General Debate 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
General Debate 
[Sitting date: 24 March 2010. Volume:661;Page:9767. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
General Debate 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. News just in from Great Barrier Island: Phil Goff is there on yet another tour. I do not know how many tours he has made this year but I recall that he has been on the “Axe the Tax” tour and the Harley Davidson tour. Of course we are looking forward to the valedictory tour soon because Labour members cannot wait to see that happen. They know that they are in a dire situation. They know that they have not got a chance with Phil Goff at the helm. 
It will be interesting to hear what is actually happening on Great Barrier Island today because I predict that Mr Goff will not be talking about the 74 mines on public land that he was part of authorising under the previous Government. He will not be telling the good people of Great Barrier Island about the Pike River mine. He will not be talking about gold and gem concessions in Paparoa National Park. No I think he will be turning on one of his usual acts where he pretends to be at one with the local people. 
But you know the reality of it all is that Phil Goff I believe does not have any real problem with mining. I do not believe that he has any objection at all. What he does not like is the idea of New Zealanders becoming wealthier and doing better because he is the leader of the party of zero aspiration. The problem for Labour members is that if New Zealanders do better and become wealthier their party does not get in. Fundamentally they do not want to see New Zealand doing better because while New Zealand is doing better there is no way that Labour will get a run on the Treasury benches from the electorate. There is something fundamental in everything that the Labour Party says: it is against everything but we do not know what it is for. Phil Goff went on the “Axe the Tax” bus but he could not say whether he would reverse a rise in GST. He cannot tell us whether he will reverse any of the changes to the welfare system that will make New Zealanders get out there work harder and further their lot in life. 
If the New Zealand public decides that mining on conservation land can go ahead I bet that if Phil Goff gets the chance he will not turn that decision round because Phil Goff is an opportunist who is running out of opportunities. Darren Hughes over there is nodding—he is quite happy. Members opposite know that things are getting worse and worse for them. They have seen what has happened in Australia with Tony Abbott who is someone in Opposition who actually believes in something and they are thinking that if they put Trevor Mallard up as leader they might start getting some traction. The public cannot stand Trevor Mallard but at least they know what he stands for. With Phil Goff they are in real danger. With him they have someone who has been all over the paddock. When he is on Great Barrier Island today I do not think he will be talking about the time when he was part of a hard-right Labour Government in the 1980s when he was demanding hard-right reforms. He likes to distance himself from Roger Douglas these days but that is his political pedigree. When we look at Phil Goff’s record over the years we see that yes he has gone back and forth many times on many things. 
The one thing he has not managed to do while he has been the Leader of the Opposition is outline a plan for growing the economy. What our Prime Minister has done is say that New Zealand has to do better as a country. We have to earn more. We have to provide incentives for people to get off welfare and better themselves in life. There is a coherent plan. Every week the Government is rolling out policies that will make New Zealanders better off and wealthier and give us the income we need to pay for social services hospitals and the police force. Labour members want to keep the people in South Auckland subjugated and below the radar. They want to maintain the huge welfare spend. Their basic tactic is to tell people on a benefit not to worry because Labour will look after them; all they have to do is vote Labour not get above their station in life and not do a little bit better. They should not listen to Mr Key. They should not get their kids educated properly so that they can get a university degree and realise their potential. No Labour wants to keep them there on the bottom level. 
I do not think Mr Goff will today be telling the people of Great Barrier Island how last year he was very happy to take the Labour caucus down to Blackball to celebrate Labour’s mining roots because he says one thing and does another depending on whom he is talking to. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. The previous speaker the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman was the member who destroyed the by-election campaign in Mt Albert and he was offering advice about leadership. He is the “Maestro of Self-defeat.” He is also the man who distinguished himself recently by being kicked out of this Chamber for refusing to apologise. We have heard from him a reminder of the A B and C of politics. The Government has united “A” for Aucklanders “B” for beneficiaries and “C” for conservationists who all hate the Government’s policies. That is why the Government is extremely worried. Polling results are showing that popularity is plummeting in Auckland. Those Aucklanders whom the Government did not disenfranchise through the super-city have been completely estranged as a consequence of the Government turning Great Barrier Island into “Gerry Brownlee’s Krakatoa”. 
Secondly the Government has shown its cruel colours by bashing not only beneficiaries but also most important those Aucklanders who love their environment. The Aucklanders who are seeing the green line being covered in diesel muck and National Party ideology in Coromandel are rising up. They will not stand by while one democracy is stripped out of the super-city and two Auckland is handed over to corporate gnomes and turned into some sort of commercial Gotham City model. In addition to that Rodney Hide drives the waka yet he drives Paula Bennett out of politics; her seat is narrowly held. She will not need to come back from her  
American Idol 
 gig when she goes overseas because she will have no seat to come back to. Similarly she does not need to go to learn about Sarah Palin over there because she is doing a good job here in our country. [ 
Interruption 
] She will be aided by the member for Maungakiekie who realises what the consequences will be of Mr Hide’s rantings and his very very destructive quality of leadership in the super-city where he consistently promises people that he is listening but does exactly the opposite hoping that they will get the blame. 
