! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is zero. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister admits that despite her carrying a ministerial warrant for 5 years we do not have a single public-private partnership in respect of dealing with Auckland’s transport concerns. I tell the Minister that by any sense that is failure and she will be held accountable at the polls next year for that. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No wonder you lost the Wearable Arts! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is it not interesting: the Minister now wants to talk about the Wearable Arts Awards. I would be happy to talk about those and about how that Minister has produced a result that is a tragedy for Nelson but this debate is actually about a transport bill. I think the people of Auckland are actually more concerned about the billion dollars a year that transport issues cost them than they are about the tragedy of Nelson losing the Wearable Arts Awards. 
I want to come back to this bill and to point out that it is an appalling indictment on the Government’s management of transport. Here we have a huge issue of great economic and strategic importance for not just Auckland but our country and on all the key issues—organisation the agencies involved in managing this problem; legislation notably the Resource Management Act; the billion-dollar price tag on completing the Auckland motorway network; and the issue of public-private partnerships—this bill takes us nowhere. It is a failure. It is an indictment on the Minster of Local Government the Minster of Transport and the sometime Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. It is a bill that will actually make things worse not better. It is a bill that will sentence thousands tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to ongoing traffic jams. 
I say to members opposite particularly the Auckland members that the voters of the city of Auckland will not tolerate the ongoing obfuscation and failure in respect of transport issues. Those members have failed. They ought to resign and let somebody else come up with a far better approach to solving Auckland’s transport woes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to get into what I think will be the long long process of the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: What were we doing 10 years ago? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Harry Duynhoven thinks that is funny but I am delighted to say that— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: We got a lot of support Maurice. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Actually I do not need much support because we know exactly what we believe on this bill and why we believe that it is wrong. 
Now that the Minister of Local Government Chris Carter is in the chair there are a couple of things I want to start off with. There is so much material that I want to ask about but I guess the first question is this: why did there seem to be such a split within Cabinet when it came time for the announcement of this stuff in December? Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance and Paul Swain the then Minister of Transport issued very positive press statements that mentioned roads and that said we needed better roading more roads in Auckland. I actually thought their press statements looked quite good. Then I read stuff from the Hon Judith Tizard from the Prime Minister Helen Clark and from the Hon Chris Carter the Minister of Local Government who is in the chair and in many cases—I am not sure about Chris Carter’s statement but I think his was one; I am happy to bring them down to the House afterwards—they never mentioned roads. 
Judith Tizard certainly did not mention roads in her whole press statement. It talked about Auckland’s needs for the future about integrated transport walking buses cycleways and walkways. It talked about the lot and I thought this is wonderful—where is the mention of roads? Roads as I think everyone in this Chamber will agree will be central to solving Auckland’s problems. Yes there needs to be more done in the area of public transport—I accept that. Yes there needs to be more done to encourage people to use alternative transport or to change lifestyles. But all those solutions are of the magnitude of about 1 percent. The number of people currently using rail in Auckland make 3 million trips a year. That is 0.3 percent of the passenger trips being made in Auckland. So even if rail patronage were to double by some miraculous change over the next few years it still would be an absolutely minute part of the solution. 
I think the Minister in the chair has a responsibility to tell us about this. I might have done him a disservice—I will go back and check his press statement from 13 December—but I know that several Ministers in their announcements never used the words “roads” or “roading”. In that great wonderful announcement about the world-leading solution for Auckland that was coming the words “roads” and “roading” were not mentioned. 
Then we get to some more embarrassing stuff in terms of the track record on this issue and it is to do with the funding of Auckland’s roads. This bill is supposed to be setting up the administrative processes to fix it but one of the most embarrassing things the Government has on its plate is the fact that its track record of putting money where its mouth is is so bad. This Government has been in power for 5 years. I asked the Minister of Transport a very specific question: how much money has been spent on the building of new roads both local and State highways by year for the last 6 years? The first number we got was for the full year of the last year of the National Government—$134 million—then we got numbers for the corresponding years from that point on. I have tabled them in the House today so they are on public record. In every year that this Government has been in power the amount of money it has spent in real dollar terms on new roads in Auckland both local and State highways was less than what the National Government spent. 
It could be said that that was because the Labour Government was so committed to spending its money elsewhere. I would have listened to that and said it was a reasonable argument until I had a look at Transfund’s books. Transfund has already told us that it will finish this financial year—tomorrow actually—with a $250 million surplus in the coffers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How much? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It will have $250 million. The people of Auckland who are in drive time—unfortunately in Auckland that is any time from about 3 o’clock in the afternoon to 9 o’clock at night nowadays because it takes hours to get anywhere—and are listening will be asking why $250 million that was taken from them is sitting there when there is a desperate need for new roads. I am happy to go through the list of roads that need to be built. What is this legislation doing about it? It is setting up two new bureaucracies. I can just see the people stuck on the southern motorway right now saying “Yippee!” about having two new bureaucracies! 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First’s policy on roading in Auckland or elsewhere is very clear. We want to make sure that all money raised by taxing the motorist for the building of roads is used to build roads. We do not support the policies of this minority Labour Government or the National Party which say that some of that money—$700 million or $800 million—can be siphoned off into other areas. 
I was in the House in 1977-78 when we introduced the hubodometer tax. It was made absolutely clear by Sir Robert Muldoon and Colin McLachlan the Minister of Transport that that tax was to be spent on roads. We said that every truck could do as much damage as 40000 cars and that the taxes raised from the hubodometer tax on trucks had to be spent on the roads. New Zealand First follows that view—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Williamson can interject on me all the time if he likes but that is our policy and that is where we differ from the National Party and the Labour Party. 
I stood up in a meeting with Don Brash on the North Shore when I put this proposal forward and I got no support from him. He wanted to make sure that that money was still spent on hospitals and suchlike. That is fair enough but we want to make sure that every cent of the New Zealand Roads Board money—all road-user taxes—is spent on the roads unlike the National Party as Dr Brash said on the North Shore. 
This bill is like the old saying: half a loaf is better than no bread. We take the view that something has to be done for Auckland. This bill at least approaches the problem and gives some consideration to it and it amalgamates many of the diverse local authorities and local institutions that govern Auckland roads and tries to put them together towards one solution—one body looking at the problem and one body trying to solve it. We could wait 18 months for the National Party to come up with some dream idea but we know that all Maurice Williamson ever did in Government was produce reports. We in New Zealand First cannot wait for reports. We are willing to give a proposal a try. As I say it is half a loaf not the full loaf but we will give it a go because we believe that something positive has to be done for Auckland. We will not be like the National Party—we will not rub our hands say that this is a dreadful state of affairs and then spend another 18 months saying how dreadful it is. We want some action. This offers us some action in Auckland. 
As an Auckland member of Parliament and someone who helped to unchain the north-western motorway in 1979-80—I was there when Sir Robert Muldoon and I opened the Western Springs link in 1982-83 and really nothing happened after that under the Labour Government or the National Government—I am pleased that the north-western motorway will swing into the Auckland Harbour Bridge. I congratulate the Labour Party on in this term at least approaching that problem and doing something about it. If one drives on the city motorways today there does seem to be something happening. It did not happen much between 1984 and virtually 2002. There was scant work being done. I congratulate the Minister and this Government because something is happening at least and it is not the hand-wringing moaning groaning and whingeing that we constantly get from Maurice Williamson in yet another report. 
I am also very pleased that there is an extension of the rail link with one line going up as far as Morningside. I hope it will go to Henderson. I wanted to see it go to Helensville—there is no reason why that double rail link should not go there. I am looking forward to that double rail link going all the way to Helensville at the very least because there is a growing population in that area. The Auckland Regional Council—and that is part of what we are talking about today—has plans for the growth of that area. Rail link is one of the ways in which the transport of that area can be improved. Also I cannot see how people getting off a plane at Whenuapai at 8 o’clock in the morning or 6 o’clock in the morning will ever get to Auckland on the north-western motorway. They cannot do it today and they will not be able to do it in the future as things stand. That is something that really has to be re-examined by those people who support the Infratil plan for Whenuapai. 
I congratulate our member Jim Peters on all the amendments the Minister will put forward in discussion with Jim Peters and New Zealand First. We believe that cooperation with the Government is very important if something positive can be achieved. We were at the Auckland Regional Council. The council was critical of this bill Jim Peters was critical of this bill but now we have worked through to a solution in this bill which can only be a better result for the people of Auckland. That is very important especially in an MMP situation. If there is a problem it is no use just wringing one’s hands and moaning about it; one tries to work towards a good solution to that problem. What we are getting in this bill is an improvement. It is half a loaf but it is better than no bread. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I would like to thank Dail Jones from New Zealand First for those kind and truthful comments. The Government has attempted to work through this process in as engaging and consensual a way as possible. It has involved a great deal of the time of my officials and Government members in meeting with Auckland territorial authorities and engaging with other political parties so that we can come up with solutions that start to address this critical problem of transport within Auckland and particularly its governance structures. 
This bill is aimed at promoting increased integration of decision making. We had some presentations earlier from some National members stating that the bill increased the number of bodies making decisions. Actually it does not; it goes a long way to integrate and streamline those processes. Part 1 is a fairly narrow part. It deals with title commencement purpose and integration. I would like to comment very briefly on just two things. The first is the Supplementary Order Paper and the commencement part that I intend to introduce. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to be up and running on 1 January. If it manages to appoint its chief executive and get everything ready before then we are very keen for it to start as soon as possible. So the Supplementary Order Paper allows the authority the flexibility if it is up and running earlier to get started and take full responsibility. 
The other area I would like to comment on very briefly is the integration of all the Franklin district into the area that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be dealing with in its planning processes. The transport systems in the Waikato are very integrated with Auckland’s transport structures. We have widened out the reach here beyond the Auckland Regional Council to the Waikato Regional Council in an attempt to try to integrate this incredibly complex Auckland transport network into an effective and efficient system. It will be a Herculean task but this Government has both the commitment and the resources to try to address this question. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 1. The Green Party of course is supporting this bill. I want to talk particularly about the purpose of the bill. Part 1 states that one of the purposes of the bill is to improve the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system. A lot of people talk about integration. John Banks the Mayor of Auckland who has a somewhat different position from the Green Party on these matters sometimes talks about integration too. So I think it is worthwhile looking at what integration is about. To people like John Banks it is essentially the code word for a motorway system as the backbone of transport with perhaps a bit of rail buses cycling and walking thrown in. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Before the dinner break I was talking about how the purpose of the bill refers to the need for integrated transport and about the fact that some people—and I mentioned John Banks—who use the word “integration” are really focusing on a whole motorway structure with a bit of rail bus ferry walking and cycling hanging off it. That is what some people call “integrated” whereas when we go around the world and look at other cities we see that their transport backbone is public transport—particularly rail transport. I think that is where Auckland has been missing the boat over the last few decades. 
