Mark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I start off my contribution from New Zealand First on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 3) by reading something to you that I think is very poignant at this point in time for it sends a clear message. I will insert the words “This party”. It says: “[This party] seeks a safe prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.” That is a political party in New Zealand. It espouses that New Zealanders should be assisted in reaching their personal goals and dreams. “We believe we achieve this by building a society based on the following values: Loyalty to our country its democratic principles and our Sovereign as head of State;”—we will put that off to one side because it tried to change the flag—“National and personal security; Equal citizenship and equal opportunity; Individual freedom and choice; Personal responsibility; Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement; Limited government; Strong families and caring communities; Sustainable development …”.Well let us go through those. These are the principles that the National Party stands for. I see some shocked looks over there because most of them have actually never read this so obviously this is new information for people like David Bennett. OK so let us go through that. “Equal citizenship”—does this bill promote equal citizenship and equal opportunity? No it does not because it denies a person who is popular and has the credibility within the wider community to be elected democratically to a position—nay possibly to two. Why? Because the competitors are not up to it. But this is a party that espouses freedom and choice on one side of its mouth and then passes legislation like this in the House that restricts freedom and restricts choice. I will not use the word that is reverberating in my head because it is unparliamentary.“Personal responsibility”—how great a personal responsibility that a person whom these people seem to very envious of Mr Flaunty puts himself up for election in not one board but two. And he gets elected not appointed like the Government does in respect of its district health boards and many other appointments. And let us talk about that. If the big issue for the National Party members and to Alfred Ngaro’s work ethic—and he has not got it—is that the National Government does not believe that people have the work ethic to take on two jobs then pray tell me why the Government continues to appoint Wira Gardiner to Government board after Government board after Government board serving on all simultaneously in the same land in the same decade in the same year and at the same time. I mean Wira Gardiner has had so many appointments by this Government that have all been simultaneous it makes a mockery of the speeches we have just had to sit here and listen to.New Zealand First is not just opposed to this bill; ironically we are opposed to the National Party betraying its members by walking away from its fundamental values and principles. Here is a laugh: “Competitive enterprise and reward for achievement”. So what the National Government is saying today by supporting this stupid bill—and here is another point. We have just had an admission tonight that it was a Labour bill—a Labour bill. It is like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement revisited. Labour brings some nonsense to the House and the National Government picks it up and runs with it with both hands and claims it as its own. It is like the National Government running around and telling everyone it is building the cycleways. That was a Green Party policy. It is like the National Government running around and telling everybody: “Oh look at all the homes we have insulated.” That was not a National Government policy; that was a deal it did with the Green Party.David Bennett: You’re a liar.RON MARK: Say that again. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not be called a liar by that lying little shit over there.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He knows that he has quite a valid point to make in respect of something that might have been called out by another member and he had the Standing Orders with him. But he then decided to flagrantly abuse that by not only using the word that was unparliamentary but adding another unparliamentary word to it. He has been here well long enough to know that he is completely outside the Standing Orders.RON MARK: I apologise Mr Deputy Speaker to you. It is nonsense that this party would advocate competitiveness and reward for enterprise and then Alfred Ngaro—and all those wonderful speeches on the election trail telling people about personal responsibility enterprise and reward for achievement—[Interruption] Tim Macindoe—is now walking away from it under this guise of what? Perception? Nowhere in any of the speeches tonight—shake your head as much as you like Mr Ngaro this is going out to the world. Nowhere in any of the speeches tonight and I doubt we are going to hear it in any that are going to follow now has there been any evidence—evidence—of a perception.We come into this Chamber every day and the Speaker reads out the prayer. The Speaker says “putting aside all personal advantage” and we comply. Members sit on that select committee and where they find a conflict of interest they declare it and walk out if they have to. So now we are saying that Auckland citizens cannot be treated the same way. If we wanted to talk about conflict of interest and bring a bill to the House that deals with conflict of interest then why did the member not bring a bill to the House that would stop MPs serving on the Canterbury Regional Council while they were a member of Parliament in the National Government? Well who was that member? Who was the National Party MP who sat in this House year after year as a member of the Canterbury Regional Council—and do not tell me there was not a conflict of interest there; there were massive conflicts of interest in there—and is a member of Parliament? It is Nicky Wagner.Where was the bill? Where does this bill change that? Nowhere because the root the nub of this issue is one politicking for populism pandering to someone who cannot get elected—and beat Mr Flaunty—and because the National Government does not think people can work at that rate.So conflicts of interest—how about we look at the other situation where a person who is a board member of two boards that border each other is able to advance the interests of both of those boards where they agree on something both synergetically against the Auckland Council. No none of that. So we get all these platitudes here tonight and we get all this nice fluffy stuff but the truth of the matter is this: New Zealand First opposes any move to undermine democracy. This is about an individual if they have the chutzpah if they have the courage the tenacity and dare I say it the financial wherewithal to put money up and fund the campaign and lose on both of them or win on one or win on two—who is the National Government to come in over the top and take that away from the people who cast those votes?This is not just “that word”; it is bizarre that it would come from a libertarian party like the National Party. It is even more bizarre that it would be supported by a neo-libertarian party like the ACT Party. It is nice to get carried away with the moment and to make wonderful speeches congratulating each other and patting each other on the back and no amount of scaremongering about perceptions without evidence no amount of imagining like Jami-Lee Ross did before—“Oh I imagine a situation …” “I imagine a circumstance …”—is any substitute for raw evidence. There was no evidence—not one instance not one moment in time that any submitter could point to in the select committee or that the members themselves in this debate tonight can point to—that says there is proof of a conflict of interest. This is a sham and New Zealand First stands proudly in opposing this bill.