Day after day the super-city is stressed and emphasised as the lie it is by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which has Rodney Hide in its sights. Rodney Hide went from Rodney down to the Waikato continually telling people that if they participated in the process their democratic ambitions would be realised. The exact opposite has happened. In addition there are no opportunities for slippage yet the entire thing is slipping. The elections are not very far away and the super-city is miles away from being put in place. But it suits Mr Hide’s ideology. Those are the people who will suffer quite apart from Mr Maurice Williamson’s bitter moaning that he does not like the word irirangi and instead prefers “help”. I encourage him to get Maori lessons from the Speaker. 
But let me come back to mining. In the right place mining is not a fatal economic consequence but this is a Government that has chosen to mine the most sensitive areas and to turn an economic development debate into an exercise in destroying New Zealand’s clean green image and its conservation values apparently in order to perform a step-up exercise to catch Australia. Not only has the Government united the conservationists it has also enraged all the people who have fought for the last 25 years to move away from the Muldoonist approach of digging up and quarrying the nation towards investing in innovation long-term economic change and jobs. 
 There are three things afflicting this Government. First it has lost interest in creating jobs and that is why it is belting beneficiaries. Second it has decided that the quick-fix remedy is to dig up the countryside. It thinks that by digging up the countryside it will create sustainable wealth but that will be a short fillip for foreign-owned companies. The jobs will be scarce and the degradation in those very sensitive areas will be very long term and I would think irreversible. The third and most egregious failure afflicting the Government lies in Auckland. That is where the vast majority of voters are settled. They know that over 50 to 60 percent of their current democratic influence has been handed over to shadowy organisations hand-picked by Rodney Hide. This is a travesty. The environment is being destroyed along with the Government’s political reputation. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise this afternoon on behalf of all New Zealanders: farmers business people employers and families. On 1 July—in just over 3 months—this Government will force upon the people of New Zealand an experiment a grand new experiment unlike anything launched anywhere else in the world. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not surprising that there is so much banter and discussion in this House. All of the political parties in this House bar the ACT Party have been part of this huge fraud this emissions trading scheme tax that starts on 1 July. 
Why is the ACT Party is alone in opposing this tax? From 1 July we can expect an immediate increase of 5 percent in electricity and 4 percent in petrol and we can expect those increases to be doubled on 1 January 2013. The increased costs of electricity and petrol will flow through the whole economy. They will flow through the costs of everything—food housing and clothing—everything. Just a fortnight ago Alan Bollard the Governor of the Reserve Bank confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that his latest estimates for inflation take into account a 5 percent increase in electricity prices and a 4c per litre increase in petrol costs as forecast by Treasury last November. Our families will pay our businesses will pay and our farmers will pay. 
What makes this such a tragedy is that our emissions trading scheme tax goes further than similar taxes in any other country in the world. I say again that we are conducting an experiment unlike any other country in the world. We will be the first country to tax our farmers—that is right. Our farmers have enough to compete with in an unevenly trade-balanced world but we are the first country in the world to tax our farmers. 
Just last November the Prime Minister proudly told the Federated Farmers national executive that agriculture would not be coming into the emissions trading scheme until 2015. He said that we would not be taxing methane from animals until 2015. Farmers might have felt some sense of comfort from that. Well they should not have done because if we take average dairy farms we see that no less than three-quarters of the tax that farmers will pay will come as a consequence of their use of electricity and petrol and through the emissions of dairy processing factories. Although it is all very well for the Prime Minister to tell farmers that they will not have to pay for the cost of their animals’ methane until 2015 farmers will be paying from 1 July this year. If any farmers are listening to this debate this afternoon they might be surprised to find out that they are paying from 1 July but it is a fact. It is a fact. Of the average $10000 cost for dairy farmers no less than three-quarters of what they will pay relates to petrol electricity and the cost of emissions. 
I ask why we are doing this to ourselves. Our three major trading partners are Australia China and the United States. I ask what our three major trading partners are doing. Are they taxing their people or increasing the price of electricity for their citizens? No they are not. The ACT Party stands alone in opposing this move. It is not surprising that the House has fallen into silence because other members should be ashamed. 
I ask why we are conducting this experiment. It is not too late to change. Overnight—12 hours ago—President Sarkozy of France announced that France is abandoning its intention to introduce a carbon tax. Why is that? It is because the French people have risen up in protest. Finally they can see that France would be foolish to tax its people when other countries in Europe are not doing that. If Nicolas Sarkozy can show leadership and abandon the French carbon tax as he has done in the past 24 hours then I call upon the Prime Minister of New Zealand John Key to show the same leadership and show the people of New Zealand that things have changed in the last 5 months. 
This House was told time and time again last year that we would not lead the world; we were to be a fast follower and our emissions trading scheme tax was to be based on that in Australia. What has happened is that there is no Australian emissions trading scheme tax. There is no United States emissions trading scheme tax and there is no such tax in China. Why do we allow the power generators to earn hidden profits and why do we tax our people this way? 
