Volume 663 Week 43 - Thursday 27 May 2010 
Volume 663 Week 43 - Thursday 27 May 2010 
[Volume:663;Page:11373] 
Thursday 27 May 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House next week will continue to debate the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill and take time to complete the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I ask the Deputy Leader of the House two questions: firstly which week does he expect to finish the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill’s second reading; secondly is he aware of some concern amongst select committees on the part of a few of his chairs with regard to a change of practice as to the acceptance of questions from Opposition members for the estimates process? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 In response to the first question I tell the member that it will be within the period of time set down by the Standing Orders. In respect of the second question I tell him that I have recently been made aware of some discussions that have been occurring in select committees; I have been listening carefully to the advice I have been receiving on that issue. 
Questions to Ministers 
Banks Australian-owned—Dividends Sent Offshore Over Last 5 Years 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the total amount of dividend payments sent offshore to the Australian owners of ASB ANZ National Westpac and the BNZ over the last 5 years; if so what is this amount? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have not received any such reports although the information that the member is after may be available through the annual reports of the banks concerned. However he would need to ensure that the dividends that were paid had all gone to Australian owners; there may well be significant New Zealand investment in those banks listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 released last week finds that the overall banking sector’s profitability declined during the recession but is now likely to improve as the economy improves. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can he confirm that according to the Reserve Bank figures to which he referred in the 5 years to 2009 the overseas-owned banks drained about $9 billion out of New Zealand; and what was the impact on the New Zealand economy of that loss of capital? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will take the member at his word about that amount which I presume is the accumulated profits of the banks. Clearly we are anxious but if New Zealanders had saved more over the years we may well have been the owners of all our banks. But we should just keep in mind that over recent years we have had the advantage through the recession of the Australian banks being now among the 10 safest banks in the world. The fact that they have been profitable has been one factor that has helped us to get through this recession without a banking collapse. One has to look only at the effect of banking collapses on other economies to realise how fortunate we have been. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he think that the Australian banks were acting in the best interests of New Zealand in 2008-09 during the recession he referred to—a time when New Zealand was short of capital—when those banks repatriated about 85 percent of their profits to Australia and retained only 15 percent of their profits in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There could be a range of opinions about the way banks deal with their profits—and the member and I might share a concern about whether New Zealand’s interests are paramount in the minds of the Australian shareholders—but I think it will be some time before we get the whole picture with regards to 2008-09. The point to remember is that the banks were unable to borrow in world wholesale funding markets which essentially meant the pipeline of cash coming into New Zealand was closed off and it appears that the Australian parent banks lent significant amounts of cash to the New Zealand banking system in a way that probably enabled our banks to continue to provide mortgages and overdrafts to New Zealand households and businesses. I am a bit reluctant to criticise them for the most recent period of the last 2 years through the banking crisis. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree that if Kiwibank were sold to overseas owners then any profits from Kiwibank would be added to this drain of capital from New Zealand adding further to our current account deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s position on that issue is quite clear: there will be no sales of any assets in this term of office. If that position were to change then the terms of that decision would be announced to the electorate before the election so there would be plenty of opportunity to debate them and then National would campaign on them. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of his comments floating the possibility of a partial privatisation of Kiwibank what mechanism does he propose to use to prevent New Zealand shareholders in a privatised or partially privatised Kiwibank from passing their shares on to overseas owners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer that question directly because the Government has not considered any of those issues at all. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the Kiwibank chief executive officer Sam Knowles that the big Australian banks are “comfortable established incumbents with a focus on maximising profits rather than competing” and that Kiwibank introduces a much-needed element of competition in the banking sector—competition that might be lost if Kiwibank were privatised and sold to overseas owners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If Kiwibank is sold to Australia will the Government require Kiwibank to change its theme song from “God Defend New Zealand” to “Advance Australia Fair” or perhaps to “Advance Australian Profits”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would find that question easier to answer if it were not asked with an Australian accent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a potential Kiwibank advertisement to be used after this Government privatises Kiwibank. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
2. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements regarding health services? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes including the very important statement that health expenditure as a proportion of GDP is at the highest level ever in New Zealand history. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he think that elective surgery is a front-line health service; if so how can he allow Wellington Hospital— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. It is perfectly acceptable for a visual aid to be used by the member and therefore the person assisting the bench but it is not acceptable for visual aids to be shown from other benches. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he think that elective surgery is a front-line health service; if so how can he allow Wellington Hospital to close its theatres for a week to save money delaying surgery for 150 Wellington residents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that 11000 more elective surgery operations were done in the first year of this administration; furthermore the increase in expenditure will allow even more elective surgery next year. I also note that the health board the member refers to had a substantive increase in its funding in the Budget. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What district nursing services will be available to people in Palmerston North who have blocked catheters or oxygen supply breakdowns or to those dying in pain if MidCentral District Health Board goes ahead with its proposal to completely axe the entire night shift from district nurse services? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the increase in the level of funding for MidCentral District Health Board is $39 million over both last year’s and this year’s Budget of which $13 million is in this year’s Budget. With that improved level of funding provided by the Government the Government has confidence that first-class health services can be provided for the people of that board’s district. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How much of the extra funding for next year that the Government has announced will go to district health boards? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In the next financial year district health boards will receive an estimated $407 million taking the proportion of GDP that is being spent on health to the highest level ever. I think that demonstrates the level of commitment that this Government has to our important public health services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How can he justify the cut to the weekly visit from a nurse to Paraparaumu College firstly cutting it back to fortnightly and from 1 July cutting it completely? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw on the considerable experience of Annette King who as Minister of Health said that members where they have individual cases should raise them directly with the Minister’s office rather than in a very broad question that covers such a wide range. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Given that Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia said that the closing of Kenepuru Hospital’s emergency department between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. would “put people’s lives at risk” can we now expect the Government of which Mrs Turia is a member to get involved in this issue and ensure that that service is not cut? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is huge faith in Tariana Turia because she is such an effective Associate Minister of Health. On the specific issue of the Kenepuru accident and medical clinic I can advise that Capital and Coast District Health Board has no plans to make changes to the services there. In fact it is delivering a lot more services. There have been 4000 more outpatient services this year from Kenepuru and I think that is something we should all welcome. 
Public Sector—Spending Relative to Economy 
3. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How large is public sector spending relative to the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There are several components of public sector spending: departmental spending and entitlements and additional spending by State-owned enterprises and Crown entities. This is all consolidated into the total Crown accounts. Local government is also a significant part of the economy. When all those elements are included total public sector spending to June 2009 was $93 billion. That was just over 50 percent of GDP. That figure has increased from 41 percent of GDP—or by $31 billion—in the past 5 years. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: How will Budget 2010 address this growth in public spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The growth in public spending from 41 percent of the economy to 50 percent of the economy in the past 5 years is clearly unsustainable and some of it was irresponsible. Budget 2010 has kept within $1.1 billion for new operational spending and we are shifting $1.8 billion of low-priority spending over the next 4 years from low-quality and back-office programmes to front-line services and more effective public programmes. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Is the Minister aware of any plans to further increase public spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite the unsustainable and in some respects reckless increase in public spending over the last 5 years I have heard several ideas that would increase public spending without any matching increase in productivity. Hiring about 3000 more Wellington-based bureaucrats and extending a range of public spending on low-quality programmes with no regard for the debt that it would incur are ideas from the Labour Opposition. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Minister aware of data from the State Services Commission that shows that the public sector decreased in size by 25 percent from 1989 to 2008 and has remained largely static as a percentage of the total workforce during that period including being the same percentage when he was first appointed as a Minister as it was when Labour left office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member can pick any numbers he likes—[ 
Interruption 
] Well his 1989 numbers will include a very large New Zealand Rail and a very large New Zealand Post Office which had large numbers of people working for them and the Labour Government of the time decided they were far too big and decided to shrink them. The fact is that along with most of the New Zealand public we believe that much of the spending under the previous Government was reckless and ineffective and we are fixing that problem. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table a document provided by the State Services Commission that shows that the number of people employed in the public sector has been static as a percentage of the employed labour force. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
State-owned Enterprises—Future Sales 
4. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he considering selling or partially selling any State-owned enterprises in the future; if so which ones? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. The Government’s position is clear. We made a commitment to New Zealanders that there will not be asset sales in this term of Parliament. If the position is to change we will campaign on that at the next election. In the meantime we are doing a much more important job which is fixing the damage done by 10 years of mismanagement of $200 billion worth of State assets— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and I can tell you it is a very big job. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When I get to my feet I expect all members of the House to respond immediately. The question did not contain any political accusations in it whatsoever. It just asked whether the Minister was considering selling or partially selling any State-owned enterprises in the future and if so which ones. It did not deserve an attack on the party of the questioner. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why then did he tell a post-Budget luncheon in Christchurch that the Government is considering making a change of policy “to free up capital and put product on the market for Kiwi mums and dads”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I made those comments in the context of discussing with that audience the need to lift our game with the $200 billion worth of assets that the Government owns. I pointed out to them that those assets will grow by $35 billion over the next 5 years and that the Government is investing $6 billion per year in taxpayer-funded assets. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: When he suggested at the luncheon that “there is a strong demand among the mums and dads for a Kiwi investment model and if we put product into the market people would buy it” did he also point out to the audience that Kiwi mums and dads buying a State-owned asset such as Kiwibank would be buying something that they already own through their payment of taxes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member has pointed to a comment that someone made to me after that discussion but as I said then and I will say again now we have got on with the much more important job of improving the shocking level of management left behind by the previous Government. It did not care about the State-owned assets and it did a very poor job of managing them. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What previous policies regarding the ownership of State-owned enterprises is the Minister aware of? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Over the years there have been a number of different positions. I am aware of a position stated by the previous Minister for State Owned Enterprises Trevor Mallard who advocated floats of State-owned enterprise businesses so that they could be listed on the stock exchange. He told a TV programme in 2006 that “that could help give a bit of depth to our capital markets and get some transparency around those companies and I think that would help.” Presumably that is still the policy of the Labour Party. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member did not fully quote me. It was— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. There was nothing wrong with the answer; I just think the last bit was unnecessary. The Minister made an allegation as to the current policy of the Labour Party for which the Minister has no responsibility. There was nothing wrong with the answer up until then. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who is correct: the Prime Minister who said: “No consideration has been given to selling any State-owned enterprises yet.”; himself as Minister when he said last Friday that the Government is considering a change of policy to “put product on the market for Kiwi mums and dads”; or the Kiwibank chairperson Jim Bolger who said: “They’re clearly working away on what their privatisation strategy may or may not be.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister is correct. The Government has not asked for advice or considered any advice on the matters that were raised because we have been so busy fixing up the mess that we inherited—$200 billion worth of assets are owned by the taxpayer and that Government left them in a mess. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with Capital Market Development Taskforce chairperson Rob Cameron that it is time for iwi to begin thinking about how they are to organise themselves and about which governance systems and investment vehicles they might use to play an active role in investing in New Zealand’s infrastructure; if so what consultation has he had with iwi about the potential sale of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have not had any consultation with iwi about the ownership of State-owned enterprises. In the central North Island for instance a number of iwi have formed joint ventures with State-owned enterprises which I think were sponsored by Dr Cullen of the previous Labour Government. We have certainly discussed with iwi their potential role in public-private partnerships and I understand that a number of bidders for the first option of a partnership are consulting with iwi as we speak. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he stand by his statement last Friday that Kiwibank needs an “awful lot of capital”; if so why did the outgoing Kiwibank chief executive officer Sam Knowles disagree with him when he said yesterday that Kiwibank is making enough profit to finance its growth and if any additional capital is needed it will be minimal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Kiwibank is growing and the Government is keen to support that growth. We have had discussions with Kiwibank over an extended period about what is required for that. I have to say that the Government as shareholder does not share all the views that the Kiwibank management hold about what is required for growth. 
Budget 2010—Environmental Initiatives and Bluegreen Vision 
5. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What practical environmental initiatives is the Government funding in Budget 2010 and how do they align with the principles outlined in the Bluegreen vision for New Zealand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The Government’s key environmental priorities are climate change water management and improving air quality and waste management. Practical activity in all those areas is on the rise. The major priority on climate change is implementing the emissions trading scheme but there are also good complementary programmes for home insulation clean heating and solar water heating. The big ticket items in Vote Environment are for water-quality initiatives that are being ramped up. Budget 2010 also provides increased funding for practical weight initiatives through the waste levy. 
Todd McClay 
: What specific funding commitments has the Government made for water-quality improvements in the central North Island? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is investing $92 million over the financial years 2009-14 in initiatives to clean up Lake Rotorua Lake Rotoiti Lake Taupo and the Waikato River in partnership with local councils and iwi. This is a five-fold increase over what was spent on water-quality initiatives over the 5 years prior to 2009. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why did the Bluegreen vision not disclose the Government’s intention to destroy water conservation orders? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Because we are not; we are very committed to improving water management. I challenge members opposite in terms of what has occurred in Canterbury with water management over the last decade—it was a disaster. I look to the quotes from Trevor Mallard who acknowledged the huge problems we have in Canterbury with water management. 
Todd McClay 
: What specific funding is provided in the Budget for the Environmental Protection Authority? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A total of $16.8 million is provided in Budget 2010 for the new national consenting function of the Environmental Protection Authority but the Government is yet to make a final decision on the four-man structure of that new authority. We will be making an announcement in the next month and legislation will be needed to introduce this new idea which was introduced with the Bluegreen vision document. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Why did the Bluegreen vision not disclose the Government’s intention to mine national parks? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know of only one party that has mined national parks and that was a mine that was officially approved by a former Labour Minister of Conservation in the Paparoa National Park. The only area in a national park that my colleague Gerry Brownlee is exploring is an area that the Department of Conservation did not even support being added to schedule 4. 
Hon Member 
: Tell the truth. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there any dim prospect of him directing his attention to the question I actually asked? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants the Speaker to take a point of order seriously he does not raise the point of order in that way. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Department of Conservation approval signed by Chris Carter for the mine in Paparoa National Park. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document; is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How is it consistent with the principles of the Bluegreen vision to bury the national Coastal Policy Statement and ignore the national policy statement on water management? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The national Coastal Policy Statement review was started in 2002 some 7 years before National became the Government. I have been working very closely with Kate Wilkinson the Minister of Conservation to ensure that the new Coastal Policy Statement is a balanced document— 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s all waffle. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well if David Parker wants to know what waffle is he should read about what Labour did for 9 years with the Coastal Policy Statement. I can assure the member that we will have an improved Coastal Policy Statement that is good for New Zealand. 
Alcohol Reform Agenda—Increased Excise Tax 
6. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What advice did he receive from the Prime Minister when he consulted him before stating that “it is extremely unlikely that the Government will move to raise excise tax as part of its alcohol reform agenda”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The consultation referred to in the member’s question occurred in the context of a meeting of a number of Ministers including the Prime Minister. My statement echoed the collective view of that meeting. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: At the time he received the advice from his Prime Minister was he aware that the Prime Minister had an existing interest in Highwater Vineyard Ltd? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I simply followed the processes that were put in place in order for that announcement to be made. I outlined in the answer to the primary question how that came about. I have nothing more to add. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was: “At the time that he received the advice from his Prime Minister was he aware that the Prime Minister had an existing interest in Highwater Vineyard Ltd?” so it was a fairly narrow question. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: My answer to the primary question referred to the consultation portion of the question. My answer to the primary question did not refer to any advice I had received from the Prime Minister. In fact the consultation portion of the member’s question was verified by way of a written question he asked me some days ago but the issue of advice as I understand it through the Clerk’s Office was not verified so I took a broad view concentrating on the consultation aspect which was verified. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has made an interesting point: he has told the House he did not receive any specific advice from the Prime Minister; the consultation was part of a general consultation with Ministers. That is why I believe he cannot answer more precisely about any advice it might be alleged he received from the Prime Minister. That is why I do not believe I can assist the member on this occasion with any further answer to that particular supplementary question but I am sure the member would like to ask further supplementary questions. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: At the time he was consulting with his Prime Minister was he aware that the Prime Minister had an existing interest in Highwater Vineyard Ltd? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No nor would I expect to be made aware of the matter in the event that there was no conflict. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before that question was answered Nick Smith made an extremely unparliamentary remark. I take offence and I know that other members take offence. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. I apologise to the member but I did not hear what the interjection was. I can only ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether he did in fact make an unparliamentary comment and if he did I ask him to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek clarification. I referred to the member as a sewer rat— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Dr Nick Smith will now get to his feet and withdraw and apologise to the House with some seriousness. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would have preferred it to be done without a smile on the member’s face because I find that—[ 
Interruption 
] I find it offensive to use the open microphone to make such a further allegation when all I had asked was whether he had made an offensive remark. I take a dim view of that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has he met at any time with Foodstuffs (NZ) Ltd regarding the Government’s alcohol reform agenda; if so can he recall with whom he met? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes I have met with Foodstuffs and with a range of industry representatives. I met with the Alcohol Advisory Council and a whole group of people leading into discussions. The member might be interested to know that since the Law Commission has tabled its report I have met with no one and will not do so until the Government responds formally to the report. But leading up to that time I certainly met with representatives. Although off the top of my head I cannot advise the specific names of those with whom I have met I can tell the member that I met with the managing directors of Foodstuffs (Auckland) Foodstuffs (Wellington) Cooperative Society and Foodstuffs (South Island) and with Melissa Hood whom I believe also has a role with Foodstuffs. In recent times I also opened in my electorate a Foodstuffs warehouse where I am sure many employees of Foodstuffs were present. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the Minister aware that the chairperson of Foodstuffs (Auckland) is also a shareholder in the Prime Minister’s vineyard? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. 
