edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 34 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunn the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 in his name and the following amendments in his name to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (21) “397”; and 
to omit from subclause (27) “421(2) and (4)” and substitute “421(2)”
Dunne Peter: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6637] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I seek leave for the remaining provisions of the Taxation (International Taxation Life Insurance and Remedial Matters) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that matter. Is there any objection? There appears to be no objection. That course of action is agreed to.
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tremain Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6635] 
12.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What recent changes to regulations have been made to address the issue of illegally harvested paua? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Changes to the amateur regulations will now make it illegal to hold more than two times the daily limit of paua or the equivalent in meat weight and that includes in one’s freezer or in one’s international carry-on. This is just another tool for the Ministry of Fisheries to target those who traffick in illegally caught paua. 
Chris Tremain 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding this policy? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: A lot of support for this regulation has come through the submission process. Fisheries officers will not go looking through anyone’s freezer for no good reason. I need to make that very clear. I want to reassure our recreational fishers that if Ministry of Fisheries officers are knocking on their door and asking to look in their freezer it is highly likely that they are the target of a sting operation.
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Norman Russel William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6630] 
8.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his comment that palm kernel extract was a waste product and not leading to deforestation; if so does he believe that the $317 million that New Zealand paid for palm kernel in 2008 made no contribution to profitability of the oil palm industry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes; I am advised that what drives the expansion of the industry and deforestation in places in South-east Asia is the demand for palm oil which is used in a whole range of consumer products. The supplementary feed being imported into this country is a very low-value by-product of the industry that is otherwise burnt or left to rot on the ground. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why will he not admit the obvious which is that because palm kernel extract contributes up to 15 percent of the income stream of the palm oil industry it significantly adds to the profitability of that industry and helps fuel its expansion into virgin rainforest across South-east Asia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There seems to be some dispute about the proportion of value that is added. The member may have different information but the information the Prime Minister has been given is that it is about 1.5 percent rather than 15 percent. We can no doubt resolve that matter. Palm oil - based products include margarine processed foods soap and washing powder. I am keen to see whether Greenpeace intends to picket our supermarkets if it really wants to stop deforestation in South-east Asia. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister aware of comments made by Daniel Cheow the managing director of a Malaysian palm kernel exporter called Palmbase who said that palm kernel prices “have shot up as demand is coming in much faster than expected” which in part is a result of the dramatic increase in demand coming from New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not familiar with those comments but I will repeat for the member that the primary driver of value in the palm oil industry is consumer products that are bought every day by New Zealanders in our supermarkets. I look forward to the Greens and Greenpeace picketing those supermarkets if they really want to stop deforestation. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: We certainly will be campaigning. Given that diesel could be considered a by-product of the petrol industry a by-product that generates only a proportion of the profits of oil companies will he now argue that greenhouse emissions coming from the burning of diesel should not be taken into account because it is only a by-product of the petrol industry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There may be a range of by-products from the palm oil industry. I simply repeat that the palm kernel part of the industry is small. Of course it has some impact; the Government does not deny that. But the real driver of the environmental impacts which concern I think every New Zealander is actually the consumer products that we buy every day.
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:657;Page:6626] 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “the Government has struck the right balance between its economic responsibilities and its environmental responsibilities.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Should the emissions trading scheme therefore introduce an incentive for emitters to reduce emissions and adopt clean technology alternatives; if so why does the Government’s proposed “cap and trade” scheme have no cap? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will be aware there have been many years of discussion about the emissions trading scheme. The feedback I have had from the wider community and the business community is that regardless of whether they like the rules—and many of them do not—they think it is better to have some certainty so that they can get on with investment and creating jobs. That is what this Government is all about. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will that certainty include the giving of up to $1 billion in additional taxpayer subsidies to companies like Rio Tinto to encourage them to reduce emissions? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not agree with the member’s characterisation of the decision. He needs to keep in mind that a country that is to quote the media today “running chronic trade … deficits and which is up to its nostrils in debt to the rest of the world cannot afford to be cavalier about risks” of exporting our export industries losing jobs and losing export-earning capacity. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If we cannot afford to be cavalier about debt why does the Minister’s Government use a carbon price of $200 a tonne to reject calls for a 40 percent reduction target and then give a price of $25 a tonne when estimating the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme? Who is being cavalier now? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again the member’s representation is I understand incorrect. If the member is really concerned about getting in touch with middle New Zealand I invite him to go to the Rio Tinto smelter at Tiwai address a crowd of 700 middle New Zealanders and tell them he would rather see them working in a smelter in China.