I seek leave to table a study done by Meat and Wool dated 17 February 2010 that shows that the price for the average dairy and beef farmer will be about $10000 and that it will commence on 1 July this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Gisborne Chamber of Commerce to the Prime Minister; Anne Tolley the MP for East Coast; the Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith; and Tim Groser on the impact of the emissions trading scheme on the Gisborne region. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table a document from Neil and Esther Henderson third-generation farmers in Gisborne outlining the cost of the emissions trading scheme on their beef farm and stating that it will make it uneconomic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was this a letter published in any public medium such as a newspaper? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: No it is a private letter. It is a statement from Neil and Esther Henderson outlining the impact on their family. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to table an extract from the online Paris  
Le Monde 
 newspaper of yesterday’s date in which France announced its intentions to abandon carbon taxes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Finally I seek leave to table the English transcription from the French press association outlining France’s announcement that it will be abandoning carbon taxes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 What we witnessed in this House this afternoon was quite interesting. In fact I have some advice for Television New Zealand: it does not need to fund any more reality television programmes because “Survivor: Labour Party Leader” will be a best seller. What we saw today was a trial to determine which person gets to stay on the island—and it could be Great Barrier Island. I say to Phil Goff that I am sorry but he was voted off the island today. One of the pretenders to the leadership Shane Jones was in full flight trialling out for “Survivor: Labour Party Leader”. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get his call to trial out tomorrow probably or maybe his little stunt in the House yesterday was a trial for “Survivor: Labour Party Leader”. What is really clear is that the current incumbent is on the island today according to Jonathan Coleman but he will be voted off. 
The most fantastic part of Shane Jones’ speech was the bit when he said that the National Party’s popularity was plummeting. If this is what plummeting popularity feels like then I really am very happy for it to continue. When I go around my electorate in Auckland I hear nothing but commendation of what the Government is doing regarding say local body amalgamation. People are commending Rodney Hide for taking eight local authorities and getting rid of the nonsense and the duplication. 
I come now to an issue that does need to be given some consideration and does need to be carefully thought through. I am talking about the very careful mining of very specific sites. I think that if the claims were true and we were going to rip up the whole country and do open-cast mining across all our pristine areas then not a single New Zealander would support that—not one. But I do not know of any New Zealanders who not would say that under the right circumstances provided all the conservation values were protected if not enhanced and if it was done in a careful manner at a low scale at certain points then yes they would consider that to be good for the economy. I can tell members that many New Zealanders say all the time that the big difference between Australia and New Zealand is Australia’s mineral wealth. I say to people that actually no it is not. Australia’s mineral wealth per capita is not any better than ours; it is just that Australia is taking advantage of it. 
New Zealanders know today that we cannot carry on borrowing $240 million every week or a billion dollars every month and not have a day of reckoning. They know when they do their household accounts that the day of reckoning will come if they are spending more than they are earning. I am not hearing one suggestion from the lazy Labour Opposition about how to lift the incomes of New Zealanders lift our GDP and make us a wealthy nation. 
Phil Twyford 
: How about research and development tax credits? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Twyford you should not be wasting your time here. You should be moving on to your next electorate selection. You have at least 64 more to go before you have wiped them all out so I would not waste time by being in the House if I were you. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our colleague was just inviting you to move on to your next electorate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think we should get too pedantic about that. I apologise to the Hon Maurice Williamson for the interruption. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is like being savaged by a sheep when Kennedy Graham takes a point of order. I am really happy about that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is about the practice of referring to a point of order on which you have ruled. I think it is a long-term Speaker’s ruling that when a ruling has been made one moves on and does not refer back to it in the way that the member has just done. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The way that the member referred to it though did not in any way dispute my ruling. He was building it into a speech. I think the member’s point is certainly valid. I ask the Hon Maurice Williamson to be careful. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will be very careful. I can tell members that New Zealanders are looking to a Government that has a plan to lift our national incomes and make us once again a wealthy nation. That is what is important and there is a huge list of measures that have already been put in place. When we get our briefing list to come down to the House and speak in the general debate I have to actually call the people in our research unit and ask whether there is any chance of getting a shorter list because the list of good stuff just goes on for page after page and we have only 5-minute calls. 
All I can say is that from my perspective New Zealanders want to have a Government that will do some stuff that will lift our economy. I am happy to go on record as saying that provided proper conservation values are protected and that provided sites are chosen that will mean there is very little disruption and surgical-type mining can be done I am a big fan of mining happening. I holiday and own a place on the Coromandel Peninsula and I do not want to see the Coromandel Peninsula wrecked. But no proposal that has been put forward even looks as though it would wreck the Coromandel. We will have to trudge inland and into the mountains for some time to even locate the spots that are in question and what will be done will be done very carefully. This proposal is really good and I am proud to be a member of this Government. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the Minister was speaking he referred to documents that are prepared for him to speak in the House. I invite him to table the documents that he referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot do that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: He said he was referring to documents. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot do that. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 This House is expecting Government legislation soon on regional governance in Canterbury. It arises from the ongoing tension that exists in Canterbury over the vexed issue of water. Canterbury’s water has become the bell-wether for the current political debate in New Zealand. This is between two alternative philosophies embraced by different sections of the New Zealand public and also in this House. The first postulates economic growth as the paramount value yet in the primal mists of the political jungle this Government has an instinctive awareness that not all is right with the environment. It intuits that the people also are concerned so it utters soothing noises to assuage the masses: “We shall balance our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibilities and we have a subgroup—the Bluegreens—to salve your conscience. The Prime Minister himself is a member so nothing to worry about.” The second philosophy embraces sustainable development: the economy is forever subordinate to the environment whether or not humans choose to acknowledge it. 