Telecommunications—Trans-Tasman Mobile Phone Roaming 
7. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What work is the Government doing on trans-Tasman mobile roaming? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I and my Australian counterpart Senator Stephen Conroy have released a discussion document dealing with trans-Tasman mobile roaming rates. Many New Zealanders have been caught unaware of the costs of using their mobile phone—in particular data roaming—in Australia. With large numbers of New Zealanders working and holidaying in Australia and vice versa it makes sense to examine whether the markets between the two countries are working effectively in this respect. We are therefore keen to hear the views of users the telecommunications industry and other interested stakeholders on this issue. 
Melissa Lee 
: Why is the Government undertaking this work? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Preliminary work done by both Governments has found that although the features and quality of mobile services are reasonable there does seem to be a lack of consumer awareness of prices and the prices themselves seem relatively high. Trans-Tasman mobile roaming has the potential to bring great benefits for individuals wanting to stay connected and on an economic level for companies doing business across the Tasman as we move further towards a single economic market. However these benefits will not be fully realised if the market is not functioning efficiently. 
Budget 2010—Positive Ageing Strategy 
8. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: Which goals and actions of the Positive Ageing Strategy does Budget 2010 not contribute towards and why? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 Budget 2010 is good news for recipients of New Zealand superannuation and therefore contributes towards all 10 goals of New Zealand’s Positive Ageing Strategy. In addition to receiving an income tax cut recipients of New Zealand superannuation will be fully and permanently compensated for the increase in GST from 1 October 2010. This means that people who receive New Zealand superannuation will get a considerable increase in their after-tax income. I suggest that the member goes to www.taxguide.govt.nz and clicks on “I receive New Zealand super or veterans pension” the large blue square two down on the left if he wants to see how much better off recipients of New Zealand superannuation will be. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can he therefore tell the House how Budget 2010 contributes to objective 3.2 of the Positive Ageing Strategy: “Provide adequate assistance towards the cost of local authority rates.” when it has slashed $58 million from the rates rebate scheme which could have helped thousands of senior New Zealanders remain in their homes and live comfortably and securely? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The matter of rates rebates will continue to be available to all New Zealanders. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can he therefore tell the House how Budget 2010 contributes to the second goal of the Positive Ageing Strategy of “Equitable timely affordable and accessible health services for older people” when the Government has not given district health boards enough funding to even stand still so they will inevitably have to make further health cuts that will include home help services for the elderly which have already been slashed up and down the country? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Thanks to the very good leadership by the very good Minister of Health Mr Tony Ryall this Government has given the biggest share of GDP to health of any Government ever. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can he therefore tell the House what fight if any and what leadership he showed and whether he put up on behalf of the seniors of New Zealand who because of this Budget and other Government measures are now facing a $5 a week increase in their power bills increases in the cost of their food increases in petrol costs and in doctors’ bills and a long cold winter under this Tory Government? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Unfortunately the member appears to have his facts wrong; I suspect he read the Budget upside down. The fact is that this Government has made significant improvements in the amount of funding that superannuitants will receive. 
Primary Sector Innovation—Primary Sector Partnership 
9. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to further primary sector innovation? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Yesterday I was delighted to announce three successful funding bids under the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership. These three bids will collectively see $45 million invested in primary sector innovation projects and will add significant value to the New Zealand economy. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What type of work will be funded under these projects? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The successful projects fund a diverse range of work including a major supply-chain programme to expand the production of merino fine wool a programme to develop better harvesting technologies for forestry on steep country and a project to develop bird-deterrent grasses. These projects are just the beginning and we can expect a number of further significant announcements around the Primary Growth Partnership in coming months. 
David Shearer 
: Why will he not offer an apology to scientists and businesses who have waited almost 20 months for funding after he cut the $700 million out of the Fast Forward Fund and when KPMG has warned that it could be only 5 years before we lose our competitive advantage in agriculture? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member who asks the question is the one who should be apologising to scientists. The last Government developed a fund for $700 million and did not receive a single application for it. It was a figment of the imagination of Labour members. It was an absolute fantasy of an idea. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What real commitment does the Government have to research and development in the primary sector given that it has cut over $20 million from the Primary Growth Partnership in this year’s Budget? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Government has made no cuts to the Primary Growth Partnership. We currently have $320 million of projects submitted to the Primary Growth Partnership. We have $160 million worth of projects under active investigation and as announced today $20 million has been approved. There have been no cuts. 
John Boscawen 
: What does he say to farmers National Party members and Rural Women of New Zealand who say that the best way for the Government to further primary sector innovation is to defer the emissions trading scheme which is imposing such costs and uncertainty when no other country on the planet is putting its farmers through it? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I always speak in a very friendly tone to Rural Women Federated Farmers and the farmers of New Zealand. It is a bit difficult for them to now ask us to defer the emissions trading scheme. The member should realise that it started on 1 January 2008 under the previous legislation. Deferral is now simply not an option. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is it not true that Budget 2009 had a total of $190 million in the Primary Growth Partnership’s 4-year appropriation that Budget 2010 has just $169 million in the Primary Growth Partnership’s 4-year appropriation and that that equates to a cut of over $20 million? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I take this opportunity to again assure the member that there is absolutely no cut at all to the Primary Growth Partnership’s funding. I am happy to take that member through the Budget documents so that he can better understand them. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he stand by his statement to the Dairy NZ Farmers’ Forum on 5 May in respect of spurring primary sector innovation that the emissions trading scheme will cost only 2.5c per kilogram of milksolids in 2015; if not why not and what is the correct figure? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What assurances can he give to small innovative primary sector research groups that their Primary Growth Partnership funding applications will be fairly assessed when in the first round of grants allocated which were just announced by the Minister $15 million of the $20 million went to Merino New Zealand whose chief executive officer sat on the advisory panel dishing out the money? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I can assure the member that every application put before the Primary Growth Partnership will be well considered by the investment advisory panel. I am aware that in the case of Merino New Zealand Mr Brakenridge stood to one side and took no part in any discussions on the application from his company. At the end of the day the decision about how the money is dished out is not made by the investment advisory panel or by me as the Minister of Agriculture; it is in the hands of the Director-General himself. 
John Boscawen 
: I seek leave to table in the House the current issue of the  
National Farming Review 
 with a photograph on the front page of the Minister of Agriculture protesting against Labour’s “fart tax”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection? I beg the member’s pardon—there is objection. 
John Boscawen 
: I seek leave to table in the House a statement from Liz Evans vice-president of Rural Women of New Zealand released yesterday calling on the Government to delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
John Boscawen 
: I seek leave to table a copy of David Carter’s speech to the Dairy NZ Farmers’ Forum where he quotes a cost for milksolids— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been reasonably patient on this seeking of leave to table documents but that speech is readily available to all members. It is not as if the House does not have access to that information. 
Budget 2010—Protection for Workers and Businesses 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement “Much of our attention has also been focussed on the economic downturn and exploring means to help protect workers and businesses from the sharp edges of the recession”  and if so which Budget 2010 initiatives will help to achieve that? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Absolutely. It was a very good statement made back in March 2009 but actually we are no longer in a recession—tough times yes but recession no. Budget 2010 has set this country on the path to greater economic growth and workers and businesses now have greater confidence in the future. Our talented Minister of Finance has overseen the biggest and fairest reform of our tax system in 25 years and Kiwi workers are the big winners. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will the Budget 2010 decision to allow young workers hired through the Job Ops scheme to be fired within 90 days with no right of appeal against unfair dismissal help protect those already vulnerable workers? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Feedback from employers and others on the Job Ops scheme has been incredibly positive. The only request was that it be more flexible. It now is. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is it fair that employers can receive a subsidy of up to $5000 through Job Ops—presumably in recognition of their help in bringing down youth unemployment—but then can fire those subsidised workers within 90 days with no fear of an appeal against dismissal? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Questions about the funding policy of Job Ops are better directed at the Minister for Social Development and Employment. But I understand that that has been taken into account. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance told Maori business leaders at a post-Budget breakfast on Tuesday that the best answer when he is asked what is in the Budget for Maori is 179000 new jobs over the next 4 years; and what strategies has she employed to ensure that Maori are actively targeted to gain these 179000 new jobs? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. The department has developed partnerships with iwi to develop and analyse local and national labour market information including the development of a set of interactive labour market tools. However we expect all New Zealanders to benefit from our prudent financial stewardship of our economy. 
Darien Fenton 
: How will removing the redundancy tax credit—which was designed to ensure that workers made redundant through no fault of their own would not end up having to pay a higher level of tax—help to protect those workers from the sharp edges of the recession? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That tax credit as I understand it was created because of questions of unfairness in Labour’s high tax rates. That problem has now been addressed by reducing tax rates and indeed lowering all tax rates. 
Leaky Homes—Reaction to Proposed Package 
11. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What reports has he received on reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Very very good news actually! Three of the key most affected local authorities—that is Wellington City Council Waitakere City Council and North Shore City Council—last night all voted unanimously to support the Government’s leaky home package. Together these three local authorities account for 31 percent of the total houses affected. Another two major councils affected will be voting tonight. 
Paul Quinn 
: What other reports has he received in reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is fantastic news again. There has been a huge number of inquiries to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and the Department of Building and Housing. Eighteen new weathertightness claims have been lodged already from 103 homeowners in the 10 days since the announcement which is more than the total number of claims received during the entire month of April and there have been 300 inquiries from existing claimants about changing their applications. The good news just keeps on coming. 
Broadband Ultra-fast—Selection of Private Investment Partners 
12. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: Can he guarantee that the process currently under way to select partners in the Government’s ultra-fast broadband initiative will not be delayed to suit the interests of the incumbent carrier Telecom New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I can confirm that the current process being conducted by Crown Fibre Holdings will not be sped up or slowed down or even remain the same for the benefit of any bidder. Crown Fibre Holdings is currently conducting a competitive process designed to produce the best possible result for New Zealanders. The company has some flexibility in the timetable at its own discretion if that would enhance the outcome for taxpayers and consumers. 
Clare Curran 
: Will he guarantee that the funds the Government has set aside for investing in new fibre infrastructure will remain dedicated to the roll-out of new fibre infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he agree that there is no public benefit in diverting funds into a purchase of Telecom’s old copper network? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has been clear all the way along that it does not intend to spend money purchasing existing infrastructure from any existing bidder. 
Clare Curran 
: When does he expect the first roll-out of ultra-fast broadband resulting from this initiative to occur? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The current expectation is prior to the end of this calendar year which by my count would make it roughly 5 or 6 years ahead of when the previous Government managed to achieve something in the information and communications technology area. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that there has been a $20 million cut to the Primary Growth Partnership funding over a 4-year period. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member mind telling us what the document is? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The document is a Budget assessment by a research unit and I am sure that the Government will want to challenge that document and check it for itself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document is from a research unit. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Budget Debate 
Debate resumed from 26 May on the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I join with the majority of New Zealanders in congratulating the Minister of Finance Bill English on what in my view is the finest Budget of the 23 Budgets that have been presented by a Minister of Finance during my time in this House. It was worth the wait I have to say. New Zealanders across the country are saying “Thank goodness this Government and this Minister of Finance have produced this Budget.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is an enormous amount of noise around the Chamber from every member. The member cannot be heard. Those members who wish to have a conversation should pack up their bags go out into the lobbies and continue their conversations there. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Of course I am pleased because people will want to listen to this speech; I am well aware of that. 
What is disappointing is the way that Opposition members have decided that the only way they can fight against this Budget is to bring in the envy language. They are out there saying that some people will get more than others. Some people will get more money and some will get less. The fact is that when we have a Budget such as this one of course there will be people who end up with more dollars in the hand; it is a fact of life. 
I will read out a little story that was sent to me which explains exactly what the Labour Opposition members do not seem to have understood. Let us just suppose we explain the tax system by way of buying beer which we all drink from time to time. Suppose that every day 10 men go out for a beer and the bill for the 10 of them comes to $100. If they paid the bill in the way that we pay our taxes it would go something like this: the first four men—the poorest—would pay nothing the fifth man would pay $1 the sixth man would pay $3 the seventh man would pay $7 the eighth man would pay $12 the ninth man would pay $18 and the 10th man—the richest—would pay $59. That seems to be what our tax system says. That is what they decided to do. They drank their beer every day and they paid for it in that ratio. 
One day the pub owner said: “Well look as you are such good beer drinkers we will reduce the cost of your beer by $20.” So now the 10 drinks cost only $80. 
Hon Member 
: Didn’t anybody drink wine? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: No the group drank only beer. But the point is this. The men said: “What are we going to do about this? We will have to split up the bill. We should pay the bill so that we can divide the $20 windfall and everyone will get their fair share.” They realised that $20 divided by six comes to $3.33. But if they subtracted that amount from everybody’s share then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to drink their beer. That did not seem to work. 
The bar owner suggested that they reduce every man’s bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts they should pay. The fifth man like the fourth man would pay nothing. In other words he would make a 100 percent saving. The sixth man would now pay $2 instead of $3 which is a 33 percent saving. The seventh man would now pay $5 instead of $7 which is a 28 percent saving. The eighth man would now pay $9 instead of $12 which is a 25 percent saving. The ninth man would now pay $14 instead of $18 which is a 22 percent saving. The 10th man would now pay $49 instead of $59 which is a 16 percent saving. Six of the men would be better off than before and the first four men would continue to drink for free. 
However once the men were outside the restaurant they began to compare their savings. The sixth man declared that he had got only $1 out of the $20. He pointed to the 10th man and said that he had got $10. The fifth man said that that was right. He said that he saved only $1 as well and that it was unfair the 10th man had got 10 times more than him. “That is true” shouted the seventh man “why should he get $10 back when I get only $2? The wealthy always get the breaks.” “Wait a minute” yelled the first four men in unison “we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.” The first nine men surrounded the 10th man and they beat him up. 
The next night the 10th man did not show up for drinks so the other nine men sat down and had their beers without him. But when it was time to pay the bill they discovered that they did not have enough money to pay it. They did not have enough money between the nine of them. 
That I say to the Opposition is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. If we tax them too much and attack them for being wealthy then they might not show up anymore. That is the problem with what the Labour Opposition is saying to New Zealanders. The Opposition is saying that as far as it is concerned those in the highest tax bracket should pay more until they are driven off the shores of our nation. We need people who generate wealth in this country. 
What really disappoints me about the Labour Opposition is that its whole philosophy is about tying people down to being poor so they have to vote for Labour. That is Labour’s philosophy now and it always has been. It is a philosophy of envy a philosophy of suppressing people and a philosophy of not trying to help people at all. 
I admire a number of members in this House but one whom I really do admire is Tariana Turia. She does not like seeing people being oppressed. She does not like seeing people being demeaned. She is out there speaking up for people who stand on their own two feet just like I do and just like this Government does. We want people to make a go of things. We want people to have meaningful participation in our country. We want good individual outcomes we want good family outcomes and we want good outcomes for this country. 
In the ideal world there would be no underclass. There would be no uneducated people no dysfunctional families and no drugs and crime because people were left out of society. In the ideal world all people would be standing on their own two feet. They would be contributing they would be participating and they would be there for themselves their families and their communities. Unfortunately—and especially because of what has happened in this country over the last 9 years—we do not live in an ideal world but this Budget is about aspiration. This Budget is about getting people back on their feet. This Budget is about giving people the path to opportunity. This Budget is about allowing New Zealanders to have the right to participate. This Budget is about allowing people to develop for themselves. This Budget is about allowing people to contribute to themselves to their family and to society. 