Mallard Trevor: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6615] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I again just want to speak briefly to the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. I thank Government members for eventually accepting the health warning about it. That had been put to them and rejected at the Education and Science Committee but they had some sense about this when the Minister became involved and we were in the House. So I do thank them for that. 
I disagree deeply with the member for Taupo and the comments that she made as to whether the Labour Party is giving its wholehearted support to this bill. It is a matter of very fine balance and a matter of us keeping our word. We said we would support the bill if the health warning went in but frankly I hope that not many students will take up this measure especially if they do so in a period that is greater than from 18 months to 36 months before the end of repaying the loan. If they do that they will end up if one considers the interest effects paying back more than they need to pay. They would be better off if they put their money in the bank and continue to make loan repayments until somewhere in the period of from 18 months to 36 months out from the end of loan. 
I accept there will be a number of other reasons that people want to make repayments and I think the most logical ones are where they receive tied contributions from other people. When a grandparent wants to help a student or graduate with repayments on his or her loan and is concerned that if he or she just gives the kid the money it might not quite make it into repaying the loan in that circumstance where there is an element of a tie-in I think there is a benefit. I cannot think of many other circumstances where that will occur. 
If one wants to look really carefully at who will benefit from this— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who is it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it is the Minister of Finance. He is the person who will benefit from this legislation. When we look at the net situation we see that this measure is quite fiscally positive for the Government. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Twenty bucks a week? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not many people will get $1000 a year every year out of it. The amount of repayments required to get to that level would have to be at the level of $10000 a year. I think not many people will make additional repayments at that level but it is fair to say it would be better to be a person in that position than to be someone who is trying to get the last 20 bucks off Bill English for his cleaning bill paid through the taxpayer. 
This is pretty minor legislation. On balance the Labour Party supports it because we said we would support it if the Government accepted our amendment. We will vote for it but without much enthusiasm.
Upston Louise: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Upston Louise: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6615] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to speak to the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. I start by saying a word of thanks to the able chair of the Education and Science Committee my colleague Allan Peachey; the deputy chair Trevor Mallard; the other committee members; the officials who have worked particularly hard on getting this bill through; and the Minister of Revenue whom I applaud for accepting the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Trevor Mallard today to make sure that we have broad support for this bill. I think that does make a big difference. It is a strong message to New Zealanders when the Government is supported by the Labour benches in legislation. This bill provides an incentive for young New Zealanders who have a student loan to pay off their loan faster. 
I just make a couple of comments to put some context around why the Government believes that it is important for young New Zealanders to pay their debts off faster. I refer to an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
earlier this year that talked about the surge in individual debt which has gone from $62.7 billion to $175 billion. So basically New Zealanders are borrowing at a significant rate and we have now individual borrowings of $41000 per head of population. Student loans are obviously a small component of that figure but today I saw that the student union’s website had put that figure on its ongoing loan calculator at $10.599 million. It is small amount of the overall New Zealand debt but it is the message for young New Zealanders that paying off debt should be a priority and is important; and in this case obviously it is a debt to the Government so it is a debt to other hard-working New Zealanders who pay tax and therefore it is important that the Government incentivises students to pay off their loans sooner. 