These alternative world views play out before our eyes over Canterbury water. The growth mania is at its height in Canterbury today which comprises almost a quarter of New Zealand’s farmland. Dairy fever has hit its peak in my province; it has grown by 61 percent in 6 years which is almost half the national increase. This is in a region where the natural climate is dry but “not to worry; human technology has freed us from Nature’s primitive grasp”. So the thirst for irrigation is unquenchable. 
The Canterbury region accounts for 70 percent of this nation’s irrigation yet the dairy industry wants more so the developers urge Environment Canterbury to grant consents and Environment Canterbury responds with untrammelled accuracy that its job is to protect the environment. This enrages the developers who conspire with the local authorities to instigate a ministerial review. This is conducted with great solemnity involving a former Deputy Prime Minister as the chief independent reviewer. It is delivered with the sonorous tones of analytical dispassion and professional insight. The independent reviewers themselves assemble in the Minister’s room to brief MPs—an odd procedural arrangement in itself but who is counting around here? 
The Creech report recommends the replacement of the Environment Canterbury council with a temporary commission and a semi-permanent water authority both appointed by and answerable to central government. Through a carefully calibrated form of tough love local democracy is throttled and dies. In fact the Creech report is a shoddy piece of work that fails rudimentary tests of professional standards. 
First the report lacks intellectual integrity. It criticises Environment Canterbury for being science-driven and not science-informed. The Creech report is politically driven and not politically informed. If it were politically informed it would acknowledge that democracy is bigger than business; that the subsidiarity principle is bigger than Government; and that one does not replace elected councillors with appointees of central government just because they are making decisions one might not like. That is political arrogance of the highest order. 
Second the report purports to be an organisational review but it sets no clear criteria for judging institutional efficiency that allows for contestable judgment. It cites a selective range of what it calls “external opinion”. I could assemble a selected range of external opinion that would say the opposite. It would have equal claim to partial truth. 
Third the report rests its views on what it calls the “enormous and unprecedented gap between Environment Canterbury’s responsibility and capability” but although it makes a great play of advancing three options it fails to include the obvious one—that is to give Environment Canterbury the resources to do the job. That would retain local democracy and meet the Government’s stated concerns but of course the report does not include that option; to do so would not meet its underlying purpose. 
Fourth the report is a shameless exercise in prejudgment. Its starting premise is also its conclusion. The report seeks to identify what it describes in its terms of reference as “ECan’s poor performance record”. It then concludes 67 pages later that Environment Canterbury’s performance has been poor and that it needs to be replaced. That was a brilliant exercise in circular logic which would fail a level 101 Master of Business Administration test. 
This crisis is not over Canterbury water though Canterbury water is in crisis. This crisis is over a particular world view that is driven by central government arrogance. The Creech report is part of a juggernaut that is gathering speed in Wellington—from local democracy to centralised corporatism from Environment Canterbury to “New Zealand Incorporated”. The Key Government is making the fatal mistake that humans can balance the economy with the environment. We cannot do that; the economy is a subset a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. If we ravage the environment we destroy the economy and human society with it. I say: “Mr Prime Minister give us back our province and retain your integrity as a national leader.” 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 What is it about the Labour Opposition that does not want New Zealanders and New Zealand to succeed? What is it about the Labour Opposition that seems so anti economic growth and does not want us to make the most of our economic opportunities? What is it about the Labour Opposition that does not seem to realise that if we encourage economic growth in a sensible and rational way then we are better placed to have better health better education and better welfare? 
What is it about the Labour Opposition that has such a dislike of our mining industry; an industry that can contribute sensibly significantly reasonably and responsibly to our economic growth and can actually contribute to jobs? Finally what is it about the Labour Opposition that wants to so deliberately damage our international reputation and our “100% Pure New Zealand” image with mischievous and irresponsible scaremongering? 
The Government released a discussion document—and look at the reaction. It is a discussion document; it is not policy. It is not a decision; it is a discussion document. Immediately after we released that document the mischievous Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society went on a membership drive. After the release of the document the society said the Government was going to target Tongariro National Park Mount Aspiring National Park and Kahurangi National Park. Yet the discussion document is specific. It states that there will be no change to Tongariro National Park no change to Kahurangi National Park no change to Mount Aspiring National Park. 
It is possible to mine responsibly on conservation land and there are examples of it now. As the Minister of Conservation I am more than aware of the need to protect our iconic conservation land. I saw a quote this week from Jane Clifton in the 
 Listener 
 and it sums up the reaction to a T. She said: “It has been the accepted convention that when Labour grants a mining licence it is a sensitively handled best-practice maximising of opportunities and when National grants a mining licence it is a barbaric exploitation of our priceless heritage to the benefit of its big-business mates.” I have to say that there is a word for that and I am not allowed to use it in this House. We already have sensible mining. 
