General Debate 
General Debate 
[Volume:653;Page:2708] 
General Debate 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In the last sitting week my colleague Kennedy Graham identified the magnitude of the challenge that faces humanity in the 21st century and the place and role of New Zealand within that. It is our conviction that the problems we face today are the direct result of our traditional political and economic beliefs. By clinging to an increasingly obsolete world view humanity has not only generated serious global problems; it is unable to perceive them for what they are let alone solve them. In New Zealand the National Party owes its heritage to the Western liberal tradition which responded to the strictures of absolutism and tyranny. Those concerns evolved into the politics of individual liberty and economic freedom. The Labour Party’s heritage lies in the Western socialist tradition which responded to the misery and injustice of inequality and insecurity. That evolved into the compassionate politics of State welfare and communal responsibility. 
For its part the Green Party owes its heritage to a new and modern tradition that responds to the ecological crisis and the politics of survival and sustainability. Born of an awakening concern about the silence in spring the environmental movement took political form in the Green parties of the 1980s and in our case descended from the visionary Values Party. Those parties entered Parliaments in the 1990s and are strengthening in the early 21st century. Today the Green Party exists to respond to the concerns of the contemporary world. Having earlier foreseen the onset of those problems it now works to develop a strategic policy response. 
The ecological overshoot is the product of individual freedom run amok. We in the West have carried economic growth to the level of addiction; we have geared our economic systems to require continual economic growth for any kind of stability. Because the resources on which continual growth feeds are finite it is not sustainable in the long run—nor in the short run as recent events have demonstrated. The planet simply cannot sustain the equation of numbers multiplied by greed. Policy makers who tinker with fiscal and monetary policy in order to restore an outmoded notion of economic growth do not provide the answer; they are the orchestra on the  
Titanic 
. The ecological overshoot can no more be remedied through an intensified pursuit of individual liberty than a drunk can be sobered through a trip to the liquor store. Pretending that exponential growth on a finite planet is possible through technological progress is a delusion. The self-evidence of this fact is screened only by powerful interests that are intent on short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability while the rest of us are desperate to believe what we wish were the case. 
But the politics of compassion are also inadequate to deal with the problems we face. Redistributive justice can remedy the inequality of wealth and poverty but it can no more reverse the ecological overshoot than a bird can fly backwards. 
In New Zealand National and Labour have philosophically merged into a conjoint political establishment with the same broad underlying beliefs: self-perpetuating economic growth corporate dominance and unfettered international trade and finance. Their combination is disastrous. The political struggle between the relative priority of individual freedom and equality is reflected in the left/right spectrum that is used today to analyse politics. But the tension between sustainability and profligacy cannot be placed on the left/right spectrum. A second and new axis is required: the sustainability axis. Without this we lack an accurate compass for navigating through the 21st century. 
As the contemporary generation matures so do its politics. It is apparent that the Green Party in this country as elsewhere carries the underlying beliefs that are relevant to our age and the party is maturing to the point where it is able and ready to lead. We welcome that challenge. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 To be asked to lead off the Government side is a somewhat— 
Chris Hipkins 
: They must be really desperate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —oh yeah the little gnome over there; the little gnome from Weta Workshop is here—it is a somewhat mixed privilege. But I want to take the opportunity to talk about and pass on my respects to Minister Paula Bennett for her sterling job and sterling work in the job summits. 
Hon Members 
: Oh oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I want to say that. All those people say “Oh oh!” but I will tell the House what the summits did. They provided a forum for people to talk about new ideas. They kept everybody in the know about the latest economic news and they offered advice for those who were experiencing difficulties. Who laughs at that? It is the members on that side over there. They laugh at the companies and workers going through hard times. In a nutshell those summits were about protecting keeping and even creating jobs for joblessness threatens the very fabric of our society. I tell members that they can take it from somebody who knows about what it does to a community—a community that bears the brunt of a very very big downturn and a 23 percent rate of unemployment. Those members should see what that does to a community. So I take my hat off to the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Social Development who organised our job summits. 
But I want to take a bit of time too to show special gratitude to a group of people—people who have been maligned up hill and down dale in this country— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Labour Party. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and that is the immigrant community. No you see we do not make jokes about unemployment I tell the senior Labour whip. We do not make jokes about unemployment but I tell members that as the recession gets harder some—[ 
Interruption 
] You see not one of those people has ever been on the scrap heap—not one of them. But they purport to speak on behalf of the downtrodden. Well what a load of rubbish! I say tell them to give their salaries to the food banks and then I will start listening to them. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the member? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh! The member asks whether I give my wages to anybody. I ask him how many people there are in my family that I look after. At least I have a family to look after. If he wants to go down that track away we go. 
Hon Member 
: So that’s the National Party standard is it? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I say to that member to calm himself down. 