I was really pleased also that the Opposition has questioned why this bill was brought in under urgency. The Minister Peter Dunne indicated the level of interest already out there for this incentive—the fact that 1800 young New Zealanders have already opted to make bonus payments if you like and to the value of I think about $875 in bonuses. That is brilliant and is exactly what this bill is designed to do. I am sure there will be an even greater level of interest now that they see this legislation will pass and that it is supported so broadly across the House. 
I am really pleased to be able to commend this bill in its third reading because shorter repayment times for New Zealanders will mean that they become debt-free earlier. That will give them choices in their lives and their futures about buying a house having children going into business and any other options given they have removed some of the debt they had been saddled with as students.
Street Maryan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Street Maryan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6614] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. I too would like to add my thanks to the work that Allan Peachey has done as chair of the Education and Science Committee in the consideration of the bill. I will also underscore the Minister of Revenue’s thanks to officials for their work in revisiting a number of issues that arose in the course of the debate in the Committee stage and during the select committee’s consideration of the bill. I am grateful to officials for their work and their support in that regard. 
I also congratulate the Minister on accepting the Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by my colleague Trevor Mallard. That is the bit that redeems the legislation. 
Although I understand the intention is to incentivise repayment of student loans earlier than might otherwise be the case this legislation does need close consideration by any students who are looking at taking up the offer and maximise the benefit of the legislation. 
Maximising the benefit of this legislation—that is getting the 10 percent return on any amount over $500 that is repaid on a student loan over and above the statutory repayment amount required—may fly in the face of how students might be able to maximise the return on that additional money. The problem is that it will only be towards the end of the lifetime of a student loan that there may be any financial advantage. Of course retiring debt is highly desirable but if students are faced with the choice of placing money into an interest-bearing account and having it work for them in a way that over time gains them more than having a slight reduction in the total of their student loan repayable then they would be fools to take up this provision in the legislation. That is the long and the short of it. In the end the Labour amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 37 which has been accepted by the Government and improves the legislation allows us albeit in a lukewarm way to support the legislation. The amendment requires that all advertisements that go out accompanying this bill must also include a statement that people are advised to get appropriate advice so they know what they are doing with their money. 
I cannot see why this legislation was ever brought to the House under urgency and I dispute even at this stage the need for that to happen. But I support the legislation now given its improvement with the addition of the health warning that has to go out to all students who take on student debt. They will be able to work out exactly at which point in their loan repayment there may be a financial benefit to them. It certainly will not be apparent in the first few years when they are likely not to be earning very much.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6613] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Before commenting very briefly on the bill’s provisions I take this opportunity to acknowledge the members of the Education and Science Committee and the chairman Allan Peachey for the job they did in considering the bill. I also acknowledge the work the officials have done in the preparation and development of the bill their advice to the select committee and some of the subsequent developments that have taken place. It has been a very worthwhile process and I simply want to place on record my thanks to all those who have contributed to the outcome we are about to put in place. 
The bill is a comparatively straightforward measure that introduces a repayment bonus of 10 percent for students who seek to repay their student loan balances early having a minimum balance of $500 at the time. This is consistent with an election commitment made by the National Party at the time of the general election. When the bill was in the Committee stage an amendment was moved by the Hon Trevor Mallard effectively to provide for a health warning - type statement to be included in the advice the commissioner must give to prospective repayers if they are considering making early repayments. I acknowledge him for the work he did in the preparation of the amendment. The Government was pleased to accept the amendment because it does I think contribute to the spirit of the legislation. I also think it is consistent with the general view that has been developed over a number of years about people obtaining good financial advice before making prudent or otherwise investment decisions. 