I quote Chris Carter the previous Minister of Conservation. He said: “the Pike River coal company had to come up with a host of environmental protections and meet very stringent safeguards.” That is a good quote; we like that. We will be doing the same. We will have the same protections and the same safeguards. Even Mr Goff has said: “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conversation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.” We agree. Annette King has said that if mining was done in areas that are not key conservation areas on the conservation estate and if it is done well she does not think that people would have a lot of difficulty with it. Well we will do it and we will do it well and we agree with what Annette King said. 
Chris Carter the previous Minister of Conservation said in relation to Pike River Coal: “This mine does represent an intrusion into an area of high conservation values”—in fact it is a national park—“and a decision on whether to allow it to go ahead has been a very difficult one to make because of this.” We agree; some of these decisions are difficult but they are balancing economic opportunities very seriously with our environmental responsibilities. 
Even the Greens have been mischievous on this. Metiria Turei said: “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species”. But what do the Greens say now? They say it is different when National wants to be responsible; it is different when we want to make the most of New Zealand’s economic opportunities for the betterment of New Zealand and it is different when we want to be responsible with the conservation estate. It is totally different than under Labour! As I have said there is a word for that. 
What annoys me is the damning of the mining companies. Yes Pike River Coal is in Paparoa National Park—and it contributes to the endangered blue duck programme. It contributes to pest control and it has paid over $100000 for conservation work. It paid for a public road in a national park. Mining and conservation can go hand in hand responsibly. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I have been doing some research into ACT’s local government policy which is very relevant to the discussion in the House today because the ACT Party appears to be driving the Government’s local government policy in Auckland. I will read to the House a couple of very relevant pieces from the ACT Party’s local government policy. ACT’s local government policy describes the current situation in relation to local government. What does it say? It says that local government is vulnerable to interest group capture: special interest groups get money for programmes yet everyone ends up paying for them. Actually that is a description of Rodney Hide’s super-city plan. He says that everyone pays—the Auckland public pays—but a special interest group gets the benefit. Who is he talking about? He is talking about National and ACT’s business mates who are about to inherit the entire Auckland super-city thanks to these reforms. 
The ACT policy also describes dictatorial powers that remove freedom and choice. Actually that is a description of the super-city as well. Those are exactly the powers that Rodney Hide is exercising right now in taking freedom and choice away from Aucklanders—Aucklanders who have never been consulted on the super-city. They have had no say in the matter but they will have to pick up the tab for the super-city fiasco. 
Further on down ACT’s local government policy also states that councils get captured by narrow interest groups which is unfair to everybody. Again that is a great description of Rodney Hide’s super-city. I do not know if members have noticed but only three organisations have come out in support of the Government’s council-controlled model and they are the Employers and Manufacturers Association the Council for Infrastructure Development and the Property Council. Everybody else in Auckland is against the council-controlled organisation model and against the corporatisation of local government in Auckland. Here is a classic example in ACT’s local government policy of how a narrow-interest group of big-business lobbyists can seize control of local government and can get its hands on assets that Auckland ratepayers have paid for over generations. 
We saw in question time this afternoon another example of the shoddy and rushed handling of the super-city when the Minister of Local Government explained that in spite of his third super-city bill no decisions had been made yet. That bill is currently before a select committee and it makes it absolutely clear that the council-controlled organisations are taxable entities which is why the  
New Zealand Herald 
 reported today on its front page that Aucklanders would be up for tens of millions of dollars in taxes. But Rodney Hide said: “Oh we have not made any decisions yet. We are still talking about it.” What an absolute joke! 
It is clear to members on this side of the House to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and to Aucklanders that the costs are mounting. In relation to transition costs for the super-city already $34 million in executive salaries and consultancy fees has been racked up by the Auckland Transition Agency and that is only for the last few months. I ask members who will pick up the tab for that. It will be the Auckland taxpayer. The Auckland taxpayer will also have to pay increased water rates. We know that if the volumetric pricing from Metro Water is rolled out across the rest of the city an ordinary family of four on the North Shore in Waitakere or in South Auckland will be copping an extra $700 a year in their water rates. That is what Aucklanders will have to cop as a result of this Government’s super-city. 
Already we are facing huge delays in the roll-out of the new information technology system for the super-city. Experts in the information technology industry are estimating that it will cost anything from $20 million to $100 million to create the new information technology system for the super-city. But the kicker is that the cost of fixing up the leaky home situation in Auckland will be about two-thirds of the estimated $11 billion to $20 billion that PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates is the national cost of the problem. Two-thirds of that cost will end up on the tab of Auckland ratepayers and the Court of Appeal has made that very clear this week. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is quite clear that Phil Twyford’s party does not really want him. I think it would be far better for him to take up meditation because it would give him something to do in Opposition. Labour is in dire straits not only in relation to its leadership but also in my electorate in the Wairarapa. Here is a headline: “Labour looks far and wide for Wairarapa candidate”. I will go on and read a little section from this article from the 68-year-old educationalist who is leading the party in the Wairarapa: “The priority was building a strong party organisation and reviving branches previously disbanded.” The Labour Party is in complete disarray not only here in Parliament but also right through this country. 