What we need to build particularly south of the harbour bridge is a true backbone of rail transport as the hub for public transport in Auckland generally. There has been a huge decline in patronage from the old days when there were 100 million passenger movements per year. There is around half that number now although that figure is coming up quite rapidly. When people argue against really putting the emphasis and money into rail I think they should just look at Auckland today where the problem is not that people refuse to go on trains but that the trains particularly around commuter time are full. 
I went to see the marketing manager of Connex Auckland which is taking over the operation of the Auckland rail system very shortly. That manager has the rather unusual task of not wishing to encourage increasing commuter patronage at this point in time because every time Connex Auckland puts on a new train it automatically fills up and it has too many passengers for the trains it has now. The big task before Auckland—and hopefully this new structure in the bill will advance it—is that of getting a better track getting many more carriages double-tracking lines and improving the stations etc. So the job of that marketing manager is really to get these trains running right on time and to have good quality public transport for Auckland. 
I think that one of the tasks of the new Auckland Regional Transport Authority which is being set up under this bill will be to get the trains and the stations up to scratch. I think it is envisaged and possible in this bill for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to actually own those carriages etc. and to bring them on stream. Auckland Regional Holdings as I understand it is more the permanent asset infrastructure base and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be in charge of making sure—together with the operator Connex Auckland—that the carriages are there. 
The backbone of a true rail infrastructure is developing with the Britomart complex having opened but unfortunately there are too few trains going into that complex to date. There is work proceeding on double-tracking the western line—that is good—and talk about treble-tracking the line coming in from the east. But if we are to develop a true rail backbone particularly where there is a weakness along the eastern corridor we need to reject the idea of building another motorway down the eastern corridor. We need to reject the old vision of motorways being the backbone of transport and really develop services along that eastern rail corridor which at the moment at peak times are really quite infrequent. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to address Part 1 which contains the purpose and interpretation clauses. If the Minister Chris Carter were serious about solving some of the transport problems in Auckland he would urge his Government to make a decision on Whenuapai Air Base. Instead Government members are sitting there twiddling their thumbs. The Government will not make a decision on Whenuapai Air Base because it is too political and because it does not want to upset Auckland International Airport. While the people in west Auckland sit waiting for this airport so they do not have to sit in traffic for 3 hours to take a 1-hour flight to Wellington Government members sit around passing legislation such as this in urgency. 
Clause 3 states that the purpose of this Act is to improve the integration of the Auckland regional land transport system and decisions on stormwater funding. It does not say anything about building roads about pricing mechanisms or about ending the gridlock in the Auckland transport system which is a total disgrace. If this Government were serious in doing something about the Auckland transport system it would bring in legislation such as that brought in for the America’s Cup which enabled the America’s Cup village to be built in time for the event and enabled the money to be poured into the Auckland region. That benefited not just downtown Auckland in terms of aesthetics and creating businesses but the whole of New Zealand. All that is needed is a bill like that to set up some sort of central body that could hear all the submissions and objections in one piece. There would be one right of appeal and then the whole roading network could go through. 
As I said before there is no point just in building more roads because cars will pour on to them—especially in Auckland which is built on a very narrow piece of land. As the Greens say it is hopeless trying to get people to use rail. If people want to use rail let them pay for rail. The motorists in Auckland pay through their road-user charges through their accident compensation levies through their drivers’ licences through registering their cars and again and again through petrol taxes. Even though they pay all that money less than 50 percent—I think about 17 percent—actually goes back into the roads. The rest goes into the consolidated account. Aucklanders are so desperate that they will agree as a last measure even to a regional petrol tax. That will not solve anything anyway because people will just pour out of the area to fill up their vehicles and go back in again. 
This bill will do absolutely nothing because this Government is ideologically opposed to any form of private enterprise. Until this Government—or any Government—allows private enterprise to come into the picture in terms of building operating and transferring roads we will never get anywhere. This bill is really an asset grab. It is an asset-grab bill. It would put Brierley’s to shame in terms of grabbing all the assets that belong to Auckland people—in the form of Infrastructure Auckland—which they have paid for and which interestingly enough it took an Alliance person to safeguard for them. Now it will just hand over those assets to the Auckland Regional Council and it will not even require that all of those assets be used on the roads and the stormwater system. As I said during a prior debate on this bill the Auckland Regional Council will be allowed to use 15 percent of the assets for whatever it wishes. 
This is the council that with a straight face unashamedly put up rates on the North Shore to $6000 per year. Those people would have to pay for a rail system that they would never use that some of them would never see and that because this Government is so soft and pathetic on crime they would not want to use. A pensioner lady I spoke to whose rates were going up to $6000 per year said: “I would not use rail anyway because the railway stations aren’t safe. Why would I want to use it?” This bill is just cosmetic public relations. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I note that clause 5 states: “This Act binds the Crown.” What a noble gesture that is. It implies does it not that the Crown the Government of New Zealand has some grand design for the Auckland region in relation to transport. Unfortunately that is not true and this bill fails in its basic objective. Members should look at clause 3 “Purpose” which states: “The purpose of this Act is—(a) to improve the integration of—(i) the Auckland regional land transport system;”. It actually does not do that because we will still have the multiplicity of authorities and accountabilities. Certainly it aggregates some stuff within the Auckland region. It gives some additional powers to the Auckland Regional Council and it deals with Auckland Regional Network Transport Ltd but it does not deal with the big issue which as the Minister well knows is the completion of the motorway network. Where in this bill do I find the inclusion and integration of Transit or Transfund— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Or TrackCo. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —or TrackCo. The big spending items are not here so when I see the words: “This Act binds the Crown.” I realise that they are there purely as window-dressing. The Crown to all intents and purposes is doing absolutely nothing. 
I am appalled that after 7½ years I have to stand here and say that the busway for the North Shore is yet to start. It is a project that has been thought about in our city progressively planned during the 3 years I was a Government back-bencher and now 5 years later is yet to start. Certainly there are all sorts of honeyed words from the Government with fine intentions and so forth but our city is waiting for the bulldozers. I do not mean just on the Esmonde Road interchange; I mean on the entire network. 
In fact the speaker for the Greens takes direct and personal accountability aided and abetted by the Minister in the chair Chris Carter for stopping the work entirely for the last 12 months by a review. It was an unnecessary review of something that would have significant advantages for public transport which I presume the Greens actually support and the city desires. It was an integration of public transport through buses and high-density vehicles—that is motor vehicles carrying three or more people. It was something that surely everyone would have supported; yet a review lasting 12 months effectively put the project back. So a project that should have been in operation no later than 2003 if the Government had taken a meaningful and serious approach to this issue will I suggest not now operate until 2008 at the earliest. That is a whole decade for a very simple straightforward project. 
So when Auckland people look at the actions of this Government and measure them they will say: “Gosh it took 10 years just to do a simple project like the North Shore busway. How on earth will the Government be able to complete its alleged programme in a meaningful sort of way?”. There are much tougher decisions ahead. Has this Government made a single statement of serious funding intent in relation to the Eastern highway for instance? It has not made even one. 
The reality is that the city will wait until the Government is thrown out because that is the only possible solution to this problem. We need to change the Government and get a clear and coherent policy in place. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill I want to say to Auckland people that they can relax because help is on its way. In the next year or so there will be a National Government and finally something will be done about the outrageous roading shambles in the Auckland region. It is a disgrace and I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter that this bill is a sick joke. He thinks that fixing up Auckland’s shambolic motorway and roading system will be achieved by creating two more committees. They are to be called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings and that will fix up the roads? What a sick joke! The Minister in the chair should get his brain around what has to happen in Auckland. This legislation will not do a damned thing to fix that absolute shambles. 
I must tell my colleagues something funny. Do they know that we have a Minister responsible for assisting the Prime Minister on Auckland issues? Yes I think it is the Hon Judith Tizard. Well we had a meeting with the Auckland Regional Council where we were being briefed on this legislation because the council want changes in it. I got up and said: “Look the progress that is being made on roading in Auckland is such that it is actually getting worse and worse by the month. Things are falling further and further behind. For example the traffic north of Orewa is now getting so bad that there is a crisis right through to Wellsford.” 
Do members know what the Hon Judith Tizard said? She said that this bill was only about the Auckland region. The Minister helping the Prime Minister on Auckland issues did not know where the Auckland region extended to. She thought Wellsford was outside the Auckland region. That is the Minister advising the Prime Minister on Auckland issues! We had news for her of course. The Auckland region extends right up to just north of Te Hana north of Wellsford—and the Labour Government does not even know that? It brings this legislation into the House and it does not even know where the Auckland region extends to. 
I am going to tell this Minister in the chair that Part 1 is a joke because it sets out the purpose and there is nothing in that purpose that will do anything to fix the roading problem. I invite the Minister to name one thing in that purpose that will do anything to get the bulldozers moving and the dirt shifted to build a road in Auckland. When National was last in office the motorway was going right through to Puhoi as a single construction and the money was there to do it. What has Labour done? It has done nothing but establish with this legislation two more committees—as if committees will build any roads. I say to that Minister in the chair that the public of Auckland will boot him and his mates out because they are sick of being stuck in traffic. They are sick of it. 
But I want to be deadly serious about this. The problem is getting worse rapidly and there is nothing in this legislation that will improve the situation. By 2008 apparently the Albany to Puhoi realignment will be constructed through to Puhoi. I want to tell the Minister that by 2008 he will have such a shambles north of Puhoi to Warkworth and Wellsford that it will be impossible to get through. Already the queues of traffic around Warkworth and Wellsford are such that it is impossible to get through. When there is an accident on that piece of State Highway 1 there is an absolute shambles. 
There is a desperate need to actually shift some dirt and build some roads—and this legislation just sets up two more committees. They are two more committees that will do nothing because there is an absolute disconnect between Transit’s priorities and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s priorities. There is nothing in this legislation that requires Transit to do anything that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority thinks should be done and there is nothing in Part 1 which sets out the purpose and the interpretation that will fix that problem. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like it to be made known that on this side of the Chamber there are Auckland members who are concerned about this bill. In particular members who were on the select committee would like to be given a call on such an important bill for Auckland which is why Auckland members and not other members are speaking. I ask that when we move to Parts 2 and 3 and then back to the title fair consideration be given to them when they seek the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. I understand that and I will take into account what the member has said. 
