Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

I am very, very pleased to stand and speak today in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, tabled in this House on 9 February. This document outlines the Government’s ambitious plans for the year ahead. It recognises that if New Zealanders are to be better off, the Government needs to do some things to ensure that the income is there to make them better off. The document says that if we can be fairer to New Zealanders through the tax system, then we will look at that. If we can be fairer to New Zealanders through the benefit system, then we will look at that, too. There will, of course, be announcements on both of those matters later in the year.

This speech is traditionally given each year by the Prime Minister, and normally the media are able to comment on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition responds to it. The expectation is that the set piece from the Prime Minister will be somewhat dismantled by the free flow of speech from the Leader of the Opposition. That did not happen this year, and it did not happen because the Leader of the Opposition has no answer to this particular work plan. Opposition members, in fact, to a person, have no answer to this particular work plan, other than that they do not like it.

The only response that we have had this year from the Leader of the Opposition to the current economic difficulties this country faces is for there to be a cap on the salaries of those who lead Government departments. He does not tell us, of course, that 31 of those 35 people were appointed by Labour, 31 of those 35 people had their salaries approved by Labour, and, what is more, they were signed off by Annette King, who was the then Minister of State Services. I will not say any more about that, because I think that just shows the politics of envy that the Labour Party has got itself caught in, and the fact that it is a party that has exceptionally low aspirations for New Zealanders.

I will speak today, though, about the section in the Prime Minister’s statement that talks about New Zealand making more of our oil, gas, and other minerals available to us throughout this country. It is a little-known fact that New Zealand’s third-largest export product is now oil. Last year we exported some 21 million barrels of oil from this country, and that is adding to the value that we have inside our economy in quite an extraordinary way. Most people do not see it, most people do not know it is there, but they understand its effects because it has a positive effect on making sure that the balance between what we spend and what we earn is kept within a fairly tight band. It is one area where we can rapidly increase the national income if we are bold enough to have a go at it.

This summer, due I think to the encouragement of the National Government over the previous year, we are experiencing the biggest drilling programme in the oil and gas sector, in both offshore New Zealand and onshore New Zealand, that we have ever seen. I am told that the results coming through so far are extremely encouraging, and later this year I expect that the size of New Zealand’s confirmed oil and gas reserves will be greatly expanded. That is very much a good news story.

On the mineral front, I can sense that the various Opposition parties are starting to gear up for a scaremongering campaign aimed at getting New Zealanders distracted from the benefit that can be accrued from very, very minimal intervention in the landscape, and from the extraction, in a surgical fashion, of the minerals available to us in this country. I want to make it very clear that right now there are 82 mineral concessions on Department of Conservation land—

💬 Hon Member: How many?

—82 concessions on Department of Conservation land—and most of those were granted or re-approved by the previous Labour-Green administration. In total, mining occupies 40 square kilometres of this country’s entire land mass of some 2 million square kilometres. Not all of that area is actually involved in mining; it is taken up as areas where mining could take place. The return to the New Zealand economy from that activity is around $175,000 per hectare. We can compare that with dairying. Dairying covers some 20,000 square kilometres—so that is 40 versus 20,000—and has a return of $3,500 per hectare versus $175,000. I think the Green Party in particular needs to consider the economics of that.

One of the interesting things is that as these organisations gear up, supposedly to fight the Government, and threaten civil disobedience and all sorts of other things, I notice they are using every modern media communication device available to any one of us, such as cellphones, computers, and all that sort of stuff. It is all being used, yet those parties are not prepared to recognise that none of it would exist if someone had not extracted minerals somewhere to make the products—to get the minerals that make the materials that go into the manufacture of those communications devices. Millions of people throughout the world are alive right now because they have surgical assistance—implants, or other such—all because somewhere someone extracted some minerals from the ground. There are virtually no households in New Zealand that could survive today without the good effect of some mineral extraction somewhere in the world.

The question is why are these parties so excited about using all of this equipment—so excited about modern medical technology, etc., some of the educational equipment that is around these days, and the energy-saving technologies that are developing throughout the world—but then saying: “Well, not us. Let someone else do that.”? That seems to me to be a position that has two sides to the argument, if members get my drift; there is a word there that we do not use in Parliament. In my opinion it is unacceptable for people to rail against this sort of consideration—because that is where we are at the moment—but then take all the benefits of the activity at the same time. That is completely inconsistent and I have to say that I think it is somewhat hypocritical.

