General Debate

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of your ruling about noisiness during the Minister of Transport’s opening address from the Government side in this general debate, I seek your indulgence to allow him to start his speech again.

I think from the Opposition’s point of view, we would be happy for the speech to start again. In fact, we would be happy for that as long as the debate was extended for him to have the full 15 minutes that he would have if, in fact, there was an urgent debate on the matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. The clock was stopped when the point of order was raised. We will continue.

As I said, Opposition members flatter themselves as to when the Government times its press releases—they absolutely flatter themselves. I want to know their view on Auckland governance, their view on how to respond to the global recession, their view on what should be in the Budget, and their view on what should be cut to pay for a $3 billion roading project. You see, mummy and daddy Labour have left the building and I worry for the Labour Party. There is nobody opposite who knows anything about financial matters in the Labour Party. If there was, surely they would have told Mr Hughes that interest is real. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable Minister again. I ask members of the Opposition to be reasonable. They sought an urgent question and wanted an answer on this issue. The Minister is about to tell the House and the people of New Zealand about what sounds like decisions that have been made. I believe that the House deserves some courtesy. This is a matter of courtesy to the House. Interjections are fine but with that barrage I could not hear, and I could see that the members of the Māori Party and other members at the far end of the House simply could not hear, and that is unreasonable. That is discourteous to the House. [Interruption] I do not think there is any need for further points of order on this matter. I invite the Hon Steven Joyce to carry on his speech.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a relatively minor point but one that is quite important. In your ruling you anticipated what the Minister was going to say. That is something that a Speaker should never do.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me if I did that. I did not mean to.

I worry that mummy and daddy Labour have left the building and I worry for the Labour Party that there is nobody left who knows anything about financial matters. If there was, surely they would have told Mr Hughes that interest is real, that when you borrow money you have to pay interest on it, that if you borrow money for a big project and are casting around to find a way to pay for it, then you have to include the cost of carrying that debt. If you tell people that you are going to build a big project that you have promised them, then you have to have a way of paying for it. It is actually being intellectually dishonest if you do not have a way of paying for the project—if you do not identify the 27c a litre petrol tax or the special rate on housing.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Calling you intellectually dishonest is beyond the limits of what is allowed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for his valid point of order and I ask the Minister to remember that when he says “you” he is referring to the Speaker.

Surely, if there was anybody left in the Labour Party who understood financial matters, they would have told Mr Hughes that every spending decision carries an opportunity cost. That if you spend $3 billion you have not got it to spend somewhere else. If you go out there promising Transmission Gully, massive Waterview tunnels, massive amounts of public transport—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that you, Mr Speaker, have gone out promising things to the public. The member keeps bringing you into the debate.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I guess that while the Minister keeps erring in that way he will be interrupted. The Minister should remember; it is quite important.

Labour went out and promised Transmission Gully, massive Waterview tunnels, massive amounts of public transport investments, and anything else that opens and shuts, and it pretended the country could afford it all. If there was anybody left in the Labour Party who knew anything about financial matters, surely he or she would have told Mr Hughes that there is a global recession on—the worst the world has faced since the 1930s. Now, more than ever, is not the time to stay wedded to grandiose unfunded schemes, which are cruel hoaxes to the people of any suburb or of any city.

The New Zealand Transport Agency has announced its decision this afternoon on the Waterview Connection; it is a well-considered and balanced decision. It has taken the $1.4 billion option, which strikes a fair balance between the needs of the local community and those of the country and the economy. The $1.4 billion proposed route includes building the motorway under Great North Road and in a tunnel under New North Road and under Avondale Heights. The resulting underground section represents about 60 percent of the length of the road. Then south of New North Road the motorway would run through the Alan Wood Reserve corridor to the west of Hendon Avenue. The road would run alongside the long-designated Avondale to Southdown rail link.

This option is cost-effective, but it is still important to note that this roading project will be New Zealand’s most expensive roading ever, by a considerable margin. Although this option has very strong community and environmental mitigation, I do acknowledge that it still significantly affects some members of the community. I encourage them to take part in the community engagement process that the New Zealand Transport Agency is about to commence.

There are no easy options, but I believe that this proposal will go a long way towards easing the concerns of many, while being cost-effective for this country. And that is the point: the proposal has to be cost-effective as well, because the whole country has to pay for it. Labour used to understand that. On the other hand, of course, I may be giving too much credit to mummy and daddy Labour before they left. In Labour’s last 5 years in office it did increase core Crown expenditure by 51 percent—51 percent—whereas the economy grew by just 23 percent.

So, perhaps, Labour is only reaping what it sowed. The current Labour members have no understanding of financial matters, no understanding of the value of a dollar, and no understanding of the issues that New Zealanders outside of this House grapple with every day. That is likely to be one of the main reasons that people threw Labour out of office last November. Labour members do not understand the value of these projects and the value of money. New Zealanders looked at how Labour proposed to magic money out of thin air, and I am sure they were glad they did throw Labour out.