Part 2 Auckland Region land transport and stormwater 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Part 2 clauses 6 to 36 stand part. This includes debate on schedules 1 2 3 4 and 4A. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 The Labour Government thinks it knows a lot about land transport because it is good at giving out traffic tickets. That has been its contribution to land transport in New Zealand—it is good at stopping law-abiding citizens and giving them traffic tickets but not too good at fixing Auckland’s problems or the motorway network. Aucklanders are not asking for a miracle or some wonderful thing. Members were talking before about the objectives of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority as they are listed in Part 2 “Auckland Region land transport and stormwater” and the fact that fixing those roads is an impossible dream. Aucklanders have been waiting 40 long years for this network to be finished. In the 5 years this Government has been in office it has achieved absolutely nothing and this bill will continue to fail. 
The Government has shown scant regard for this bill. The members who have so far spoken on the bill are the Hon Rick Barker from Tukituki Damien O’Connor from the West Coast and Harry Duynhoven from New Plymouth. They are not Auckland members. Where are the Auckland members? Those members are trying to close down the debate and a couple of provincial members were also trying to close it down. Aucklanders care passionately about this issue. They want a resolution but the Government does not. The Government does not care about fixing Auckland’s problems. What it cares about is snuggling up to the Greens and its coalition partner arrangements. That is what made the Land Transport Management Bill a complete and utter failure and that is what will make the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill a similar failure. 
For anyone who needs more clarification of that point Iurge that person to look at Part 2 of the bill and in particular at clause 8(1A) which provides that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority “… must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility …”. That clause must have been drafted by the Green Party. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear the Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons and she is nodding in approval of that statement. When she went to Heather Simpson on the ninth floor in the dark she said: “This is the bottom line. I want these things in the bill. Let’s make this one as unworkable as the Land Transport Management Bill. That is my aim.” and Heather Simpson quietly said to her: “Yes. Don’t worry Jeanette Fitzsimons we’ll take care of it. We’ll make this an unworkable piece of legislation just the way the Land Transport Management Bill was.” 
Then we look at consultation as it is set out in clause 8(1A)(b)(i): “ensuring … that the views of affected communities are taken into account;”. What is an affected community? For instance looking at the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) the motorway north of Auckland is the affected community someone who is paying the toll someone living in the local area someone trying to use that road to go to Northland or someone in the south of Auckland or in Wellington who is currently travelling through? Affected communities are very difficult things to define. When the select committee was discussing the Land Transport Management Bill—which I might say in hindsight is really a subset of this bill—we asked officials about affected communities and the exact conclusion they drew was that affected communities were quite difficult to define. 
I want also to make specific reference to Part 3 “Amendments repeals and revocations” which again talks about the number of people who are required to be consulted. I want to draw members’ attention back to why attempts to solve the problems have failed and why it is likely that this legislation will continue to fail to deliver results for Aucklanders. That is the very important point that Don Brash made in his speech on roading which I would encourage members to read because it was a very good speech. It pointed out that the real problems in Auckland are the problems not addressed in these issues. The real problems are the Resource Management Act the failure to have the private sector in any way engaged in road building in Auckland and the inability to produce one seamless decision-making body. 
What the press release of the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter said was that this would be one body to solve Auckland’s problems. What he forgot to tell the people of New Zealand was that this was not one body but one more body to add on to all those other bodies out there. That is right—he meant more bureaucracy. My prediction is that if Aucklanders are waiting for the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to fix their problems with no changes they will be waiting a very long time indeed. The tragedy of that situation of course is that motorways in Auckland are at 95 percent capacity as we speak today. We cannot afford to wait. We cannot afford to have thousands of Aucklanders migrating into Auckland. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I want to just pick up on— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The call should go to Jim Peters. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Could the member be seated. I am well aware of that Mr Jones. I am looking at proportionality in the Parliament and as long as proportionality takes place— 
Dail Jones 
: But you have to alternate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Not in Committee. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I want to pick up on some of those points that John Key was making—an Auckland member of Parliament. I do so in the knowledge that I will still be addressing the drive time audience in Auckland because it will be at least another hour while they are trying to work their way home. They listen to Parliament for at least 4 hours at night on their way home. 
I went and found the Minister’s press release—here it is in all its glorious crimson colour—on the web. I thought I would see whether my memory served me right and I typed in the word “road” and hit “find”. Low and behold it found the word “road” once and I thought: “Oh he did—I got it wrong.” But no it was not—along the bottom of the website it says “Home Ministers Portfolios Initiatives Newsletters Broadcast”—and the word “road” is in the word “broadcast”! That is the only place Chris Carter mentions “roads”. I have got it here. I am happy to table it. 
John Key 
: Surely not! Is he on the right bill? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No no! This was the big announcement on 12 December and it says: “Single governing organisation for Auckland transport”. That is the heading. It sounds good. It sounds really good. This is what Mr Carter the Minister in the chair says: “I think everyone agrees that present governance arrangements for Auckland’s transport are confused inefficient and ineffectual. The Government believes these arrangements must be clarified so extra transport funding earmarked for Auckland can be used in the best possible way”. That is what Mr Carter said. “The Government proposes that responsibility for Auckland transport issues such as” —and members should listen to this— 
Simon Power 
: We’re listening. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No this is really important; members have to listen carefully: “Auckland transport issues such as rail bus ferry pedestrian and cycle transport reside with one organisation”. Where is the word “roads”? It is not mentioned. I will read it again: it states that the Government believes that the “responsibility for Auckland transport issues such as rail bus ferry pedestrian and cycle transport”— 
Simon Power 
: No cars in that one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well now we have worked out what the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) is going to be. It is going to have a little wee circular station and there will be walking buses from thereon north. People will get out of their cars and they will just trundle on with their walking bus. But let me get to the last bit of his press release. He says then: “reside with one organisation to be called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority”. That sounds good. So the responsibility for all of Auckland’s transport is going to lie with one authority. 
Now the problem in the past was—and I made this point in the second reading—that there was a plethora of organisations. There were 18 of them. I have got the list I have got the graph I have got the printout. There were 18 of them from the Auckland Regional Transport Network to TrackCo to Transit to the seven territorial authorities to the regional council to Infrastructure Auckland. God knows it was most complicated. The press release stated that it was going to be one. When I saw that I thought “Boy I reckon these guys might have got it. They are going to move”— 
Simon Power 
: No. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I did actually. Now I know that it was a foolish thing to have thought because what we are passing tonight is legislation that does quite the opposite. It does not bring it all under one organisation at all. Now I thought that Chris Carter has a bias he is a local government Minister he will not be into this. So I read the press release ofJudith Tizard who says she is the Associate Minister of Transport. Here it is. I have it here. Well I will find the word “road”—and guess what? “Road” is used in her press release—once. Just once. 
Simon Power 
: Just once? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: But no no when I finally read the sentence it states: “Transit New Zealand has just announced that it expects to begin work next month on the North Shore’s $35 million Esmonde Road Bus Interchange.” So the only place “road” appears is in the mention of the bus interchange. So Judith Tizard does not believe in roads. Minister Carter does not believe in roads. 
So I thought well I will go to the top. I thought that the Prime Minister Helen Clark would not be as stupid as that; she would have this fixed. She talks about there being a need. She says: “The structure involves a single body responsible for Auckland transport under the auspices of the Auckland Regional Council.” Well it does not does it? And the Minister has not told us in this Chamber about all these other bodies. 
Let us ask one simple question just one. There are lots of questions but I will ask just one and see whether I can get an answer. Why is Transit staying out doing its own thing if these press releases are true? Because if there were just one body Transit would be dragged into it. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 First I want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 8 just to pick up some of the modes of thinking that we have already heard in the last few minutes. The first thing is that the members on my right speak with great confidence about roads in Auckland. In Northland we are affected as one member has already said very much by what happens in Auckland. I am speaking on behalf of New Zealand First. We have no great interest in what the National Party the Labour Party or any other party thinks. We are guided by the fact that recently I heard a would-be voter in the United States interviewed about whether he would vote for Mr Kerry. His answer was very interesting. He said: “I will vote for anyone who is positive and I will vote for anyone who promises me that they can fix it.” 
This bill is not one that fixes it completely as my colleague has already said. But there are a number of elements in the bill—and I particularly want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 28—that we in New Zealand First believe need to be expanded and developed. In relation to the development of clause 28 and other like provisions the need to have clarity in regard to the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee and a strategy has been clarified. Therefore New Zealand First will withdraw its Supplementary Order Paper and give strong support to the Government in that regard. The Auckland local authorities are not more numerous. In fact the seven planning programmes are now reduced to two with one more major funding agency. The issue here is not the record of the past it is whether this Committee believes that in this bill the Auckland local authorities have the ability as in clause 7 to plan fund and develop the Auckland regional land transport system in a way that can be integrated safe responsible and sustainable. That is a very laudable objective. We know that it is but the beginning but New Zealand First strongly supports it. It is a positive move that aims to fix a decades-long problem. 
As I said in the second reading this is a beginning and New Zealand First supports a beginning. We believe that the clarity that was not there in regard to the local authorities’ ability to plan and the broad framework that is now the land transport strategy is there now. That will ensure that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority can get on with the massive operational job that it has to do. 
The last point is that the Minister has the ability under the 2003 Act to issue general directions. That guidance is there and one would hope therefore it will be guidance that will come with an understanding of the funding needs step by step. As we know nothing prevents the ways that funding can be achieved. It is the job of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to get out there do the job find the money and get it done. We strongly support this part. We will withdraw our proposed amendment and support that which is submitted by the Government. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It has been astonishing sitting in this Chamber since dinner time and seeing the crocodile tears coming from National Party members about this bill. Some of those National members were members of a Government that did nothing about Auckland transport. We heard that for 14 long years Aucklanders have been in queues. For how many of those 14 years was National the Government of this country? It was for at least 9 years. This Government has had the energy the commitment and the resources to commit to structures and funding that will start to address this complex and difficult question. 
Mr Williamson who is a former Minister of Transport asked why Transit should not be part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Mr Williamson knows although some members may not that Transit is responsible for roading issues all over the country. It could not possibly be an integral part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. However it is required to submit its plans to the authority and the authority is required to submit its plans to Transit to comment on each other’s planning. This is the first time they have been required to consult each other and this synergy—this working together—is the only way we will solve this problem. 