Grant Robertson 
: You’re the one! Stop the personal attacks Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Calm down. I want to pay special attention to the immigrant community. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh! Members do not want to talk about the immigrant community—OK then. They arrive here with nothing and with a promise of nothing but they get down and dirty. They take all jobs— 
Hon Member 
: Like the member. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. If I could be like one of those immigrants I tell members I would be a better man than I am now. I believe it is about time—[ 
Interruption 
] Well we know you are a bigot. We know that you do not like the immigrants. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hope the Speaker is not a bigot. [ 
Interruption 
] No I have already pulled the member up on it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised at your slowness on this matter. The member looked directly at another member of the House and called that member a word that is highly unparliamentary. Even for the former deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party in the 1996 election campaign that is a bit much. He should withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I called the member to order anyhow. I did not want to interrupt because it was not such a huge offence but if offence has been taken I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I withdraw and apologise. I suppose as Corporal Jones said in  
Dad’s Army 
 “They don’t like it up ’em.” Do members know why? It is because when we start talking about the supposed groups that the Opposition is supporting it all comes home to roost. What I am saying about the immigrant community is that members opposite might shout and cry but we should take a leaf out of the book of the immigrant community—the hard and staunch work that the people of that community put in. They had nothing when they arrived in this country. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Actually this side of the House does take unemployment seriously. We even sought to support the Job Summit in a bipartisan way. But let us look at whether the substance has matched the rhetoric. The $2 billion credit fund—the big idea—fell over; nothing came of it. The 9-day working fortnight saw 117 jobs saved. Each one of those jobs is important but 117 jobs were saved when Treasury tells us that 60000 jobs will be lost to New Zealanders this year. Then there was the cycleway. Do members remember the cycleway? It is the one that the real Prime Minister said would be built not this year not next year and not the year after. I say to Tau Henare that his people are the people who have suffered because this Government did not give tax cuts to those who would have spent it on necessities and stimulated the economy. So I do not want any of those double standards paraded here. 
Amidst the growing list of broken promises is that of the promise that the National Party made before the election that it would consult Aucklanders after the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance had been made public. What happened? One week after the royal commission’s report John Key and Rodney Hide told Aucklanders what they had already decided for the people of Auckland and indicated that they would ram that model through Parliament under urgency. Where is the consultation in that? Not even the mayors were asked for their views before that decision was announced except for one—John Banks. This legislation is about a gerrymander to suit the political interests of the ACT Party the National Government and their wealthy cronies. Make no mistake about that! This legislation is not legislation by Aucklanders for Aucklanders; it is a political gerrymander to suit the wealthy business and political interests of the ACT Party and the National Party. 
It is no wonder that there is a rising anger across Auckland as Aucklanders consider that they have had absolutely no say over the changes to the city they live in which they will be asked to pay for—absolutely no say at all. It is little wonder that in every suburban newspaper across Auckland—and I tabled this yesterday for the House—the normally mild-mannered suburban newspapers have said that Mr Key and Mr Hide are stripping democracy from Aucklanders. They have said that this National Government is using its bullying tactics to force on Aucklanders legislation that they neither want nor will tolerate. In my time in Parliament I have never seen suburban newspapers use such strong and clear language as the language they used last week. 
Section 49 of the Local Government Act states that where there is restructuring polls must be held. This happens to be the biggest restructuring in Auckland’s and New Zealand’s history. Will the National Government hold a poll as a poll was held in Christchurch for the amalgamation down there? No. Why is a poll not being held as required under section 49? It is because the National Government does not have the courage of its convictions and it does not have the confidence that Aucklanders will accept what it is trying to ram down their throats. That is why the National Government is not seeking a mandate for what it is trying to force on Aucklanders. John Key knows that 72 percent of his electorate when polled rejected what he is telling Aucklanders is good for them. I have heard a lot about nanny State but I have never seen a Government that imposes legislation against the will of people without their consultation in the manner that the Government is doing here. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am proud to be part of a Government that is about action; not like this Opposition that does not even understand the meaning of the word. The previous speaker has no idea what the royal commission was all about; it was about consultation. He is a member—Goff—who is constantly trying to gain— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member for interrupting her speech but I cannot hear a word she is saying. Could members on both sides of the House please cease the barrage of interjection so that the House can hear the contribution from Sandra Goudie. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Thank you Mr Speaker but I was quite happy to go on regardless because this is a Government that is proud of its work. It is all about action; it is not just all talk like the previous Government which had 9 years and did nothing. Quite clearly Goff is constantly perverting the facts in a desperate bid to gain ground while it rapidly shifts underneath him. He clearly does not understand what a royal commission is for—that it is all about consultation. Does he not understand that? He is desperate to try to cobble together a few hundred people out of the hundreds of thousands who actually support progress in Auckland. What does he understand about it? I do not think he understands a great deal; it is all just for political purchase and it is rapidly slipping away from him. 