On 25 May 1978 the Government of the day, led by Robert Muldoon, authorised a massive force of police and army to forcibly remove 222 protesters from the ancestral land known as Takaparawhau—Bastion Point. The protest was—and remains—one of the most famous protest actions in the history of this land. It represented a direct confrontation between iwi, the people of Ngāti Whātua, and the Government, which was determined to take the last bit of uncommitted land off the people, to be reconverted into a high-income housing development. The land was the same papakāinga that was torched by the Government of the day in the 1950s.

Ten years later the Waitangi Tribunal supported Māori claims to that land—a decision that was backed up by the Government. Last year, in the special commemorative service held to reflect on 30 years since that first protest action, there was much talk around the significance of the occupation and the historic impact made by the 507 days in which Ngāti Whātua reclaimed their tupuna land.

Who would have thought that one brief year later, 25 May would again become associated with the call to protest, and the rally to stand up for our rights? Yet that is exactly what is intended to take place in 12 days’ time as Ngāti Whātua invite Aucklanders and others to join together to unite for the common pursuit of democratic participation and representation. The call has been broadcast across ethnic minority networks, and endorsed by a Pacific fono held in Manukau just 2 days ago. The message was clear: “We, Pacific, needed to support Māori so that they aren’t forced to beg or protest in their own land, for even one seat at their own table.” The aim sounds so simple, and it could have been.

The royal commission has recommended that of the 23 counsellors elected or appointed in Auckland, two should be elected at large by voters on the Māori electoral roll, and one counsellor appointed by a mana whenua forum. Yet just over a month ago, on 7 April 2009, the Government announced that Māori representation would not be provided for within the new Auckland governance structure. A week later, Ngāti Whātua convened a hui to respond to the Government’s announcement, and, overwhelmingly, called for guaranteed Māori representation on the Auckland Council. Representation is about the mana of Māori as mana whenua. It is about the mana of their ancestors, and the links to the land on which Greater Auckland sits. It is about Māori being ignored, rejected, and insulted, once again.

How could any Government let this happen again? Has nothing in the history of this nation caused those in power to reflect on the foundation of assurances set in Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What are mana whenua—in this case, Ngāti Whātua and Tainui iwi—to make of the way in which the Government acknowledges the ancestral bond they have with this land, and the precious role of guardianship, or kaitiakitanga, that requires them to care for the land and for all who reside in their rohe?

The Māori Party is greatly saddened at the step back into our history, which is represented by the failure to properly recognise the unique status that mana whenua possess, stemming from the Treaty relationship demonstrated in the Auckland region. Ngāti Whātua and Tainui iwi have a special interest and, indeed, an authoritative basis to be involved in any governance or decision-making arrangements in Tāmaki-makau-rau. Mana whenua are literally the first occupants of the land. If the Government is to express any understanding of the rights of indigenous people, it must understand, as the very first principle, the significance of political representation.

We must have the political will, the courage, and the follow-through to recognise the vital role that strong Māori representation plays in creating a functional and effective democracy. We owe it to all those who stood up for the people of Takaparawhau 31 years ago that we learn the lesson of history, and actively involve and respect mana whenua as the first people of the land we know as Tāmaki. Kia ora.

I agree with the member who has just resumed her seat, Rahui Katene, and say that her speech was well considered. There was nothing I could disagree with in what she said. What is occurring is a disgrace; that situation is one of a list of things that are a disgrace. The only comment I could make to her is the reflection that on matters of confidence her party is the party that is supporting the party that is doing those things. That is something she will be considering—and I am sure the member sitting next to her will be considering—over a period of time. I think that will be important.

I will refer to the speech preceding Ms Katene’s speech, from the Minister of Transport. He is the Minister of Transport who was offered quarter of an hour to explain the Government’s position on Waterview. He roared like a lion in here, but he is not prepared to knock on those doors in Waterview and tell them what is going on, while those doors still exist. Before the houses are bowled, before the parks are ploughed up, and before the community is destroyed, one would expect a Minister to have the courage of his convictions and, at least, to use the processes of this Parliament to make a statement, to have an urgent debate, and to front up for the things for which he is responsible.

I will also make some comments about Melissa Lee. It is very important that we get some things on the record. Melissa Lee made an application to New Zealand On Air through the company she owned before she became a candidate. Her circumstances changed. She became a candidate, and she did not declare that change of circumstances before the funding decision was made. She should have. It is a basic matter of ethics that someone who has made an application for funding and who stands to financially benefit from an application should be transparent with the organisation that he or she is making an application to.

My next point is about Pansy Wong and the financial agent for the National Party.

💬 Paul Quinn: How much petrol did you pay the unions with to shift your billboards?

I will answer that question very, very quickly. Lots of volunteers volunteered for my campaign, and I declared every bit of it that was appropriate. The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union declared the rest of it. That member knows that, because he is a member who looked at it.