The real point here is that the bill seeks to incentivise students who are in a position to do so to pay off their student loans sooner. One of the Opposition speakers during the Committee correctly described that as a highly laudable objective. We have approximately $10 billion in outstanding student loan balances. It is in both the Crown’s interests and the interests of individual borrowers that the loans be repaid as quickly as possible and anything we can do to incentivise that situation has to be beneficial. Those were the main reasons behind the bill. It has emerged from the Committee with pretty much universal support across the House. As I indicated to the Committee 1800 student loan borrowers have already sought to take advantage of it. That is a good testament to the impact the legislation will have. I am more than happy to commend the bill to the House.
King Colin: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6611] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 With regard to the Student Loan (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill as it came to the select committee there were areas that needed to be given consideration to improve it. As the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne mentioned a number of people have taken up the opportunity of the repayment bonus. One thing the select committee had to do was set the date of the implementation of this bill to 1 April 2010. Effectively that gives a 12-month period for those who wish to take advantage of the bonus repayment scheme to build up a history of repayments. 
The other thing we had to look at was around the non-salary non-wage earners’ situation. As the bill came to the select committee it would have given more than 12 months after the tax year for a person to decide on what amount he or she would pay. In the end the select committee settled on 7 May after the end of the tax year so there is not an unfair advantage to those persons. But it gives them sufficient time to decide what they can or cannot do. 
The other issue that bears mentioning is the basic figure of $500 for a 10 percent repayment bonus. The question arose of what happens if there is less than $550. That was something the select committee had to wrestle with and we came to recommend that the derivatives of under $550 would be the maximum amount of bonus repayment. 
The other point I wanted to mention is the multiple voluntary repayments in the tax year. As the bill came to the select committee it would have been just a last payment. We looked at that and set it as being payments over and above the normal repayment scheme that were eligible for that tax year. 
I believe the bill is in good shape. The select committee worked very very well on it. I think it is appropriate in the Committee stage of a bonus repayment bill to mention the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill that was drawn out of the ballot. That is one we all look forward to debating because we believe that that too underpins and supports the principles of choice. Thank you very much.
Mallard Trevor: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6611] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will speak very briefly to say thank you to the Government and especially the Minister of Revenue for his forbearance in the negotiations of the Supplementary Order Paper for the third time. I thank the officials for putting us back on track to get a defined term rather than an undefined term. For members who have not seen it there is a new Supplementary Order Paper on the Table. It is the same as the old Supplementary Order Paper as it was for quite a period of time but there was an interim period where something else was there. I do not want to say a lot about this bill. I think Maryan Street put it pretty well. It is the bill for people who do not have a lot of financial literacy especially if they are repaying more than 2 years before the time is due— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Not the Minister of Finance then? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think the Minister of Finance has a lot of financial literacy but not much political sense. That might be the case. In his case it could be argued that he has his hand in taxpayers’ pockets and in this case in a lot of student loan borrowers’ pockets. People would be relatively foolish to pick this up more than 2 years out. There would have to be a very good reason for it and that reason is not a financial one.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6610] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Let me begin— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’ll still be Revenue Minister! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —we shall see—by indicating to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not if Charles wins his seat! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: —pigs might fly—the Hon Trevor Mallard that the Government is accepting the amendment he has moved and I appreciate the interchange there has been in terms of developing the appropriate wording. As I may have indicated by a shrug of my shoulders during the second reading I do not see the insertion of new section 45G into the Student Loan Scheme Act as proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 37 as in any way contrary to the intent of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. I make one other comment though that picks up on what the previous speaker was trying to raise regarding who possibly might take advantage of this. I thought the Committee might be interested to know the figures to date. Since this bill has been around the prospect of it has attracted a great deal of interest from some 1800 borrowers who have repaid either all or ten-elevenths of their loan balance. They have been getting an average bonus of around $875. Already before the bill is passed because it has a slight retrospective element there have been 1800 student loan borrowers who have chosen to take advantage of it. 