I am incredibly proud of National and the work it has been doing on the Resource Management Act. There has been a healthy debate which is ongoing and New Zealanders up and down the country are celebrating the fact that we are making some changes to the Act and that we want to make a difference. This Act affects the lives of New Zealanders across the country who have experienced the blockages in this legislation that were never addressed by the previous Government in its 9 years in office. It is an appalling indictment against the Opposition. Labour had 9 years when in Government of doing nothing while National has really been on the front foot and is working hard to make a difference. There has been healthy debate around changes to the Local Government Act to the Building Act and to a whole lot of other legislation. 
I can tell members of the excellent work done by the Minister Judith Collins on law and order. It is just another one of those factors of significant and positive change and making a difference as we go forward. We had only to listen to what she had to say in the House today about the extra policing for Counties-Manukau; that has been a huge step forward for Counties-Manukau and for the security and safety of New Zealanders. 
I will share with members the fact that since National became the Government the number of police in Counties-Manukau has increased by 26 to 780. In addition police numbers in Counties-Manukau are expected to grow by a further 16 constables by 30 June 2009. Overall the police expect to achieve an extra 150 in police numbers this year and 150 next year. This is a boost of 300 new front-line police to Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010. It is a key Government policy and we are delighted to be able to announce this progress to date under the auspices of the excellent Minister Judith Collins. A further 41 police recruits are destined for Counties-Manukau—all a part of the programme that she has under way that is making such a difference. So there is a lot of work going on in that regard. I will also mention the excellent work in justice by Simon Power. He is another really hard-working Minister who is making a difference. 
The Opposition cannot deny the huge amount of work that this Government has undertaken within 6 months which the previous Government could not even equal within the whole of its 9 years in office. It is outstanding work and the Government will continue to implement policies to protect jobs as well as create an environment that creates new jobs and make it easier for small businesses up and down the country to do business. This is about getting rid of as much red tape as possible so that people can get on with their jobs and not be bogged down by paperwork. This is all part of fulfilling that 100-day plan and it is fantastic to see the difference that has been made in this regard. 
As well as fulfilling our commitments in our 100-day plan we are continuing to implement our jobs and growth plan. The funding to Housing New Zealand has made such a huge difference. Members have heard stories in the House about builders who have been kept going as a result of the extra work made available to them by the funding being put into New Zealand housing and by the upgrading of New Zealand houses. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 The korero the word in Auckland is to join the hikoi on 25 May to target all National MPs who have the misfortune of imposing themselves on Auckland because they have misled Auckland. They have promised representation and consultation and Rodney Hide and John Key have refused to front up with the people of Auckland. In fact today they have been reduced to putting up the “Mangrove Maid” they dug up to fill in space. There can be no representation for Auckland for as long as those members are quietly shafting the people who voted for them. How pathetic! 
We saw Dr Mapp and the Prime Minister wander around on Anzac Day talking about the virtues of soldiers and their military contribution. But the very ideals those soldiers sought to protect and safeguard Auckland National MPs deny Aucklanders the ability to enjoy. They have no opportunity to decide their own future. There is no consultation. Representation is driven by the corporate personal interests of the architects of this new scheme who are based in Auckland. It will never fly. 
Paul Quinn 
: Abraham Lincoln didn’t say that. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: There are two valedictory speeches today actually. We are to hear from Dr Cullen and there is the late Mr Quinn who was beaten by Winston’s younger brother; at least there is now someone with talent style and looks in rugby union. 
Only one other National MP has to follow that double-dipping episode—that is Sam Lotu-Iiga. He needs to stand down from the Auckland City Council and stop being a lion at home and a lamb in the House. He is the very man who has a mandate to be on the Auckland City Council but he will not stand down and is misrepresenting its views. 
The major casualties of the Auckland debacle are Maori. Dr Pita Sharples promised as a consequence of forming that foul pact with the National Government that he would deliver better Maori representation. He has a standard to live up to. From 1986 to 1992 the Auckland Regional Authority had Maori representation under a Labour Government and then from the south came that gargoyle Warren Cooper and just like that it disappeared. He has been reincarnated in the form of the current younger members. There is a history of Maori representation in local government in Auckland. It was Labour’s Nganeko Minhinnick for Western Maori and Waerete Norman for Northern Maori Tau Henare and others. 
The two Maori members in Cabinet Georgina te Heuheu and Paula Bennett—Pita Sharples is not in Cabinet—quietly told their colleagues: “Do not go ahead with Maori representation. Do not advance it. Use Pita Sharples’ clumsy language and vague thinking as a basis for hiding the real agenda.” Well come the hikoi they will have to explain to obviously the Pakeha voters whom they have already offended and to their Maori partner as to why there can be no representation. 