I will turn to Pansy Wong. She featured on the video made by Melissa Lee’s company. She did not declare that she widely distributed around the electorate of Botany, where she was a candidate—[Interruption]

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House has lowered itself to barraging, and that is not acceptable in this Chamber. I cannot even hear my colleague speak.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member makes a perfectly good point, but he may recollect that—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where was he during the last speech?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: While I am ruling there will not be interjections. The member may recollect that the Hon Steven Joyce faced very sustained interjections—and I will certainly stop the members—but I do not think the interjections on the member were nearly as bad as what happened during the Hon Steven Joyce’s speech.

Speaking to the point of order, I say to the member that he might want to come closer. I could tell that the Speaker could hear me, because he was nodding, and I do not think it was because he was going to sleep.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard will continue his speech.

The point I am making is that Pansy Wong did not declare the video that she widely distributed by way of DVD in her electorate. That was an expense for her, and it was undeclared. The National Party did not declare it in its expenses or on the donation side. I do not know whether it had to, and I do not know whether the DVD cost $10,000 to make. It looked like it was very professional, and I am sure that if it was made commercially then it would have cost $10,000 and should have been declared. Even on the expenditure side it should have been declared, and it was not.

I want to know why John Key has said to Melissa Lee that he supported her actions with regard to that company. Did he support her standing over the staff while they were editing a political programme? Did he support her not declaring to New Zealand On Air her relationship with the company when she became a candidate? Did he support Pansy Wong when she did not declare that DVD when it was distributed?

What are the standards of ethics that John Key is now promoting? Is he saying “If you can get away with it, it is fine.”? What is very, very clear is that someone who was actively involved in that company and who was being absolutely straightforward on the television that she had had a relationship breakdown with Melissa Lee has given a lot of evidence of unethical behaviour on the part of a member of this Parliament.

It is interesting, is it not, that during question time Labour members made attempts to have questions and ask for a special debate about the Waterview Connection, and then the Leader of the Opposition gets up and has 5 minutes to make a speech, and does not focus at all on issues that matter to this nation, other than to criticise a member of the Government. Quite honestly, we have to ask what in the world this Labour Opposition is thinking, when that is the level it can get to in debate. There are some important issues happening in New Zealand. Waterview Connection certainly is one of them, and our Minister of Transport explained it well.

I also tell the House that we have an issue called Auckland governance happening right now, today and tomorrow. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would want to debate that issue, but, no, he completely ignored it. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked for a briefing on the legislation that is to be put through the House today and tomorrow. I was asked, as I know something of the detail of the legislation, to go and brief the Leader of the Opposition. It was arranged for 5.20 p.m. I turned up in the Opposition office, and I waited, and I waited. Finally, at 5.30 p.m., I got not Mr Goff, but the recycled member George Hawkins, who came in.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will anticipate this. All members are honourable members, and the description given of the member was not that. It is something that I think members will take offence at.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is right. Members should not be referred to in that way.

The Hon George Hawkins, who has been put back into his position, was Minister of Local Government, and is now Opposition spokesman on local government.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: No, he wasn’t.

Well, actually he was. He was accompanied by one of the members of the Opposition, Mr Twyford, who has been demoted from 26 to 42. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would have actually wanted to know about what is in the legislation. But, obviously, it is not important enough for him to even bother attending the meeting at all. I would have thought that as it is such an important issue he would want to know what the Government is doing about the legislation. But, no, he is not interested, does not care, and could not have cared less.

This is an important issue, and this Government is taking it very seriously. But there are a couple of interesting things. Yesterday the Prime Minister answered a question and advised the House that the member of the Opposition Mr George Hawkins said he supported the Auckland Council concept for the region. Well, that is great; it is nice to know that Mr Hawkins thinks that that is important, as it should be. But then today we get a press release saying that Labour will oppose the super-city, as it is called, for Aucklanders, having been consulted.

💬 Hon Member: Why?

Because Labour says there is not enough consultation. But the fact is that there will be consultation on the second bill, a select committee will be set up, submissions will be called for, the Local Government Commission will be asking for submissions; there will be so much opportunity for input from the Auckland public. This Government is interested in listening to what Aucklanders and other New Zealanders have to say on the reforms that are happening in Auckland. We will give everyone the opportunity to have the input. That is exactly what is going on. We are happy to brief people, including the Opposition—[Interruption] Well, the bill itself just starts the process, and they will have months between here and towards April and May of next year to actually have an input into the two pieces of legislation. I am not sure how much more the Opposition thinks it needs, when it could not even turn up to a 20-minute meeting yesterday.

Then, of course, we look at Ross Robertson, who has made some comments to the effect that “Bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better”, but then went on to say: “We realise there are some Auckland-wide issues. Many, such as water and sewage, already have citywide solutions. I think a supercity to deal with citywide issues is needed.” He contradicts himself. Then, after two members have said they support it, Mr Twyford, who is now No. 42, says his party has not yet decided what is going on. And so it goes on.