We were told that there are now two extra structures to fix up Auckland transport issues. I remind members that each of the eight territorial authorities had its own roading programmes. Now that has been integrated into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority whereby each of them has a representative sitting on the board. Now instead of eight authorities we have one—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is the progress that this bill seeks to arrive at. This Government has committed $1.6 billion to Auckland transport over 10 years. The Labour-led Government has delivered not just this new governance structure designed to make a more effective and efficient delivery of transport outcomes but also it has delivered the money. We have walked the walk; we have not talked the talk. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The Minister said “We have contributed $1.8 billion”— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: $1.6 billion. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is $1.6 billion. I ask the Minister whose money it is. Is that not telling! They think it is their money. It is actually other people’s money. I hate to bring it to the Minister’s attention but it is not his money. 
I will address Part 2 and in particular clause 8. We see in clause 8(1A) why this legislation will never ever work. As Maurice Williamson said this legislation does not even mention the dirty word “roads”. It does not even talk about roads. It is a “land transport system” and now we can see why. Clause 8(1A) states that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority the new bureaucracy that will be set up in meeting its objectives “must exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility”. That is such a nebulous term. What on earth does that mean? The clause goes on: “avoiding to the extent reasonable in the circumstances”. That could mean whatever an Environment Court judge could take it to mean. It could mean whatever a Resource Management Act consultant could take it to mean. 
In relation to “adverse effects on the environment” a road cannot be built without there being adverse effects on the environment. It is impossible to do so. With the dire circumstances in Auckland the costs and benefits have to be weighed up. It would be lovely for Auckland to be in the same sort of pristine state the Marlborough Sounds are in. However nobody in Auckland would ever be able to make a living. It would be absolutely impossible. 
The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has to ensure “to the extent practicable” that the views of affected communities are taken into account. We will just go back down the kind of road we had with the highway being built through the Waikato through Long Swamp and Meremere where we saw in New Zealand the beginning of corruption; where anyone can say that “This affects the cultural sensibilities of my community. There is a taniwha under this bend. There is a Billy Goat Gruff under this bridge. To make it go away to get this transport network pay over some money and it will go away.” This is what we will see more and more when stupid clauses like clause 8 are put into legislation. 
Clause 8(1A)(b)(ii) states that “land transport options and alternatives are given early and full consideration in a manner that contributes” blah blah blah. As Maurice Williamson said this is just a sop to the Greens. How can the Minister seriously think—and he is an MP from west Auckland he knows what it is like getting from west Auckland to the Auckland airport or anywhere. One has to go into the city and out again unless one goes around through Hillsborough. Whichever way one goes it is a nightmare; it is frustrating. It affects the quality of life. It does not affect just the economy of the area. It affects people’s quality of life. They hate it. I talked to a woman the other day whose daughter was a professional woman in Auckland doing very well and earning a good salary. She has left and gone to live in Sydney because she just could not stand the transport problems any more. Sydney with 12 million people has got it right. 
Dail Jones 
: Four million. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I think it is six. We should settle on six million. Sydney has got it right because it went for the boot system. It went for public-private partnerships and has solved its transport system. We will never ever solve Auckland’s problem especially with legislation like this when clauses are put in that are a sop to people who live in the Coromandel and Nelson who have a generic hatred of cars and motor vehicles and who would love to see them all banned and the roads dug up. Those people do not realise that people in Auckland are suffering. This legislation will do nothing. I ask the Minister to take another call to explain exactly what the meaning of the words is in that clause. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The road addicts are really suffering withdrawal symptoms tonight and their screams are truly touching. They cannot imagine moving 100 metres without carting a whole tonne of personal metal with each of them. They cannot bear the thought that anybody without a car should be able to move anywhere. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The member uses the lift. What a hypocrite! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member be seated. The member on my left is a longstanding member. He has been in this House for a long time. He knows that what he yelled out—the word he used—is out of order and is unparliamentary. I ask him to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I apologise. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: They cannot bear the thought that anybody who does not have a car should be able to travel anywhere by any other means. We have just heard John Key say that transport agencies should be socially and environmentally irresponsible. That is what he has told us. Social and environmental irresponsibility is what he wants in this legislation. Who is transport for? Who do we plan transport for? If it is to be socially irresponsible and make the lives of people miserable if it is to be environmentally irresponsible then what exactly is its purpose? Decades of research shows that trying to build our way out of congestion with more and more motorways has not worked anywhere in the world and that good public transport provision improves accessibility and improves free-flowing traffic in a city. 
We are in the middle of a paradigm shift in transport. It began with the New Zealand Transport Strategy. It continued with the Land Transport Management Act and this bill takes us further. This bill recognises that transport planning and land-use planning cannot be done separately. That was well recognised in the literature 15 years ago when I was working at university but there are still people who have not caught on. Decades of research shows that congestion and demand for transport are affected by things like housing density location of workplaces mixed land-use planning areas and the routes that public transport takes. The bill does a very sensible thing that has never been done in legislation before and has not been done by most local bodies before either. It aligns transport-planning instruments like the regional land transport strategy with land-use planning instruments and requires a review of the regional plan and the regional policy statement. 
Aligning transport planning and the regional land transport strategy with the Auckland growth strategy has some chance of achieving a sane and integrated transport system in Auckland where we have the combination of roads rail public transport and travel demand management and the opportunities for cycling and walking which this legislation is all about. Moving to another topic— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member again. Can I just say to members who are interrupting each other across the floor that rules permitting interjections are predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call—and none of the members interjecting on my right or my left has the call. Interjections are not permitted at all when they are directed at a member who does not have the call. I ask members to show some respect. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Those of us who have now been made subject to that ruling would appreciate an indication as to which Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling you were referring to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is my ruling—it is a Chairman’s ruling. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I guess the level of general barracking and abuse is indicative of how sensitive some car users are and how vulnerable they find themselves in a situation where people are promoting the idea that there should be alternatives to cars in cities like Auckland. I guess that they will over time get used to it. 
I am concerned that of the money that is to be inherited by Auckland Regional Holdings from Infrastructure Auckland only 85 percent is to be used for the purposes that Infrastructure Auckland originally had as its main purpose—that is stormwater and transport. Stormwater and transport infrastructure are such serious needs in Auckland that both of them could spend the Infrastructure Auckland money many times over. I am quite concerned that 15 percent of that money will now be available to the Auckland Regional Council to subsidise rates if that is what it chooses to do with it. I think we should have stuck with the original purposes of Infrastructure Auckland and used the money for those purposes. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on behalf of United Future. I must pick up on the statement made by Jeanette Fitzsimons that none of the Auckland members are happy to go around Auckland without carting a tonne of metal with them. Let me assure her that I recognise many tonnes of metal as I sit in traffic in Auckland that belong to Green Party members. They are very easy to pick out because the owners have no respect for the motorcar whatsoever and place GE-free stickers on the back bumpers. Those cars are usually puffing out great heaps of smoke polluting the atmosphere like no other vehicle on the road. I can guarantee that all the smoky old diesels all the old petrol ones that puff and puff as we sit behind them choking have got “Vote Green” or “GE-free” on the back of them. The Auckland roads have far too many of them. I suggest that the Green Party could do a lot to help the environment by putting out a circular to its members suggesting that they choose not to use the motorcar but also suggesting that if like many Aucklanders at present they find that the public transport is such that they cannot trust it to take them where they want to go if they do need to use a motorcar to move from one particular place in Auckland to another they should carpool and use vehicles that are more suitable to our Auckland roads than their current ones which pollute the atmosphere. 
I am surprised at National Party members speaking fervently against this legislation. I am surprised that they even dare to stand here to speak on a bill that will progress roading in Auckland because they took funds that were due to be spent on our Auckland roads and shipped them to the South Island. How can they stand up here with a straight face and speak against this legislation which endeavours to fast track—[ 
Interruption 
] As we have heard we have had a situation where eight councils try to get their heads together. This legislation brings that number down to one body. We can deal with one body. One body can make decisions one body is accountable for its actions and if there are not the right people on it we can simply go to it and deal with that. 
One thing for sure is that although Aucklanders may not have noticed because they only fly in their helicopters here there and everywhere progress has happened in the last 5 years in terms of Auckland roads. The bulldozers are actually working the bridges are being built action is happening and most Aucklanders I speak to are very happy to see action. But it is the old story: is the glass half full or is it half empty? Some members of this place look at any glass as being half empty. I believe that with this legislation the glass is half full and growing and we will see great progress on roading in Auckland. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 can I say it makes me feel sick to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons pontificate in this Chamber about energy use and people using motorcars. I want to put on the record that I always use the stairs in Parliament. People will never find me in a lift unless I am going more than four or five floors. I have never passed a Green member of this Parliament in the stairwells. I have seen Labour members New Zealand First members ACT members and every other kind of member of this Parliament except Green members. Do members think Green members would ever save energy by using the stairs to go one floor? Not on your life! They use the lifts. 
Part 2 establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. I want the Minister in the chair Jim Sutton to answer this question. Clause 7 establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and clause 8 sets out the objective and principles. Clause 8(1) states: “The objective of ARTA is to plan fund and develop the Auckland regional land transport system in a way that contributes to an integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system for the Auckland Region.” I want the Minister in the chair to tell this Committee whether the objective and principles of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority cover the construction of motorways. Do they or do they not? Will State Highway 1 or any State highway in the Auckland region be covered by the objective and principles of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority? That is a clean and simple question. Is construction of the motorways which are essentially State highways covered by this bill? 
Hon Jim Sutton 
: Yes and no. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I believe that the people of Auckland deserve better than that. It is my understanding that this bill does not cover the construction of motorways that are State highways; that Transit continues to have responsibility for all of that and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will have nothing to do with it. But this legislation does not make that clear. 
The Minister in the chair should tell the Committee how decisions will be made as to which principal motorways will be Transit responsibilities and which will be the responsibility of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. For example is the extension of the motorway along State Highway 1 either north or south of Auckland—in the Auckland region though—a responsibility of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority? If members read clause 8 they will see that it appears that it is because it is part of the land transport system but I suspect that the answer is that it is not. So this bureaucratic legislation which under clause 8(2)(d) requires the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to consider the cultural well-being of the people in the Auckland region may not actually require the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to be at all responsible for the construction of the principal motorways. 
The people of Auckland deserve some answers on this. How much of the motorway network will the Auckland Regional Transport Authority be responsible for? I contend that it is not at all clear from the legislation. The interrelationship between Transit and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is not clear. Transit will tell us that it responds to the Auckland Regional Council’s regional transport priorities but there is nothing in this legislation that requires Transit to do that. In fact the Auckland Regional Council’s regional transport priorities are changed by this legislation. There is a total misfit here between Transit and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. There is no clarity as to what the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is actually responsible for in respect of the motorway network. 