New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that is blessed with large deposits of what are called rare earth elements. They are a range of metals that have names that most of us have never heard, and, frankly, that most of us cannot pronounce. The reality is that they are used in compact fluorescent lights, hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, and catalytic converters, as additives in some fuels to reduce consumption, and in flat-panel screens, disc drives, digital cameras, and all sorts of medical appliances. The interesting thing is that the one other country in the world that has significant deposits at the present time is China. We can ask ourselves whether we should say: “No, we will not avail ourselves of the opportunities we have in this country. We’ll leave it to China.” But I ask members how New Zealanders will improve their incomes and their way of life by leaving it to another country to corner a monopoly on these very, very important rare earth elements. I have to say that I do not know. If anyone on the other side of the House knows, they should be saying so, because this is an opportunity that is unique to this country.

We are putting out a paper that indicates where these metals are inside the New Zealand conservation estate, and we will be asking New Zealanders to make a choice. I make a suggestion to those who want to fight that: if it is all so very important, they should not use any media or communications equipment that relies on those metals. The message I tell those members is to prove themselves to be true to what they saying.

💬 Hon Members: Don’t be ridiculous!

Oh, over there they are telling me not to be ridiculous, because the hypocritical stance is OK for them. That is what they are saying. This decision will be interesting for New Zealanders. It is about our deciding whether we want to grow the wealth base of this country, or whether we want simply to sit around and accept the crumbs off another nation’s table.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In full flight, the Leader of the Opposition made a couple of comments, one of which, at least, is factually incorrect and one that he may wish to correct. On the first occasion, he referred to the previous Labour-Green administration.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to inform the member that that is a debating point; it is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The one that I thought the member was going to raise was when the previous speaker called the Greens’ stance hypocritical, and that is certainly out of order.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give the member with the point of order an opportunity to explain exactly what he wanted, but any comparisons of agreements between parties are not points of order; they are debating points.

The first point I was making was that there was a factual assertion that there had been a Labour-Green administration. That is factually incorrect.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is a debating point, and we will not entertain it further. It is not a point of order.

Thank you for that clarification. The second point I was going to raise was that the Leader of the House declared explicitly that those who availed themselves of certain minerals but who criticised their extraction from the earth were hypocritical. I ask for a clarification as to whether he was referring to any political party in that respect.

Yes I was. I was referring to any political party that wants to oppose the consideration of these things. It is exactly as I have said it. But I also said—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; that is enough.

I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. He has withdrawn and apologised.

The member who has just resumed his seat, Gerry Brownlee, spent 10 minutes trying to justify mining in national parks, and not once did he mention his or his Government’s commitment to any job creation. That is because his Government does not have any. There is not an ounce of commitment in that whole member’s body to doing anything towards addressing the fact that we now have 168,000 people in New Zealand who want to work, get up in the morning, want to go to a job, but do not have a job to go to. The other thing that member did—which I was surprised at, because in the past I have heard better contributions from him—was resort to a tactic that I do not think this Parliament should accept. When a member runs out of decent policy debate, the member attacks the person. The member introduces red herrings, starts mocking the Opposition, and totally avoids having a serious policy debate. In my view, this Parliament should be better than that. Kennedy Graham took exception to it on behalf of the Green Party. Well, I think every single person in the country who was listening to that speech would have taken exception to it.

I have a message for Mr Brownlee: I am not opposed to mining. I enjoy the benefits that mining gives to us as individuals and as a nation, despite the fact that the mining industry actually loses money in New Zealand—most of the money goes offshore. We still have a lot of benefits from it, and I enjoy them as well. But I am opposed to mining in precious areas of New Zealand that not only are viewed as precious but have been designated as precious by this House. There are some parts of our country that should be kept precious because that is what they are. There is no such thing as restoration of untouched land once it has been touched. We do have rare-earth minerals in New Zealand, but we also have places of rare beauty. When those two coincide we have a moral responsibility to ensure that that rare beauty is protected for future generations. That is the message that I want Mr Brownlee to hear.

The message that the public of New Zealand wanted to hear on “Big Tuesday” of this week, on the day we had all been hyped up to hear the big plan, the big message, and the big salvation from our Prime Minister, was the message about a step change. The public wanted to hear about a commitment, a plan, and some action from the Government about employment. There was not any mention of employment in the whole statement. It was not a step up; all we got was tiptoeing around the issues. “We’re going to consider that, we’re going to review that. We’ll set up a committee.” I think this year will be a competition as to how many reviews, considerations, and committees can be done compared with last year. Last year was full of them. We did not have any step change in the statement; we just had tiptoeing.