Of course deeper than representation woes is the Government’s inability to explain how much this reform will cost. Will it be $500 $600 or $700 per ratepayer once these reforms go through? There is the inability to influence local government through representation which is definitely unwanted in relation to consultation. I say that the Government cannot get the issues of representation and tax the wrong way round. If it is to tax people in Auckland through the levy of a rate to cover the reform costs then it has to allow people to be represented. That is where the Government is failing. 
Why is the Government doing this? It has its secret quisling in the form of John Banks. As soon as a Cabinet meeting is over or maybe 5 10 or 15 minutes later he knows everything. Well that is easy because in terms of putting everything into that vacant mind of his that is an endless task. He is already wandering around saying: “There will never be Maori representation in Auckland. There will be my type of corporate-based privatisation personality-cult approach.” 
That approach suits our friends on the other side of the House. It certainly suits Mr Hide but there is a campaign under way. The community newspapers have said that democracy is worth defending. They have pointed out that every Auckland MP belonging to the National Party is toast. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 After 9 years of watching the Labour Party in Government and after a couple of months of watching the Labour Party in Opposition I have come to the conclusion that Labour is much better at Opposition that it ever was at Government—and it is not much good at Opposition I can tell members. So far today we have seen three leadership bids from members on the other side and the number is still rising. The latest one of course is from another Harvard graduate who is sitting next to the other one who has a leadership bid running and who has just resumed his seat. 
I heard the previous speaker Shane Jones talk about taxation without representation but the most offensive thing about the last 9 years of Labour Government was the fact that our primary production sector—the engine room of the economy—was being heavily taxed the whole time with no representation in central government. Members opposite are crying out about the form of Auckland local government but that is an issue for Aucklanders to sort out amongst themselves. As far as representing New Zealand is concerned the National Government has put the country on a track that can lead only to recovery after what has been described as one of the worst depressions or economic downturns we have seen in a number of years. Let us talk about some of the positive things that have taken place so far under the National Government. We have a lot of extra police coming on stream. Law and order was a major election item and this Government has delivered. We have reduced taxation. It was interesting that the previous speaker spent so much time on the issue of taxation without representation but one of the very first things the Government did was to reduce taxation. 
Later on today we will listen to the valedictory of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and I will not discredit him at this stage because that would be ungenerous but I will say he was a very good manager of the House. He was superb at it and he was also quite truthful to his principles. He believed that one could tax and tax and tax and the economy would grow as a result. The evidence is that he was wrong. He will go from this place as someone who served the area he represented originally and the country well in his own view. There is no question about that and he will leave a big hole in the Labour Party. In my view on most of his economic management policy in regard to the lost opportunity from some of the best opportunity we saw in a lifetime he was wrong. The mistakes will be well recorded when the final analysis is done. It will probably be Dr Michael Cullen himself who does it because he is quite skilled in studying history but is not good at predicting the future. I say to the Labour Opposition it will have to do a lot better. 
On 8 November 2008 New Zealand made a decision to change direction substantially from where it was heading. It made that decision clearly because as a nation we were not going ahead; we were going backwards. Look at what has happened since the Government has changed. Look at what is happening in some of the agricultural indicators. The very figures that Dr Cullen should have studied but instead got Jim Anderton to study have changed. We are seeing growth year on year; despite the economic circumstances we are still seeing growth. Why would we not create a policy framework that allows those who have the entrepreneurial spirit—the entrepreneurial get up and go—to flourish and do well? The Government has come out with a number of initiatives in that area. We are coming out with policies that will help small and medium sized businesses. We are coming out with policies that will reward people who show entrepreneurial skills. We will reward people and show them how they can get ahead and do well. We are looking at investing heavily in science particularly in the sector that has the ability to help the economy. We are investing in infrastructure. 
Labour talked about investment for 9 years but did not do it. When we look at the figures in actual fact investment went backwards; percentage-wise investment went backwards and not forwards. The Labour Opposition’s response is typical; it is the same as it was when it was in Government: there must be a way forward and the way forward must be more taxation. Labour was wrong then and it is wrong now. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I quote: “I am sure that by the time this proposal for Auckland is rolled out we will have got it right”. With those immortal words John Key admitted what everybody in Auckland already knows; that is by goodness has National stuffed up on the super-city. Polls show that more than 70 percent of Aucklanders think National has got it wrong and 72 percent in John Key’s own electorate in Helensville think National has got it wrong. Nobody believes John Key’s public relations shuffle is all Rodney Hide’s fault because who put the fox in the chicken coop in the first place? 
It is no wonder that Paula Bennett is not here. She is in such a panic that she is floating like a giant blimp in west Auckland trying to harness a fight back because she knows westies are marching in the streets against this undemocratic nonsense. It is no wonder that every suburban newspaper is railing against the “stupid city” or the “stupor city”. They are sick to death of it already. It is no wonder that National’s honeymoon in Auckland is now firmly over because every Labour MP in Auckland can count their majorities rising as people take to the streets against that lot of promise breakers. Here is what National said in its manifesto: “Support . . . people within the Auckland region [expressing] their views” “Consult with Aucklanders once the findings of the Royal Commission are known.” “making sure each community in our biggest city feels appropriately represented.” This is a far cry from what we got today. 