I suspect that this legislation will do nothing to extend construction of motorways in Auckland. And that is what is desperately needed. We should forget about setting up more bureaucratic bodies. We should get some bulldozers out there shifting some dirt to build some roads. At the moment there is a crisis and it is getting worse by the month and this legislation is doing nothing to solve it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Two speakers ago you ruled by way of a Chairperson’s ruling that members interjecting across the Chamber whilst another member was making a contribution—where that member was not part of that interchange by way of interjection—was not fit and proper. I ask for your advice and refer to Speaker’s ruling 69/4. Whilst I do not dispute that you are the judge of all matters arising in the Committee of the whole House I wonder whether you could give me some advice and guidance as to whether your ruling is now part of Speakers’ rulings or whether as it was made by a Chairperson it exists in some other fashion and applies to conduct in the Committee of the whole House. Being only a relatively new member of the House I would appreciate some guidance on how a Chairperson’s ruling stands compared with a Standing Order or a Speaker’s ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the honourable member that there are no Speakers’ rulings in relation to that. There previously has been a Chairman’s ruling made on the particular issue. The whole issue of interjecting is predicated on the assumption that the person being interjected against has the call. In this particular instance neither the member interjecting on this side nor the member interjecting on that side had the call. You were interjecting against each other when the member Jeanette Fitzsimons had the call. That is why the Chairman’s ruling was made. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You made reference to the fact that there had been a previous Chairperson’s ruling that that type of conduct was not to occur during the Committee of the whole House. I ask you quite genuinely whether there is a reference in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or in the Standing Orders where we can find a grounding for that ruling or is it just part of the general flow of the Committee and your exercising your discretion pursuant to presumably Speaker’s ruling 69/4? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There will be no interjections at all during points of order; they will be heard in silence. I say to the member that the actual Chairman’s ruling was read into the Committee of the whole House on a previous occasion. Whether it goes into  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 will be decided when the Standing Orders or  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 are reviewed. That is up to the Speaker of the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the extraordinary things about this debate is the way that the Green Party goes on about its responsibilities to the environment. I have been informed by a colleague that the car of one of the members of the Green Party—a co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons—failed an emissions test. That is an absolute fact. It is extraordinary that a member of a party that professes real concern for the environment would drive a car that was so polluting that it should not have been on this country’s roads because it was dangerous to the health of citizens. Fewer platitudes from the Greens and more practical action would be appreciated. 
Keith Locke 
: Any evidence for that statement? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: In fact it was supplied by a Minister. One of the very disturbing things about this bill is the—[ 
Interruption 
] I was advised by colleagues; I tell the member to ask his own colleague. One of the disturbing things I heard earlier today was an assertion by the Minister in the chair Chris Carter that this bill would establish a single organisation that would take all the roading responsibilities off the local authorities. The Minister is a member from the Auckland area so one would think he knew the content of the bill. Unfortunately that is not true. Mr Carter who has now returned to the Chamber was wrong when he said that. In fact we have more authorities here; we have another bureaucracy created—not the elimination of bureaucracies but yet more bureaucracies. Now the local authorities will still be dealing with all their local roads and Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority will be dealing with regional roads only. Most of their funding will come from Transfund yet neither Transfund nor Transit is included in this bill. So rather than solving the problem the bill is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy. That fundamentally is why National is voting against this bill. 
There is a proper way of dealing with these issues and that is to have an integrated organisation. The Government keeps claiming that this bill provides an integrated organisation. Even the bill itself makes that claim but it is false. It is a false claim. We still have central government with its two major entities plus the ministry; we still have the Auckland Regional Council and the entities created by this bill that come under the Auckland Regional Council; and we still have the local authorities—eight of them as the Minister noted. All of them will be making different decisions about roading in Auckland and all of them will have different funding streams. We have not solved the problem—or more accurately the Government has not solved the problem. That is the reason why National is opposed to this bill. 
We believe that there is a proper approach and Dr Brash spoke about it last month. It is to have a single entity collecting together the local authorities the regional entity and the national entities; to bundle them together in one entity and to give it both the funding and the authority to make decisions. Under the system that the Government proposes we will be waiting and waiting and still not getting solutions. That is why we had to wait for such a long period of time for the northern regional busway. It was the simplest possible project. It goes alongside the motorway. It did not require land acquisition or anything of that nature because the Crown already owned the land. Yet it still took 8 years. The Green Party demanded a review—even though the project was actually to provide public transport—which simply added another year. 
So this system will not fix the problem. There is a better way. National announced that better way last month and that is why this country needs a new Government. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is a positive step towards doing something for the Auckland area. New Zealand First is prepared to put this minority Labour Government on its mettle to establish that that will happen. So far of course from what we have seen things do seem to be getting on in Auckland. When I go home on a Thursday night quite often I am not allowed to get on to the Gillies Avenue entryway on to the motorway because it is being worked on. That is a good thing as far as I am concerned. It means I get on to the motorway at Green Lane rather than at Gillies Avenue. 
Anyone who goes on to the Auckland motorway from the eastern suburbs or the central city “Spaghetti Junction” area knows that there are problems in the Gillies Avenue Mountain Road and Khyber Pass areas and that is because work is being done. As an Aucklander I think that the main thing we are looking for is that some work is being done. We may not understand what those workers are doing but we know they are inconveniencing us and that something must be happening because the engineers must know what they are doing. All I can say is that I cannot recall any work being done between 1990 and 1999 and I cannot recall any work being done between 1999 and 2002 either to be frank. But it is happening now and it is reassuring. We have seen of course what has happened at Stanley Street. It upset the tennis this year. Stanley Street has been totally distorted one might say but it has been well developed because work has been done in that area. 
As far as New Zealand First is concerned something seems to be happening. This bill appears to be more progress in that direction. I would like to take a point off the Minister Chris Carter. He said that this Labour Government is putting $1.6 billion into roads. As usual that is over 10 years. An amount of $1.6 billion spent on motorways over 10 years is just chicken feed; it is neither here nor there. [ 
Interruption 
] Better than me? When I was in Parliament between 1975 and 1984 we were right on track with everything. Unfortunately a Labour Government came in in 1984 and things have gone downhill ever since. But that was in those days. What we are looking at now in New Zealand First is the future and I would not want Mr O’Connor to interrupt my flow of thought. We are looking at this from the point of the future and progress is being made. 
The other thing that I think probably happened between 1990 and 1999 was that all the funds I suspect went to the South Island for some reason or another. There are some lovely roads in the South Island. I have driven down the West Coast. There is no traffic of course but there are lots of lovely roads. When I drove down the West Coast my biggest problem was Italian cyclists. When I drove around a bend I saw them straining away on bicycles—just like the Greens would like them to do—with backpacks on their backs and I had to worry about them more than I ever did about anything on four wheels! I think that is where all the National Party’s money went—down to the West Coast to try to win that West Coast - Tasman seat with the usual result. But we are seeing things happen in Auckland now and that is very encouraging. 
My real question to the Minister is: with all the work that is under way and with the money that should be available are we going to have the ability to undertake this work? I am looking to see the Mount Roskill deviation coming on stream. That is what I am really looking for from a west Auckland viewpoint and I see that that has been announced in the paper. I think all the resource consents have now been finalised on that and I am looking forward to people from the western area going around through Mount Roskill. The problem in Auckland is not getting into the city. We in Auckland do not want to go into the city; we want to go around it. 
Dianne Yates 
: Oh! 
DAIL JONES 
: Well we do not want to go into Auckland city. We are forced to at the moment. If one lives on the North Shore or in west Auckland one is forced to go into the city and then go out of it again. In Auckland what one really wants to do is to miss the city. When I was in business I went into Auckland only after 11 a.m. and I made sure I left by 3 p.m. because I hated going into Auckland. Aucklanders on the whole try to avoid the city but we cannot avoid it at the moment and that is why I am keen on this Mount Roskill development and to make sure that the Mount Roskill roading system which links up to the north-western motorway gets under way quickly. There are people who want to use that to get across to Wiri and such like and the south of Auckland where they tend to work. That will relieve the pressure on the people who actually do want to go into Auckland. 
As far as the eastern corridor is concerned as I understand it the National Party is going to cancel out the Resource Management Act. If that happens what will that do to the eastern corridor? They will build that eastern corridor whether or not the people like it. If one gets rid of the Resource Management Act which now prevents the development of an eastern corridor just overnight the people out in Howick Pakuranga Remuera and such like will have the eastern corridor forced on them by Maurice Williamson. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This is just a short contribution: I felt that Dail Jones asked in such a polite way that I should respond. There is good news for Mr Jones: State Highway 20 the Mount Roskill extension was approved last week at $150 million which is a good practical example of the Government delivering the goods. 
As for the North Shore busway we have heard so much about that project has already begun and the money for it was funded by this Government not the previous one. Hearing Dr Wayne Mapp’s crocodile tears about that project I have to ask who delivered the goods? The Labour-led Government did. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Following on from what the Minister said in talking about the busway the problem with the old system was that everything was related to making it easier for cars to get down the motorway. The problem with the North Shore busway was that funding was available only for little chunks of it at a time according to the benefit-cost ratio and one had to prove that one could get cars down a bit quicker if one had that chunk of busway. They were handicapped for years but now we have a whole new land transport strategy a Land Transport Act and new bodies linking into that. Whole projects can be dealt with rather than bits of projects and things like the busway or the rail developments that are going on through Auckland speeded up. 
This is not as other speakers in the National Party have claimed breaking up the system even more or adding just one more organisation. It simply ties the various bodies together. There is already a system in Auckland of developing a regional land transport strategy involving representatives of local bodies and other interests. That strategy then governs what the new body being set up—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—has to take into account. That new body is not now constrained by all those other local bodies in the region fighting with each other. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority will develop a land transport programme for the whole of Auckland with priorities in it. It puts those proposals directly to and works with Transfund and the local authorities to fund those projects. 
They do not need to be as in the past just roading projects. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority board has to take social and environmental responsibility very much into its deliberations and it has to meet all the concerns of the land transport strategy that I will outline later. It also has to tie in directly—and this is where it is not competitive—to the Auckland growth strategy which is the development of Auckland around nodes along transport corridors. The logical thing to do is to have a good public transport system along those corridors. All those corridors except on the North Shore are essentially rail corridors—sometimes having a road alongside as well—but set up so that one can develop a much more efficient rail system and services along those corridors linked in with the growth strategy. 