This Budget is about something that everybody should be happy to have and that we can all be proud of and aspire to. This Budget is about what this Government is about: aspiration. It is about making sure that people can have the opportunity to participate in our society. It is about giving people the opportunity to be well-educated. It is about making sure that people can participate in their families and that families can participate in their communities. It is about addressing those things that will remove the barriers to allow people to be themselves and to make the contribution that each and every person in this country can make given the opportunity. It is about removing barriers—particularly Government barriers—from people’s hopes aspirations and opportunities. 
I commend this Budget to this House and to the people of New Zealand. It is a great Budget. As I have said of the 23 Budgets that have been presented during my time in this House it is the most outstanding Budget no matter which way one measures it. I am proud of this Budget. I am proud of this country. I am proud of this Government and I am proud of the Minister of Finance Bill English who brought this Budget to this House. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 The previous speaker John Carter stood up and spent 5 minutes telling a joke about beer. I challenge that member to go out and organise a public meeting in a pub in his electorate and explain to all his constituents that his Government has just increased the price of beer for everyone by raising GST. All the hard-working people of that member’s constituency will be paying more for their beer because GST is going up. That member also told us that this is the best Budget he has seen in 23 years. Did he have his ears closed when Dr Michael Cullen delivered a Budget with full employment low debt and zero net debt? He called this Budget aspirational. I call zero Crown debt and low unemployment aspirational. Goodness me! If this is the best Budget that member has heard in 23 years I think it is about time he went back and looked at  
Hansard 
 or perhaps opened his ears. 
Supply-side economics sometimes referred to as the trickle-down theory states that if we give big tax cuts to the wealthy they will spend the extra money on investing in businesses that will grow the economy and create jobs. That is supply-side economics. Paul Krugman is a Princeton professor who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008. He said this about the economic theory that the National Government is operating under: “ ‘supply-side economics’ is a crank doctrine that would have had little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men. It has been disproved because what happens in reality is in times of uncertainty the wealthy tend to pay down debt or save money.” Very rarely will they be investing in the so-called productive economy that will drive this country forward. Once again let me remind members that one of the world’s top economists said that the National Government’s guiding economic theory—supply-side economics—is “a crank doctrine that would have little influence if it did not appeal to the prejudices of editors and wealthy men.” 
Why would wealthy men love this Budget? Let us see why. Under the Budget’s tax cuts the chief executive of Telecom Paul Reynolds will get over $350000 extra in the hand per year; the chief executive of Fonterra Andrew Ferrier will get a cool $197000 extra a year; the chief executive officer of Air New Zealand Rob Fyfe will get about $120000 extra per year; and the chief executive of Contact Energy David Baldwin will get only about $73000 extra per year. I could go on but my point is not that those men are overpaid. Their tax cuts are not their fault because they did not set the Government’s tax strategy; they are just lucky beneficiaries. But I bet members that if they asked Rob Fyfe he would say that he did not need another $120000 per year. It would be nice to have but for Rob Fyfe it is not the difference between making ends meet and not making ends meet. That is the dilemma facing many New Zealanders at this point in time—simply how to make ends meet. My point is that this Budget delivers massive tax cuts for those earning significant salaries. While Paul Reynolds gets over $300000 per year Joe Citizen on the medium wage in Napier gets about $3 a week or $150 per year after increases in GST have been taken into account. 
Gerry Brownlee has told us that the emissions trading scheme will cost the average family about $365 per year. That amount alone is about $215 more than the Napier medium wage earner gets in his so-called tax cuts. The opposite of supply-side economic theory is demand side. It states that if we give money to those who need it the most they will spend it on the necessities of life. They buy food they purchase petrol they pay power bills and they put clothes on the backs of their children. But with this Budget things just got tougher. The GST increase from 12.5 percent to 15 percent will hurt a great many New Zealanders. Inflation at 5.9 percent will mean that the meagre tax cuts given to those on the medium wage will be gone quick smart. When he was electioneering in 2008 Mr Key looked down the camera and told New Zealand: “National is not going to raise GST.” and he did. He also told New Zealand that he would not borrow for tax cuts and he did. 
This is not the sort of Budget that a Labour Government would have delivered. As a party Labour understands the message about equality of opportunity. We understand that everyone in our society needs the same opportunities to be as good as they possibly can be and that is what the previous Labour Government delivered over 9 years. We absolutely value businessmen and businesswomen. We think that the contributions of our top scientists engineers doctors entrepreneurs bankers lawyers farmers and foresters are invaluable in driving economic growth. But we also know that if hard-working Kiwi families—and we must remember that 800000 families in this country survive on a household income of $60000 or less—lose the opportunity to engage in education lose access to first-class medical facilities and struggle to put food on the table and put clothes on their children’s backs then we as a country will never be as good as we can be. 
The National Government increased the minimum wage by 25c per hour last year—25c per hour—and Treasury has said in the Budget documents that wage growth will not keep pace with inflation over the short to medium term. If that Government really wanted to drive productivity and growth it would treat workers with dignity and with respect. It would instigate ways to really increase productivity through driving up wages and salaries not by crowing in a condescending way about how lucky the poor are to get a tax cut as well. Sure the Australians cut their company tax rate down to 28c—like New Zealand did—but the Australians also increased employer contributions to the Australian version of KiwiSaver from 9 percent to 12 percent. This Government has left employer contributions to KiwiSaver at 2 percent. How will that build a savings culture and drive economic growth? Well it will not. 
This Budget and that Government are stealing the dreams of hard-working Kiwis as more and more people become sick and tired of broken promises from their leaders such as that the National Government will not raise GST and that National will not borrow for tax cuts. Then we have news that the Government is to mine the high-value conservation estate. What is schedule 4? I describe it as one of the very few globally competitive advantages we have. It is the picture on the cover of the glossy brochure sitting on the travel agent’s desk in London that sells this wonderful country to those who want to get away from the maddening rush and spend a few pounds somewhere exotic. I say to the Government that if it ruins that it will damage New Zealand’s image and reputation internationally. Even the most cynical businessmen and businesswomen I have met understand that doing that would be madness. 
Then there is the talk about selling Kiwibank. Eight hundred thousand Kiwis have invested personally in Kiwibank and that Government wants to sell it. George Bush Snr’s legacy as US President was his quote: “Read my lips: no new taxes.” That cost him the election. John Key’s legacy as Prime Minister could well be his quote: “National will not raise GST.” I will raise a glass of “PM Pinot Noir” to that. Bring on election 2011 because ringing in the ears of the public will be John Key standing in front of a camera telling the people of New Zealand: “National will not raise GST.” and that Government did. This is a Budget of broken dreams and broken promises. Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I commend my colleague Stuart Nash for the great speech that he gave. It was particularly excellent considering that he followed on from John Carter. Before Mr Nash spoke we had to listen to Mr Carter spend 7 of his 10 minutes telling us a story about the price of beer. That indicates to this side of the House how far removed the National Government is from reality. The reality is that most everyday New Zealanders are more concerned about the price of bread and being able to put that on the table than they are about the price of a case or a keg of beer. I thank Mr Carter for those 7 minutes of his speech. I am sure that even though we go away none the wiser it was satisfying for him to give that speech. 
Many people are saying that there has never been a one-term National Government and Labour has a really hard job in trying to make this Government a one-term Government. After the announcement of the Budget many people are saying to Labour that they think we can actually win the next election. Why do they think that? Because National has shown its true colours with regards to its priorities its lack of empathy for the ordinary Kiwi family and its lack of understanding for New Zealanders who are struggling. Their priorities are towards those who already earn large sums of money. I thank the National Government for showing New Zealanders what it is all about. 
The other day I was listening to a Pacific radio station and I heard a caller being interviewed about the fact that his mother earns $32000 a year. I thought it was interesting that he thought it was so unfair that his mother who works her butt off as a cleaner at Middlemore Hospital—my sister also works there doing the same job—has come away none the better with this Budget. National has put out statements and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs has put out statements saying that the Pacific Island community will be so much better off with these tax cuts. But the reality is that—once we take into consideration the rises in accident compensation levies the anticipated rise in inflation and the increase in GST—the average worker or someone on the minimum wage will be much worse off. 
The caller not only talked of his mother but also pointed out that he had watched the Prime Minister give his speech after the Budget had been announced. That caller felt insulted by the fact that the Prime Minister thought it was one big joke. The caller talked about the Budget putting a nail in the coffin of those who are struggling yet John Key got up and did a big comedian routine. That is exactly what we were thinking. How can we take the Prime Minister seriously when he cannot even take seriously the struggles of Kiwis and rather than speak to the issues or express any level of compassion he stands up and spends 10 minutes cracking jokes and attacking the Leader of the Opposition? 
The Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff had just expressed the sentiment of many Kiwis who are asking how they will cope given that the Government has done absolutely nothing to create opportunities for jobs. Those Kiwis are asking how they will cope given that this Government has just increased GST making it more expensive to live. How will they cope when our Prime Minister thinks that is a joke and cannot take anything seriously? He sits there happy as Larry because he is the “Fifty Million Dollar Man” and he has just gifted all his mates an incredible tax cut. I think that is offensive and I think that the person who rang in to the radio station was right to state that it was insulting. To everyone who sits in the National seats the ACT Party seats and also to some extent—I have to say this but I wish I did not have to say it—the Maori Party seats I say on behalf of most Kiwis out there that it is offensive. 
We have looked at the amount of money that has been given in tax cuts and my colleagues including Stuart Nash have pointed out that it is a broken promise. We heard from the Prime Minister before the election that there would be no increase in GST. Unfortunately it follows on from many of the broken promises that we have experienced over the last 18 months. It is another broken promise. It is worrying that it is also at the expense of other services that are necessary when we need to move this country forward. 
As a Pacific person and as a person with a role in Labour’s education caucus I am concerned about the fact that tax cuts have been given to the rich. At the same time $400 million has been cut from early childhood education. For 9 years the previous Labour Government took education overall and early childhood education seriously. We knew that with a young demographic in order to curb the inequality that exists it is really important that all of our children get the same start in education. There were increases despite what the other side of the House has to say in the number of Maori and Pacific undertaking early childhood education. There were increases in the number of qualified Maori and Pacific staff in early childhood education. That increase came out of a concerted effort to make it happen. It did not come out of a sense of charity towards the Maori and Pacific communities which is a charity that we often hear National talk about but never ever demonstrate; it came out of an understanding that it would be good not only for those communities but also for New Zealand as a whole. Yet the National Government thinks that cutting $400 million from early childhood education will somehow be good for this country and that early childhood education is not a priority. 
We have also seen other cuts. We have seen cuts overall to education regardless of what the Minister of Education has said in this House. We have seen reductions a 14.4 percent cut in Maori and Polynesian scholarships—14.4 percent. We have seen the end of the $2.15 million Skill Enhancement programme. We have seen further restrictions on students loans which will affect Maori and Pasifika more than anyone else; I know this having worked at the University of Auckland. We are also seeing the student loan eligibility for new permanent residents being tampered with. That will disproportionately affect Pacific people. 
All of those things do not make for a very bright future for New Zealand. I think a lot of New Zealanders out there are thinking that they voted for National but that they made a mistake. Someone said to me the other day that we should create a bumper sticker that says: “Don’t blame us we voted Labour.” I think that would be a really good idea. A lot of New Zealanders who voted for National for the first time are quite embarrassed because they now see that National members have not changed their colours. They forgot what those members were like but now they see that those members are exactly the same as what they were before. 
The main message that we have to put out there is that the National Government may say that this is a tax switch but the reality is that it is a tax swindle and New Zealanders have been done over by the National Government. I think that it may still be going through its honeymoon period with regard to the Budget but it will not last. 
Paul Quinn 
: Long honeymoon. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: I tell Mr Quinn that it will not last. We will see further dissatisfaction with what that Government is able to provide further anger for the fact that it has no level of compassion for people who are struggling that its leadership is flawed and that the Prime Minister thinks that everything is a big joke. The Prime Minister would rather stand up in the House and go through a comic routine than talk about the issues that are real for the everyday Kiwi. The reality is that it will not get much better. We have seen some of the things that the Government is planning on doing in the future. New Zealanders have woken up. That Government has a very short term with regard to how much longer it will serve this country. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill completes the legislative framework that will define the new Auckland Council and unite the region with one mayor and an efficient effective single council. 
We can be proud of Auckland with its natural beauty a jewel of a harbour and its wonderful ethnic and cultural diversity. Auckland is already a strong international city but it is also New Zealand local government’s greatest tragedy. The region has fragmented governance confused responsibilities and limited accountability for the resulting gridlock. Wellington has crippled Auckland for 100 years. Michael Joseph Savage recognised the problem back in 1919 calling for a unification of the region’s disparate councils. It has taken nearly 100 years for Wellington to set Auckland free from the bureaucratic mess that has for so long stagnated Auckland’s progress. 
Last year this Parliament began the process of reform by passing two Acts setting out the Government’s high-level decisions for Auckland. The Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 laid out the high-level framework for the structure of the new Auckland Council. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill we are now considering is an omnibus bill that builds on those previous two Auckland governance Acts considered by the House last year. 
The scope of the change to be achieved is significant and it is complex. Multiple organisations are to be disestablished and their staff and assets moved into new or different organisations. The planning and rating systems of 8 councils are to be integrated into one unified system by 2012. Local boards are to be established and integrated into the council’s planning and decision-making systems. The bill provides a governance framework for the council-controlled organisations to ensure they achieve the regional effectiveness of operation that these governance reforms demand. It also provides a mechanism to complete the rationalisation of existing council-controlled organisations in Auckland. The bill establishes Auckland Transport and the Waterfront Development Agency and makes further provision for Watercare Services Ltd. It also provides mechanisms to enhance Maori Pacific and ethnic participation in council processes and decision-making. 
Setting up the new council is a huge job. The Auckland Transition Agency under the stewardship of executive chairman Mark Ford is doing a world-class job. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance estimated the total cost of its proposed reforms to be $120 to $240 million across 4 years. The Government has gone further than the royal commission recommended yet the transition cost is expected to be $94 million with the transition to be achieved in less than half the expected time. The transition funding of $94 million is a loan from the Government to the Auckland Transition Agency and it will be repaid by the Auckland Council by 1 November 2011. 
To put the transition expenditure into context I tell the House that local government in the Auckland region will spend more than $2000 million this year and it has a total asset base of more than $27000 million. The total cost of the transition and the information technology work before 1 November will amount to just 0.3 percent of the new council’s total assets. I will repeat that: the total cost of the transition and the information technology work before 1 November will amount to just 0.3 percent of the new council’s total assets. 
The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has worked long and hard analysing submissions on the bill and I am very pleased with the constructive recommendations the committee has brought back to the House. As well as thanking the committee for its work I thank each person and organisation that made a submission. The bill as reported back reflects those submissions and is a stronger more robust bill as a result. I especially thank the chair of the select committee my colleague the Hon John Carter who did an outstanding job; my fellow MPs on the select committee; and the select committee staff especially Edward Siebert and Vathani Shivanandan. I must thank the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs for its support to the committee and particularly Caroline Taylor and John Sutton for the long hours of hard work and the quality advice they provided to the committee. I also thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office staff especially Leeanne O’Brien and the officials from the many other departments who contributed to the legislative process overall. 
The councils of Auckland both the elected representatives and the council staff and chief executives also have my gratitude. Their experience and their wisdom in dealing with amalgamation issues has been and will continue to be invaluable. They have worked with the transition agency with the best interests of Auckland and Aucklanders to the fore. That has made me proud and I think it has done Auckland very very proud. 
I am pleased with the result of the select committee process which has successfully addressed community concerns boosted transparency and made constructive changes and that is exactly what New Zealand democracy is all about. The committee recommends and the Government agrees that the bill should be amended to provide that the initial allocation of the non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities identified for local boards by the Auckland Transition Agency be given legal status. The Auckland Transition Agency allocations which have been prepared in consultation with Auckland councils and citizens will be published before the October local body elections and will stand until the new council adopts its own long-term council community plan for the period beginning 1 July 2012. The amendment will allow the new council to add to the responsibilities of local boards but—and this is important—not to reduce those responsibilities without full consultation with citizens in the course of developing the council’s first long-term council community plan in 2012. 
Council-controlled organisations also drew a lot of attention from the committee and the committee has addressed concerns over accountability by boosting the transparency of these bodies to levels not seen anywhere else in New Zealand local government. The Auckland Council will now appoint the chair and deputy chair of each council-controlled organisation including Auckland Transport and can remove council-controlled organisation directors from day one. The Auckland Council now must also have a council-controlled organisation accountability policy can require council-controlled organisations to report quarterly rather than half-yearly and in a first require them to have their meetings open to the public. Council-controlled organisations again including Auckland Transport will be subject to the council’s long-term and other strategic plans. To put it simply Auckland Council’s control over its substantive council-controlled organisations is now significantly greater than that of any other council in New Zealand. 