The Prime Minister’s statement was confirmation, as has been speculated in the House and in the media, that there is no plan for the future of our nation from this Government. There is no leadership from John Key and no plan. There is no plan to catch up with Australia. Up and down the country the National Party paraded the statement that we will catch up with Australia. There is no plan to do that. There is no plan for growth in our nation. Does the National Party believe in growth any more? Perhaps it does not. If it does not, I am happy to hear that, but there is no plan for anything. There is certainly no plan for job creation. It was a bit like my colleague Grant Robertson, the member of Parliament for Wellington Central, said. He said that it was like watching TV in January—repeat after repeat. How many times has the Kōpū Bridge been opened? It is just extraordinary that we can hear over and over again re-announcements by the same Minister. Sometimes he makes re-announcements of things that the previous Labour-led Government had introduced.

I will have a closer look at the tax package. We had some very solid attempts by David Cunliffe today to get some answers out of Bill English, but he was totally unsuccessful. Bill English slid around. It was like watching someone try to pick up mercury with chopsticks. Bill English was sliding all round the bowl unable to answer any of the questions. We know that people on lower incomes, people on benefits, people in low-wage jobs, students who are working part-time, and superannuitants—people who have given more to their country than most members in this House ever will—spend a larger proportion of their income on things they have to spend it on. They have to spend a large proportion of their income on things that attract GST. They do not have a choice. People in this House have a lot of income left over because we get very high salaries. Increases to GST will hurt the lowest income earners because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income on things that they have no choice about. So they will be the most disadvantaged from the National Party’s proposal to put GST up to 15 percent.

But Bill English makes it sound like we all will be better off. That is what he is saying—[Interruption] No, sorry, he is implying we will all be better off. What he actually says is: “Most people won’t be worse off.” I am not sure what “Most people won’t be worse off.” means, but he is deceiving the public by not explaining that people on low incomes pay more on goods that will sell for a higher price now—because they will have a higher level of GST—and also that they will get nothing out of a lowering of the top tax rate. If the top tax rate is lowered, as was floated in John Key’s speech, people who earn less than $48,000 a year—and that is a lot of people in New Zealand—will get not one cent. Lowering the top tax rate will not give them one cent, and if they do not have children, if they are not on a benefit, and if they are not superannuitants, then I ask how they will have that increase in GST compensated for. There is no compensation at all for those people.

If the top tax rate is cut, John Key will get $509 more a week. Paul Reynolds—I am not having a go at him personally—and anyone else who is in Paul Reynolds’ position will get over $2,500 a week. I ask who needs more money in their pockets. Is it people who are on a pension, people who are on a benefit, students who are working part time and trying to put themselves through university or polytech—people who are on $48,000 or less—or somebody who is on $250,000? The National Government is proposing to make the lowest income earners pay more in GST, and give the highest income earners the biggest tax cuts.

I will just make some comments about the other broken promises that have been confirmed this week. In addition to the broken promise on GST, we have also had confirmed in the House today the broken promise on cuts in front-line health services. The 2008 National Party health policy document states: “Less bureaucracy, more frontline care for patients.” But day after day we hear the anguished cries, particularly from the most senior members of our community, about the savage health cuts that they are having to bear. An 86-year-old who cannot hang out her own washing, change her sheets, or do her cleaning wants the dignity of remaining in her own home. She got a phone call from somebody who said: “I am ringing to see how you are doing. I am from the health board.” Then, at the end of the conversation, when this woman said: “I am doing very well. Thank you for ringing.”, she was told that her home support was cut. Where is the respect for that elderly person, where is the dignity that she deserves, and where is the support that will enable that woman to stay in her own home? Her home support is what is keeping her independent and in dignity in her own home, rather than going into a rest home, where she does not want to live, and which would actually end up costing the State more.

Health cuts, charges in public hospitals, and GST increases—that was probably the most disappointing speech that I have heard from a Prime Minister in my time in the House.