There was concern from Deborah Coddington that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority had to take into account the effects on communities and worry about them. I think she may be worried that if affected communities are taken into account the eastern highway will not be built. One just needs to remember that last Tuesday there was a public meeting of 750 people from those affected communities and other citizens in Auckland who unanimously opposed that eastern highway. At a meeting hosted by the Auckland City Council yesterday—and I was one of the people giving a presentation—there were a myriad of arguments against that eastern highway and how it would detrimentally affect communities the environment the creek the waterfront and everything along that route. That highway will not go ahead if the provisions of this bill are properly applied. What is worrying National members is that at last we are going to move the emphasis away from just a motorway system to one based on public transport with a rail backbone. 
Another aspect of this bill that came up under discussion is that of Auckland Regional Holdings. One of the good provisions is that it will not be able to sell off Ports of Auckland. We know from all the debate over the Westhaven marina and everything else just how important it is not to have Ports of Auckland completely out of public control. Under this bill Auckland Regional Holdings will not be able to sell more than 24.9 percent of Ports of Auckland. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I want to talk about clause 9 “Functions of ARTA”. Unfortunately those functions give the territorial authorities very little reassurance that they will be treated fairly or reasonably at all. I hope the Minister will take a call particularly with regard to the rural district councils affected. I can think of Rodney but I also think of the area I am so proud to represent that of Port Waikato and the Franklin District Council. The commentary on the bill makes reference to the Franklin District Council specifically and so it should because many members of the Franklin District Council are deeply distrustful of this Labour Government and deeply distrustful of this bill that it has managed to conjure up. There is very good reason indeed for that and that is why I want some assurances from the Minister in the chair. 
 I note that the commentary on the bill states under the heading “Franklin District Council” that: “The majority recommend an amendment to clause 4 to provide for the inclusion of the entire Franklin District within the area to be managed by ARC and Auckland Regional Transport Authority for land transport purposes.” Now that may be fair enough. Maybe that has some rationale to it but when we look at the second paragraph we see that it states: “The majority agree with and respect the concern expressed in Franklin District Council’s submission that systems set up to support the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s role should not affect the financial assistance rate for funding received by Franklin—or that received by any other territorial authority—from Transfund.” 
This is where the deep suspicion of the Labour Government and this bill lie—because there is quite frankly absolutely no trust that the Government will live up to what the majority on the select committee agree. I would like the Minister in the chair Chris Carter who does not appear to be listening right now to take a call and assure Parliament that indeed local territorial authorities like the Franklin District Council will not be adversely affected by this bill before us. After all this is one of the rural district councils that has vast tracks of roading—both State highways as well as rural roads—bringing the enormous amounts of primary produce that this country is so dependent on to the major cities. Their responsibility is to ensure that they will not be adversely affected. 
If the majority of the select committee believes that their interests should be looked after the very least the Minister could do is give an assurance to this Parliament that that will indeed happen. Consequently I have put forward an amendment to clause 9(1)(a) in Part 2. My amendment would add paragraph (v) and would mean that one of the functions of Auckland Regional Transport Authority would be to “ensure systems set up to support the Auckland Regional Transport Authority role will not affect the financial assistance rate for funding received by the Franklin District Council or that received by any other territorial from Transfund.” 
Right throughout my speech the Minister in the chair has been wittering away to his colleagues. He has not acknowledged the fact that this was an assurance given by the majority of select committee members—his members—and he ignores the very important point that the rural district councils need to be assured by him that they will not be adversely affected. So I am hoping the Minister will stand up and support my amendment. If he does not then he is demonstrating an absolute abject inconsistency that would be consistent with the fact that people from Auckland particularly the Franklin District Council are deeply cynical of him his Government and indeed this bill. I certainly hope that Mr Carter will get up and give us those assurances. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 9(1)(a) be agreed to: 
to add the following new subparagraph: 
(v)ensure systems set up to support the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s role will not affect the financial assistance rate for funding received by Franklin District Council or that received by any other territorial authority from Transfund. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments repeals and revocations 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This debate includes schedules 5 and 6. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Part 3 is a reasonably specific part. It occupies only about half of one page and half of another and in many places it is just to do with revocations of and amendments to some quite detailed legislation such as the Transport Services Licensing Act. 
I think the most important clause in this part is clause 37 “Amendments to Land Transport Management Act 2003” which states: “The Land Transport Management Act 2003 is amended in the manner indicated in Schedule 5.” I think the debate on this legislation the whole way through has been about whether it will achieve the focus and the expectations of Auckland—that is whether it will solve our transport gridlock. Everybody in Auckland is looking towards Parliament. 
Actually Aucklanders were looking towards Parliament in respect of the Land Transport Management Bill; they were desperate to see a bill that would see the bulldozer engines start and start now and desperate to see a whole lot of infrastructure rolling out. The amount of infrastructure that has been rolling out in the last 5 years under this Labour Government is less than what rolled out under the National Government and those figures were tabled in the House today. I will clarify that for the United Future member so that he is clear. When we were in power National was funding the Albany to Puhoi realignment a massive extension of the northern motorway the Mangere motorway the eastern access to the airport a whole lot of work around “Spaghetti Junction” and so on. Massive projects were going on. But every year that this Government has been in power it has spent fewer dollars in real terms than we did in our last year. 
Then it brought in the Land Transport Management Act which this clause makes some amendments to. We thought that legislation would be about getting some more roads; we were convinced of it. Sadly the Land Transport Management Act when it was passed became known around Auckland and Auckland local authorities as the legislation a Government passes when it is trying to stop any new roads from being built. What a tragedy it is that we are here tonight with another bill! One would have hoped that it would be a capitulation; that it would say that the Government really got it wrong first time round and this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill will amend the Land Transport Management Act to give it the clout it needs to see the bulldozers start. 
One would have hoped that it would rev up the elements in that legislation about the private sector’s involvement because despite all the rhetoric from the Government how many private sector roading projects have there been in Auckland so far? Zero—a big fat zero. My next question is how many private sector roading projects look likely to occur in the next couple of years. The answer—and I have talked to most of the major players in the private sector roading area—is a big fat zero. Why would we get involved they say with the Land Transport Management Act being as restrictive and regressive as it is? [ 
Interruption 
] Rod Donald has just confirmed exactly what everyone knows. Helen Clark and many other Ministers in this Government have said to a number of people in Auckland local government that they were really wrong to have rolled over and let the Greens have so much say in the Land Transport Management Act. Helen Clark regrets it. She says it was a sop to the Greens and so is this bill. I pointed out earlier that in all the press releases that came out from the Ministers—and they all looked brilliant with their red colour—roads did not get a mention. 
So the Government is amending the Land Transport Management Act and I thought we would now see some amendments that would actually ensure that some roads were built. But the amendments in schedule 5 which are driven by clause 37 in Part 3 make no improvement to the Land Transport Management Act. If anything they are a retrograde step. 
What was clearly needed was some work on the Resource Management Act. Why did we not see some clauses in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill that freed up the resource consent process? The Committee needs to know that Transit told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the end of last year that it now takes considerably longer to get consent for a major project than it does to build it. I have done some checking with comparable jurisdictions like New South Wales Victoria and so on and in none of those cases did they even have a clue what I was talking about. This bill does not do it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to contribute to this short part and also to the schedules. I follow on from a particular point made by the Hon Maurice Williamson and it is this: in the life of a Government there is not much opportunity in a legislative sense to deal with any particular issue. Essentially a Government has one shot at it—well perhaps in this case the Government has had two. It had the Land Transport Management Act and amendments thereto and it has had this bill—the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. There will not be any other legislation in this Parliament that deals with the administration of the roading and transport issues in Auckland and indeed in New Zealand. So what the public look for in a Government is that it gives it its best shot and comes with a complete package that will actually make a difference. 
If the Government had done that and had really attempted to come up with an inclusive complete solution embodied in the two pieces of legislation—the Land Transport Management Act last year and the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill this year—we might have been able to support it. Unfortunately we cannot. The reason we cannot is that the legislation represents such a missed opportunity. I find it appalling that the Minister in the chair Chris Carter is so woefully lacking in knowledge about the transport situation in Auckland that he thinks that this bill will take away the authority of local authorities and compact it all into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is simply not true and that is why the Government is in such a mess on this stuff. It is that kind of ignorance that has led to such a miserable attempt. 
At the select committee a proposition was put to the submitters which were all the territorial local authorities in the Auckland region—all eight of them. The select committee asked whether the submitters would like to compact together central government local government and regional government into a single organisation that had funding powers and management powers to really get to grips with the crisis. They said yes that it would be the best solution. If the Government had come up with that solution we would have voted for it. That is what Auckland City Council wants. That is what North Shore City Council Manukau City Council and Waitakere City Council want. 
All the territorial authorities in Auckland want a complete solution. Instead they are served up a half-baked solution and one wonders why. We hear it from the Greens—they are actually anti-development. They do not want roads. They are against roads. They oppose every innovative and reasonable project. They even oppose the North Shore busway and I find that extraordinary. They delayed it for a whole year. That is the reality. The Minister got up and said it has started. The Minister is wrong yet again. What has actually started is the development of the Esmonde Road Interchange. That is not part of the busway. The busway is the roading and the stations associated with that. The interchanges have to be done first and only then will the busway be done. I predict that it will take 10 years from inception through all the myriad of planning processes through the blockage put in place by the Greens before a single bus or car travels on that busway—and that is a simple project. 
If we really want to get to grips with transport in Auckland we have to make big changes; not these fiddling little changes that the Government has delivered up. The public in Auckland will give its verdict in 12 months’ time. It will say that the miserable efforts of the Labour Government are not good enough. It will vote for a party that has a concrete and complete solution because that is what is needed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Unfortunately I have missed much of the debate on this bill but I am very pleased to be able to make a contribution. I am quite concerned about what the National Party is saying because it was in power for 9 years and it did little or nothing for roading in this country. Indeed when I was a consultant involved with an operation in the Ports of Auckland and the Port of Tauranga setting up a commercial entity I went to the Rt Hon Winston Peters who was then a National Party MP. I explained to him that by increasing the hours of waterfront work by using more modern equipment and by moving into the container age we would be having so many trucks and so much traffic on the roads—coupled with the Japanese vehicles that were coming in at a fairly significant rate at that time—that our roads would not keep pace. The honourable member might recall that Winston Peters produced his own member’s bill to get better funding for roading in this country by using the excise tax in full. So to hear the National Party bleating on that this bill will not do what it is meant to do I find a bit unusual. 