But we keep on reading about the support for this Government on the Auckland reforms. I put out a story on behalf of Waitakere Mayor, Mr Bob Harvey, who apologised to Aucklanders, because the leaders of Auckland have dropped the ball, and said that we have needed to do something for the past 50 years, and have not. This Government will do so.

Yesterday I was challenged by the Wellington City Council to stop pushing fiction, and to concentrate on the facts with regard to the civil defence of this city. This afternoon I intend to do just that.

The Wellington City Council has been reviewing its civil defence arrangements for some time. A very “high-powered” review team has been engaged: a Mr Stavros Michael, who was the director of infrastructure for the Wellington City Council, a Mr Mike Mendonca who runs city operations—we know that as including the rubbish tip—and Ms Jennifer Collins from human resources. As a consequence of their review, as of last Friday the five permanent staff at the Wellington Emergency Management Office had all left. Earlier, as a consequence of the review, the network of volunteers—ever diminishing—around the city had been advised that because there was no technical officer or training officer available, all volunteer courses had been cancelled until further notice.

When I challenged Mr Mendonca yesterday on that point, he said “Oh, but we’ve got coverage from two other people seconded into the office in the interim.” By the end of the interview that figure had mysteriously grown to four. The reality is the round figure of zero. Mr Mendonca went on to say in a media statement yesterday that Wellington City Council was now in the process of appointing a new team—so it is not actually in place yet—but also that it had a network of hundreds of people around the city and around the council, ready to step into the breach in the event of a civil emergency in the city.

The plain fact is this: there is no civil defence structure in place. There is something called the Wellington City Council crisis management team, which is actually culled from different parts of the council but relies very heavily on input from the Fire Service and the police. We have a team of operators at the Wellington Public Library who have apparently been trained to operate radio telephones, but it is not actually clear to whom they report in the event of an emergency. When an official—one of those who has departed—was questioned by volunteers as to his assessment of the situation in Wellington, his answer was a resounding no, saying there is not enough help to help with the city in the event of a major civil emergency, the police would have to take over, and, beyond that, people had to realise that individuals would have to be responsible for their own areas for probably nearer to 3 months than the 3 days previously referred to. He also said none of the local civil defence centres were effectively operational, and in large parts of the city there were no civil defence volunteers at all.

I draw this to the attention of the House for two reasons. Firstly, it is appalling that in the capital city of this country, sited on a network of major earthquake fault lines, this situation has been allowed to occur. Secondly, and more seriously, I accept that the council may be undertaking a review, but why the secrecy? Why the lies? Why the threats to city council members and community board members that they will be up before the council on a breach of conduct if they dare to criticise council officers publicly?

This issue is far too important for petty political games of this type. The Wellington City Council has to learn to accept some responsibility. It has to put in place an effective system. It has to stop the fob-offs that are going on at the moment when it says there is a mythical network of people out there to deal with the city in the event of a major emergency. Nature, unfortunately, does not sit back and wait for the Wellington City Council to be ready. I think those council members think it does. We have to have some clear and effective decisions.

The Wellington City Council keeps offering to give me a briefing on the subject. I say that is fine; I am happy to accept that. I have said to the council that I will do so on one condition: that all of the people who have been expressing concern to me from around the city are entitled to receive the same briefing. The Wellington City Council’s answer, to date, has been a resounding silence. I am going to give it the opportunity. I am convening a meeting of all the civil defence volunteers this coming weekend. I am inviting the Wellington City Council to attend and to spell out to them the full and unexpurgated detail of the review—what is happening, what the time frame for its completion is, and what the structure will be when that is completed—and, more important, what the plan is, in precise detail, right now in the event of a civil emergency in the city. There are over 400,000 people in Wellington. Their lives are at risk every day that this prevaricating, bumbling, and inefficient council—the best argument yet for a super-city—continues in this vein.

Members of this House have been treated with utter contempt by a Minister of the Government. Today, when a request to have an urgent debate on the Waterview Connection announcement was declined, the Minister of Transport issued a press release about the tunnel option a minute after the Speaker’s determination. It is absolutely disgusting that people living in the Mt Albert community who want some answers on this particular issue and who want it seriously addressed, did not get the opportunity to hear the debate on this issue in the House today.

The Minister has a lot of explaining to do, but we should not be surprised. The Minister did not even talk about this issue to his own local candidate in the Mt Albert by-election. He did not bother to address any questions today in the House about this issue, and then leave was denied for an urgent question by our spokesperson on transport. We understand that around 250 homes in Mt Albert will be affected. The Waterview Connection is a very important issue in Mt Albert. It is such an important issue that I am sure Melissa Lee is struggling to explain the decision of her Government. There has been no call on this issue in this House over the last week, at all.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Not a word.

