Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Look this has been a real crackerjack debate as this piece of legislation the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill has wound its way through the House from its first reading some time ago to its—well I hope to be—conclusion today. As the local member elected in Mt Roskill and as a member who lives in that electorate as well it's my real pleasure to see this legislation progressing because it does affect one of the amenities which is situated in my electorate. That's the Stardome. I know it's a long drive over from Bucklands Beach for the sponsoring member Dr Parmjeet Parmar but I'd encourage her to visit from time to time. It's a good place to go.In my second reading speech I reflected a little bit on the value of that institution to our community. Not only is it an important educational institution which opens the eyes and the minds of our children in an important educational way but it's an important facility for the community more generally. I don't think I've ever actually had more feedback on a parliamentary speech which maybe says something about my parliamentary speeches rather than my recollection of one evening there after a couple of nice glasses of wine of watching the slightly psychedelic Pink Floyd show that's put on at the Stardome Observatory where you sort of sit back and as well as listening to the outstandingly good albums of Pink Floyd in the late 1970s and early 1980s there's a wonderful light show which is projected on to the star dome above you. So I can affirm to the House that this is an amenity that we do wish to see well supported.But beyond that there are eight other amenities nine amenities in total which are covered by this bill: Stardome Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra Auckland Rescue Helicopter Auckland Theatre Company New Zealand Opera Surf Life Saving and the Auckland Arts Festival; two other really important ones are both WaterSafe and Coastguard Northern. Some good news for both of those institutions because of course in the Budget last month there was a really good funding boost for both of those two important institutions who've often really had to shake the tin around and the Government is showing its support for them. I think it's important for the House to have a little bit of historical perspective on these pieces of legislation when they come forward and to understand why it is that we're doing what we're doing through this process. To do that you have to go back to 2005 and the Charities Act at that stage. But around the same time as well the fifth Labour Government under the Hon Judith Tizard—and this is in 2008—established the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act. This was actually a really important piece of legislation for Auckland. This was in the pre super-city days when we had seven different territorial local authorities (TLAs). We had these amenities around the region but actually mainly focused in the central part of Auckland mainly in the Auckland City part of the region. But they were amenities that were enjoyed by all Aucklanders across those seven territorial local authorities. So effectively there was an equity question because the funding for these entities came from one territorial local authority Auckland City but the benefits were enjoyed by many. So how did you deal with that? The way that that Government dealt with it was through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act which effectively set up a levy system across those seven TLAs so that ratepayers from across the whole region who benefited from them put some money into the kitty to ensure that there was a sustainable funding base. So that was one of the key bits of legislation that gets us to this point. The second key bit of legislation was the Charities Act 2005. The key issue that we are reconciling between those two pieces of legislation is that the 2008 Act requires that financial statements are drawn up by the international financial reporting standards whereas the Charities Act requires them to be drawn up under the generally accepted accounting practice. So that's a significant problem for these entities that they've got two pieces of legislation which require different accounting standards in the drawing up of their financial statements something of an oversight. The real challenge that that's resulted in is that these entities to some degree have possibly not been compliant with at least one of the laws or they've had to draw up two different sets of financial statements and reports in accordance with two different standards which obviously is a significant amount of additional work for no real benefit. So that's the problem that fundamentally this bill seeks to resolve. I'm pleased that it does and it seems to get us to that point and I'm pleased that the bill has support from all of the nine amenities who obviously want a simpler process to go through here. The bill did have a little bit of a working over at the Governance and Administration Committee. All of the submissions were in support of the bill but there were some awkward little issues to work through. We had a great committee stage debate on this bill. It was enjoyed by everyone that was in the Chamber. It went on for over two hours in fact but some important issues were traversed including the fact that there is quite an interesting aspect of this legislation which is that it does actually have a retrospective component where it actually goes back in time and effectively validates the financial reporting of these amenities from memory—and I stand to be corrected by any member of the House—I think back to about 2013. So it was important that the House did satisfy itself that that was appropriate but I think the judgment of most members was that it was. There is no suggestion that any of these entities have been doing anything that is inappropriate. We are very clear that all of the entities have been doing their best to comply with the law but they have simply been caught in the middle of two pieces of legislation which pull in two slightly different directions. So I'm really pleased that we've managed to bridge that. The key thing with this piece of legislation is that it gives a sustainable path forward for these entities. I think we're all aware that in the current period that we're in the funding base for many important public amenities is a little bit uncertain. I think those of us who are based in Auckland have been watching the severe challenges that the Auckland Council is facing at the moment in terms of how it continues to financially support important programmes important infrastructure and important amenities. So the last thing that we want in what will be a challenging period is for any of these important amenities to have any uncertainty in terms of whether they are meeting their requirements and in terms of therefore how comfortable Auckland ratepayers feel about continuing to fund them. So I think this is a useful bill both in reconciling a legislative inconsistency but also setting up these entities to have a stable path forward into the future. It is just worth clarifying within this bill that what we are dealing with here are the financial statements that the entities have to provide but they are overseen by a board the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board which is set up to oversee them to oversee the distribution effectively of the levy which is put on Auckland ratepayers and is then passed through the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board to the entities. So I think that is one point that it was just worth clarifying in this debate—that we're dealing with a board which oversees the nine entities but then the financial statements of the entities themselves are the ones with which we are concerned. The one other thing I want to raise in this contribution is I guess going back to the core issue which is we're dealing with some quite important entities in our largest city who have had to deal with a question of legislative inconsistency which has created some problems and which has now had to take a reasonable amount of the House's time to try and rectify. I think it's worth all members of the House just reflecting on how that came to be and all of us reflecting on how we can ensure that we have processes in the House to ensure that in the future we don't end up in a situation like this again. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Prisoners voting bill—talk about that.MICHAEL WOOD: Not about that—well on this side of the House Ms Parmar we are relentlessly focused on the future and on how we improve things in New Zealand. So I would find it extraordinary if in a bill in which we are trying to rectify an issue where something hasn't quite worked out we don't actually apply our collective minds to thinking about how we can do things better for New Zealand in the future. I kind of feel that perhaps that signifies a little bit about the difference between the two sides of the House at the moment where one side of the House which is completely negative as we just heard from that interjection is always looking back and one side of the House actually wants to say how do we do things better and make progress for New Zealand. That's the Government that Jacinda Ardern's led. That's what we believe on this side of the House. So in a very modest way I was simply suggesting that given that this bill deals with a legislative inconsistency as we form legislation for the people of New Zealand into the future let's make sure that as parliamentarians and as a parliamentary institution we have good processes and checks and balances to ensure that that doesn't happen in the future. I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable thing to put to the House but it's causing my colleague from Bucklands Beach a little bit of concern over there. But look all I would say is that yeah she's had a moment in the sun with this bill. It's possibly been the peak of her career as a legislator to have passed this bill through the House. So I would just encourage her to enjoy the moment and the fact that we're all paying so much attention to this piece of legislation and the fact that it's going to pass the House I think quite happily this afternoon. Well done to her. Well done to everyone. And I commend the bill to the House.