This Government wants to see an Auckland that is united that is prosperous and that is dynamic in every sense—economically culturally socially and ethnically. We will now have a city that all New Zealanders can be proud of and a city with world-class infrastructure that our children and our grandchildren will choose as a place in which to live to work and to play. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I briefly acknowledge the work done by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and of course the work done by officials. This Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is the third of the bills changing Auckland. For the first one there was no public input. The Government decided to go ahead under urgency and chop up Auckland into one big pie. Then we had a situation where people came to make submissions. For the second bill the committee travelled all over the Auckland region. For this the third bill the committee stayed in a motel and some people came to it to make submissions. The Government says that it listened—but did it? It was hard of hearing. 
People do not like to see the corporatisation of their council in Auckland— 
Hon John Carter 
: No one believes that any more. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That member might not believe it but all that member can do when he gets up to speak is tell a joke about booze so his credibility has gone already. People do not like the idea of corporatisation when seven mayors and one chairman are exchanged for seven council-controlled organisation chairs. That is what people have. Do they have direct control or direct input? No they do not. 
The directors of these council-controlled organisations will be accountable to the Auckland Council not directly to the public—the public miss out. Although the spin may have confused Bernard Orsman and “Granny  
Herald 
” I think that having these seven council-controlled organisations is no substitute for people having democracy. The three council-controlled organisations will control over 95 percent of Auckland spending. Over 75 percent of the money will be in the hands of those council-controlled organisations. The transport council-controlled organisation will have 54 percent of Auckland’s income to spend. Everyone in Auckland knows that transport has been one of the big problems but making it a bigger problem is not the way to cure it. Water is also a real worry. Will the Government allow Auckland’s water to be flogged off? I think it is a possibility. 
During the Committee stage we will put forward Supplementary Order Papers to try to get what Auckland really wants. The Government proposes an agency that will be responsible for the waterfront and to me that seems a bit strange. The Government says that it will get rid of the foreshore and seabed legislation and that no one will own the land but this organisation will have to deal with it. These are the sorts of questions that people come to us with. We will have one Mayor of Auckland. At the moment we have one earl of Auckland but we will have one mayor. People are still upset. Penny Webster who is a former ACT member of Parliament wants to keep her area of Rodney out of Auckland. Did her former colleagues listen to her? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Yes. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No they did not. They turned off their hearing aids and they did not listen to her. Before Rodney Hide and John Carter start celebrating tonight with some Highwater wine they should listen to what Penny Webster and people like Bill Townsend have to say. Bill Townsend who worked like mad and organised people locally hoped that his local MP would bring a bill to the House. But did that happen? No it did not. 
Those people believed that they could make a difference. From last year when the first bill came in no one was able to make a substantive difference. That is very sad because people had meetings all over Auckland. People got together and said that they will fight this. I see it in Papakura and in Manurewa. These people are committed and they believe that they have been mistreated. In a democracy people believe that they can have a say. They now know that what we are getting in Auckland is no democracy. They believe that they will be able to vote for the council and for a mayor but they will not have any say on who sits on the council-controlled organisations and reports back to the council. They will not be able to pick up the phone and ring their local councillor. That is all going because local councillors will not control any of the 75 percent of the money that the council-controlled organisations have. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Carter may say “Yeah” but it is probably the first time he has listened to anything since he has been chairman. I wondered why he was such a good chairman; he let people talk but he was not listening. Maybe having such a friendly chairman who smiles all the time is one way through. The reality is that local boards are the area where some people feel that they will have some say but they will not have as much say as they do at the moment on their present community board or their present council. People will miss out all round. When we put 75 percent of Auckland into council-controlled organisations we are locking up Auckland. 
Rodney Hide talked about how in 1919 I think he said the first steps towards change took place. People will now look on the year 2010 with some real sorrow. I have been a local body politician. When I was first elected in Papakura back in— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Last century. In the last millennium. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: —yes it was in 1980; I was just trying to remember—there was a different style of politician. Then in 1989 Michael Bassett made a big change throughout New Zealand. I think that people then started to be suspicious of local government especially in the Auckland area. They still are. We have people in Howick who still long to be independent and some of them want their name back. They do not like the name they have been given and they are battling against it. We see that people like Pansy Wong and Maurice Williamson are going to try to cash in and say they are doing something for it but they are not really listening to Aucklanders in relation to this big plan. I think that when Rodney Hide sits back in his rocking chair in a few years when he is retired or booted out of Parliament—probably booted out—he will reflect on the mess he has made because it will be more expensive. People already have to pay $130 million of their money for something they do not want. The Government is not stumping up with the money; it is the poor old ratepayer who will stump up for this mess. I am totally opposed to this bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I start by giving my congratulations to the select committee and also to our chairperson the Hon John Carter. He has done a sterling job in keeping the committee together keeping the committee on track and getting all of us to be part of a democratic process. I also want to make an apology about an issue and get this off my chest because it has been worrying me for some time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh not that one? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Not that one. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not ready for that yet? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I have a list of them in here somewhere. 
I want to apologise to the Federation of Country Women’s Institutes because I took its name in vain. When there was a protest outside the select committee which was organised by none other than the new Labour candidate for Te Atatu Phil Twyford I referred to that protest as “nothing more than a meeting of the Country Women’s Institute”. So I apologise to those good ladies of the Federation of Country Women’s Institutes. In fact that protest was nothing more than a ragtag bunch of old lefties from the 1970s and 1980s who have not moved on and were looking for that last opportunity to go and protest at something. 
I have always thought that the first speech made by an Opposition member on a report back a second reading speech would be one of verve and high quality and would set out what the Opposition would do given the faint opportunity of being on the Treasury benches. But all we heard was a rambling speech by one of the old warhorses of the Labour Party. I sort of feel sorry because that speech should have been given by one of the young members of Labour. It should have been given by one of the more on-to-it members like maybe William Sio who has lived his whole life in Otara. He went to my alma mater—Hillary College. 
Phil Twyford 
: Talk about the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It would have been a statement by the new Labour Party that this is where it is headed. 
Phil Twyford 
: What about the bill? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: But all we heard was a disjointed wobbly old speech. 
Members opposite want me to talk about the bill; what is there to talk about? Most people in Auckland want this thing to happen. Most people want one mayor. Most people want to go to a place where they get their resource consent in one place not umpteen dozen places. Most people wanted to have a say about council-controlled organisations and they can have a say. They can turn up to the meetings of the council-controlled organisations and have their say. 
If so many people were opposed to this there would have been thousands upon thousands of people marching in the streets. But all Phil Twyford could organise was an ambulance and 30 or 40 outdated protesters from the time of the Springbok Tour and the Vietnam War. That is all he could organise. 
I take my hat off to one of my foes in a lot of discussions we have had over the last few years about a few issues. I refer to the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide. He did listen to the select committee and although he did not listen to all of our suggestions he listened to most. So I congratulate the Minister on his job and on his stewardship of the process. 
While I have the time I shall mention a letter from somebody who was opposed to the original super-city concept. I do not want to read out the whole letter but I will concentrate on two paragraphs. It states: “The ravings of the merchants of fear since the Government’s plans were announced make it obvious that any drawn-out reform process would have led to an extremely chaotic and costly hiatus to the total detriment of all Aucklanders especially ratepayers.” 
I want to concentre on that while I have a bit of time. We have heard from the Opposition that the process has been far too fast—far too rushed. I tell the House that if this process had gone on any longer if this process had been drawn out as the Opposition wanted it to be nothing would be moving in Auckland. And Auckland is by far and away the largest economy in this country and it is time that this House recognised that if we want this country to go ahead we have to make sure that Auckland is moving. We can talk about the rural areas we can talk about the provincial areas we can talk about the other cities and I love all cities in New Zealand but if we do not get Auckland right we can kiss goodbye to every other city making progress. I know that sounds very parochial as I am a born and bred Aucklander but if it does not happen this country faces a very very uncertain future. 
I turn to the second paragraph of that letter. It says: “I believe that with this final major piece of legislation it should be obvious to everyone that the future governance of Auckland will rest in the hands of people elected by and answerable to the residents and ratepayers of Auckland.” 
The diatribe that we heard from “Mr Wobblyman” before was nothing more than a distraction. You have got no answer—I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; not you—they have no answer. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: We’re just not listening. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well somebody is at least—Carmel Sepuloni the new member for Waitakere— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: The new member? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No a new resident living in Waitakere. I apologise to my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett who will have that seat for some time to come. I want say this. Let us talk about the bill. People want it. People want one mayor. People want a unified city. I want to end on this lovely quote by “Mr Wobbly”: “How is it that you can chop something into one piece?”. That is a quote from George Hawkins. He accused the Government of wanting to chop Auckland into one piece. I know I got school certificate only on the second try and I may not be the brightest cookie in the jar but when I was in science class and when I was in mathematics class—sometimes—I knew that when you chop something it is into pieces. I just ask the magician from Manurewa how on earth someone can chop something into one. What we are doing— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a new member and I know that the Hon Tau Henare is near the end of his speech but I just want to clarify something with you. I think twice in the last 1½ minutes the member has referred to the honourable member from Manurewa by two different names names that Mr Hawkins does not use in the House. I think the member used—what were the names? 
Carol Beaumont 
: Mr Wobblyman. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Mr Wobblyman and something else. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Yes people should be referred to directly and personally by their proper names. I could have stopped the member but I saw the member concerned who was here in the House and had he felt that he was going to take objection it was up to him to do so. I say that it is normal for members to take objection on their own case. I let it go at that. But I say to the member who is speaking that all members are honourable members and they should be referred to as such. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I apologise and I withdraw my comments. I was referring to the Hon George Hawkins when he said that all we had done was chop Auckland up into one big pie. I tell members that the people of Auckland want it and they need it and the people of New Zealand can see the benefit of what we will do and it is on behalf of all New Zealanders not just the left-wing little rag-tag mob that Mr Twyford thinks he can organise into a little old-time rally. 
Phil Twyford 
: Read the polls Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I read the polls last week and they said 50-odd percent support the Government and 60 or 70 percent supported the Hon John Key as Prime Minister. I do not want to sound arrogant but boy I read the polls. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. It puts the final bricks in a poorly designed badly constructed structure. If it was a building it would be a sick leaky building. It entrenches the undemocratic and overcentralised corporatised model that this Government is imposing on Auckland. Aucklanders asked for three things from this Government. They asked for real decision-making powers to be guaranteed to local boards. They asked the Government to stop its corporatisation agenda and not roll 75 percent of local government in Auckland into stand-alone corporations. They asked the Government not to strip away the democratic safeguards against privatisation that would more easily allow Ports of Auckland to be sold off. This Government has said no to Aucklanders. It has said no to every one of those demands that Aucklanders have made and no one can deny that. The Government has said that it has listened. Clearly it has not. 
The context is that this bill comes at the end of a 12-month period in which this Government has rammed through one of the most significant changes to our system of government in decades. It has failed to consult it has rushed the process and it has consistently made poor decisions and poor judgment calls. It is no surprise that a solid 50 percent of Aucklanders in the recent  
New Zealand Herald 
 DigiPoll did not want a bar of this Government’s super-city. 
Let us examine the claim made in recent days by the previous speaker the Hon Tau Henare and by the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide that they have listened to the submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and that they have listened to the people of Auckland. They do a very good impression of listening. The member for Auckland Central on the committee was up there hugging every submitter who came along to the committee and then she turned round and voted for the very things people were arguing against. John Carter whom Brian Rudman referred to as the Sancho Panza to Rodney Hide’s Don Quixote is the kindly uncle on the National benches who was put in to clean up the mess that Rodney Hide made and to soothe the nerves of Aucklanders. He does a very good impression of listening. He says that yes they hear what Aucklanders are saying and yes every submission has a gem in it. He has been promising for the last 12 months that this Government would guarantee real decision-making powers to local boards and it still has not done that. 
There is one person who does not give a very good impression of listening to the public and that is Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government. He is the man who is single-handedly killing John Banks’ election chances. He said in the speech we just heard that he has united the region. He certainly has united the region; he has united Aucklanders in a way that they have never been united before—in opposition to his policies. The Minister hangs around the neck of this Government’s re-election chances in Auckland. 
Let us look at the three claims that I have made. The first is about council-controlled organisations which are a breathtaking imposition of the commercial model on Auckland local government. The Government is still intending to shift 75 percent of the assets and operations of Auckland local government into those council-owned companies. It has even frightened its own friends. Michael Barnett from the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry John Banks and almost all of the elected mayors and councils in Auckland have all criticised the corporatisation model that this Government is imposing on Auckland. Let us take the transport council-controlled organisation. As my colleague George Hawkins said it will spend approximately 54 percent of Aucklanders’ rates. It is the single most important thing that Aucklanders want progress on. Four Government departments have asked for Auckland transport not to be corporatised. Why? Because it will reduce transparency and it will reduce accountability to the Auckland ratepayer. It will reduce transparency and it will reduce accountability to the Auckland ratepayer. Yet the “Minister for Ratepayers” over there—“Mr 3 Percent”—likes to say that that is what he is in the business of doing—promoting accountability and transparency. 
But why is the Government imposing a corporatised transport agency on Auckland when no other city in New Zealand has a commercialised transport agency? Why is it doing it? It is just blind ideology; there is no other explanation for it. Why does the Government not leave it to the new Auckland Council to decide whether it wants to corporatise its transport agency? Why should we not leave it to the democratically elected councillors on the new council to decide what they want to commercialise and what they want to run in-house? There is no good reason; we have not heard a persuasive justification from the Government about why it wants to impose a commercial model on 75 percent of the operations and assets of Auckland local government. There is no good reason for it. Every other council in New Zealand gets to choose so why not Auckland? Mr Hide is still appointing a majority of directors of the council-controlled organisations because he cannot wait 5 months for the people of Auckland to elect their representatives and let them make the decision. 
There is no reason why this Government could not have allowed the existing operations of Auckland to be run in the way they are reporting to the new Auckland Council on 1 November then letting the council and the mayor decide. That Minister could not keep his grubby mitts off the future shape and governance arrangements of the Auckland Council because he does not trust the people Auckland to make that decision. He cannot resist the opportunity to impose his corporatisation agenda on our country’s biggest city. Nothing in this bill requires the council-controlled organisations that will be running Auckland to have their meetings in public. There is nothing in the legislation that requires them to meet in public. Holding a press conference every 3 months running a PowerPoint presentation and publishing a glossy brochure are not my definition of accountability even if they are the definition of that Minister. Government members promised they would listen but they have insisted on ramming their council-controlled organisations and their corporatisation agenda down the throats of Aucklanders. 
The second issue that Aucklanders had been concerned about is the question of local boards. For the last 12 months this Government has been saying “Yes we have listened and we have heard.” John Carter has said “We are going to put the ‘local’ back into local government.” but the Government is continuing with its strategy of not empowering local boards. Local boards will have no regulatory powers; they will have no ability to make by-laws. No matter how many times Rodney Hide and John Carter go around town and say they can make by-laws it is simply not true. They do not have the power to make by-laws. They will have no say over the 75 percent of issues that will be under the control of council-controlled organisations. The council will have to delegate downwards but not if the matter is deemed to be better dealt with regionally. Well we could drive a truck through that out clause. 
The third issue is about privatisation. Aucklanders had made it crystal clear in the last year that they do not want their assets privatised but what is this Government doing? It repeals the provision in section 28 in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act which requires a referendum before Ports of Auckland can be sold. This Government does not trust Aucklanders to make that decision on their own. Government members do not want Aucklanders to have a direct say on that the next time they and their mates try to flog off the Ports of Auckland. 
This legislation comes at the tail end of a year-long process that has been utterly corrupted by this Government which has ridden roughshod over Aucklanders. It never consulted on the findings of the royal commission. The Government put out its own proposals less than 9 days after the royal commission tabled its report. The Government rammed two bills through under urgency. It is making some of the most fundamental governance reforms this country has seen in decades but the process has been abysmal. The “Minister of Ratepayers” Rodney Hide preaches transparency and accountability but has not said a peep until this debate. After 12 months he has not said a peep about what the transition process to the unified Auckland will cost Auckland ratepayers. We heard this afternoon that it will cost $94 million. Well I want to know how much of the costs of the transition and integration process have been pushed back beyond 1 November so that Aucklanders will have to pay the price. I call on the Minister to answer this question: what is the impact on rates and on water rates? That is what Aucklanders want to know. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might help in this debate if I could ask through you whether Mr Phil Twyford the member who has resumed his seat has found somewhere in Auckland to stand at the next election. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the member knows that that is not a point of order. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. It is interesting that today as we debate the future of Auckland we learn from a global survey of quality of life in cities that Auckland ranks fourth equal with Vancouver out of a total of some 221 cities surveyed around the world. This is some distance ahead of Wellington at No. 12 I might add. Auckland clearly is seen by objective international observers as a good place to live a good place to do business and better than 216 other cities that were surveyed. That is very refreshing news. It is reassuring news to those of us who are Aucklanders. We are quite weary of being told how broken our city is or indeed how broken our cities are and have been and how it is necessary for central government to intervene in Wellington in order to fix our cities. There is no doubt we could have done better. Opportunities have been missed. Auckland is not yet No. 1 in that survey of 221 cities but it is quite clear that the degree of brokenness has been seriously overstated and one has to wonder at the agenda that is driving the exaggeration of the situation in Auckland. 