Why is the Labour Party in disarray? I can tell members why. When this Government came into office it inherited an economy that was in terrible shape. Why was it in terrible shape? It was because at that point New Zealand had been in recession under Labour’s administration for at least a year and probably for 3 or 4 years. To put that into context the tradable sector in the New Zealand economy had been in recession for the last 5 years. Let me show members this graph I have: we can see GDP here and years are this way. The gap between the red line and the white line is Government spending on the top line and the tradable sector coming down. There is a huge gap. That is why Labour went. That it why you are in disarray and that is why you will stay there. What you have done is fuel New Zealand’s debt to the world. I will show the good people in the gallery— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know I am speaking from an unusual position in that I am in a Green seat—I was about to leave the House if it is not out of order to say so—but as far as you are concerned Mr Speaker the member’s remarks were grossly offensive. He was saying that you are gone you are going and why you are not coming back. This member has now been here for I think about a year and he should know better than that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. I remind John Hayes not to— 
Paul Quinn 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. I remind John Hayes not to refer to the Speaker. I can assure him that the Speaker is not in disarray. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The rules are quite clear. People are able to speak only from seats that are allocated to their party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not aware that members are able to speak only from particular seats although I stand to be corrected on that. A point of order was raised and I think it was a fair point of order. 
JOHN HAYES 
: What we need in this country is a far better-performing economy. We have to encourage savings investment and exports particularly from electorates like mine. We have to reduce consumption. Why do we have to reduce consumption? Let me tell members what Labour did when it was in office. It doubled the amount of aid we are giving away to foreign countries but at the same time it took the number of staff it employed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 250 to 500. It increased the Government salaries for those earning $100000 or more by 375 percent. 
There are four things we have to do to take this country forward. The first thing is that our policies have to be fair; the second is that we have to give families choice so that they can get ahead; the third is that whatever we do has to be good for the economy and it has to help imbalances; and the fourth is that we have to create jobs and we have to spread money around everywhere. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Spread money around everywhere? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes we have to spend money everywhere because what we are doing is locking up money in the welfare system and we keep paying it to people who do not necessarily need it. I am sick and tired of having people come through my office who are long-term beneficiaries who are perfectly able to get out and get jobs but who have had no incentive to do it. So I commend my colleague Paula Bennett— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does the member tell them that? 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes I do tell them that and I absolutely commend my colleague Paula Bennett for the brilliant decision she has taken this week to start to modify welfare payments. We have to understand that every dollar we give away has to come from somebody’s pocket. When the Government gives money to somebody it has to take it from somebody. Much of that money comes from people who earn from $12.50 to $15 an hour. So I absolutely support those policies. 
I also say to the people who create hysteria over mining that there has been no decision from the Government to get into the conservation estate and mine. What is on the table is a discussion paper. Those of us old enough to remember the Department of Lands and Survey will know that it was closed down and much of its land was given to the Department of Conservation. That land had no conservation value whatever. In my own electorate south of Mount Bruce are 341 parcels of land with the Department of Conservation that have no conservation value whatever. I am very interested to see much greater emphasis on mining because off the coast of the Wairarapa there is a huge volume of carbon hydrate that can be harvested brought ashore and used to set up a carbon-based hydrocarbon industry. 
This Government took the edges off the recession in 2009; in 2010 it is focusing on jobs and growth. It has made multibillion-dollar infrastructural investments and we see those on the Rimutaka hill road and on just about every road in this country. Everybody is noticing the amount of work that is going on. The National Government is cutting red tape and regulation we are making better business innovation and trade and we are improving education and skills because we do not want all those children leaving school without them. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The previous speaker John Hayes got a clap for that speech; I thought that people would rather forget it. 
I will talk about Auckland governance and I will go back through a little bit of history. Three bills relating to Auckland governance have passed or will pass through this House. On the first bill there was no consultation. It was rammed through on a weekend. The second bill had some opposition. In relation to the third bill I have to say I am disappointed that the Maori Party has not been fighting in the trenches as the Labour Party has been. 
I go back to the second bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. One of the Maori Party members said: “This bill is an insult to due process an insult to partnership an insult to justice and an insult to the mana whenua of Auckland. The Maori Party will be opposing this bill every step of the way.” Who said that? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Hone Harawira. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is right. When it came to the third bill Labour was in the trenches facing the Government at the select committee. The Greens were there; David Clendon was there. But where was the Maori Party? Well Dr Sharples talked about various things. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Did they speak up? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They did not speak up; they did not even show up. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Correct me if I am wrong but the same rules apply within select committees as in the House. Members cannot go on about the non-appearance of a member either at a select committee or in the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes briefly. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Very briefly. The member is quite right: the same rule applies to both. But the member speaking is referring to a political party; he has not identified an individual member of Parliament. He was talking about a particular political party’s approach so I do not think that that triggers Speaker’s ruling 25/2. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member certainly cannot refer to individual members as being absent from a committee but it sounded to OK me. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Labour Party and the Green Party were fighting in the trenches for Maori representation on the super-city. But what did the Maori Party have to say? 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What did they say? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Nothing! One has to be there to say things. Were they listening to the Maori people of Auckland? No they were not. They were too busy getting a flag put on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. That was their big achievement—a flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. In 16 months as a Government party the Maori Party got a flag put on the Auckland Harbour Bridge. 