It is no wonder that more than 1000 west Aucklanders marched in the streets last week. It is no wonder that more than 250 people came out to a cold wet Monday night meeting in Kelston. It is no wonder that National is worried because “John Hide” and “Rodney Key”—are those not Freudian slips—have stolen our eco-city they have stolen our art city and they have stolen our smart business city all to get John Banks elected as mega-mayor. It is no wonder because National has broken another election promise. It is no wonder because it is overriding section 49 of the Local Government Act 1974 that requires a referendum on structural reform. National has emasculated local democracy in Auckland where 22 local boards cannot buy a pencil sharpener without John Banks’ permission. They cannot buy a pencil sharpener and they cannot hire anybody. All they are allowed to do is license brothels and clean up rubbish. That is not local democracy that is not community development and that is why Waitakere residents are rising up to fight this plan. Labour stands alongside the people of Waitakere City. 
Labour wants a ward system where every councillor knows who his or her constituents are not one with eight white men from Remuera whose job it is to keep John Banks in power. Those at-large wards are a crying shame because hundreds of thousands of dollars are needed to run a campaign across Auckland. The real people in my electorate need not apply; they need not run because they do not have $250000 per letter drop to spend on contacting every Auckland home—that is for only the rich and the famous. Traditionally the white men of Remuera can run for and win an at-large ward. That means that the Auckland super-city will be permanently stacked to the right. National members know it they are smugly sitting there because they know it but what they did not count on was that every ordinary westie knows it. That is why westies are taking to the streets. That is why they are bombarding Ministers’ offices with letters and emails. That is why Paula Bennett is scurrying around Waitakere as we speak. That is why John Key is backtracking as fast as his public relations minders will let him and that is why the honeymoon is over in west Auckland. This issue has politicised the people of the west. It has told National members that if they thought they could get these guys elected and nothing would change they are so wrong. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the general debate today. It has been a great week for the Government so far. It has been a great month for the Government so far. It has been a great year for the Government so far. Unfortunately the Labour Party cannot say the same thing. It has been a tough month for the Labour Party so far. It has lost Helen Clark; it is losing Michael Cullen. The mum and the dad of the party are finally leaving—leaving the coop and leaving the children behind. But that is OK because the Labour Party is rejuvenating. Next week Damien O’Connor comes in. Two weeks ago the party forgot to tell Damien he was coming in. He was not sure when he was coming in but the party will let him know because he is part of the fresh blood that is coming into this Labour Party. And then who will come in to replace Helen Clark? If we listen to the rumours we hear it will be David Shearer. That fresh young face that young man is to come into the Labour Party to rejuvenate it. 
But this is not the first time that David Shearer has tried to come into Parliament via the Labour Party. In 1999 he was a list-only candidate for Labour. He was so good he was at No. 62 on the list. In 2002 David Shearer tried to come in again. He stood for Whangarei; he did not do very well. He did not win the seat and he was ranked at No. 45 on the list. I understand that Shearer also stood for Waitakere against Lynne Pillay but lost there as well. So that is the fresh blood the rejuvenation of the Labour Party. When David Shearer finally gets here maybe or maybe not he will be the new face of the Labour Party. 
What does David Shearer have to say? What does this new fresh face have to say? I do not know. Let us have a look at a little of what he has written. I quote: “The principal obstacle to regulating private military companies has been the tendency to brand them as ‘mercenaries’ of the kind witnessed in Africa 30 years ago rather than to recognize them as multinational entrepreneurs eager to solidify their legitimacy.” Legitimate multinational entrepreneurs instead of mercenaries—that is very interesting coming from someone who wants to represent the Labour Party. Does that sit well with his colleagues? Do they believe that as well? So far they have stood by exactly what he has said. Even more recently when David Shearer has been interviewed he has still stood by what he said. In fact he went on to say “Consequently regulation can be best achieved through constructive engagement.” That is how he will regulate his mercenaries. That is very interesting. 
Is that very Labour? Is that the new face of Labour that we are actually seeing? I do not see anybody standing up and saying it is not. All of a sudden the Labour Party members have gone very quiet. Only moments ago they were yelling across the House. I say they should stand up and defend this new member who is to come in. But no. [ 
Interruption 
] So now they say David Shearer is not going to be a candidate. That is not what we hear; that is not what Labour people are telling us. They are telling us something totally different from that. 
What else did David Shearer go on to say? I think he has even better ideas. I quote: “The prospect that private military companies might gain some degree of legitimacy within the international community begs the question as to whether these firms can take on UN peacekeeping functions and improve on UN effort.” Well that will be very interesting for Helen Clark to defend in her new job. 