This notion that Auckland is a cot-case overlooks the fact that very positive progress has been made over recent years. Those of us who have worked closely with various city councils in various guises over a number of years know that the mayoral forum was starting to get some good positive outcomes. We know that the regional land transport strategy was starting to get traction. There was an emerging awareness of the value of cooperation within and between councils and that the individual goals and common objectives of those cities and districts were served best by a degree of working together in common. 
The individual councils were making their mark in some very positive ways. Waitakere City Council with its eco-city vision had built a unique character identity for the west which was having some very good positive and ongoing outcomes. Manukau City Council succeeded in the face of some really serious social and economic challenges to meld together the very diverse communities within Manukau and to improve the quality of life of those communities. North Shore District Council has done some really good and useful stuff in terms of managing the extraordinary growth pressures that the North Shore has experienced over recent years—partly through immigration and natural growth and partly through people simply wanting to live in a very pleasant part of Auckland. Within and across all of the cities and districts there was an emerging sense of place and a commitment to improving the parts—and indeed the sum of the parts—that were the Auckland region. 
It has always been apparent to the Greens at least that with much less radical intervention we could have resolved the admitted problems that did and do exist in Auckland such as the assignment of some more powers to the regional councils to break the deadlock where councils could not agree in order to enable networks combined infrastructure projects and so on to go ahead. Simply assigning some more authority to the regional councils could have achieved those same ends. But regrettably the rhetoric of crisis of catastrophe and of failure has won the day and the wholesale tearing of the social and political fabric of the region has been the consequence. 
Since the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee’s report back to the House on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill the select committee has some won praise and has been credited with smoothing some of the roughest edges off the original bill. But the credit should go to the thousands of Aucklanders who made submissions who lobbied their MPs who wrote letters who organised protests and who went on a hikoi to make their point. Ultimately they were disappointed that so many of their very legitimate concerns complaints and objections to the loss of democracy the loss of accountability and the loss of autonomy were essentially ignored in the final product that has come out of the select committee process. 
The  
New Zealand Herald 
 in a rather generous turn of phrase suggested that there had been a U-turn between the original bill and the bill that came out of the select committee. But the sad fact is that far from being a 180-degree turn we have achieved at best a change of direction of a few degrees in the overall structure and direction of this proposed monolith the super-council. A genuine U-turn would have seen genuine Maori representation allowed for. It would have honoured te Tiriti and honoured the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance which said that we ought to have established Maori seats on the council. Thousands of Maori and non-Maori marched together in the rain in support of that principle and were ignored. 
At that point the Minister of Local Government threatened to resign if we got dedicated Maori seats. Just for a moment one could have heard a pin drop while people held their breath in hope and expectation but unfortunately the bluff was not called. A U-turn would have seen the Minister abandon the idea of establishing council uncontrolled—or indeed council controlling—organisations and left the incoming council to make its own assessment and its own perception of needs and develop its own mechanisms for meeting those needs. A genuine U-turn would have seen Aucklanders left with the rights that every other New Zealander enjoys: the right to propose reorganisation of local government and the right to propose a change to a more democratic electoral system. These rights are denied Aucklanders until at least the end of 2013. 
Associate Professor of Law Andrew Geddis when analysing and critiquing the debacle in Environment Canterbury in which Cantabrians lost their rights to democratically elected regional councillors until 2013 asks readers of his analysis to “imagine a situation in which Aucklanders have the right to appeal their regional government’s decisions but Cantabrians do not.” For Aucklanders this would come as no surprise because we have become very accustomed to the idea that this Government will and does remove rights from some sections of society. As I have said Aucklanders have lost until 2013 their right to appeal the reorganisation of boundaries. They have lost the right to propose changes to the electoral system. Both of those rights are available to all other New Zealanders but with the passing of this bill Aucklanders will lose those rights. It is hard to find anybody beyond Mr Hide and his inner circle who believes that is right or fair. 
The citizens outside of Auckland—and indeed of Canterbury—might do well to consider where this anti-democratic axe might next fall. What inconvenient legal provision or right of citizens might it suit this Government’s self-interest to overturn by misusing its majority in this House? The denial of democracy in Canterbury and in Auckland sets a very dangerous precedent and one that other areas other regions and other cities would do well to observe and keep an eye on. 
Perhaps the meanest cut of all for Aucklanders is the fact that we can predict with absolute certainty—perhaps the only thing we can confidently predict—that the outcome of this reshaping of Auckland in the Minister’s sometimes rather less than lovely image will cost us dearly. It will cost us hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Even the Minister I believe has stopped pretending that there will be a rates reduction as a result of the reorganisation recalling that this was one of the great hopes of people when they conceded to the notion of a reorganisation. Even in the unlikely event that in the future there are some operational savings it will be many years before the benefits would outweigh the massive costs of this reorganisation. Would any public or indeed private company embark on a major restructure without having done a rigorous cost-benefit analysis measuring all the costs and all the benefits and putting them on some time line? Of course not but the reality is that that is exactly what has happened in this change in Auckland. 
For at least a generation Aucklanders will be picking up the tab for this hopelessly muddled attempt at solving a problem that was never as severe as we were told or as central government would have us believe. We have seen the first instalment of this very costly process as the Auckland Transport Agency has already gone way past its guesstimated budget. It has asked for another $73 million which central government is generously loaning to Auckland and will expect to be paid back. It is beyond the pale that Aucklanders are paying for this massive upheaval that we do not want and did not need and that has been imposed on us by this Minister and this Government. Kia ora koutou. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I was somewhat saddened to hear the speech from Phil Twyford this afternoon. I had the pleasure of campaigning against him in the North Shore electorate at the last general election. We heard the speech today of a very very bitter man and that is very sad. Mr Twyford has staked his reputation on trying to attack and undermine the Government’s plan to bring very positive change to Auckland but he has been unsuccessful. Week after week last year he popped up during question time constantly challenging and questioning the Minister of Local Government as is his right—and I say good on the Opposition for doing that—but I ask members to imagine how Mr Twyford must have felt when he woke up on Tuesday morning to find the  
New Zealand Herald 
 saying: “Super City u-turn: People power wins”. The man who staked his reputation on trying to undermine the Government and the positive changes in Auckland woke up to that story. 
The select committee process in the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has been successful. We heard over 700 submissions. The Hon John Carter did a wonderful job as chairperson. I had the privilege of sitting through two sets of submissions: last July and again earlier this year. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill will bring major change to Auckland. As Mr Twyford identified there have been a number of significant changes to the bill. Let us look at some of the comments that the  
New Zealand Herald 
 made. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Can we ask some real people not the  
Herald 
? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It is interesting that my reference to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 is being challenged. I do not know whether that member heard the speech of her colleague David Clendon who is sitting next to her because he constantly referred to the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I am doing the same but I intend to quote what it said. It made a number of very positive comments. It congratulated the Government on making changes to the council-controlled organisations. 
Significant changes have been made regarding council-controlled organisations. For a start the Minister of Local Government has undertaken to consult with all of the mayors of Auckland on the appointment of the directors. If we had listened to Mr Twyford from the Labour Party he would have the super-city being a mess and the directors of the council-controlled organisations being appointed only after the local body elections in October to start on 1 November. The super-city will start up and it will be running and ready to go. The Minister of Local Government will be consulting. Not only is that the case but the bill provides that the Auckland Council when it is elected on 11 October will appoint both the chair and the deputy chair. I find it very interesting that when I first came to Parliament Mr Len Brown who went to school with me through Papatoetoe Intermediate School said to me that he agreed with the concept of council-controlled organisations. He told me that the Manukau City Council which he is mayor of had over 40 council-controlled organisations. Mr Len Brown told me that it was a concept he supports. 
Let us look at how the council-controlled organisations will be operated. There was concern that the deliberations of their directors would not be open to the public. There is provision in the amendments that have been incorporated into this bill to open those meetings up for public involvement and for people to listen to the deliberations. There is a provision for the directors of each of those council-controlled organisations to report at least quarterly. 
Hon John Carter 
: Monthly maybe. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: There we are. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 went on to compliment the Minister on the changes that were made to the provision for local boards. The council-controlled organisations will also be required to operate to the direction of Auckland Council and to make decisions that are consistent with its long-term plans. 
This afternoon Mr Twyford seems to be a person who is very very bitter. He has seen the success that has been achieved and he does not want to acknowledge what the Government has done. The Government listened to literally thousands of submissions. I recall that in July last year soon after the Mt Albert by-election we sat from 9 in the morning to 9 at night. We heard from submitter after submitter after submitter. It was a privilege to hear from so many community groups and people who were concerned about the future of Auckland. Mr Twyford has made a big thing of the fact that the Minister of Local Government moved quickly to put the reform package into place. He criticised the fact that the Minister of Local Government did not hear submissions on the royal commission of inquiry’s report. I heard Mr Twyford say no submissions were called for. Mr Twyford speaks with a forked tongue. If the Minister of Local Government had implemented the report of the royal commission we would not be talking about the functions of local boards because there would be none. The royal commission actually recommended that there would be no local boards apart from a local board for Waiheke Great Barrier Island and the Auckland central business district. Now that I have reminded Mr Twyford of that he has suddenly gone quiet. 
It was the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide who wanted to devolve democracy to the lowest level. When the royal commission recommended that the community boards that we have now be scrapped and that we should not have that level of local representation the Minister of Local Government was not prepared to accept that. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What about the Maori seats and the royal commission? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: OK I will come to that. The Minister of Local Government insisted that there be local democracy. He placed the issue of boundaries in the hands of the Local Government Commission. It was not up to the Minister of Local Government to determine those boundaries but we have eventually ended up with 20-odd local boards that would not otherwise be there. To show members how inconsistent Mr Twyford has been I say we would not even have local boards if we had followed the recommendations of the royal commission. 
I have been asked by the Green Party to comment on the issue of Maori seats. The ACT Party stands for one thing above all else—that is having one law for all. It is one law for all: New Zealanders are created equal and we share the principle of one person one vote. The ACT Party is not prepared to have racially based seats. The local government legislation already has provision for there to be separate Maori seats if the councillors or the people of a representative area choose to opt for that. The provision is there and this Government was not prepared to impose it. Certainly the ACT Party believes very strongly in having one law for all. 
I think that without a doubt the changes incorporated in this bill as a consequence of the select committee’s recommendations will make Auckland a stronger city. I think that Auckland governance urgently needs to be reorganised. I acknowledge the work of Mr Twyford because he was there every day on the select committee questioning submitters. I think that Mr Twyford should take some credit for the fact that the people do win with regard to the super-city. Mr Twyford should take some credit for that because he got his people out and he got the submitters there. It is only a pity that when he turned up today he was so bitter that he could not acknowledge what has been achieved through the select committee process. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 If the ACT Party is so concerned about there being one law for all in this country then it needs to be looking closely at what that law is because that one law is so discriminatory it is ridiculous. If the ACT Party is so concerned about having one person one vote then I say that four members of that party should be resigning because they are here on the second vote they got from that one person. Our electoral situation is now one person two votes and four of the members of that party are here on that second vote. 
Since the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill had its first reading four distinctive events have occurred that have influenced our response to the ongoing activity related to governance arrangements for the Auckland region. The first was the annual review of race relations which was released in March by the Human Rights Commission. That review identified Maori representation in local government and an effective voice for Maori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council as being among the top 10 race relations priorities. The review drew attention to the transition of Auckland councils into one super-city council and noted the commission’s particular disappointment at the Government’s lack of courage in failing to consider the proposal for dedicated Maori seats on the council. In fact the Government’s own Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres admitted that there was a valid argument for dedicated Maori representation on the super-city council. He also put into words the fear that specific services or programmes that do so much to shape the unique social fabric by which Auckland has earned its name might “get overlooked or rationalised out in the transition.” 
The second event was the successful drawing from the ballot of a member’s bill on 6 May this year. The Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by our colleague and Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell requires all district city and regional councils to establish Maori wards and constituencies to provide for Maori representation. The bill was put forward very much in response to the damning injustice of the Auckland situation. The Local Electoral (Maori Representation) Amendment Bill reflects the reality that so many decisions made by local authorities impact hugely on our people. Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill aims to give Maori a real seat at the decision-making table. 
The third key event was the announcement by another of my colleagues Dr Pita Sharples that New Zealand was finally prepared to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In case anyone has not yet read the declaration I say that article 18 sets out the aspiration that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights through representatives chosen by themselves …”. But that aspiration it appears is already doomed to end up in the rubbish bin as a result of this Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. 
The fourth milestone was the tabling of a minority report on the bill by my colleague Hone Harawira who was our representative on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which was especially set up to consider the implementation of the Auckland governance arrangements. Mr Harawira concluded that “failure to uphold the nation’s constitutional foundations current law and the wish of the people will result in legislation that is not only in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi but that is as short-sighted as it is discriminatory.” I refer all members to that erudite statement which describes in Mr Harawira’s distinctive style that this bill is short-sighted that it fails to acknowledge the reality of what Maori have to offer the greater Auckland region and that it is discriminatory. It denies recognition of the status of Maori. 
I come then to the deliberations of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. The committee had the benefit of receiving 786 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A key focus for the Maori Party has been the way in which Maori have responded to the direction to establish arrangements for a board for Tamaki-makau-rau to promote matters of significance for mana whenua and Maori. It would be fair to say that the response has been subdued with an overwhelming sense of injustice felt by submitters. The submission from the Hauraki Maori Trust Board sums it up: “The trust board continues to support the need for direct representation of mana whenua and Maori on the new Auckland Council and considers that the opportunity to be truly transformative and to better align Government and Maori thinking on what Treaty-based relationships at a regional and local government mean was missed.” 
That is at the crux of the issue about the representation of Maori in this Auckland Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Although the Local Government Act 2002 sets the expectation that local bodies will “foster … Maori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority;” the reality is that without explicit structures and effective strategies for engaging Maori communities the status quo prevails. The status quo as in the 2007 local government elections is that fewer than 5 percent of successful candidates are Maori although Maori form nearly 15 percent of the population. In fact many councils have no Maori members at all. In the absence of the provision for representation on the new Auckland Council and as a means to mitigate potential risks for whanau hapu and iwi of the creation of a board under Part 7 of the Act the Hauraki Maori Trust Board proposed that a clause that required the new Auckland Council to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi be introduced. The recommendation from Hauraki is something that the Maori Party will seek to progress during the stage of the Committee of the whole House. The complex set of issues around representation with the Treaty partner cannot be resolved by parking such issues off to the side in an advisory group that is adjunct to the Auckland Council infrastructure. We do not consider that such marginalisation is reflective of such a Treaty partnership. 
Part 7 with new clauses 67 to 74 sets out the process by which an independent statutory board will be established. The concerns that we still have are to do with how the mana whenua and Maori board will be supported to be equal participants in the planning and decision-making process with local government. The select committee suggests that these concerns can be addressed by making the new board subject to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. That would mean that all information on the activities and decisions of the board was freely available. Well having that information is all well and good but where does the authority reside when it comes to the decisions being made? 
Ngati Whatua o Orakei reminded the select committee that authority resides in proper and broad representation of mana whenua yet the seven mana whenua members of the Maori statutory board in the view of Ngati Whatua failed to address that. Ngati Whatua advised that the selection provisions are flawed and might well give an outcome where major iwi and hapu and the areas they represent are excluded from the Maori statutory board. Ngati Whatua believe that there is a better way which will ensure that representation of mana whenua interests is appropriately spread over the territory of the board of the super-city. Their advice that the board should be made up of two members each from Ngati Whatua Waikato and Hauraki Maratuahu ropu and a single member from Ngati Wairoa ropu will at least ensure that every major mana whenua grouping within the super-city will have membership on the Maori advisory board. Ngati Whatua are emphatic that the selection body membership must be proportionate to the mana whenua interests in the super-city. The bill describes effectively an electoral college with seven mana whenua members and two taura here members appointed to the Maori advisory board. Ngati Whatua suggest that without care a bare majority on the selection body could appoint all members of the Maori advisory board. That could create an injustice and the potential for the exclusion of one or more major mana whenua groupings in the advisory board which would be unjust not only to the tribes concerned but also to the lands those tribes have within their rohe. 