I have to tell Dr Sharples that the people in his electorate are really disappointed. He has changed his mind. He says that he regrets what the Government is doing but what he is really on about is working away in the background changing the basis of voting. He does not like the idea of one person one vote. I think that he is actually planning to have an Upper House so that he can retire into it. It will not be very surprising if that is where he is tracking down. The Minister of Maori Affairs was also clear about the need for Maori seats on the advisory board and the worthlessness of having an advisory board. Did the National Government listen? No. Did the Minister say it loudly enough? Did he say it strongly enough? Rodney Hide got to the Prime Minister’s ear first and he made his point. Who is the more terrifying for the Prime Minister: benevolent Dr Sharples or Rodney Hide the bulldozer who is straight in? 
We can see that the Maori people especially in my area of South Auckland have been let down by the Maori Party. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh that member can squawk but her whip should have made sure that Maori attended a select committee to hear what people were saying. That is very important; it is a part of the process that the Maori Party wants so much—part of the process that ordinary Maori families who are paying high taxes and who will be paying even higher taxes want representation on. But they are not getting it from the Maori Party. That bill was very important for one-third of New Zealand’s population—one-third of New Zealand’s population—but where was the Maori Party? It was missing in action. Its members were not anywhere but Labour kept the fight going in the trenches. 
You know even John Banks of Auckland City is talking about how the bill will not work too well and saying that council-controlled organisations will have a life of their own. They may have a life of their own but there will not be any Maori people on those organisations either I dare say. They will not have Maori on them. 
I feel sorry for Mr Henare. At the time of the second bill he went around the country around Auckland and to marae but he could not say a thing. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 What is it about a stocktake of New Zealand’s mineral resources that brings on such hysteria amongst people? I have here a membership drive on behalf of Labour’s mates the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society that makes some pretty extraordinary claims. In this broadsheet it says “Dear Ms Dean. Help us stop the mining of our precious national parks. Shockingly New Zealand’s national parks are under threat of mining.” It goes on to say: “Imagine huge diggers like the one pictured above”—and I will be tabling this document for the benefit of the House—“removing a majestic mountain in Mt Aspiring National Park … bucket-load by bucket-load”. It continues: “If these landscapes are destroyed forever all the millions of native plants and creatures living there will suffer the same fate.” Come on! “From the slow-moving giant snails to the raucous kaka—all will disappear.” I ask Forest and Bird whether that is what will really happen. I will give members one final quote from this attempt to secure my membership of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Table it. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I will be tabling it. It says: “We will do everything in our power to fight to keep these special places safe from mining companies”. 
But is this the reality? I do not think it is and I will tell members why. For example Rio Tinto has had a major impact on the Kakapo Recovery Programme. That is not news; that is well known to people even to Labour’s mates such as the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. Rio Tinto gifted 80 hectares of land to the public as part of its Kakapo Recovery Programme and has injected well over $3 million into the Kakapo Recovery Programme since it first signed the agreement in 1990. Does New Zealand need to be protected from that? I do not think that it does. The funding has helped to support breeding programmes and population monitoring of the critically endangered parrot on predator-proof sanctuaries. Just over 50 birds remained when the partnership was first signed in 1990. Rio Tinto the mining company has helped to boost bird numbers to the current figure of 123 birds. I do not see those figures in this somewhat unbalanced fact sheet. 
The Solid Energy goat control programme—that is pest control by Solid Energy—was an initiative driven by Solid Energy to provide funding for a 5-year carbon research programme involving 20000 hectares of goat-infested native forest near Mokihinui on the West Coast. Far from New Zealand needing protection from mining companies and people doing everything in their power to fight to keep these special places safe from mining companies we should be thanking them. We should be encouraging the mining companies in their ongoing efforts to rehabilitate our environment. This Government believes that economic development can and does go hand in hand with the environmental protection that I have just talked about. 
I will to focus on a mining operation in my own region of Otaga. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The “o” was mined out. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Otago—an electorate called Waitaki which is bigger than the Otago region and also encompasses some of Canterbury. I will talk about the mining operation of Oceana Gold whose Macraes goldmine employs 600 people. That is a lot of people employed in the Otago region. Its annual wage bill is between $30 million and $40 million. Most of that money is reinvested into the communities of Macraes Oamaru Palmerston Waikouaiti and Dunedin. As for Oceana Gold’s expenditure in the district it purchases reagents and goods and services to the tune of $50 million a year. If we have a look at the multiplier effect of 3:1 or 4:1 we see that if the mine were to close Otago would lose 2000 jobs. That is a significant impact in the Otago region. That is a significant impact brought around by a mining operation. 
I seek leave to table this document from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the document— 
Hon Members 
: What is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document the member was quoting from during her speech. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 First it was Aucklanders being denied a real say in the set up of the super-city. Now it is mining in their backyards that is being imposed on them against their will. 