So mum and dad—Helen and Michael—have now left the family. They have left the family behind and new siblings are coming in to replace them. What a new face this Labour Party will have! It will be so connected to the people of New Zealand—so connected to the causes of New Zealand. In fact I heard the other day that some of the members of Parliament for Labour went on a provincial road trip through the provinces of New Zealand. Wow! That will be the first in a while. Labour members have not been particularly connected with people. I think that the 1 million people who voted for the National Government would say they have not seen the Labour members of Parliament at the grassroots for a long time. It may take a little while for people to identify those Labour members of Parliament if they go through the provinces. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Greetings to you and greetings to the members of the House. When I listen to the speeches coming from the other side of the House I have to say that the impression I get is one of cavalier disinterest. We are discussing a very important issue and that is the issue of Auckland governance. It is an important issue. I ask the House to treat it with respect because whether or not we like it or love it the Government’s proposal to establish a super-city for Auckland means that for the next 50 or 100 years we will have a city that will impact on the lives not only of the people of today but of future generations. 
I say that Labour stands in support of Manukau City and its people. We support the people of Manukau City despite the mistake that some of them made in the last election by voting for the Hon Maurice Williamson the Hon Pansy Wong and the Hon Judith Collins. I would say that our people throughout Manukau City are very much in support of the work that we currently do and the encouragement and support that our colleagues like Ross Robertson and others are providing to the people of Manukau City. 
I want to lay some groundwork for my reasoning for saying this is an important issue. Manukau City has been around for 44 years. It has had only four mayors. The first mayor was Hugh Lambie the second was Sir Lloyd Elsmore who passed away not too long ago the third was Sir Barry Curtis and the present mayor is now Len Brown. The chief executive officers of Manukau City Council have numbered only three in 44 years. That gives an indication of the stability that the city has had. Those are men whom I have the deepest respect for. I have had the opportunity to know some of them and they are men who believe in the need to pursue a philosophy of social justice and social equity. They have maintained that belief throughout the 44 years of the city’s history. 
The establishment of a super-city means that we will do away with Manukau City. It means we will do away with Waitakere City North Shore City and Auckland City. But this is about more than doing away with just structures. We will do away with the work the sweat and the blood that past generations and people today have put into this city. We will do away with the special character and the spirit of Manukau City and there is no other city like Manukau City. It has a spirit of its own. I have said in this House and I will say it again that the young generation of Manukau City is not only beautiful but gifted. They will be future leaders of our country. 
What will it mean when this super-city is put in place by Mr Hide with the support of Mr Key and the Maori Party? They will put in place an executive mayor with executive powers. Along with Mr Ross Robertson and Mr George Hawkins I conducted a survey of our constituents throughout Manukau City. The feedback that we are getting is that too much power in the hands of one person is a dangerous thing. The proposal by this Government of putting up a mayor with executive powers who can appoint a deputy mayor and appoint the chairs of various select committees is a dangerous thing. Having a position where someone can hire his or her own staff to drive his or her agenda is a dangerous thing. The feedback that we are getting in terms of the Government’s proposal to have 20 ward councillors with six councillors at large— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Who set up the royal commission? 
Paul Quinn 
: Labour. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Labour did set up the royal commission. Labour set up the royal commission with people on it who are very well regarded. But it is not Labour that is putting the super-city in place—it is National. When the royal commission recommended that the council should have three Maori seats for the Auckland region my kaumatuas in Mangere said to me that three seats is a good start. But what is this Government doing? It is scrapping the three representatives of Maori. What are they going to put in place for Pacific and Asian people? 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I will start my speech in the general debate today by thanking the previous speaker from the Labour Party. He has made my job easier; not only because of his speech am I much more likely to be entertaining but he has gone a long way in making me seem much more intelligent than perhaps I am. I thank the member again for that. 
After being here for almost 5 months now and sitting here listening to this debate for the last 5 minutes I have worked it out: the members opposite have no friends and they have run out of ideas—those over there have no friends left and no ideas. But in my view from sitting here since 8 November 2008 it seems that now after 9 years in Government all of a sudden they have all of the answers. The members have all the answers after 9 years but no ideas left anymore. I think the people of New Zealand see that Labour is in denial and that there is a lot of confusion on the opposite side of the House. The members are walking around as if they have lost their souls. They are wandering the corridors of Parliament late at night shell-shocked and in denial muttering to each about where it all went wrong. They had this great big philosophy for 9 years but they are now wondering where it all went wrong. “Where did it all go wrong?” they are asking themselves under their breath. 
Do members know what the answer is? Labour stopped listening to everyday New Zealanders out there in the streets. Do members know what happened in the electorate of Rotorua? They stopped listening to the people of Rotorua and it took 9 years for us to work out that Labour members had given up on us and run out of ideas. Labour members still think they have all the answers but the people of Rotorua have moved on. Do members know who else has moved on? With the election last year the people of New Zealand have moved on. 