I realise that we are dealing with Part 3 but the purpose clause basically tells me that the bill is worth supporting. The objectives and the principles in the purpose clause tell me that the bill is worth supporting. Basically the roads in Auckland need to be fully addressed. I was at a NGC Winter Lecture Series lecture the other night where Dr Cullen was the guest speaker. 
Darren Hughes 
: Great speaker! 
PETER BROWN 
: It was a good speech. Actually it was quite different from what he has been delivering in this Chamber. He said that walkways and pathways have a role to play. He said that public transport has a role to play but to have no doubt—I think those were his exact words—that we need roads in this country and more of them. I have never heard that Government say that so forcefully. 
I say to the Greens that they have been hoodwinked to some degree because the Labour Government has suddenly realised that we need more roads and that there are people who want to drive their cars on roads free of traffic congestion. Some years ago I drove through Auckland on my way to Whangarei. Members might recall that a cow jumped off a truck and the police were trying to shoot it. That stopped the whole of the traffic in Auckland at that time. I realise I am ranging wide but I want to address some of these issues. 
Darren Hughes 
: How’s the cow? 
PETER BROWN 
: The cow was not very good. The policeman had five attempts at it before he killed it. It stopped the whole of the traffic in Auckland for hours. The situation in Auckland is deplorable. No modern city in the world would tolerate it. It pleases me—I am back on to schedule 5 now Mr Chairman—that finally there is an amendment that will allow the local strategy to be taken into account. 
This bill is about building roads for Auckland for the benefit of Aucklanders and for the benefit of this country. If we do not get the local people pulling together and working out what they want with the appropriate amount of funding to deliver it then we will get nowhere fast. This bill is but a start. I would have thought that the National Party would be a little bit more understanding of the fact that to be able to start on the roading system in this country—on Auckland in particular—we need first of all to pull the local bodies together. The paragraphs added to new section 12(6)(b) in schedule 5 as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 231 make some solid attempt to do that. Paragraph (b) states: “from a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council give effect to the matters in the Auckland regional land transport strategy required by section 175(2) of the Land Transport Act 1998” and so it goes on. That is exceedingly important. It is a small paragraph and it is a change in the bill as it came back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
I have to say that if the Government had not chosen to change that New Zealand First would not be supporting the bill. Mr Jim Peters represented us on the select committee because he is a specialist in local Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Power that this is an important clause. He would be well advised to read it. I know he is a lawyer. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am a bit unsure whose assessment to take in terms of the last speaker or two. First we had Maurice Williamson who gave quite a tribute to the Greens. He said that Helen Clark was upset that this bill would be passed and I thought that gee I did not know we were quite as powerful as that. Then I listened to Peter Brown and he said that we have been hoodwinked. So I am not quite sure what the case is. Certainly the Greens fully support this bill. 
Part 3 as has been pointed out refers to schedule 5 in terms of the way legislation is to be amended and schedule 5 refers particularly to the criteria in the land transport strategy. I will just go through those criteria with members to show how they may operate in the concrete instance of what should be done with the eastern corridor in Auckland. Under this legislation the first of the five objectives in the land transport strategy for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to consider is whether a project will assist economic development. The eastern highway project has many economic downsides. It will induce more car travel putting additional strain on the economy—particularly when oil prices are moving to a higher level—and there are significant congestion-related costs associated with more cars entering the Auckland central business district. A recently publicised study by Astrid Jacobs of Auckland University estimated that there are external costs of $736 million per year as a result of car use including significant health costs. A highway would significantly add to such costs. To build it would of course cost $3 billion or $4 billion which would be enough to revamp the whole rail system in Auckland—the stations the rolling stock the tracks and the whole works. 
Secondly projects that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to support have to add to safety and personal security. Clearly simply upgrading rail transport would be a much better way to go there. As long as we avoid rail-crossing accidents rail transport is much safer than road transport. 
Thirdly the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to contribute to improving access and mobility. At present that is sorely lacking for the young the old and the sick and for people who are too poor to afford to make very many long car journeys. Those people need public transport. They need to have rail along the eastern corridor not a big highway. If we can get train services down that corridor and improve the whole system to a frequency of 10 minutes or less then we can have all the bus and rail connections and public transport use will skyrocket. Already it is going up very rapidly in Auckland as I mentioned before. 
Fourthly schedule 5 states that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority is supposed to contribute to protecting and promoting public health. Clearly a new eastern highway would produce extra pollution and noise and there would be more stress on drivers as cars become backed up on reaching the central business district. That highway would only pour more cars into the centre of Auckland. 
The fifth thing that the Auckland Regional Transport Authority has to contribute to under this legislation is ensuring environmental sustainability. Quite clearly one has just to read the official project director’s report on the eastern highway project in which he admits that just the crossing of Hobson Bay—the bay that the highway comes out on before it goes into Auckland City—will cause: “Significant environmental visual (including light spill at night) noise and community acceptance issues.” As someone who recreationally uses the waterfront I totally agree with that—and there will be further devastating environmental effects up the Purewa stream and further up that highway. 
On all those counts what we need down the eastern corridor is rail rather than a new highway. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 To give Keith Locke credit— 
Simon Power 
: Steady! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is late and I am feeling kind. He is the only Green person I see when I am running in the morning. He is the only Green person I see out there on his feet getting some air in his fur. But the Greens just do not get it do they? They think that if we put all the money into public transport and into rail in the eastern corridor then everyone’s problems will be solved. At one stage I had four children at four different schools in Auckland. It is impossible for working parents to get around Auckland efficiently just by using public transport. They have to have cars. It will not be all-polluting to use cars if there are good roads and congestion tolling which the Greens also do not seem to get. Congestion tolling to me is one of the best ways of getting rid of pollution because one of the worst things for the air is to have cars idle in the huge car-park we call the motorway. 
But in going to Part 3 and the schedules I see that this is the part that gets rid of the Auckland Regional Services Trust—or what was the Auckland Regional Services Trust but then became Infrastructure Auckland and will now become the Auckland Regional Holdings part of the Auckland Regional Council. It is not as Peter Brown said an amalgamation of local bodies; it is the creation of whole new bureaucracies. Let us just remember how we got to this stage. We now have schedule 5 in which we are already amending the Land Transport Management Act passed last year. It has been such an abject failure that we have to have this legislation to amend it. Let us backtrack rewind the video a bit and remember why we ended up with such a shambles as the Land Transport Management Act. 
What started out as a strategy to improve the roading system in Auckland was hijacked a bit on the way because of certain dinners at certain restaurants like Vinnies in Auckland because of certain discussions about prime-mover status and public-private partnerships and because of the Prime Minister and Ross Armstrong. 
The ACT party wanted an inquiry into that whole dodgy sleazy-looking affair where Ross Armstrong had the ear of the Prime Minister and was inviting people from Australia to come over and talk about prime-mover status. We wanted a select committee inquiry into it. We almost had one until the Greens were wooed by the Labour Government and promised that they would be given all the special concessions for alternative forms of land transport if they did not support an inquiry into the Ross Armstrong shenanigans. We saw evidence of that when Jeanette Fitzsimons stood up here in the Chamber and announced the land transport management strategy with the Labour Government. So we ended up with that disastrous legislation which we are now already amending with this bill. 
Rod Donald 
: Excellent legislation. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes well the Greens would say it is excellent legislation because it will not allow a single road to be built will it? There will not be one road completed under that—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Donald that of course it will be reduced because everybody will go broke. But the Greens do not care about that. They care about humanity but they do not care about individuals. That is the role of the socialist. 
As I said before I do not usually agree with Brian Rudman. He is probably further to the left than most people in this Parliament; in fact if he took another step to the left he would bump into Joe Stalin. But members should listen to what Brian Rudman wrote in April this year when he talked about the dismantling of Infrastructure Auckland and the transfer of assets under the management of the Auckland Regional Council. He said: “Now Big Sister Helen Clark has decided that her fellow Aucklanders might just be adult enough to be trusted with the stewardship of 15 percent of our money but we have to submit our bank accounts to her in 2008 so she can check we haven’t indulged in anything she considers frivolous.” 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to the final provisions of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill I want to focus particularly on schedule 5 in which the Land Transport Management Act is amended. It seems to me that schedule 5 will put a whole other layer of bureaucracy in place with regard to the funding of local roads. I draw the attention of the Minister in the chair to subsections (4) and (5) of the new section 39 “Special provisions relating to Auckland Region”. 
At the moment if territorial local authorities want to do something about roading in their area they can apply to the national land transport account for subsidies. As long as they stump up with their money they can usually get those subsidies from Transfund and can get on and do roading projects. Subsection (4) tells us: “Despite an Auckland territorial authority being an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act it may not after 1 July 2005— … (b) receive any funds directly from the national land transport account;”. As I read it local authorities will now have to go through this new bureaucracy to get any funding to do anything in their area. They will have to get the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to do it for them. That authority will have to get the funds from the national land transport account it would seem. The authority gets the money then passes it on to the local authority. As I read it we have extra bureaucracy. We have a new step in the process. People will have to go through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority if they want to get a road done. I would like the Minister to confirm whether that is correct—whether a new step in this whole bureaucratic process is brought in by Part 3. 
I would also like the Minister to tell Auckland people which roads this part will see built. I want to know specifically whether the Penlink toll road will be covered by this legislation. Will Rodney District Council have to go through the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to get funding for the Penlink toll road or will that road be a Transit road? State Highway 20 is the extension of the Mangere motorway. Is it covered by this legislation or not? What is the next big project in Auckland? It is the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2). Is it covered by this legislation? I want to know from the Minister whether that big project is covered. Is “Spaghetti Junction” the big work on State Highway 1 in the middle of Auckland covered by this legislation? Is the planning of State Highway 1 up to the Warkworth bypass and the Wellsford bypass covered by this legislation? I have named about five of the major roading projects in Auckland. Are any of them covered by this legislation? 