There are many complexities in this bill including in particular the management of transport water supply and waste-water services which are nigh impossible to raise in our allocated 10 minutes. I return to the considered view of my friend Mr Harawira: the bill is short-sighted it is discriminatory and the Maori Party will be opposing it at every step of the way. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to support the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. This is the third of three bills that are designed to transform Auckland and improve the lives of all Aucklanders. 
I would like to start by acknowledging the huge number of Aucklanders who submitted on two of the bills. I also acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide and the Hon John Carter for the huge amount of work they have done in this area. I acknowledge that change can be very hard. This is probably the biggest piece of reform that we have ever had in Auckland and I acknowledge the number of people who have contacted me since we produced this revised legislation and told me that we have done a great job. 
I want to remind the House of the reason the Government is carrying out this reform. Auckland is a city that does not need seven councils. Auckland needs one regional entity with one mayor and 21 local boards. The reason we need this reform in Auckland and the reason the royal commission recognised the need for change is that we need to have a city that is efficient in the way it delivers its infrastructure and caters for the disadvantaged. I want to address that issue. 
One of the reasons I am very supportive of having one regional entity comes down to one simple question. We when we look across to South Auckland—and I have had this conversation with George Hawkins—we can ask ourselves this simple question: how on earth do we expect that community to be able to deliver the kind of infrastructure it deserves with the rating base it has? We are finally delivering one rating base that will enable the major and councillors to be able to look across Auckland and deliver greater equality of opportunity. In my view this bill will deliver greater social outcomes for Auckland. 
The other area that I want to deal with which the select committee spent a lot of time on is the area of council-controlled organisations. I hope that members opposite have acknowledged as many Aucklanders have acknowledged the changes we have made in terms of transparency and accountability of these entities. In fact these council-controlled organisations will be more accountable than other council-controlled organisations in New Zealand. We have put a number of provisions into the legislation that also enable the local body politicians to appoint directors from day one. 
The key issue we faced was that we had to put an interim structure in place from day one and via the select committee process—and I acknowledge members opposite who were part of that process—we have managed to put in the nuts and bolts that enable the city to function from day one while also handing over power to the new local body politicians. I think we have struck that balance really well. 
The other issue I will deal with which the select committee dealt with is the issue of greater participation for youth within Auckland. We have done something quite special within this legislation. Many submitters said they did not feel that they had a voice within the city. We have put within the legislation a clause that makes the mayor have to recognise consult and engage with people who are too young to vote. So I am very proud. I worked on that piece of the legislation. I am very proud that one of the youngest cities in the world will now have a mechanism that will enable youth to be better engaged in the process. 
Phil Twyford 
: But the member did not put in a youth council. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: The member talks about a youth council. I want to address that. There are two reasons why we did not put the structure formally within the legislation. Firstly I would ask members opposite to develop a selection clause that would have enabled youth to be selected. That is a very difficult thing that we would have had to do. Secondly we wanted to leave that up to the new local-body politicians because part of the balance of this bill has been that we put in what we need to enable the city to function while not directing local body politicians too much. 
The third area I want to talk about which I am very excited about is that we will have greater environmental responsibility in Auckland finally. There will be one regional entity responsible for things like stormwater drains and there will also finally be a spatial plan. I commend the select committee members for recognising the fact that now the spatial plan has a reference to economic social cultural and environmental issues in terms of Auckland. We will finally get planning that represents the holistic view of local government in Auckland. I think that is very significant and I have had great feedback about that part of the bill. 
I also acknowledge the many submitters who talked about the cultural fabric of Auckland. I think we acknowledged that as I said within the spatial plan. But we also acknowledged that by this Government recognising that it would carry on the provisions of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act. My predecessor the Hon Judith Tizard deserves the credit for that legislation. The select committee had many submitters who were concerned that that would not carry through so I am proud that we have delivered it for those submitters. 
The fifth issue and I think the most important is about having accountability transparency and efficiency in terms of public money. That is what we are doing by not having as much duplication across Auckland. What we are delivering actually is a system that has greater accountability and transparency in terms of council-controlled organisations. We are delivering a system that will enable Auckland to finally reach its potential from a cultural and a social perspective. We are delivering a system that will have greater environmental responsibility. 
One of the biggest issues the select committee faced was the line between what is regional and what is local. I have thought about this quite a lot. Members opposite criticised us for not putting the functions and powers in legislation. The difficulty that we have—and it was raised by another member today—concerns how we distinguish between what is right for Waiheke what is right for the central business district or what is right for Waitakere. We have said that the Auckland Transitional Authority will make those initial allocations and that the new Auckland Council will be prevented from changing those allocations except to add extra functions or powers for a period of time to ensure that those local communities are protected and can live up to their potential in terms of diversity. I am very proud of that. 
I say to members opposite who have finally acknowledged within the select committee report that they support one regional entity that I assume they now support the local boards. Even though their position has changed dramatically throughout this whole process because Mr Twyford is leading the charge for them they are finally acknowledging that they actually support the basic tenants of the system. They have issues about the council-controlled organisations but I think that it is really important for people out there particularly in Auckland to recognise that 80 percent of the Parliament supports the basic structure of this legislation. 
I am very pleased as I have said that we are delivering a system that will give greater local democracy for Auckland. We are delivering a system that will have greater efficiency and transparency of people’s rates through one regional entity. We are delivering a system that will have greater potential for the cultural fabric of Auckland. We are delivering greater environmental responsibility. 
I want to mention a couple of things that we will not take responsibility for because I think it is really important for Aucklanders to recognise this. We can put the structure in place but what also matters and what I have not heard many members talk about this afternoon is the people. There will be some people who will step up for Auckland. We can put the legislation in place. I hope that many Aucklanders take the opportunity to stand for council or to stand for a local board position—and I already know of a number who are looking at putting themselves forward—because they are important too. 
What also became very clear throughout the select committee process was that regardless of what we do in terms of the legislation there are thousands of Aucklanders who give their time in a voluntary capacity to support community groups to support local government and to support projects with in their region. I acknowledge them. I acknowledge all the people who have been involved in this process. 
I think this is a really exciting time for Auckland. It is a time of opportunity. It is a new era of local government for Auckland. I think that people have realised that we have listened we have made significant changes to the legislation and that finally Auckland will get one regional entity delivering strong infrastructure across the city and strong empowered local boards. We will finally get the Auckland we deserve—a greater Auckland. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe. First let me acknowledge the efforts put in by Mr Phil Twyford as he sought to marshal our opinions and our efforts. It is very unfortunate that every time he speaks he becomes the subject of “Catweazle’s” attention; otherwise know as Boscawen Parliament’s chief whinger. Although I must say he is a welcome relief from Mr Garrett. I think— 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A point of order was taken by one of the members of the Opposition earlier about name-calling by members. Members are honourable members in this House. It is not appropriate for that sort of language to be used. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. The member knows that he should refer to a member by his full name. All members are honourable members. A ruling was made earlier by Assistant Speaker Barker to that effect. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: The speaker before me was Nikki Kaye and she made a spirited contribution. Unfortunately she is more of a lion in the media and a mouse in the House. I refer to what the media has quoted Nikki Kaye to have said: “Decided I am just not going to call anyone … I will have a glass of wine or some straight bourbon instead.” It is obvious that bourbon—plural—were imbibed prior to that speech because the reality was inversely related to what came out of her mouth. 
Indeed Nikki Kaye may believe that a new regional powerhouse is coming into being that will serve all the interests of the broad Tamaki-makau-rau area but that is what the royal commission outlined; that is not what is in this Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. As much as Nikki Kaye may seek to cuddle up to this bill and represent its more redeeming features—found unfortunately in the rear end of the bill—there is no way that this bill will enable those members to convince the wide sectional interests in Tamaki-makau-rau that this new super-city is accountable that it will be an engine for comprehensive growth or more important that it is a steward of the valuable resources amassed generation over generation in Auckland in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
This bill unfortunately has failed to deliver on three things. Firstly it will worsen costs. It seems to be the season when costs are beginning to rise. I do not want to speak any more about the Budget; others have already addressed that topic. Suffice it to say by the end of this year and early next year the cost of living will have spiralled out of control. Unfortunately that situation will be worsened by this bill. We have had the Minister of Local Government on one of the rare occasions he has been candid identify today the tip of the iceberg. This will cost $200 million and that is counting only with an abacus; the Government has not got out the cash-flow chart yet. 
Aucklanders will be short-changed by dint of the fact that the vast majority of resources will fall under the power and control of corporations that are accountable at a shallow level it might be argued to the democratically elected governance but in reality are answerable to the secondhand-car salesmen the friends of the current Government and those who believe their commercial skills are of such a size that they ought to enjoy ascendancy over democratically elected members. That is why it will be costly. It will be costly because people will not know regularly what is going on. It will be costly because the local committees have been largely disempowered before they start. 
It may be said that the reason the local committees are given such modest powers relates to the fact that they may somehow undermine the ability of the super-city council to deliver on a broad unified vision. But if we do not have local communities feeling that they have a legitimate route through which they can bring their anxieties and concerns to the power table we have disempowered the very people we purport to represent and serve. They know and more of them will find out that the real power will lie with those shadowy commercial characters. 
There is a place for quality business stewardship in any enterprise that at a conservative level will have between $28 billion and $30 billion worth of resources and will have an impact on nigh on a third of the country’s population but this is not the bill to do it. I have spoken about the weakness of the local committees. I have spoken about the inordinate power and the huge degree of influence that those corporations will have over the affairs of Auckland. A number of corporations already exist but they serve the interests of the community and the governance committee that is mandated in the tried and true route of participatory democracy. 
Another reason why this bill unfortunately fails the royal commission recommendations is that it will worsen the rural-urban divide. The power will undoubtedly be vested in the glass towers in downtown Auckland because so much of the authority and opportunity for decision making with influence has been vested in the tribes that occupy those glass towers. They fear accountability and they are also totally uninterested in serving the broader communities which very rarely look to downtown Auckland or to the supposed citadels of business leadership because what causes them to get up in the morning and take pride in their communities are local issues. That is what unfortunately this was about in the beginning. 
We heard recently from Rahui Katene the Florence Nightingale of the Maori Party about why Ngati Whatua and the mana whenua should somehow feel aggrieved. This bill is designed to serve the interests of all Aucklanders and Aucklanders irrespective of which tribe they come from should expect high-quality service from the new super-city. This bill was never intended to be a battleground for issues that belong on the marae. 
If the reckless energy and rhetoric coming from the Maori Party had been invested into the Budget debate into something that would actually have an effect on the daily lives of the whanau in Auckland who toil away then it would have had some credibility. In fact the Maori Party member who is meant to sit on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee was conspicuous by his absence. 
It beggars belief that members of the Maori Party can stand today and trot out a set of concerns that ought to be directed towards what the citizens of Auckland are concerned about. They should park up marae politics and iwi agendas where they belong in the customary world of Maori identity and enable Maori residents ratepayers and citizens of Auckland to stand shoulder to shoulder with their neighbours their community and their fellow activists and free them from the Maori Party’s grievance-riddled view that Maori should be shoehorned into democracy and somehow bring with them the land grievance aura. That will not advance us. 
Obviously we do not fully agree with the existence of a Maori committee but the name of that committee reflects the fact that the Maori of Auckland are a broad and diverse community and they do not want to be put through the fulcrum of mana whenua politics. That is why we have been at pains all along to say that there should have been two Maori seats. Government members should have replicated what we have in this great House and they should not bring the options or the priorities of runanga politics into the new super-city. That is why the role that the Maori Party played in this debate was not only marginal but also it will soon be forgotten. The only thing that will be recalled was that the rhetoric was loud but the contribution at the select committee was nigh invisible. 
This bill fails on costs on accountability and it certainly fails on participation but most important it will not prove to be the engine needed for growth. It will worsen the cost of living debacle that is very close to New Zealand families. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to the second reading of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. I would like to acknowledge the huge amount of work done by the Hon Rodney Hide and the Hon John Carter. This is the final bill of three bills that will complete the governance arrangements in the Auckland region and bring enduring unity and progress to Auckland for the next 50 to 100 years. The previous speaker the Hon Shane Jones believes that the sky will fall in that there will be no progress and that Auckland will grind to a halt. I doubt that very much. The proof will be in the pudding and I am confident that Auckland will progress with this bill. 
The bill’s main purpose is to resolve matters relating to the reorganisation of local government in Auckland begun under the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 and continued under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. 
I think it is useful at this point in time to recap exactly why this legislation is here. For some time it has been recognised that Auckland has not been progressing and that existing governance arrangements were not working and that is why the previous Government established the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance which was supported by political parties in the House at that time. The royal commission—after 18 months of consultation some 3500 submissions 500 oral submissions and advice from experts—uncovered problems such as suffocating red tape transport bottlenecks and lost opportunities for development. The commission said that doing nothing was not an option. 
The commission found many other things that were holding up Auckland relating to the way in which the city was run. In particular it felt that there was a lack of leadership that there was no single vision for Auckland and that important Auckland-wide matters were getting tangled up with competing interests of local councils. That is why this Government acted swiftly; doing nothing was simply not an option. 
I had the privilege of being a member of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. We heard from Aucklanders from all walks of life. We heard their passion and their fears and importantly we listened. We received 800 submissions from local authorities community boards individuals and organisations. Many submitters expressed deep concern with aspects of this bill. They told us that they did not want to lose their local community with which they identified and to which they belonged. They were concerned that their community would be swallowed up and that they would simply lose their identity. Aucklanders told the committee that they did not want Wellington to be in charge of their city; they wanted Aucklanders to be in charge of it. They were passionate and they were vocal. The committee heard their concerns and changes were made to this bill to reflect those concerns. 
I will focus on local boards. The local boards will be the face of local government. They will have an incredibly important role to play. The local boards will be locally elected people who understand their community’s concerns and hopes. Local boards will be required to meet regularly with the communities that they represent. They will be required to formally consult their communities when developing their local board plans. Local boards will have a wide-ranging role. They will make decisions on local matters provide local leadership and importantly strengthen and build the local community. The local boards will also provide important local input into region-wide strategies and plans including those of the council-controlled organisations. The second bill provided for local boards to be responsible for all non-regulatory activities unless a regional approach would better promote the well-being of Aucklanders. The legislation also specifically requires local boards to prepare a 3-yearly local board plan in consultation with their communities. Local board plans must not be inconsistent with the governing body’s priorities and funding objectives. 
Local boards will play an integral role in the Auckland Council’s overall planning process. Before the local government election in October the Auckland Transition Agency will publish the local boards’ baseline lists of responsibilities and functions as well as their baseline funding. Any minor changes will be negotiated and agreed between the elected Auckland Council and the local boards at the time of developing the 2012 long-term council community plan. Local boards will also propose by-laws and are expected to undertake a range of regulatory functions delegated by the governing body. 
It is important to ensure that the funding to the community is maintained through the transition to the Auckland Council. Before the election the Auckland Transition Agency will publish a planning document that will set the first local board budgets. Community funding will be allocated between the governing body and the local boards depending on whether the objectives of the funding are region-wide or local. These allocations will be based on current allocations of contestable community funding made by Auckland’s councils and community boards. When the Auckland Council determines its new funding policy and long-term council community plan in 2012 it will make future decisions about community funding. Local boards will agree on future community funding available for their communities in their local board agreements. 
The super-city will consist of the Auckland Council of 20 councillors and a mayor and 21 local boards. The mayor and the 20 councillors will focus on the big picture and make decisions that affect the Auckland region. The local boards will represent communities at the local level. Their roles and functions have not been defined in the legislation. Instead the Government has inserted into law the principle that decisions are best made at the local level unless there is good reason not to. The initial roles and functions of the local boards will be set out by the Auckland Transition Authority. The Auckland Council will be able to review the local boards’ responsibilities after it comes into being on 1 November. The select committee concluded that a prescriptive approach would be far too difficult too complex and very restrictive. Rather the committee considered that a principle-based approach would allow for flexibility and provide for the ability to adapt to changing local preferences and demographics. 
I am confident after reading the Auckland Transition Agency’s discussion document on local boards that the initial roles and functions of the local boards which will be set out by the Auckland Transport Authority before the local body election will be wise and appropriate. The discussion document shows that the Auckland Transition Agency had an excellent understanding of the role of local boards and their importance to the community. Importantly the Auckland Council will be able to review the local board responsibilities after it comes into being on 1 November. It will have the ability to add new functions and devolve more responsibility if it so chooses. 