Not one—silence. So we should not be surprised or alarmed that Aucklanders are being treated in this way by the Government.

On the issue of Auckland governance—the matter that I want to address today—local communities all over Auckland have asked to be consulted on the Government’s proposals. Many of those proposals have ignored the royal commission’s recommendations. People have been turning out all over Auckland to public meetings to express their utter discontent with the Government’s proposals on Auckland governance. They recognise that a strategic solution is required. Out of good courtesy to citizens in Auckland, one would think that the Government would go back to those communities and consult about its own proposals. It is a departure from the royal commission’s recommendations. It is a departure from expectations, some of which were quite well supported in the royal commission’s report about what representation may look like in Auckland.

I want to address issues that relate to Hauraki-Waikato because three of those councils fall within my own electorate: the Franklin District Council, the Papakura District Council, and Counties-Manukau. I turned up to a meeting in Papakura, which the Associate Minister of Local Government was at, and about 600 people from across the Papakura community had turned out to express their discontent about the proposals the Government was ramming through without any participation from the public whatsoever. Many questions could not be answered. One of the most interesting questions at the Papakura meeting that could not be answered—that the Minister of Local Government himself, when questioned by Phil Twyford, could not answer—was about the cost for the Government’s proposals. The people there were absolutely astounded that here we had the Government turning up to try to convince people that this is the best way forward, yet it could not address the issue of cost. As ratepayers, people are left wondering why they have to pay for something that they will not even get a say on. Very simple questions could not be answered, at all.

Meetings all over Auckland and all through those three areas in my electorate have been held on Māori representation. That is a broader issue about how we ensure that good decision-making occurs at the highest level in Auckland. Most councils, and certainly the three that I am talking about, have established very strong mana whenua relationships in their own districts, so it is not a departure from what existing councils are trying to do—strengthen their relationships with mana whenua and Māori in their communities. But from the Government we have had total rejection, altogether, that Māori matter when it comes to local decision-making and local government. It is absolutely unbelievable. I thought we were going forwards, not backwards.

Is this the bright future that National has promised for the country? Is this the bright future that is inclusive of all people? Is this the bright future that allows everybody to participate? At the TelstraClear stadium on Monday night we had loads of Pacific people also expressing their concern about how their views would be accommodated on the Auckland super-city structure. There is a lot of answering to be done, and National is not doing any of it.

I will talk today about the Waterview issue. On behalf of west Auckland I say “Thank you!”. West Aucklanders have been waiting for 40-odd years to be able to drive from west Auckland to South Auckland without having to go through Spaghetti Junction. We have been waiting for this motorway for years and years, but there has been no lolly over the last 9 years. We were promised a double tunnel that would cost something in the vicinity of $3 billion. Members opposite when in Government would not say where they were going to get the money from. Where was the money going to come from? They led the electorate up the garden path. People in Mt Albert said “Thank God for Helen!”, while the rest of the country said “Thank God Helen’s gone!”. That was the sort of politicking and pork-barrel politics that was in operation over the last 9 years. We in this country are patting ourselves on the back because we got rid of that sort of pork-barrel politics.

I heard in the Chamber today that Darren Hughes wants to compensate not only those who will lose their houses but also those who will not lost their houses—just because a motorway will be going through the area. I tell the young whippersnapper Darren Hughes, who really should be in seventh form—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think I can anticipate the point of order. Members should use appropriate titles for other members. The member should withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for the West Coast and at least two other members were calling out while you were on your feet. I ask that you deal with them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Members know well enough that points of order are heard in silence. Today we have had a few breaches in that area. Let this be a general warning. Those members who offended on that occasion know better.

I remind the young Darren Hughes that I was born and bred in a place called Ōtara. I had as my back lawn some corn and the Southern Motorway. Not one of his mates in Labour ever suggested that my old man and my mother be compensated because there was a blinking motorway in the backyard. For goodness’ sake! Is this what Labour members have come to? That member shakes his head, but he said he wants to compensate those who will not lose their homes. What about the people in Waterview? Who asked the people of Mt Albert when the motorway was actually being put through their place—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: You’ve lost the plot!

I have lost the plot! Members on this side of the House do not lose the plot. “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. Does the member remember what mum and dad used to say to this side of the House? That lot on the other side of the House are not about progress; this side of the House is all about progress.

The road from west Auckland to the south-east point of Auckland is good for the country. It is good for productivity. It is all about progress. If Labour wants to stand in the way of progress, then so be it; it can stay in Opposition for the next 20 years. But this side of the House is about progress, productivity, and getting the country moving. Yes, some people will be hurt by the removal of some houses. Some houses will have to be moved. We feel sorry about that having to happen, but those people will be taken care of.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: No, they won’t.

Yes, they will—through the Public Works Act.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: It’s not the Public Works Act.

