Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the New Plymouth District Council (Perpetual Investment Fund) Bill. As the proud MP for the true sunniest part of New Zealand Nelson earlier this year I gifted my wonderful colleague the MP for New Plymouth Glen Bennett a little box of sunshine from my electorate just to show that while we may have some things in common both coming from provincial centres it is Nelson that deserves to hold that true title of the sunniest part of New Zealand. It was a pleasure to sit on the select committee that considered this bill the Governance and Administration Committee and it was a useful exercise for us to understand the process that the New Plymouth District Council has followed to get to this point. Can I commend them on bringing a bill to the House. It is unusual to bring private and local bills to the House and this term of Parliament has seen quite a number of them. Following the final reading of this bill I'll have the pleasure of talking to a private bill from my electorate. So we are seeing a number of these bills—I see Mr Penk across the House with his private bill that my committee is also looking at—going through the House at the moment.But may I just talk to what has led to this bill in terms of the history of it and Mr Bennett did cover some of that but I wanted to talk to that a little bit more because it explains the need for there to be a mechanism. The council has chosen this mechanism—but there could have been a number of mechanisms—in order to protect this fund. The fund was originally worth $259 million and it emerged following the sale of the Powerco shares in 2004. It was designed to enable the council to do two things: one was to invest in services and organisations that benefited the social cultural and economic potential of the district. There was also an intention for the fund to reduce the rates of ratepayers. It's a very topical issue at the moment where we know we have—Todd Muller: Cost of living.RACHEL BOYACK: Actually Mr Muller we know that for many years our councils have really struggled to invest in their infrastructure and this is something that has been building for some time. So I can understand why both the council and the ratepayers of this district could have seen this opportunity and thought Yes this is a great opportunity to help reduce the rate burden for our community." But what happened which has been traversed a wee bit throughout this bill's passage was some investment decisions were made that were perhaps unwise and not necessarily prudent or led by those who are independent enough to be able to make decisions in the best interests of the fund.That's one of the challenges with any fund of this nature: it can be a sizable amount of capital sitting there and communities will rightly want to call on it for projects and to do things with it and to make investment decisions. But what I know that the council understands and has spoken to the committee about is the need to ensure that the fund remains in perpetuity. So there is both the need to do the investment but also to ensure that the investment decisions are sound and are put in place by those who have that ability to make those financial decisions in the best interests of the fund. The fund dipped down—it lost over $100 million—which for the community would have been devastating. I think a fund like this is the envy of so many of us; I would love to have a fund of this nature in my communities. And so that would have led to you know a real sense of dismay amongst the community. That is what has led—and I want to commend those who are in the gallery today from the New Plymouth District Council—to this process. I'm just going to talk a little bit about how those investment decisions will be made under the bill. The council must ensure that investment decisions are made only by persons designated or appointed by the council to make decisions on the investment of the Perpetual Investment Fund (PIF) acting independently of members and those members' personal or political interests. But the investment decisions must be made on a prudent commercial basis in a manner that is consistent with best practice portfolio management maximising return without undue risk to the PIF as a whole avoiding prejudice to the reputation of the council and the New Plymouth District community. It does say here—and I think possibly a little bit of caution around this—that nothing in the Act limits or prevents investment of the PIF outside of the New Plymouth District. I do note comments earlier around investment in overseas farms and I think that's probably something that I'm sure the council will be considering when investments are made of this nature. There's another point I just wanted to bring up which came through from some submitters on this bill that I think is important just to respond to and ensure is noted in the Hansard as part of the passage of the third reading of this bill and that is around the application of the funds wider than the New Plymouth District. There were some submitters who felt that if—and it is a potential which is a hypothetical not something that is actually going to happen but that if—a merger of councils were to happen in the area this submitter's view was that the PIF should then be able to be used for the benefit of the fully merged councils that could emerge into you know some type of larger authority. The view of New Plymouth District Council—and the view of the committee supported that view—is that because the investment in this fund came from ownership through New Plymouth District Council through the sale of those shares it is appropriate to ensure that there is a ring-fencing of those funds for the purpose of those who reside in the New Plymouth District Council catchment area and the ratepayers of that area.That's not to say that a decision couldn't change in the future and that's not a decision for this House. That is a decision for those who are the caretakers of this private bill—the New Plymouth District Council—but that certainly could be changed potentially through a High Court order or through an amendment to the bill in future if such a hypothetical were to occur. So the committee felt that that was a fair position for the council to be holding in terms of how those funds are appropriated. I myself have a connection to some of these areas that have received—Glen Bennett: Go on tell us.RACHEL BOYACK: I will tell you Mr Bennett I will tell you—Glen Bennett: Because you want to move there.RACHEL BOYACK: No no I don't want to move there. Mr Bennett has just asked if I wish to move to New Plymouth and I can assure him I do not. We will have a shipping route joining us shortly a shipping route move between New Plymouth and Nelson which I understand is on track to commence shortly which is very exciting. But I don't think I'll be taking it to permanently join you there Mr Bennett. But the very first time I was privileged to sing as a member of the New Zealand Youth Choir was actually at the TSB Showplace in New Plymouth a theatre that I understand has received financial support from the PIF. So I am a person who has benefited from some of the fantastic—Glen Bennett: Sing for us.RACHEL BOYACK: I'm not going to sing for you in the House Mr Bennett. I must admit it: I'm a bit rusty these days. But what we know is that investing in these types of activities these types of organisations really helps to lift a community in terms of its social outcomes its economic outcomes and its cultural outcomes. And I know that with some sound investment with ensuring there is that independence sitting around the fund the Perpetual Investment Fund commonly referred to as the "PIF"—provided it has that sound independence in terms of how it's managed I am very hopeful and assured that it will continue to support and grow the New Plymouth community. It's an excellent bill. I commend my colleague Glen Bennett on its passage through the House and on this lovely evening in Parliament I commend the bill to the House."