Chris Tremain 
: There’s financial sense in that isn’t there? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There is huge merit and sense in that and it really goes to the heart of what this measure is about: incentivising people to make earlier repayments if they are in a position to do so. It is very difficult to argue against that proposition. The fact that nearly 2000 students have before the bill has passed through the House chosen to take advantage of that opportunity— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is that more or less than the normal early repayments? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is a considerable figure and I think that the Committee should be delighted that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it more or less than normal? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member asks whether it is more or less than normal. Well there has not been huge provision for early repayment to this day and that is one of the other measures being addressed. This bill incentivises people to make those early repayments and 1800 of them will benefit from its retrospective element. I simply wanted to put that information before the Committee because some members have been asking who will take advantage of it and what the point of it is. Already significant numbers are taking advantage of it. I think that puts it into perspective. I acknowledge that this measure will pass with the support of all sides of the Chamber and I thank members for that.
Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Peachey Allan: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6609] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and take a very brief call in the Committee stage of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. As chairman of the Education and Science Committee that held hearings on the bill I compliment the Opposition on agreeing to support the bill. Opposition members as did Government members worked very hard to develop a scheme that was workable and although we had a lot of debate around the Supplementary Order Paper that Mr Mallard put forward I congratulate him on his success in having that Supplementary Order Paper accepted. 
The important thing is this. We are talking about taxpayers’ money and we are talking about people who borrow money for student loans. The message the Government wishes to send to borrowers is that it is in their best interests to pay off their loan as early as they possibly can and there will be a financial incentive a so-called 10 percent bonus if they do that. We must always remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money. We are talking about other New Zealanders who pay tax so that students can borrow money to finance their education. I do not know of too many New Zealanders who object to that but I do know that a lot of New Zealanders worry about the levels of debt that are accrued and about the way that some of that money is being used. This bill sends a very very strong message. It is the Government’s wish supported by the Opposition that if one is a borrower one’s student loan is to be paid off as quickly as one possibly can. It is in the borrower’s interest and it is in the taxpayers’ interest. Thank you.
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6608] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I seek leave for the provisions of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6606] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time.
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6601] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 As Nicky Kaye has said it was an unalloyed pleasure and a privilege to be on the historic Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which dealt with such an important issue for Auckland and for New Zealand. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Don’t speak too fast. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I can speed it up a little; I only have 3 minutes. Despite what the Opposition has said the select committee process was an example of that process at its best. The select committee has been listening very hard. I do not mind saying that National members went to the committee with certain views about how things would go and certain preconceived views as to what would be best. But we listened and listened carefully. I know I did and I am sure other members did because we changed our views as a result of what we heard. The process was far from a sham as the previous speaker Su’a William Sio said it was. We heard from hundreds and hundreds of ordinary folk throughout all the diverse communities that make up Auckland. As I said we did not just hear them; we listened to them and we made serious changes as a result of what they said. 
I will give members a couple of examples. We beefed up the local boards as a result of what submitters said to us. We beefed up boards substantially. In New Zealand we do not tend to like fancy concepts and principles but we were influenced by the principle of subsidiarity so we beefed up local boards. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Are you from Auckland or Tauranga? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: We put the “local” back into local government. The other thing we did—which again was very much a listening exercise—was listen to what people said about at-large seats. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Are you from Auckland? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: We did away with them and we went with a ward system. I say in response to what I am hearing around the House that I came into this process somewhat as an outsider but I enjoyed very much being part of the process and hearing from Aucklanders. Auckland is an important city and like Tauranga it will be a huge part of the future of our country. 
I finish as I started by telling members what a pleasure and a privilege it has been to be part of this important and future-focused project.
Blue Jackie: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Blue Jackie: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6589] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the third reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. I was part of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which heard the many hundreds of submissions on this second Auckland bill. It was a privilege to be part of the committee that went to all Auckland districts to hear the submitters. Every effort was made to ensure that all submitters who wanted to be heard were heard—and they were. All credit goes to the Hon John Carter for his expertise and good humour in chairing the committee. 