The member has not read what it states in the Public Works Act. I am really sorry that Opposition members have not done their homework. They have come to the Chamber unprepared, with only a rant and a rave from Darren Hughes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When a point of order was raised against me, and when a colleague of mine also had a point of order raised against him, I wonder whether you turned the time off.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I did, but now the member’s time will be turned off. His time has expired.

There are a number of immediate and important issues facing our country today, such as the ridiculous Waterview Connection motorway project, which will waste billions of dollars, and the matter of Auckland governance. Today I will focus on some more positive long-term issues.

Last week during the general debate, my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons laid out before this Parliament the world view of the Green Party, with its aspiration of a more harmonious and prosperous future steering us away from the dangers humankind presently faces. It is my intention today to elaborate on the economic dimensions of our philosophy. We contend, first, that green economics is the only way to achieve that aspiration. In the 19th century the classical theories of Smith and Ricardo freed societies from feudalism through a self-regulatory free market that claimed to be optimally productive. The potent partnership of capitalism and technology generated unprecedented industrial development, liberating us from some of the age-old scourges of disease, pestilence, and famine. Freedom of the individual and the market were central tenets, though of course the experience of the industrial working class was one of struggling to achieve these freedoms.

In the early 20th century neoclassical economics developed these notions further, with theories of profit maximisations, consumer rationality, and market information. In the 1930s, macroeconomic planning through public finance management reflected the new reach of modern technology and the globalisation of economic supply and demand. Responding to the Great Depression, Keynesian theory emphasised the role of the public sector in stimulating growth through active fiscal management—a lesson we have recently had to relearn. Welfare of the individual and the responsibility of the State were central tenets of Keynesianism.

By the late 20th century, monetarist theory had reverted to the free-market principles and the use of interest and exchange rates independently managed by central banks, as the means to wealth. But its weak regulatory frameworks led to excessive corporate speculation and irresponsible investment practice. Thus we face the serious global financial crisis of today. The invisible hand miraculously appears to be begging for help.

Neither of these economic theories has paid due attention to the natural world. Traditional economic theory demands continuous material growth. The classical theory of capitalism and compound interest rates requires limitless growth, yet the planet is finite. This fundamental illogic, if allowed to proceed, spells disaster for humanity. Yet traditional economics, ensnared in its own tenets, remains blind to this obvious truth about the finite world. Since the mid-1970s, although GDP has continued to increase, the general progress indicator, which includes social and environmental measures, has steadily declined. The global economy, far from strengthening, has experienced negative marginal utility. We would be foolhardy to continue along the same path, yet we hear no cry for any change of direction from National or Labour.

Ecological economics, the theoretical basis of the Green Party’s economic policy, introduces a remedial element that is essential to our 21st century survival and prosperity. Its central goal, which is sustainability, can be attained only when its three component factors—economic, social, and environmental—are met. It understands that society is a subset of the environment and that the economy is a subset of society. Ecological economics differs from traditional economics in four ways: it values nature not as an object of productive exploitation but for its intrinsic worth to humanity; it accords equal importance to the well-being of the next generation as well as our own; it acknowledges the irreversibility of environmental change from economic behaviour; and it recognises the uncertainty of environmental outcomes from economic inputs.

Ecological economics thus adopts the uncertainty principle, which requires that an economic development project will not proceed unless it is clear that irreversible environmental damage will not occur. Although the international community embraced this principle 20 years ago, no New Zealand Government has properly implemented it into domestic law. The result is that irreversible damage continues to be done to our national environment and thus to our long-term economic potential.

Traditional economics takes into account three components: land, labour, and investments. Ecological economics factors in the fourth: natural resources. By omitting the fourth, classical and neoclassical economics fails the test of the current age. The Green New Deal offers a new way ahead. The Green Party is developing a set of economic policies involving fiscal and budgetary measures that are suitable for our time.

It is an honour to stand today to talk about the issues that matter in this Parliament; not to talk about scandals and personal politics but to talk about the things that matter. And Auckland governance matters. It matters because Auckland is the biggest city in this country and the economic driver of this country. We have to get it right, and that is why urgency is pending.

This afternoon we have heard many speakers talk about personal politics, but I will talk about the Waterview tunnel, because it is quite a pertinent issue for Aucklanders right now. The proposal that the Labour Government put forward would have cost $3 billion. That is twice the cost of the proposal that National is putting forward. What is the difference in cost—accepting that Labour’s proposal was unfunded and did not come up with any rigorous financial analysis? The difference in cost is $1.5 billion. I ask members what that would buy. How many hip operations would it buy? How many schools and how many early childhood education centres would it buy? Labour wants to invest $3 billion into all this dirt and infrastructure. That is an awful lot of money for a party that says it stands up for the workers and the children. This country is in a recession. The Labour Party has not realised that we are in a recession and that every dollar counts. I will tell members what $1.5 billion will buy: per household it will save $7.5 million. And what was it for? The previous Prime Minister stated that the Waterview motorway would happen over her dead body. Well, it will not happen over her dead body, but it will go ahead anyway. It will go ahead because the National Government is about cost-effective spending and listening to the voters.