I have heard all the members opposite talk about Auckland and I respect most of their views but I have listened very closely to National members who probably represent more people in Auckland now than members opposite do. There are many more National members of Parliament from Auckland than there were 3 years ago and certainly 6 years go—a great party vote for National. 
I understand from turning on my TV 3 weeks ago that the Leader of the Opposition was wandering around parts of Auckland delivering leaflets and trying to re-engage and talk to people. When a lady in the street—I think she was from Auckland central and she was looking for a job—was asked what he was doing wandering around parts of Auckland she was heard to say: “I think he’s lost. He’s in Mt Albert but he thinks this is his own electorate next door—Mt Roskill.” Labour members seem to have all the answers now but how can Mr Goff be out campaigning so early in an electorate like Mt Albert before Labour even has a candidate? I suppose when he is desperate when he has lost his way and when he is a new leader of an old tired party he has to win in any way that he can. So I look forward to turning on my television this weekend and seeing Mr Goff filling in for the candidate who has not yet been selected in Mt Albert walking around and telling the people of Mt Albert about how much he needs their support how desperate he is to keep his job and how after 9 years it has all gone wrong. 
What has this National Government done since it came to office? What have we been focused on? Let us start with the economy and the job summits the first of which was in Auckland. Was it not surprising that members opposite could not find very much that was good to say about what was going on in those job summits? But what of some of their friends—members of unions who were involved in the process people from around the country business leaders and people involved in employment—who sat there listened and put their ideas forward? They found that all of a sudden the world had changed. After 9 years of nobody listening to them and nobody caring they have a new Government that is willing to entertain other ideas look for good ideas and bring those ideas forward to help New Zealanders. 
In other parts of the country—for example in the Waikato—there were great job summits. In my electorate of Rotorua 2 weeks ago we had a Bay of Plenty job summit. There was a great turn out. Mayors were there councillors were represented and there were employers from business and industry. The Chamber of Commerce was there as were workers. They were talking about the problems we face and some of the good measures we have brought forward as a Government that are happening in the Bay of Plenty. Do members know what those people were saying? They were saying: “We have confidence in this Government. We believe that this Government is moving us forward and that when the economy changes when we come out of this recession we in the Bay of Plenty and Rotorua will be ready to make the most of it. We are focusing on training people. We are looking forward to the investment of money in infrastructure in our region we are looking forward to having better and newer broadband in areas that Labour did not care about at all and we will be ready to make the most of the changes.” When the world’s economy changes slowly and improves the Bay of Plenty and Rotorua will be at the front of that and making the most of it. 
Do members know what else people at the job summit in Rotorua were saying? A man stood up and said “You know I haven’t always voted for the party in Government. I have not always been sure that I’ve liked what that party has spoken about but I like what I hear now and I like this new Prime Minister John Key. He is listening to me. Every day I turn on my television and from what I hear I think he is listening to me.” 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in this general debate and I will speak as my colleagues have on Auckland governance. I start by congratulating the communities across Auckland: the people of Manukau the North Shore Auckland City—despite their mayor—and the people of Waitakere. They have had a gutsful of the National Government’s actions its blatant disregard for the royal commission’s report and its imposition of a model that rips the heart out of our communities and the “local” out of local government. It is all to deliver a system that looks after the Government’s members and gives power to their rich mates. Well it did not work. Every community across the greater region has risen up and said very loudly and very clearly “No way.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s not true! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I tell Maurice Williamson to ask Paula Bennett. Those members have her on the run. There has been no consultation whatsoever. The Government is taking every resource from our cities and our communities. I acknowledge westies in this House for their opposition. We are westies. From their postcards to their rallies thousands in Waitakere turned out. Hundreds attended the Labour Party public meeting on a wet Monday night along with David Cunliffe Chris Carter Kelvin Davis and me to protest at this Government’s actions. We have been with the people of the Auckland region and all our cities every step of the way. 
Hone Harawira 
: Good on you Lynne. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Hone. I hope that member will take the next call on this because there is one left. We know in Waitakere that we are an eco-city a peace city a community city and the best place to live because of the relationship between our council and the communities who live there. We know that; we always have. Rodney Hide did not know that John Key did not know that and Paula Bennett did not know that but they do now. They are on the run. They are back-pedalling so quick to get in with the people of Waitakere the people of Manukau and the people of the North Shore—ask Darien Fenton who has attended public meetings. 