This process really started over 50 years ago. Since that time there has been a growing realisation that all was not well with the governance of Auckland. Frustration and concern has been growing. Traffic congestion has been an increasing problem; traffic has been grinding to a halt. The economy has suffered. Auckland is the powerhouse of New Zealand. When it grinds to a halt New Zealand grinds to a halt. There has been red tape duplication and bureaucracy. 
The previous Government formed the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance which over 20 months did a tremendous job. It consulted far and wide. At the end of its consultation it produced a comprehensive report. The royal commission stressed the importance of acting decisively and it stressed the impact of doing nothing. This Government has taken on board that report. We have acted decisively; we have moved quickly. We had to. We need to be ready for the Auckland local body elections in September 2010 and we will be. We are on track for them. 
This bill is one of three on Auckland governance. It creates the Auckland Council. The most exciting change to the structure of the governance in Auckland is the creation of local boards. These are new structures. They are not the current community boards; they are not the current councils. They are new entities and they will have the status and powers that this legislation brings. We have given these local boards real local authority. These local boards will be required to have a holistic approach to their communities to promote the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of communities within the local board area in the present and for the future. Local boards will be required to listen to and consult their communities. Local boards must provide a local board plan. Local boards will have a dedicated budget to provide local services. These boards will not be toothless. The Auckland Council will be required to take on the views of the local board and the views of the local board will have special status on the council. 
This bill is about empowering our diverse communities. It is about local boards getting back real local authority. I commend this bill to the House.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6585] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Parts 1 to 4 the schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Parts 1 to 4 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I thank members for their conduct during the debate and in the putting of the questions. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6585] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in the name of Sue Kedgley be agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3)(a) “20 but no more than 30” and substitute “14 but no more than 20”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 43; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1)(e)(ii) “determine the number of elected members for each ward” and substitute “ensure that each ward has no more than 2 elected members”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6584] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 19(1)(e) be agreed to: 
to omit “divide Auckland into wards” and substitute “divide Auckland into 25 wards”; 
to omit from subparagraph (i) “number”; 
and to omit subparagraph (ii).
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6583] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are amendments to clause 18(1A) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins and in the name of Sue Bradford. They are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins be agreed to: 
to omit from clause 18(3)(a) “may undertake the investigations and consult the persons that it thinks desirable; but” and substitute “must consult with those persons affected by the draft determination”; 
to omit clause 18(3)(b); 
and to add to clause 19(3) the following paragraph: 
(i)those persons affected by the draft determination have been consulted.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6583] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Su’a William Sio be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause: 
12BPacific Advisory Board 
(1)This section establishes a Pacific Advisory Board. 
(2)The purpose of the Pacific Advisory Board is to: 
(a)perform an advisory role for the governing body in relation to its decisions relating to the Pacific Island Community: 
(b)represent the views of the Pacific Island Community: 
(c)enable the participation of the Pacific Island community in the decision-making process of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Membership of the Board will be determined by the governing body in consultation with Pacific communities and Pacific leaders within the Auckland region. 
(4)The Pacific Advisory Board will have no fewer than 4 members appointed by a majority vote of the governing body. 
(5)The Auckland Council must provide adequate resources to the Pacific Advisory Board sufficient for the purposes of this section.; 
to add to clause 13B(2) the following paragraph: 
(d)consult with and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Pacific Advisory Board if the decision affects or may affect the people represented by those groups.; 
to add to clause 13B the following subclause: 
(3)In addition to the requirements described in subsection (2)(d) the governing body is required to meet with the Pacific Advisory Board a minimum of once every 3 months. 
(a)Further it is explicitly recognised that the governing body will consult and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Pacific Advisory Board in the development of the LTCCP and the annual plan.; 
and to add the following clause: 
25New subsection 13(5) inserted 
The following subsection is inserted after subsection (4): 
“(5)The Auckland Transition Agency must take into account the views of the Pacific community and existing Pacific Advisory Boards when decision-making.”