I think the Minister owes the people of Auckland an explanation. Does this legislation cover any significant roading or does the fact as my colleague Maurice Williamson pointed out that roading is not mentioned in any of the publicity or in any of the Minister’s statements relating to this legislation mean that this legislation does nothing for roading or any of those major roading projects? I invite the Minister to tell the Committee which roading projects this legislation covers. I do not think it covers State Highway 1. Is “Spaghetti Junction” part of State Highway 1? Does it cover anything to do with State Highway 20? Does it cover anything to do with State Highway 1’s extension ALPURT B2? Does it cover the Penlink toll road? I think the people of Auckland deserve to know whether this legislation covers any major roading projects at all. It seems to me that Part 3 and especially schedule 5 simply add more bureaucracy and make no progress on roads. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 As I reflect on Part 3 and the schedules I want to talk for a moment about Auckland Regional Holdings. But before I do so I want to reflect on the comments made by the Green member Keith Locke about public transport. Many of the comments made about public transport are grossly exaggerated. Mr Locke told the Committee that this bill would somehow be the salvation of Auckland and that somehow rail transportation would be the solution to Auckland’s transport problems. This year there will about 2.5 million trips on trains around Auckland. [ 
Interruption 
] Does Mr Locke disagree with me? There will be about 2.5 million trips up from about 2 million. This year there will be a billion trips in cars around Auckland and that number is going up—there will be 1.2 billion before this legislation has had time to dry at the printers. Yet Mr Locke thinks the salvation of Auckland will be public transport and trains. It is false thinking. 
The Greens do not—contrary to public perception—come to Parliament on public transport. When I get my taxi on a Tuesday morning from Wellington Airport I do not see Green members standing outside the bus station waiting for a bus. They travel in a car like everyone else—like everyone in Auckland—and that is the problem. They want everyone else to use public transport but they themselves do not use public transport. Those members do not want to look at the economics. Currently for every train trip around Auckland there is a $10-$20 subsidy—a total of $20 million for 2 million trips a year—and it will go up after this Government has spent about $1.5 billion on the railway network in Auckland. The subsidy for 20 million trips—if the Government can ever achieve that number—will be about $4 per trip so the cost will be about $80 million to $100 million. 
The solution is not public transport; it is to get on and fix the motorway network—to complete what was designed in 1963 or 1965. Auckland has been waiting 40 years and there is no solution in sight. It is an absolute disgrace. No wonder Aucklanders are up at night now wondering what has gone so horribly wrong with this Government which promised them a solution but has failed on every account. 
It has failed in its press releases. My prediction is that very close to the election there will not be any press releases from the Labour Government—from Judith Tizard or from the Rt Hon Prime Minister Helen Clark or from the Minister of Local Government Chris Carter—that fail to talk about roads and cars. That is the sort of stuff that happens when one is making coalition arrangements with the Greens on the Land Transport Management Bill or on this Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. It is important at the moment but when the Government is trying to get votes a couple of months before the election there will be plenty of press releases coming out about roads and cars because that is what Aucklanders really want and need. They know where it is at. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that member will be looking for a new job or he will be back at intermediate school—that is what will happen. He will be back at intermediate school or maybe at high school because he has missed a few years. He will go and learn about cars—that is what will happen. That member will be back at intermediate school being taught about combustion engines. That is the sort of thing that has been going on. 
I want to talk about Auckland Regional Holdings because never in my life have I seen such a sop to a political outfit as there is in this bill. Eighty-five percent of the funds that Infrastructure Auckland worked so hard to preserve and to grow—John Robertson and Richard Maher have done a wonderful job of growing those reserves and of turning hundreds of millions of dollars into the better part of a billion dollars—are to go to transport and stormwater purposes. Lo and behold is all the money to be used to fix roads or stormwater problems? Not on your nelly! Again what is more important is to put aside 15 percent in what could loosely be termed a slush fund to be used for essentially anything that Auckland Regional Holdings and its political appointees find relevant as priorities might change over time. What does that mean? Does it mean that if Labour makes yet another dip in the polls if the Greens look even more like they could be a hopeless coalition arrangement priorities will change and Auckland Regional Holdings will be hijacked once more? 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4A 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 4A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 4A as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 5 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 6 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to schedule 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 This is about the title of the bill. Clause 1 is the title and as members will know the bill is called the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. But that is not really what this bill is about. It is about how legislation is passed to make it nigh impossible to get roads built in Auckland. That is what it is. It is a sop to the Greens. The Greens hate roads they hate the things that drive on them and they hate the people who drive in the things that drive on the roads. That is why all the press releases of Chris Carter Judith Tizard and the Prime Minister and the big announcement on 12 December talked about—I want members to remember this—fixing Auckland’s transport issues such as rail bus ferry pedestrian and cycle transport needs. There was not a mention not a mutter or a murmur about the one thing that will fix Auckland’s problems and that is roads. We in the National Opposition will have a policy that will have bulldozer engines started within no time. 
There are a number of things one can do in order to do that. We will not be like Judith Tizard and just have our photo taken with a bulldozer every now and then and that is all one does. We will do a number of things. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can you tell the difference? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The member has raised a fantastic important question. No legislation will work without one thing and that is the political will of the Government to make it happen. Any legislation with any number of clauses can be passed but if a Government is not committed to seeing it happen not committed to seeing the tar-seal being poured and not committed to seeing the carryalls moving hills filling in valleys and seeing the roads being built then it will never happen. 
 It is not so much the Government members themselves—although some of them are as bad as that—but it is because of their coalition commitment to the Greens who do not want to ever talk about roads and I do not know why it is such a phobia. They should try it with me. Try the word “toad”. That is easy. It is green and I am sure they would like it. Try it again: “toad”. It is easy. The word “road” is not very different. It is just a first-letter change. They should say: “road”. It is quite easy. They will say “broadcasting” and I did not know until tonight that the word “road’ is hidden in there. “Road” is in the middle of “broadcasting”. They should say “broadcasting” then I will say: “Gotcha you at least said ‘road’ as part of the word.” But no Green members do not want to mention it. There has not been a mutter or a murmur from them about roads. This legislation is just adding more bureaucracy to Auckland. 
Would any member here come with me to do a survey down around Stanley Street at 5 o’clock next Friday night and say: “Hands up those of you motorists who wanted some more bureaucracy for your roads to be fixed.”? I double-dog dare anyone to come with me. We will ask the question: “Do you think more bureaucracy will fix this?”. Members of this Committee know the answer to that question without even starting. The answer of course is that the last thing Auckland needs is some more bureaucracy: “ARTA”—“ARTA” and“MARTHA” and “FARTHA” and everything else that has gone into the bureaucracies. People want actual solutions and this will delay it even further. My colleague the Hon Lockwood Smith is dead right. It will delay it even further. 
The title of this bill has to be the most misleading title I have ever seen. It is the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill. No it is not; it is the “We Hate Roads and We Are Going to Try and Stop Them or Slow Them Down as Much as WeCan by Putting Barriers in Front of Them Bill”. That is not good enough. 
I know that drive time will now be coming to an end in Auckland at about 10 to 10. Some of my constituents in Pakuranga will still be wending their way home having left town about 5.30 but some will now be home. Some will have got really angry and put a hole in the wall because of the frustration and anger that they feel every night as they drive home. But will this legislation solve that? No. According to this legislation people will see solutions. But when I look at the dates published in the national land transport programme I see: “State Highway 20 completion date 2017 State Highway 18 completion date 2018” I see“2020” and“2021”. That is just a joke. People in Auckland cannot wait until 2007 or 2008 let alone 2017 or 2018. This bill is a disgrace. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 What a brilliant speech! It was a re-recording of comments made over the last decade by a very experienced member of Parliament who knows all the form and the drill. In fact he was actually starting to worry me because he mentioned the word “vision” and I thought hello are we going to go into another stratosphere here? That is my experience of that party over there that made all those comments about the bill and did not refer once to local government except in a very slighting and disparaging way. 
I say to those members of the Committee who have some doubts that one is convinced by the record. I am talking about roads and about coming from Northland. Over the last 3 years we have seen more additional funding put into Northland roads than ever before and that trend is still continuing. That is on the record as happening it has happened and if that is the intention of the Government as manifested in Northland then I have some confidence that this bill will be a sound local government bill. 
I want to draw attention to the term “local government”. In relation to some of the comments made I have sensed that there is no faith in local government—those who represent ratepayers—and no understanding of the considerable funding that is required from ratepayers year by year. As I said earlier for those who do not with some faith see local bodies as unitary authorities or councils at least they are a democratic process and those who do not agree with the whole thrust of local government—and we have already heard allusions made to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—have got every opportunity in October to register their democratic rights with regard to those bodies. 
 I want to say that New Zealand First supports the title because the greater funding for this bill and for the Acts that this bill will bring into being will come from ratepayers. I have faith therefore in the ratepayer groups doing what they do best and that is to represent their people. 
Secondly there is an intention in clause 2 to begin as soon as possible. If members of the Committee have been following through the steps that are already in place I have some confidence that after tomorrow morning this bill can be advanced in a fairly quick fashion. 
I say again that New Zealand First supports this bill because it is a first step. It is an opportunity to make a move and do things in Auckland that have not been done in the past. Last of all we support the bill because as I said earlier if there is goodwill and a positive attitude these things can happen. That is not just pious thinking; it is the reality of things day to day. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As we are in the tradition of English lessons started by Maurice Williamson this evening there is one word that perhaps Maurice Williamson and his National colleagues should learn and that is “choice”. That is what this bill is all about. It is about giving people in Auckland through an improved transport planning and funding structure the choice about how they get from A to B—how they get to work how they get to recreational activities so that not only do they have the choice of a motorcar caught in a traffic jam but they also have the choice of going along a road on a bus or on a bicycle walking along the footpath on the road having a cycle track or a walkway to go along or having a ferry to use; that is so that they have real choice. 
It is obvious to anyone who looks closely at Auckland and compares it with any other major city in the world that Auckland’s public transport infrastructure is much weaker than that of any other city such as Sydney or Melbourne or any of the European cities one cares to name. In those cities they have choice. We have to get Auckland to be a modern city and to remove the overheads which I referred to in a previous contribution of $736 million lost. That is the external downside of car travel. Those costs are going up as the oil price rises. It is just blindness if we do not look at making our transport more efficient in terms of the carriage of people by providing a proper rail backbone to Auckland with buses linked off it linked up to ferries and giving people the opportunity to walk and cycle. 
If we look at the goals in this bill for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority for Auckland Regional Holdings and for the Auckland Regional Council they do very much relate to developing Auckland. Schedule 4A talks about the task as proceeding in a multimodal way. I think if Mr Mapp had gone to a North Shore event last year and listened to the head of Transfund talking about Transfund’s approach under the new legislation he would know that Transfund is very much oriented now towards looking at all transport in terms of a multimodal approach—not just looking at car transport. That is the way we want to go. We want to be able to integrate the various modes of transport and in that integration give people true choice. 
As Mr Key said Auckland’s rail usage particularly compared with the past when rail usage was several times greater than it is now is very low when compared with any other similar-sized city in Europe or Australia. We have to get that usage up through improvements and putting in the planning and the investment which this bill under this new system will do. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.