We have had consultation in terms of Auckland governance. Although Labour members stand there and say National has not consulted, we actually have. Three and a half thousand people made submissions last year to the royal commission of inquiry. There were a number of public meetings. As the Hon Nanaia Mahuta said, a thousand people went to a Papakura meeting. Guess what I am doing?

💬 Paul Quinn: What are you doing?

Guess what I am doing?

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What are you doing?

I myself am holding public meetings, and I have some leaflets here. I say to members opposite that they do not need to come into my office uninvited and take these leaflets; I will give them these—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: A council meeting is not a public meeting—that doesn’t count.

I will personally give the Hon Trevor Mallard an invitation so that he does not have to come into my office and take my pamphlets.

National’s Auckland governance proposal is about community board representation. We have put forward 20 to 30 community boards, which will represent grassroots people. Do members know what the general electorate said last November? The general electorate said that it trusted National because National represents grassroots people. Forty-four percent of the country said that it trusted and wanted National, and that it actually represented the workers, unlike our friends across the aisle.

As my colleague the Hon Tau Henare said, motorways have been built across South Auckland. But what is the Labour Party doing for the people of South Auckland? Nothing! It was in Government for 9 years, and there are motorways all over the place.

This Government is hearing the people and taking action in order to benefit those people. I ask members how many hip operations could be performed for the $1.5 billion of excessive cost that Labour members would invest in the Waterview tunnel. I ask them why they would not put that money into the Onehunga foreshore.

I will carry on shortly from what MP Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga said and talk about the tunnel—or should I say Councillor Sam Lotu-Iiga? In thinking about this issue in light of the fact that we are in the middle of a recession, I say that perhaps the member could help one jobless person by giving up one of his jobs. I think that is a good idea. In talking about the money that we need for hip operations, I say that perhaps we could have paid for a number of hip operations if we had not paid out tax cuts to a number of rich people earlier this year. Those tax cuts mostly went to the top 3 percent of income earners in New Zealand. Councillor and MP Sam Lotu-Iiga should say thank you for those two sets of tax cuts.

The National Government’s actions in scuttling the proposed Waterview tunnel are the actions of a Government that is out of touch with the interests and wishes of the people it purports—as Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was just doing—to represent. The twin tunnel proposal was decided upon after an extensive consultation process between the previous Labour Government and local residents. That is something that the National Government would not know anything about. Now the transport Minister has decided to pursue a cheaper alternative, though it is one that is undoubtedly more costly to the local community. This shows a refusal to relate to and accommodate the interests of ordinary New Zealanders. Unfortunately, in this instance, perhaps because the consultation took place under the previous Labour Government, the Minister has decided it is more important to prioritise politics over the best interests of the community.

In order to justify the decision to dump the plans for a two-lane tunnel, the transport Minister has claimed there is a budget blowout. According to the Minister, under Labour’s plan the tunnel would have cost $2.7 billion. That is pure deception. That is the cost of a three-lane tunnel and other costs that come alongside that, which would have to be paid for anyway. Three lanes are not necessary. Further work on cycleways and improving the public transport system would have ensured that two-lane tunnels would not create bottlenecks, and that the extra lanes would not be required. The transport Minister, however, has reduced the funding options for public transport, despite the support of Aucklanders for an improvement of the public transport system. The Minister has also inflated the figure of $2.7 billion by including extra works on State Highway 16—works that must be done regardless of which option is chosen and regardless of the financing costs.

We just heard the member Sam Lotu-Iiga say the figure is now $3 billion—from $2.7 billion to $3 billion. The Minister has manipulated the cost of the tunnel to suit his own political agenda. The tunnel that Labour proposed would have cost $1.98 billion. That is more than the $1 billion to $1.4 billion that the Minister is willing to spend, but there would have been considerably less cost to the residents of the area, many of whom, under the current Government’s plans, will lose their homes. We have just found out that now, with the new plans, approximately 365 homes will be lost—one for every day of the year. Thank you, National Government!

The previous Labour Government acknowledged that Mount Albert residents were overwhelmingly in support of the tunnel option over any surface road alternatives. In respect of the Transit New Zealand consultative process, 76 percent of respondents were in support of the tunnel. The transport Minister not only disregards those findings but refuses to visit the Mount Albert - Waterview area and meet community groups, despite their requests. Community groups support the tunnel, as does the Auckland City Council’s transport community. Who does not support the tunnel? Business lobbyists and the National Government.