The problem is that this Government has no ability whatsoever to listen. I will give an example of that. In a recent edition of the  
Hauraki Herald 
 there was an article that quoted one of National’s highest-calibre MPs—everyone on that side of the House wants to be like her—Sandra Goudie. There was a quote from her saying that she was unaware of opposition to the prospect of more mining in her electorate and that she believed that any concerns had been generated by political opponents. The fact that a National Party MP particularly the one who is the member for Coromandel is unaware of any opposition to mining goes a long way to showing how much that Government does not listen. That member only had to read the newspapers or listen to the radio to hear opposition to mining. That member would not have got it from the local group though because it also said in the paper that Coromandel Watchdog spokesperson Denis Tegg said that his group did not bother voicing concerns about mining issues to Mrs Goudie who he described as a very minor backbencher. He said that the people there had made a decision not to talk to her because it is a waste of time and energy. I think that is what a lot of Aucklanders are thinking at the moment not just about Mrs Goudie but also about a lot of Auckland MPs on that side of the House— 
John Hayes 
: Especially the Westies. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: That includes the one from Wairarapa Mr Hayes. 
At the other end of the spectrum we have National Party MPs in our newspapers not knowing the policies of their party. They are coming out and saying that they disagree with what their party is advocating for. We on this side of the House cannot work out whether Nikki Kaye did not know the values of the National Party before she became a politician or whether she has worked out that Auckland Central’s values do not align with the National Party and now she is trying to look different from what the National Party is putting out. That is something we are still trying to understand. 
Regarding the mining issue it has come up time and again that the Government is not listening. It is not listening not just with mining but also with what has been happening with the super-city. The hidden agendas that exist on that side of the House have also come out. There are hidden agendas that go back 2 or 3 years and are only beginning to surface at the moment. We have seen hidden agendas around privatisation with that Government over there. We have seen the hidden agenda of mining even in the electorate of Waitakere. Two years ago the MP for Waitakere Paula Bennett referred to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill as confiscation by stealth as did Nick Smith. When Nick Smith and Paula Bennett went riding into Waitakere they said that they wanted the Waitakere Ranges to be a national park. I repeat: Nick Smith and Paula Bennett wanted the Waitakere Ranges to be a national park. Now that a few years have gone by we can look back and wonder whether national parks were what they really wanted when they went there or did they just want to dig them up? Perhaps Nick Smith and Paula Bennett had the possibility in the backs of their minds of digging up the Waitakere Ranges in a ploy to mine in that area too. 
I have to commend our spokesperson for Auckland Issues Phil Twyford for the wonderful job he did regarding the super-city legislation. He continues to hold that side of the House the Government to account with the legislation it is putting through. That legislation is not only the corporatisation of our democracy but also the local being taken out of local government. We saw a shambolic process with regards to the consultation that occurred. Aucklanders are not silly. They are not happy with the National Government. Some of the comments I heard while I was on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee were quite offensive to Aucklanders. I think it was Mr Bridges who said while we were taking submissions “Who cares about 900 submissions on the super-city?”. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I have sat through this hour-long debate in some amazement particularly at the contributions from the Opposition. We started off with the leader-in-waiting Mr Shane Jones. He gave us the ABC of the Opposition power play: lots of hot air lots of bull. It was devoid of any contribution on how to advance this country. We then had Phil Twyford’s contribution to the debate. Do members know what Phil told us? 
John Hayes 
: Put it on the bill? 
PAUL QUINN 
: No no Phil told us that the Minister of Local Government had responsibility for local authorities. It was an outstanding contribution! We did not know that; I thank the member for advising us of that. Then my dear friend and colleague George Hawkins’ contribution to this debate was to confirm that in fact he is Shane Jones’s speech writer in terms of Shane’s Maori Party comments and Maori Party bashing. We concluded with Carmel Sepuloni. I had no idea what she was talking about so I say only that perhaps Lynne Pillay has started in the process of mentoring her in preparation for her new role as the candidate for Waitakere. 
The reason that the Opposition is over there and that this party is now running the country is that there are very serious issues to be dealt with. When this Government came in Government expenditure was out of control. It had increased by 50 percent over 5 years. Household debt was burgeoning as the community and the country went on a spending binge. We have productivity issues. The Public Service was out of control with a 375 percent increase in 5 years in the number of public servants who earned more than $100000 a year. That party over there and that member over there stand and try to tell us that they represent a group of people who earn over and above $100000 a year in wages and income. They then try to tell us that we do not understand the issues that face this country. National took over we moved in because we were elected to establish the framework for running this country. 
One of the reasons this country has gone downhill as my learned colleague Mr John Hayes has already pointed out is that we have not been paying our way. This country cannot go on spending money unless it starts to export more goods. We are not a big enough country to generate economic growth from our own production if we just buy it ourselves. We have to produce quality goods and export them to the rest of the world. That is something unfortunately that Labour when in Government failed to understand. In fact if we look at the period of Labour’s administration we see that throughout it the percentage of the current account deficit to GDP was in the vicinity of 9 percent. In the short period that this administration has been in Government we have reduced that to around 2 percent and it is still improving. 
Those are the sorts of issues that this Government is concerned about and they are some of the reasons that we have tried to expand the economic export base away from our traditional industries such as primary produce dairying and others. We have tried to expand the base because doing the same things will not work. [ 
Interruption 
] I just want to make sure that the member can hear. In fact we have to explore new ideas new territory and grow the economy. That is why we have decided to look at the enormous amount of untapped wealth that this country has in its mineral resources. We will take our time to achieve that. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.