Carter John: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
Carter John: Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill — Procedure Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18030] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party will be voting in support of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. Let me just say at the outset that when I look at the list of organisations that will be the recipients which Judith has already read out I can say that obviously no one I can think of would not want to give them support. We are all very well aware of the challenges that face these organisations and many others. We are concerned like many people in this nation that these organisations which provide a great service to our community—not just in Auckland I might add but across this nation in many cases—have at this time too long been left on their own to struggle to find the means to do those things that they do so well. We are all proud of them and the National Party is proud to be associated with each and every one of them. 
There are however some points that need to be made in regard to this legislation. The first thing is that the way this bill is structured it is likely to put an impost on to ratepayers. That is of deep concern. Every local authority that came before the select committee opposed this legislation with the exception of the Auckland City Council. The Auckland City Council supported it out of its own self-interest. It supported it on the basis that if this bill goes through it will mean that the contribution it currently makes to so many of these organisations will be reduced. So from the council’s point of view— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: It will not be reduced. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well members opposite are saying that it may not be so but we will wait and see. That was the basis on which the Auckland City Council actually supported the legislation. 
But the worry is— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: That’s not fair. It’s not true. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well OK the member might say it is not fair and it is not true but that was the text of the submission. The fact is the Auckland City Council was pleased to see that other local authorities and citizens within those local authorities who receive the benefit of these organisations were being asked to make a greater contribution to them. I have to say that from the council’s perspective I can understand that argument. The real issue is: how much do we continue to keep loading on to local government and on to ratepayers? That is the issue we have to address. That is the issue we have to be concerned about. On the one hand we have organisations in this nation of which we are all justly proud and on the other hand we also well know that we have a problem with ratepayers in this country meeting the level of rates they are currently being asked to meet. That is one of the reasons why the National Party reluctantly supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. 
The second reason is that although there are a dozen or so organisations whose names have been read out that will be the beneficiaries of this legislation—assuming that Parliament passes it and it seems that it will—a number of other organisations should also have been considered. That is the problem; the bill is limited in that regard. I notice the member in charge of the bill Judith Tizard recommended that at least one other organisation should be given consideration. But there are many others that quite honestly are just as worthy and that deserve the support of the citizens that they cover. I have to say that is another issue that we will certainly need to address. 
The third issue and the thing the National Party wanted in this bill—unfortunately it was voted down—was a sunset clause. Why did we want a sunset clause? It is not because we are nasty horrible people who do not want to see things happen and develop; the reasoning behind it was that if there was a sunset clause it would make this Parliament the local authorities and all the people concerned focus on coming up with a better alternative than is currently being provided. That is the main reason we wanted to include a sunset clause. 
There are better ways in which the funding can be addressed. A number of options and alternatives need to be considered. On top of that we well know that there is a thing called the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance—and to be fair I know that this has already been commented on—which is very likely going to make some serious recommendations. It may well end up changing the structure and the way in which local government and indeed the organisation of Auckland are dealt with in the future. For that very good reason a sunset clause in this legislation is actually appropriate. It would have caused us to focus and it would have actually insisted that in thinking about the reorganisation of local government and the structure of Auckland City this is one of the matters that should be addressed. 
It seems that Parliament did not see fit to pass the amendment recommended by the National Party. Unfortunately that therefore allows for this legislation to continue. I think that is a great shame. It seems to me that we need to insist that this whole matter be reviewed. So I can say tonight that if the National Party does become the Government after the next election there will be a review of this legislation and a repeal once an appropriate structure is put in place to address the matters this bill addresses tonight. There will be an opportunity for people to review an opportunity for reconsideration an opportunity for the organisations to come up with a better structure and an opportunity for those organisations that tonight are not covered in this legislation to be covered. I myself can think of a good number as I am sure many people can. 
We support this bill but we do so reluctantly because we think there is a better way. We do not want to see the impost put entirely on the ratepayers of this country. Right at the moment for the benefit of those who know west Auckland I say there is serious concern out there amongst the business community particularly about the rates increases people are being asked to meet. If members know the area of Rodney one ratepayer’s rates for example have gone up from $28000 to $62000 in one hit. There are many examples of vast increases such as that one. To ask those people to meet more ratepayer costs is quite honestly not acceptable. For that reason we will support this bill tonight because many of the organisations are seriously in jeopardy. Many of them provide excellent services to our nation—services that we are all proud of; services that we want to see continue; and services that our society and our country need. But we also give notice that if we are elected we will want to have this legislation reviewed and it will be repealed once a suitable replacement structure is put in place.