The National candidate for Mt Albert, Melissa Lee, has claimed that Labour had not budgeted for the Waterview Connection. Labour had, in fact, explored many options to fund the Waterview tunnel, including a regional fuel tax, which would have allowed the Auckland region to invest local funds in local infrastructure projects; public-private partnerships; and Government bonds. Steven Joyce has replaced the proposed regional fuel tax with a national fuel tax. In respect of using public-private partnerships and Government bonds to accelerate infrastructure development, he has been silent. Those are viable options to fund a tunnel that would be in the best interests of the Mount Albert and Waterview communities, yet the National Government, instead of exploring the options, will not acknowledge them.

Steven Joyce has used the excuse of a Budget blowout to halt the Waterview tunnel project, yet the tunnel, which was a Labour proposal that had the clear support of the local community, would have cost $1.9 billion. That figure is far from the $2.77 billion that the Minister claims or the $3 billion that Sam Lotu-Iiga claims. The figure keeps getting bigger.

Today is a historic day for Auckland. I am proud to be part of a party that has the guts to move Auckland forward, compared with a Labour Party that has lost all credibility in Auckland. Labour has gone absolutely barmy with the by-election. We saw that when Phil Goff, instead of choosing to speak about one of the most historic days for Auckland, spoke about Mt Albert and about trying to take out Melissa Lee. Why? Because his job is on the line. Phil Goff has to win Mt Albert, or he is gone. He will be gone by lunchtime. Labour would put forward $1.5 billion to spend on a tunnel. That is the most expensive job in New Zealand’s history. That is how much Labour wants to spend to keep Phil in the job.

Today is a historic day for Auckland. We have put forward legislation that will establish one council for Auckland. Labour has been polling in Auckland on local government and has found that it is 50 percent for and 50 percent against. That was in its caucus. Labour is so divided on the issue of Auckland governance that we have seen a mix of policy positions coming out from Labour. In fact, George Hawkins and Ross Robertson were releasing different positions on Auckland.

At the end of the day, Labour members have been all over the place. At a time when they are saying we should support the royal commission, they have come out against the at-large seats. We are not clear whether Labour supports Māori seats. We have seen different policy positions from Labour. Today is a time to move Auckland forward, and Labour cannot even get its policy straight. Labour members are not talking about the issues that matter.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but at least three conversations are going on across the Chamber, as well as the speaker. The rules are quite clear: interjections are permissible as long as they are rare and reasonable. We will not have three alternative conversations going on in loud voices.

This is a historic day for Auckland, but it is so poignant that at a time when we are moving Auckland forward—finally, after 50 years of fragmentation—we see Labour wanting to spend $1.5 billion to save Phil Goff’s job. Do you know how many people would kill for some money right now? We are in a recession, and you want to spend the money to buy the Mt Albert by-election.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know what—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I might have just missed it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She was suggesting that you want to spend some money.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member will mind her pronouns.

Labour wants to spend $1.5 billion at a time when we are in a recession. People are struggling out there, but it is all about the by-election for Labour. Well, I have news for Labour. When Labour members come to campaign in 2011 they will realise that Labour has sold itself out on the by-election, rather than spending the money on health and education, which is what National is interested in doing. We are interested in spending money on health, education, and core public services. Labour instead is interested in spending the money on bureaucracy. Labour is interested in buying the people of Mt Albert. But when Labour members turn up in 2011 they will find that the people of Auckland have seen that you have tried to bribe the people of Mt Albert, at the expense of the rest of Auckland. It is pork-barrel politics—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Did I miss it again?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, in this particular case it was more serious. There was an allegation that you bribed people.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I know the member is quite enjoying her speech, but she should just mind her pronouns, please.

Labour members will turn up in 2011, and all they cared about was Mt Albert. Phil Goff will be gone.

💬 Hon Members: No, he won’t.

Yes, he will; Phil Goff will be gone—that is right. He will be gone because, as we saw, he fixed the election in Mt Albert. Phil Twyford was gone by lunchtime, for his best mate David Shearer. At the end of the day, people can see right through it. We are interested in the issues that matter. We are interested in taking Auckland forward on a historic day for Auckland. All Labour is interested in is Mt Albert. We are interested in fixing Auckland. Historic legislation will go through the House today. All that you are left with is walking the streets of Mt Albert, and you will continue to drop in the polls—

💬 Carol Beaumont: Where’s Melissa Lee?

Melissa Lee is knocking on doors in Mt Albert.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You dropping, even in the polls, would be an interesting thing. I know the member is new, but you have given her four warnings now, I think.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, this will be the third warning. The member is aware I am sure—[Interruption] I have referred to the fact that several conversations are going on across the Chamber. The member is actually competing with quite a bit of alternative noise, but I ask her to just mind her pronouns.

Today is a historic day for Auckland. Today Labour has shown its colours. It is interested in winning an election in Mt Albert, at the expense of the rest of Auckland. The rest of Auckland knows better. The rest of Auckland is interested in who will pay the health and education bill for core public services. The people of Auckland Central are not interested in Labour buying the Mt Albert by-election.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.