Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. I've possibly been paying rates in the district longer than most members in the House so it's great to be able to stand here and bear witness to this process.We have heard a bit of the history. I can remember in the 1990s when those Powerco shares—the idea of holding those shares was definitely about the dividends being used to reduce the rating requirements for the district. That seemed like a good idea at the time. And then what happened of course? The idea was to sell those shares so that there could be some diversification because anyone who knows anything about good financial management knows that you don't rely on one investment and diversification of course reduces exposure and risk. And of course there is a very clear commitment to protecting that investment in perpetuity for the benefit of current and future ratepayers in New Plymouth.Unfortunately with the sale of those shares as we know—we've heard about the investment in the largest dairy farm in Tasmania. And I've heard the distress from the other side of the House that there was a perception that investing in Aussie was a really great idea and of course it didn't quite prove to be as sensible as they hoped. The interesting thing was that at one point that investment was approximately 60 percent of the portfolio. So while the intent was to diversify in the end by investing in the Tasmanian dairy farm they ended up consolidating again and that risk that exposure was very much exacerbated when we had the global financial crisis. Those challenges of the decrease in the fund to be able to deliver on rate reductions was significant and of course we saw it move from subsidising 30 to 40 percent of rates down to around about 10 to 15 percent. It was really controversial at the time and I can remember the grand promise from the chief executive when we had the sale of Powerco that by 2020 we would be earning so much from that fund that if the council so chose it would no longer need to ask the ratepayer for the annual $25 million worth of general rates money. We were promised no rates. Well it didn't quite work out that way. So it's really great that we had really forward-thinking visionary and ambitious council members who did the opposite of what the member across the House talked about in sort of just saying Cash it up." and it all being gone in a day. The intention was magnificent; it didn't quite play out that way. So this bill is a result of trying to ensure that the fund is protected that it is able to be invested wisely and that there are really clear directions around what happens to that fund. I need to commend the council for making sure that they consulted widely with their community and there were challenges and questions raised about how best to protect that investment and what that structure might look like. A lot of work went into looking at all of the options and sharing those options and discussing those options with ratepayers. Then there were questions also about what we do with the returns. Generally those returns have been used in a general rates reduction. Clause 6 very much talks about what happens with the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF) and how it benefits the New Plymouth District. There were some challenges and some questions—and they were really valid ones—about what happens if the boundaries change. The assumption is that the most likely scenario is that the New Plymouth District grows and there is a consolidation of districts across Taranaki and so they looked at other districts who have similar arrangements for how they have managed funds that have been generated by their ratepayers and how they had been geofenced to protect them. But there hasn't really been a solid discussion—the question was raised at select committee—about what happens if there's a boundary shift and people who live currently within the New Plymouth District are suddenly not part of the New Plymouth District. I don't know why there would be any community who would want to leave the New Plymouth District but what would happen if the northern boundary shrank for example and say it moved down to Waitara and those that lived east and north of Waitara were no longer part of the New Plymouth District?There are potential challenges but the great thing about a committee process is that those questions get asked and they are answered and we were reassured that there are ways to make sure that the people who have contributed to that PIF over the years will be the ones to continue to benefit. I think the wording of clause 6 is helpful. While at the moment it's generally about a rebate it does say in the clause that "The PIF or any part of it must be managed and applied by the Council only for purposes that the Council considers on reasonable grounds are wholly or principally for the benefit of current and future communities of the New Plymouth District." I think that wording gives some permission for the benefits and the investments that come from the returns of the PIF to be thoughtfully done with not necessarily the immediacy of a rates rebate for example but an intergenerational investment—an intergenerational investment—whether that's around sustainability or whether it is around investments that will make sure that our future generations are catered for. So I'd like to think that that wording actually empowers and enables the council when it is deciding what to do with those funds even though there is a hard geofence around that district—that there will be ways of accommodating those ratepayers if in the future they are not part of the district. I do need to acknowledge my colleague Glen Bennett for the hard work that he's put in in shepherding this through the House. I do need to acknowledge the council and the good people of New Plymouth my fellow ratepayers and community members. It is a fabulous place and I know that we claim the sunshine hours but I live in a part of the New Plymouth District that also claims some pretty good rainfall records—a couple of metres a year. Water is a precious thing and where I live of course the geography of the maunga is such that it is a wonderful asset actually. It makes sure that we have this beautiful rainforest and we have some beautiful farm country.This bill makes sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past. In the past we have put all our milk into one tanker and it didn't pay off for us so the ability for the fund to be managed in a way that is prudent that is commercially viable and that is intergenerational in its management of the portfolio is a really great thing. I'm proud to be a resident of the New Plymouth District and of the Taranaki-King Country electorate. It is a fabulous place to live and that's why I'm really really pleased to see how the community has taken this issue really seriously and has come up with something that will stand the test of time. I think that our leadership in issues such as a just transition—not just nationally but internationally—is another example of how we are able to think about the implications of decisions that are made not just for today but intergenerationally. I know that because I go to my public library in my local village on a Saturday morning with my children because I know the council believes in investing in our communities. I know that I can take my children to our local pools. I know that we've got fabulous parks—obviously Pukekura Park which is significant enough to be a Monopoly position. And it is because of this wonderful visionary ambitious place that I love that I commend this bill to the House"