Where are the National MPs in all of this? I am really pleased that the National Government is starting to back track big time. I say all power to the people. Keep it up. Go on the hikoi. Good on Hone Harawira. Get it going but please take a call next because if you do not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker cannot take a call. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Sorry Mr Speaker—if the Maori Party does not take a call then someone else will. We want to see a mayor in local government who is accountable to the city and Auckland City positions elected by wards. We want to keep the “local” in local government. We want an agreed system of Maori representation certainty and fair treatment of the staff who work in those councils and public ownership guaranteed in our councils. That can happen only if the people of our cities continue to fight this Government. I pledge very clearly that Labour will be there alongside them every step of the way saying that no way will we have the National-ACT Government impose on us conditions of government that as Su’a William Sio said before will be there for generations to come that will rip the heart out of our communities and our cities. That is not what the royal commission recommended that is not what Labour wants to see happen that is not what the people of Auckland want to see happen and that is not what the people of Waitakere want to see happen—or the people of the North Shore of Manukau City or many of the Auckland City councillors who have spoken out against their mayor. They want an inclusive vibrant regional structure that is represented by a ward system from every city in the region so they have a true voice. We want resources for all of our community projects for all of the great things that happen in our cities that Su’a William Sio spoke about and certainly we see that happening in Waitakere. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am delighted to take the last call in this general debate. As an Auckland member I tell the previous speaker Lynne Pillay that she was wrong when she said that every community in Auckland is outraged. I tell that member that my electorate Pakuranga has two major blocks of communities. There is the community of Pakuranga and the community of Howick. Those people are delighted at the general direction that this reform is recommending. They have some concerns about the very minor detail. I understand that and so does the Government. The Government is working through that. The reform will go to a select committee and it is likely that the minor details around the fringes still have some work to be done but the general principle of this reform is the best thing that could happen to Auckland. It can be summarised in one sentence: the big stuff is going up and the small stuff is going down. By that I mean that the big network issues like roads electricity and waste water will be run by one city council. Currently it is a joke. 
I used to make fun of the fact that we had 32 councils in Auckland. There was a Mount Roskill borough council a Mount Eden borough council and an Onehunga council. I used to make jokes that we were really lucky that our roads even joined up. Someone pointed out to me that there is a road just behind Eden Park called Burnley Terrace that runs from Dominion Road through to Sandringham Road. It does not actually join up. It has a little dog-leg in the middle because half of it was in the Mount Albert borough council area and half of it was in the Mount Eden borough council area and they could not even agree on the alignment of the street. 
What will be really good about this is those huge big issues will be run by one council. They include network and infrastructure issues and in my portfolio things like building consents. At the moment a builder in Auckland put in a consent to the Manukau City Council and got it through. He put the same consent into the Waitakere City Council and had it rejected. That is sheer madness. In return for that we also recognise that down at the smaller community level those people want some more say in the things that are relevant to them and I agree with that. The people of Howick want some say over their library or what colour the swimming pool is or whether there is disabled parking in front of the shopping centre. That is exactly what this reform is about. 
This reform is about putting the big stuff up to one big council and putting the local stuff back down to local people for them to decide. I do not know anybody in my electorate who is against this other than a couple of disaffected local body politicians and boy are they squealing like stuck pigs because they are going to lose their jobs. If anything in Auckland we are so over-governed by a huge regional council by the seven territorial authorities and then by all the community boards. This reform is a fantastic outcome. Let me ask some questions of members in the Chamber. Who set up the royal commission? 
Paul Quinn 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There we go; Paul Quinn is on to it. He has the answer. Who set the terms of reference? 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Labour did. Who appointed the people to the royal commission? 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Right. So when the report came out recommending a super-city with one executive mayor who were the ones bleating? 
Hon Members 
: Labour! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Exactly. Su’a William Sio has said that it is a disgrace that we are going to get rid of Manukau. I tell the people of Manukau right now that we are not getting rid of them; they will still be there. In fact they will have more democracy. The people of Mangere for example whom Su’a William Sio says he represents will get some more say about those things that relate to Mangere. The people of Howick will get some more say about those things that relate to Howick. But what will happen is the stupid internecine war the squabbling and the multiple sets of standards that have existed across roading construction infrastructure and a whole range of other things will go and I think it is overdue. 
I want to pay tribute to Labour. Let me do that right now openly and honestly. I pay tribute to Labour for what it did in 1989 with the first tranche of local government reform. Labour took Auckland’s 32 boroughs and councils and turned them into seven. I thought it should have gone further at the time but it did not. But I say good on Michael Bassett and good on Labour for not listening to the “wailing wall”. Listen to this—and I have the quote if anyone wants to see it—back then the Mayor of Newmarket said that if Newmarket was forced to join with Auckland City then Newmarket would not exist within 10 years. That is what he said. Now where is the bustling thriving heart of Auckland City? It is in Newmarket. That is exactly where it is. The bleating and the “wailing wall” that we are hearing is just from those who are affected. The councillors are saying that they do not like this because they might not have a job. I am delighted that Rodney Hide is leading this reform. I agree that there is some stuff around the edges about the representation about how many boards and so on but it is a great outcome for Auckland. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.