The committee has proposed to insert new clause 87A to provide for the initial allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities to local boards to be fixed until the Auckland Council adopts its long-term council community plan for the period beginning 1 July 2012. The committee felt that that would give the local board members and the communities they represent more certainty about their roles and functions. Importantly the proposed amendment does not prevent the governing body from giving local boards additional functions or making delegations but would prevent the governing body from eroding or taking away any non-regulatory functions that had been allocated to the boards by the Auckland Transition Authority. The commentary on the bill provides examples of local body non-regulatory activities. The examples provided are wide ranging and they emphasise that the detail required to legislate would be simply prohibitive. The committee is confident that a principle-based approach is the best way forward to appropriately allocating functions. I am sure that time will prove that that is the case. Local boards will need to be flexible and respond to their communities’ needs. Being prescriptive and defining in legislation would have the potentially opposite outcome and be an unintended consequence. 
I again congratulate the Minister of Local Government and the Associate Minister of Local Government on their leadership and hard work. This bill has been acclaimed by various  
New Zealand Herald  
reports and I know that as time goes on and as the public understand the changes we have made they also will be accepting of it. I commend this bill to the House. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
Talofa lava i lau Afioga i le Fofoga Fetalai. E fa’apea foi ona o’u fa’atalofa atu i sui mamalu o le maota fono. Ae maise le mamalu o lo’u itumalo o Magele o lo’o tapua’i mai ma fa’afofoga mai i lenei itula. That is my way of acknowledging Assistant Speaker Roy members of this House and those who may be listening to this debate on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. 
There is a saying that two wrongs do not make a right. The first Auckland bill was passed under urgency and there was no consultation despite the Prime Minister saying before the election that once the royal commission’s findings were revealed he would consult Aucklanders. That was a broken promise by the Prime Minister. That first bill set up the Auckland Transition Authority which has the same power privileges and authority as if it were a super-city council. But its members were not elected; they were appointed by the Minister of Local Government and this Government. The second bill although it went out for public consultation had its time frame collapsed and people complained about the Government rushing it through in such haste. This bill is the National Government’s third bill in its design of a corporate governance structure for the Auckland region and its peoples. 
The majority of Aucklanders are opposed to this corporate design and have expressed their outrage in polls in newspaper articles at rallies on radio talkback shows on web pages and during the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee process. The majority of Aucklanders have expressed without a shadow of doubt their condemnation of this Government for forcing a hostile takeover of the Auckland region’s strategic and significant asset-holdings. It is a hostile takeover by the corporate friends of this Government. 
Submitters described this bill as the third strike against this Government’s recidivist determination to abuse undermine and ride roughshod over the democratic principles of good governance structures based on power by the people of the people and for the people. The majority of Aucklanders did not vote for a National Government so that they could watch the architect of this corporate structure flog off like a thief wearing a blue balaclava the family silverware which was purchased by the savings and sweat of the citizens of Franklin Papakura Manukau Waitakere Auckland North Shore and Rodney—citizens past and present. This bill is the final nail in the coffins of eight local territorial authorities that have served the combined 1.4 million people of this region. These local territorial authorities cease to exist from 1 November 2010. Many of us will lose part of our identity. 
Most submitters outlined their outrage at the Government’s hasty process. Dr John Salmon described it as the Government deliberately alienating the majority of Aucklanders from participating in a significant decision which will change the face of local government in Auckland and throughout New Zealand. The bill was sent out for public consultation during the last few weeks of December when New Zealanders were focused on Christmas and the holiday season. George Blanchard said that the rushed manner in which the Government is driving the super-city is an affront to democracy and an affront to the people of Auckland. The Western Bays Community Board said that the Government should put the super-city proposal on hold and fix what is wrong with the legislation before it is too late. 
Submitters felt that the process was a farce. They felt that the Government was not listening and perhaps decisions had already been made behind closed doors. The public had not forgotten that during the passage of the second bill and before the select committee had completed its work and reported on its findings the Minister of Local Government threatened to throw his toys out of the cot if he did not get what he wanted and the Prime Minister agreed. Submitters expressed concern that the Government had promised that the local boards would be given meaningful powers but the third bill that was sent out to the public does not do that at all. All powers authorities and privileges are vested in the mayor the 20 councillors and the council-controlled organisations. Local boards can make recommendations but ultimately the new super-city council makes the final decision on all things. 
Then there are the council-controlled organisations or CCOs. Nothing in the bill compels them to listen to and act on the wishes of local communities. Submitters said that they should more rightly be called Government-controlled organisations or GCOs. Submitters expressed outrage that the Auckland region’s $28 billion worth of valuable assets were being positioned for easy flog-off or for a land and asset grab. One submitter said that the only thing missing from the council-controlled organisations was the words “for sale”. Michael Wood said that this Government was outsourcing democracy to the corporate sector council-controlled organisations. Another submitter asked whether we could blame the public for feeling that way when there were too many unknowns in the bill too many secrets and no accountability whatsoever to the public. 
The Auckland region will be run by a handful of Government appointees directing significant and independent fiefdoms that will control revenue streams control strategic land assets and control transportation contracts worth billions of dollars. Juliette Laird rightly asked the Government where the cost-benefit analysis was that showed the efficiencies and savings that the super-city will achieve. Sadly no such cost-benefit analysis if any exists has been made public or made known. What costs will Aucklanders have to bear as a result of this Government setting up the super-city in its rushed state? We have had an initial estimation which is about $200 million. Who pays for that? The ratepayers of Auckland. How many other mistakes have been made as a result of that rush? How much will those mistakes cost in the future? 
Dave Breuer a business owner from the North Shore submitted that he was appalled that this Government is returning New Zealand to a corporate ideology that has failed the USA and the world. He viewed the Government’s super-city process as a deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy democracy. 
All the Auckland mayors made submissions to the committee and all highlighted significant flaws in the Government’s third super-city bill. Mayor Andrew Williams asked why Auckland’s democracy should be any different from democracy in the rest of New Zealand. He asked whether Auckland will be governed by the new Auckland Council or whether it will be governed by the Minister of Local Government. Mayor Bob Harvey stated that this third bill shows that Wellington has little understanding of how Auckland works. The Franklin District Council said that in excess of 80 percent of people polled in Franklin did not want to be part of the super-city and Franklin people were furious with this Government. Mayor Len Brown said the Auckland Transport Agency needed to be accountable to Auckland. 
The Auckland Regional Council chair Mike Lee said that the original purpose of the super-city proposal had been subverted in that it did not achieve unity with three separate fiefdoms being set up by this Government. He said that the Auckland Regional Council had hardened its stance against the super-city transport agency is totally opposed to it and finds it offensive. Many of the people on the Auckland Regional Council are National Party supporters and members. The chair Mike Lee said that the Government’s proposal for a separate Auckland Transport Agency using 54 percent of rates with no accountability is a disgrace. 
Those submissions came from good people throughout the Auckland region who all want the best for Auckland. They gave their own time freely to provide their experience and knowledge to the select committee. We would think that the Government could learn from the mistakes of the past highlighted by many of those submitters. Unfortunately it appears that that is difficult for this Government. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it will not pay for its mistakes—the public will pay. It will not just be the public of today; it will also be the public of tomorrow. 
The call by Aucklanders for Maori representation on the council has been unilaterally rejected. Pacific Island and ethnic communities want to elect their own representatives with support by the mayor and councillors—not for them to be appointed by the mayor. Youth women disability groups and business improvement districts like the Mangere Bridge Business Association were still feeling uneasy as to where they fit in and felt that this Government was not listening to them. 
I will sum up. One of the best submitters was the chair of the Panmure Community Action Group. He said that we all know the starring role a turkey plays at Christmas. He is decapitated plucked gutted stuffed stitched up roasted and carved up and when the diners have eaten their fill all that is left is a dead carcass. It does not take a lot of imagination to know who is standing with the carving knife and who will be served first. I can see a cartoon in tomorrow’s paper with Mr Hide holding the carving knife and serving Mr Key both of them wearing aprons. Aucklanders will be left with the bones of a dead carcass. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 One cannot help but reflect on the fact that the role of the Opposition is to oppose and propose but all we have heard today is the oppose bit. I have not heard one good idea from any of the contributions made by the members of the Opposition. What a disappointment! Here they had an opportunity to set out their thoughts about what should happen to Auckland. They should be saying to the people of Auckland where they think Auckland needs to be but there was not one mention of that. All they could do was whinge whine and tell us about things that people said in the past not about what they are now saying as we present the third bill to them. 
As my colleague the Hon Rodney Hide has noted this bill completes the legislative framework that will deliver Auckland a single unified council. Well done! This reform is all about enhancing the effectiveness of community participation in democracy while ensuring the council has strong effective regional decision-making ability so that essentially it can get things done. This reform delivers a system of local government that provides the framework to make Auckland into a world-class city and allows for greater economic development which is a must for the future of both the city and the rest of New Zealand. 
For 50 years—indeed for 100 years—Auckland has struggled to find a way through the conflict between regional and local issues. The previous Government acknowledged that and created the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance to consider it. However since receiving the royal commission’s report this Government with the support of a range of officials has actually got the job done and delivered a solution that is now complete. That solution I am pleased to say has been well-received in Auckland. 
The work done to get the bill here today has been impressive. It shows clearly the Government’s determination to do what needed to be done in order to give Aucklanders a city they want now and in the future. The Government did not wait until the elections of 2013 2016 or 2019; it acted. That action means the single Auckland Council will be up and running by 1 November this year—up and running. To achieve that the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee engaged with Auckland citizens ratepayers local authorities and organisations. I am very pleased indeed proud to say that Aucklanders’ voices have shaped this legislation. All told there were nearly 1000 submissions on the bill. 
I thank the committee for its work. I also thank the staff supporting the select committee including Edward Siebert Leeanne O’Brien Amanda Cliff Vathani Shivanandan Michele Reardon and their teams. They did a great job. I also say a special thanks as the Minister has to the Department of Internal Affairs for all the work and staff support it has put into this bill. I need to recognise the Auckland Transition Agency. Its members must be thanked for their significant contribution in implementing the reforms and for the work that is still ongoing. In particular I thank the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide for his leadership and for his drive to get this legislation through so that Aucklanders can have what they wanted—a unified city. Thank you Rodney. I know that most of the members of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee took their duties seriously and worked long and hard analysing submissions on the bill. I thank them for their contribution for making the actual job which was rather large as pleasurable as it was while we worked our way forward. 
I must say however that it is unfortunate that towards the end Labour members became so uninterested in the select committee that they actually missed some of the important decisions. It came as a surprise to them that we had opened up the council-controlled organisations to the public and it came as a surprise to them that we had changed the transport committee. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Weren’t they there? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well funnily enough they were but it seemed that they missed what was going on in the select committee. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: It’s like Phil Twyford missing out on a seat. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I guess that seems to happen. Overall the recommendations the select committee has brought back to this House I believe are positive and beneficial to this legislation. Even members of the Opposition I am pleased to say have said so and certainly the media have thought so. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Do you hear that John? Phil Twyford’s standing in Epsom. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Oh well—there we go. I am not sure that that is actually in the bill but we could slip it in in a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: He’s only going to get one if we legislate. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Ha ha! Even the Opposition and the media have thought that the changes are positive. The select committee set out to address community concerns and from the feedback I have received from many commentators I believe that the select committee has succeeded in that mission. 
The select committee focus on this bill covered many aspects. It focused in particular on increasing the accountability of the council’s operations especially in relation to council-controlled organisations and on providing more assurance about the powers and funding that local boards will have in the new city structure. Some submitters wanted to see the responsibility of local boards set out in the bill so that there was greater clarity and certainty about their roles and functions. The issue was covered by the select committee last year when considering a local government bill. The select committee at that time rightly believed that an approach based on principles would give greater flexibility to the Auckland Council to adapt the functions of the local boards to suit specific local needs and preferences as the Auckland Council saw fit. Therefore the Auckland Council would be more responsive to changes in community preferences than if it were bound by a statutory regime created by this Parliament. It is not for us in Wellington to tell Aucklanders what to do at the local level. Indeed we did not have the knowledge or the ability to do so. The Government remains convinced that this is the best way forward. The committee has recommended an approach that will achieve the clarity and certainty that many submitters were looking for while still allowing the council and its local boards to make their own decisions. 
Phil Twyford 
: Unbelievable! It’s not for the Government to tell Aucklanders? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: What is wrong with allowing Aucklanders to make decisions for themselves? 
The committee recommended that the bill should be amended to provide for an initial allocation of non-regulatory decision-making responsibility for local boards by the Auckland Transition Agency and that the boards be given legal status. The Auckland Transition Agency allocations which have been prepared in consultation with Auckland councils and citizens will be published before the October local body elections. Any minor changes can be negotiated and agreed on between the Auckland Council and the local boards when the 2012 long-term council community plan is developed. The amendment will allow the new council to add to the responsibilities of local boards but not to reduce those responsibilities without full consultation with citizens in the course of developing the long-term council community plan. As a consequence local boards will have functions funding and certainty. 
I will also refer to the council-controlled organisations and I say again that this Government has heard the concerns of the people. As a consequence not only did we in the Government say that we would appoint the first five directors out of the seven only in consultation with the mayors of Auckland and that we would allow the Auckland Council to appoint the chairman and the deputy chair but we also said that from day one if council members wish it they can change all the directors from 1 November if that is their decision. 
Secondly we have now opened up council-controlled organisations to public scrutiny. Unlike the suggestions that these groups are unaccountable the public can attend the organisations’ meetings and they can ask questions. The council can ask council-controlled organisations to report on a monthly basis if it so wishes. What we have done is to put council-controlled organisations in the hands of the mayor and the council of Auckland as the public asked us to do; we have followed their wishes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Window dressing. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The fact is that the mayor and the councillors are in charge of the council-controlled organisations so if that is window dressing that is great; it is exactly what the people asked us to do. It needs to be understood that to ensure Aucklanders are in control the structure we have set up from day one is entirely in the hands of the council and the council can decide whether the regime of council-controlled organisations will continue. That is Aucklanders’ decision as well; it is for Aucklanders to decide. Ultimately the select committee’s recommendations mean that Auckland Council control over substantive council-controlled organisations will be significantly greater than that of any other council. 
In finishing I say that when the Prime Minister remarked that “The price of doing nothing is far too high not just for Auckland but for New Zealand. Let’s make a great place even greater. Let’s make Greater Auckland great.” this Government took up the challenge and acted to ensure that Aucklanders had the structure to build a greater Auckland. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Maori Party 3. 
Bill read a second time. 
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 26 May. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to resume my comments on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. This bill was first in the name of Simon Bridges but became a Government bill in the name of the Minister of Agriculture David Carter and it is good to acknowledge that the Minister is with us this afternoon as we continue the second reading. This is an important bill because it acknowledges that New Zealanders have a high disregard for and a low threshold of tolerance of animal abuse and have a concern about animal welfare. These matters have come into public prominence over the last year or two following some rather ghastly and horrific cases mostly involving domestic animals. 
But one has to say some of the background to this bill relates to the occasional ill-treatment or neglect of farm animals. As part of that context I believe there will be issues of negligence in relation to animal welfare on some of the farms owned by the Crafar family and the dairy herds that they were not necessarily looking after particularly well. The bill expands the categorisation of the ill-treatment of animals to include a new category of reckless ill-treatment and that covers neglect arising from animals being abandoned and left perhaps without food or water. Obviously in those situations they can suffer quite severe injuries and even die. 
I note that Budget 2010 expands the funding of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in terms of its role in dealing with the domestic side of animal ill-treatment and abuse. I applaud the Government for doing that. I think that is a very sound move and I congratulate the Government on acknowledging that the society plays a very very good role. It is a voluntary organisation in large part often funded by public donations. I am sure other members have collected for the society as I have. But the bigger question that I want the Minister to answer if he takes a call in this debate concerns funding for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. I have not yet had a chance to look through the Budget papers but currently the ministry which of course is the other big player in respect of animal welfare most particularly in respect of farm animal welfare has an entire complement of staff engaged in animal welfare of just seven full-time equivalents or 8.75 people but seven of those staff are engaged— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I think it is five full-time equivalents. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: It is five in the North Island and two in the South Island I understand from the submissions that the ministry made to the Primary Production Committee—five in the North Island and two in the South Island. 