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6582] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Raymond Huo be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause: 
12BAsian Advisory Board 
(1)This section establishes an Asian Advisory Board. 
(2)The purpose of the Asian Advisory Board is to: 
(a)perform an advisory role for the governing body in relation to its decisions relating to the Asian community: 
(b)represent the views of the Asian community: 
(c)enable the participation of the Asian community in the decision-making process of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Membership of the Board will be determined by the governing body in consultation with Asian communities and community leaders within the Auckland region. 
(4)The Asian Advisory Board will have no fewer than 4 members appointed by a majority vote of the governing body. 
(5)The Auckland Council must provide adequate resources to the Asian Advisory Board sufficient for the purposes of this section.; 
to add to clause 13B(2) the following paragraph: 
(d)consult with and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Asian Advisory Board if the decision affects or may affect the people represented by those groups.; 
to add to clause 13B the following subclause: 
(3)In addition to the requirements described in subsection (2)(d) the governing body is required to meet with the Asian Advisory Board a minimum of once every 3 months. 
(a)Further it is explicitly recognised that the governing body will consult and consider any views and preferences expressed by the Asian Advisory Board in the development of the LTCCP and the annual plan.; 
and to add the following clause: 
25New subsection 13(5) inserted 
The following subsection is inserted after subsection (4): 
“(5)The Auckland Transition Agency must take into account the views of the Asian community and existing Asian Advisory Boards when decision-making.”
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6580] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclauses: 
(6)This subsection applies if at any elections held at the same time for a member or members of the governing body or local board and a member or members of Parliament a person is declared to be elected as a member of the governing body or local board and that person is also declared to be elected as a member of Parliament. 
(7)If subsection (6) applies the person declared to be elected to both offices must be treated as having vacated office as a member of the governing body or local board. 
(8)This subsection applies if at any election other than an election to which subsection (6) applies a person who is a member of the governing body or local board is declared to be elected as a member of Parliament. 
(9)If subsection (8) applies the person declared to be elected as a member of Parliament must be treated as having vacated office as a member of the governing body or local board. 
(10)Subsections (6) to (9) will expire 1 November 2010.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6579] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Phil Twyford be agreed to: 
to insert the following clauses: 
9AAuckland Services Performance Auditor 
(1)This section establishes the office of the Auckland Services Performance Auditor. 
(2)The purpose of the Auckland Services Performance Auditor is to assess whether the Auckland Council is performing adequately in providing high-quality services in a cost-effective manner. 
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) the Auckland Services Performance Auditor has the following powers: 
(a)review the adequacy and relevance of Auckland Council controlled organisation performance targets as set out in the statement of intent and the accuracy of performance reported against those targets: 
(b)with respect to council controlled organisations the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will have the power to: 
(i)review service standards set out in their customer service charter annual customer satisfaction survey results and customer complaints processes: 
(ii)assist the Auckland Council with its three-year reviews of their statements of intent including the relevance of any targets: 
(iii)protect the consumer’s interests and advocate for them in respect of the reliability and affordability of services: 
(c)the ability to report publicly on any issue at any time: 
(d)to obtain information from all Auckland Council bodies. 
9BPowers with respect to Watercare Services Limited 
Without limiting section 9A(3) and with respect to Watercare Services Limited the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will have the power to undertake three-yearly efficiency and effectiveness reviews incorporating international comparative industry benchmarking and an evaluation of service levels efficiency affordability of water and demand management performance. 
9CAppointment of Auckland Services Performance Auditor 
(1)The Auckland Services Performance Auditor will be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the Auckland Council for a three-year term. 
(2)The nomination of candidates will be made jointly by the Chair of the Commerce Commission and the Auditor-General. 
9DAuckland Services Performance Auditor Report 
(1)Without limiting section 9A(3) the Auckland Services Performance Auditor will be required to produce an annual report assessing the performance of the Auckland Council.