In a past life I lived in Marlborough and I well remember a very distressed volunteer SPCA inspector coming to me and showing me photographs of neglected farm animals. He was absolutely powerless to deal with the issue; he simply did not have the necessary powers. The category of reckless disregard of animal welfare did not exist. Frankly he said it was not his job to deal with issues of animal negligence on the farm; he was busy enough with animal welfare issues in the domestic sector. Of course the only two Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare staff were based in Christchurch which is a 3½ to 4-hour drive from Marlborough. It is not an easy task for a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officer to drive up and inspect a farm in Marlborough 4 hours away or to go even further to Nelson. I would like the Minister to give some indication of what he was able to do through the Budget process to ensure that the ministry’s staffing level for this work is supported in the same way that as I acknowledged the Minister has been able to win fiscal support from his colleagues to increase the resources available from the Crown to support the SPCA and the very fine work that it does. That matter is really really important. 
I want to look further at the issue of recklessness. The change that is enshrined in this bill comes from an acknowledgement that people can behave recklessly and that that can have huge and horrendous consequences for animals. It picks up on how someone can be charged under the Arms Act for reckless discharge of a firearm or someone can be charged with recklessly driving a motor vehicle. It is not the same as wilful behaviour but clearly the end result with a firearm or a vehicle or the neglect of animals can be very much the same. It can result in death and injury to innocent animals or in the case of those other two pieces of law human life. I think that this bill encapsulates an appropriate change. 
Labour is very much in support of this bill. We believe that most New Zealanders find animal cruelty to be truly repugnant. We want to see people be punished for it. Part of the problem has been that prosecutions can take a long time to bring to a successful conclusion. We are talking about five-figure sums to bring prosecutions against people even for a single prosecution to a successful conclusion. We want to support this bill. It is an important signal to those in the community in terms of domestic animals where there will now be better enforcement resources and support. 
But I would like the Minister to comment about the resources that he has been able to secure for investigating complaints about the treatment of farm animals because that issue is truly important. If we consider the numbers we realise there are probably far more animals out there on farms than there are in the homes of New Zealanders. If we consider the size of the now-reduced sheep flock we realise it is probably down to 35 million now— 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: 30 million. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: It is down to 30 million; I have not been counting in the last little while. I think we are up to 6 million dairy cows. My colleague Ashraf Choudhary will keep a better total— 
Sue Kedgley 
: 100 million animals. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: There are 100 million animals in total so obviously the farming sector provides a huge component of that. I think it is imperative that we know whether the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will get some extra resourcing so that it can play its part in supporting this legislation which commendably increases the penalties for those who either wilfully or recklessly ill-treat animals. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to support this bill. It is the first bill to deal with animal cruelty even in a very modest way in the past 11 years that I have been in this Parliament. We particularly support the introduction of the new charge of reckless ill-treatment and we congratulate the Minister on overseeing legislation with this charge. We hope it will make it easier for the SPCA and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors to make successful prosecutions for animal abuse. 
However we remain deeply disappointed that the provisions of this bill do not apply to the literally millions of animals that suffer from animal cruelty on a daily basis as a result of farming practices such as sow crates and battery hen cages. Frankly it is absurd that the provisions of this bill do not apply to the thousands of pigs that are locked up in cages where they cannot even turn round or to the 3 million hens that are kept in cages for all of their lives. In fact the provisions of this bill will not apply to any farming practice that is legalised by a code of animal welfare. This legislation will not apply to anyone who has a code of animal welfare and that applies to the intensive farming of cows. It is interesting too that the whole of Parliament will rally around and support a bill that lengthens jail sentences and gets tough on individual acts of cruelty to animals when at the same time most parties in this House continue to turn a blind eye to even more serious cases of institutionalised cruelty to animals such as battery hen cages and sow crates. Animal welfare commentator Peter Sankoff pointed out recently that politicians hate only some kinds of animal cruelty and they are perfectly happy to promote other types. This bill is a classic example of that. 
The Green Party does not believe that by simply increasing the length of sentences we will decrease the number of cases of animal cruelty when we consider that only 11 people—yesterday the 11th person was convicted for cruelty to thousands of chickens—in the history of New Zealand have ever been jailed as a result of animal cruelty charges. Although 10 years ago Parliament increased the sentences for animal cruelty from 3 months to 3 years the number of people being prosecuted did not increase. In fact nobody has ever been sentenced to 3 years in jail for animal cruelty—most offenders get just a community sentence if at all—so one wonders what will be the purpose of extending sentences to 5 years. But we do hope that the new charge of reckless ill-treatment in this bill will have some real effect. 
This brings me to the major reason why there are so few prosecutions for animal cruelty in New Zealand. It is because there are so few animal welfare inspectors and so few resources. Even last year more than 14000 complaints were made about animal cruelty but only 44 prosecutions were actually laid. The reality is as others have pointed out that we have only seven full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors undertaking prosecutions for animal cruelty even though we have over 100 million animals in New Zealand. Also 92 percent of complaints about animal cruelty are made to the SPCA and this effectively means that the Government has abdicated its duty to monitor animal welfare to inspectors from a charitable organisation the SPCA—60 percent of its staff are volunteers many of whom work only part time. 
The SPCA informed us during our hearings on the bill that it is unable often to undertake prosecutions because it is so short of funding. It is interesting that the SPCA is the only enforcement agency in New Zealand dealing with criminal offences that has to finance itself through donations. In our view there is little point in increasing penalties for animal cruelty crimes if the enforcement agencies are so under-resourced that few prosecutions are ever made. We are informed that only 3 percent of the cases that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry investigates result in convictions and that only 0.3 percent of the cases that the SPCA investigates result in a prosecution. We are therefore extremely pleased that some money has been found in the latest Budget to increase the budget to carry out prosecutions for animal cruelty and that some of that money will make its way to the SPCA. Again we congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on managing this Budget allocation. 
There were some very interesting submissions on this bill during the select committee process. Federated Farmers came in and they proposed that the entire new clause relating to reckless ill-treatment should be thrown out of the bill because it could expose owners of production animals to prosecution. Horror! In fact they need not have worried because almost all production animals are already protected by codes of animal welfare so as I have said the bill will not apply to them. But the attitude of Federated Farmers was extraordinary. Their view is that animal welfare standards should not apply to the entire farming sector. In fact in their submission they said that it should be made clear in the bill that it applies only to domestic animals and not to production animals. In other words they are saying that there should be one standard in one law or regulation for individual companion animals and that there should be a completely different and lax law for farm and production animals because the farming sector generates so much of our wealth. 
That is extraordinary particularly as some terrible instances of animal cruelty have been carried out by farmers. The Crafar farms have been mentioned but there have been incidents where farmers have literally starved their animals to death. It is completely intolerable that the farming lobby should argue it should be completely exempt from the standards in this bill. Then the pig industry had the gall to turn up and tell us that it had been shocked by recent incidents of animal cruelty and that it abhorred—those are its words—any incident of cruelty towards animals. Can members believe that? That was from the pig industry. When questioned about that extraordinary statement representatives from the sector said that they did not consider keeping a sow in a crate for months on end where it could not turn round to be cruel. They tried to argue that if the pig code allows sow crates and says that they are legal then somehow in law they are not seen to be cruel; they are seen to be promoting animal welfare. It is extraordinary that the pig industry is suggesting somehow that keeping sows in stalls is promoting animal welfare but that is what the industry said. 
Others have said that this bill was drawn up because of the public’s incredible response to some terrible incidents of cruelty to companion animals but the truth is that there was a huge public response to the video footage showing the way that production animals mainly pigs are treated in New Zealand when it was screened on  
Sunday 
 last year. There was an absolute public outpouring but still nothing has been done. The pigs are in their cages. The drafting of the pig code is dragging on. It was supposed to have been completed last year but now we are halfway through this year and there is no sign of the pig code. It looks as if the pigs will remain in their cages. On the one hand we are busily congratulating ourselves on this wonderful new legislation that deals with animal cruelty but at the same time we are procrastinating being evasive and doing nothing about pigs in cages. That is an utter example of institutionalised cruelty to animals and we are turning a blind eye. I am not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in this Parliament but otherwise that is the word that would spring to my mind. 
Finally I say that it is interesting and I think that pig farmers will have to wake up. Even in Australia a major pork producer has shifted its 45000 sows from stalls to group housing. The owner has said that there is no point in trying to defend a production system that in the eyes of the consumer is indefensible. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. We note that the purpose of the bill is to improve the way that offences relating to the ill-treatment and neglect of animals are prescribed in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and to increase the penalties for this type of offending. The ACT Party is very pleased to support this bill along with every other party in the House. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by thanking Simon Bridges; the Animal Welfare Reform Bill is actually his bill. The Minister of Agriculture is the Minister in charge of it now that it has become a Government bill—and the Minister has been sort of missing in action for quite some time—but the credit really goes to Simon Bridges who brought this bill to the House to begin with. 
As we have heard we have seen horrible pictures on TV in relation to kittens being fed to pit bull terriers and this being filmed and there was also the story about the 33 dogs being shot at close range. Those are the sorts of horror stories that we cannot allow to be continually broadcast on TV and on radio stations. Animal cruelty is simply not acceptable in this country. I am really delighted as has been said before that we have a bill that deals with some of those issues. 
As my colleague Damien O’Connor said yesterday this bill does not really do a lot. It enhances some penalties in terms of fines and in terms of the prison sentence being extended from 3 to 5 years. That does not really solve the problem as such. In my view this legislation is just an interim measure. Enhancing penalties and extending prison sentences will not solve this problem. In a way the need for this bill is a reflection of the society that we have of the people who abuse animals and particularly of those who abuse small animals in urban areas. This legislation is a reflection of the nature of our society which is becoming more and more violent. Unfortunately the abuse of animals is related to the abuse in communities and families. 
So Labour supports this bill. I say to the Minister that I acknowledge the provision in the bill for extra resourcing particularly in respect of the SPCA in the form of $8 million over 4 years which is a small amount but a good start. I think that extra resourcing will get some of the non-governmental organisations to help in this area. Whereas 20 years ago the police the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the SPCA dealt with about one-third of the cases of ill-treatment in recent times about 90 percent of cases are dealt with by the SPCA. I think that shows that there is a lack of resources in this area. 
In respect of prosecution it is amazing that a lot of animal abuse complaints are lodged but few result in convictions. For example in 2008 over 14000 complaints of animal abuse were received by the SPCA but only 110 complaints resulted in charges being laid and only 58 people were convicted. That example shows that it is pretty hard to prove in court that there has been animal ill-treatment. Also a lot of cases are not reported. I hope that this bill will in some way help more cases to be dealt with. 
I will talk about the issue of animal abuse going forward. In my earlier speech I said that the whole animal abuse area is [ 
Interruption 
]—I am being urged by the other side to hurry up but I say to them that there is plenty of time and they should not worry. The issue of animal abuse is an expanding area of legal practice overseas particularly in relation to the ill-treatment of animals on the farm. We need to be very careful as we go forward because I worry that in many areas of the market a lot of non-tariff barriers will be placed on us. We are one of the biggest exporters of meat and dairy products. If we are not careful the stories of animal abuse cases could potentially go overseas and become quite difficult for us in terms of future trade. 
I have highlighted in the House the issue of sow crates. For example we have heard stories of cubicle farming taking place in Canterbury and we have heard about the potential of that practice to jeopardise the future of that industry. There is also the issue of possums and the 1080 debate. When those stories get out there people become suspicious of how we treat our animals and to what degree there is neglect of these animals in society. We need to make sure that we strengthen our rules and laws as we go forward particularly in relation to what happens on the farm because we do not want those stories to get out of New Zealand to overseas market places and affect our trade adversely. 
This is a good bill. We all are in the House in support of this bill and I am delighted to support it. I know there is a short time until 6 o’clock and it looks like the Government’s MPs are very keen to pass the second reading debate tonight. We did good work in the Primary Production Committee. There are a number of colleagues here like my colleague Damien O’Connor and others from the other side. They have been very helpful in terms of scrutinising this bill in the select committee. With those few words I commend the bill to the House. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I want to say just a few words. The first thing to say is that I commend the excellent Minister of Agriculture the Hon David Carter. Is it not fantastic to see that the work he has done has seen $8.2 million put aside for animal welfare in the Budget? Is that not outstanding? It is absolutely marvellous. It deserves to be acknowledged. It takes a Government that is about action to overcome a Government that was all about no action over the last 9 years. Nothing was done in the last 9 years under the previous Government. This Government has taken action and particularly this Minister has taken action. He saw the great potential in Simon Bridges the wonderful member of Parliament for Tauranga who brought forward this bill the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. The potential was seen in it. We applauded this bill. It became a Government bill because we acknowledged its importance. I think it is fantastic that we have achieved so much particularly in regard to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I am delighted to support its passage through the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act the purpose of which is to promote and to protect consumers’ interests in relation to motor vehicle sales. The Act promotes an environment in which consumers can make informed decisions with confidence. It makes vehicle traders accountable and it provides consumers with redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I am pleased to progress this bill which aims to further improve the Act’s operation and its ability to achieve its goals. I acknowledge the consideration that the Commerce Committee has given this bill and I also thank those who made written and oral submissions. 
The policy that underpins the principal Act has several key elements: a requirement for motor vehicle traders to be registered requirements for information disclosure to consumers concerning used motor vehicles and a provision for consumer redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. Section 163 of the Act required a review within 2 years of its commencement. This review was undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. It identified areas where the Act’s operation would benefit from amendment. The review report which was tabled in the House in March 2006 was followed by further consultation on the review’s recommendations. That process has lead to the amendments set out in this bill. 
The bill will remove several unnecessary compliance costs for motor vehicle traders and consumers. This amendment is in line with the Government’s tackling of regulatory obstacles as promoted by both the ACT Party and the National Party. The bill will reduce compliance associated with the renewal of annual registration by motor vehicle traders. At present an individual who applies to become a director or a motor vehicle trading company must supply a statutory declaration with his or her initial application. The individual is then required to provide each year a statutory declaration as part of the registration renewal process. This requirement is onerous and costly and serves no purpose if a person’s details have not changed. It is particularly an onerous requirement on overseas-based company directors. The bill amends the renewal procedure to allow a company’s secretary to confirm to the registrar that the information held on the registry about the company and its directors is correct. As well the bill provides that overseas-based directors will also face reduced costs as they will effectively be able to self-certify that they are eligible to be persons involved in the management of a motor vehicle trading company. 
The bill removes requirements for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. This amendment will reduce risk of confusion between private sellers and buyers as to their responsibilities and rights. It also removes a compliance cost on private sellers. The requirement for car market operators—that is those providing premises or Internet facilities for car sales—to be registered as motor vehicles traders has also been removed. Car market operators are providing a place for the sales transaction to occur; they are not motor vehicle traders involved in the sales process. The bill also removes the requirement for transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers to have a consumer information notice displayed. There is no reason for people conducting transactions between professionals in this industry to be provided with information that is designed to assist consumer decision-making. 
I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that the bill offers increased consumer protections which is important. These protections include increasing the financial limit at which consumer claims may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 now to $100000. This increase means that the majority of consumers can have their issues heard in the expert forum of the tribunal. This change also future-proofs the claims limit and provides protection to consumers who purchase high-end vehicles. Currently regardless of their financial means consumers can still have difficulty in gaining redress from a motor vehicle trader. The bill allows the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute. This will create an incentive for both parties to turn up to hearings—something that is currently a bit problematic. Currently costs can be awarded against the consumer but not against the trader. For a consumer considerable compliance costs may be associated with attending a hearing that has to be postponed because of a trader’s non-attendance. 
The bill will also allow for the publication of all the tribunal’s decisions. Publication of all decisions will provide consumers and traders with insights as to what kinds of claims will be upheld and under what circumstances. Currently only claims that go against traders are able to be published. Beneficially the consumer advocacy groups which do such vital work in the community will also be better informed and able to pass the knowledge gained from disputes rulings on to their clients. Publication also means that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and enforcement agencies will be better positioned to assess the effectiveness of the tribunal and to monitor for any systematic issues within the industry. 
The bill will close a loophole where the automatic banning of a trader from future trading as a motor vehicle dealer cannot be applied to a person who is unregistered or has a lapsed registration at the time of his or her conviction or bankruptcy. Currently such people can continue to trade in motor vehicles until the registrar can take a case to court to ban them which may take some months. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act is predicated on a fairly light-handed registration regime supported by enforcement. Effective banning provisions are an important element of this enforcement. 
I note the amendments of the bill recommended by the Commerce Committee. I understand that the submissions provided to the committee were useful and again I thank those individuals and groups who took the time to make a contribution. Legislation can have a difficult time keeping up with the twists and turns of new technology and the Internet age. I am therefore pleased to note that these amendments will clarify some areas of the Act—in particular confirming that the consumer information notice must be displayed by a motor vehicle trader when a motor vehicle may be purchased through an online website facility. This will mean that consumers who may be thinking about purchasing a motor vehicle online will have access to accurate information about the motor vehicle and information on their consumer rights. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.