The John Key opening address was a jobs machine. It was a jobs factory, a machine that will create jobs throughout this country. The Hon Ruth Dyson stood up and said in her speech that no jobs were planned. That is absolute rubbish, and it shows the distinct difference between members on this side of the House and members on that side. You see, on this side of the House, we know that businesses create jobs. Members on that side of the House think that only the Government does that. That is absolutely crazy. Those members want programmes, but it is actually businesses that create jobs. They quote Australia and the jobs that have been created over there. Are those jobs coming out of Government programmes? No way. It is because that economy has grown and because those businesses employ people.

The only small thing I would give members on that side of the House is to say that they created some jobs through the bureaucracy over the last 9 years where they lifted it by 11,000 jobs. The reality in any economy—it does not matter how big or how small it is—is that businesses create jobs. We need a plan that gets out there, grows the economy, and makes it easier for businesses to grow.

I will talk through this jobs plan, this jobs machine, that John Key outlined. It is not just some whimsical, small plan; it was in a 9,000-word document that covered all sectors of the economy. It is a jobs machine, something that will help to grow this economy and take us forward. Let us look at the various parts of that jobs machine. I will relate it to how it will affect a regional economy like Hawke’s Bay, and talk about how it is creating jobs in places like Hawke’s Bay, Tauranga, Rotorua, the Waitakeres, and all around the country. This plan is a jobs machine. Firstly, let us take tax. The Opposition spokesman on finance said that there was no step change. This is a $4 billion tax package—$4 billion. There was only just over $1 billion before the last election. If this is not a step change, then I do not know what we are looking at.

We are looking at addressing property owners, and for the first time we are looking at that area for taxation as part of the economy. The working group made it pretty clear. There is $213 billion invested in residential property and only $50 billion invested in the New Zealand stock exchange. Tax regularly comes out of the stock exchange, and we have $500 million in tax credits coming out of the residential investment market. That whole property market—and I have been part of it for much of my life—is not paying the tax that is fair to the rest of the economy. In the Prime Minister’s statement, he said that this is not fair and that there needs to be a rebalancing of the economy. There needs to be a change in the incentives, a shift from that investment to hard-working Kiwis who are out there in jobs to get them to work harder. We will be lowering the middle-income tax brackets and the higher-income tax brackets, and improving the incentives for people to get out there and work. This is a jobs machine.

The Prime Minister went on and talked about improving science and innovation and about taking that forward. He talked about trade. If there is anything that will grow jobs, it is Ministers like Tim Groser and Murray McCully, who are overseas creating free-trade agreements. They are improving the opportunities for New Zealand businesses to export. What does that do? It creates jobs. It will take this economy forward and help to reduce the unemployment level, which none of us in this country are happy about. Minister Bennett is not happy about where unemployment levels are at, but she understands that we have a jobs growth plan to take this economy forward. The Prime Minister outlined what we will do in housing, justice, law and order, health, and in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, and how we will take the economy forward.

Let us look at our Treaty of Waitangi options. This Government is making settlements over and over again, exponentially improving the number of settlements. What does that do? It empowers iwi with financial resources to create jobs.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, don’t be so patronising.

It is not patronising; it is empowering iwi to create jobs. Is that a bad thing? I do not think so. The member is quiet now. Empowering iwi to create jobs is a fantastic thing. We need only look at what has happened down in Ngāi Tahu with the way the empowerment of that settlement has taken them forward.

I am going to change back to the Hawke’s Bay now in terms of what is happening there in Treaty of Waitangi settlements and what is going to happen over the next 5 years. What we are seeing up there is one iwi, Ngāti Kahungunu, and five natural groups that are about to settle. Mana Ahuriri have got to a point now where they are in a position, as result of the moves made by Chris Finlayson, to actually get to a settlement and reach a mandate. I think it is a great step forward. What I am trying to show is how the overall plan has now been regionalised through the jobs machine. A number of things have been rolled out in Hawke’s Bay, not only the improvements in the wider community. Let us a look at Community Max for a minute, which is one of Minister Bennett’s initiatives. I was out with Denis O’Reilly, who has 12 young men and women working really hard at the Ōtātara Pā. He is creating jobs for our youth. I was at the Rewi Smith Scout Hall with Sally Dunford, where another 16 kids were working, getting ready for the workforce, and being taken forward. That is absolutely fantastic.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Out of 88,000!

This is where members opposite lose the plot again. I tell Mr Hughes that the way in which we will improve jobs in this country is by quadrupling their number as businesses go forward.

I come back to a regional basis and some of the key things we have done locally. One of the latest announcements to be made in Hawke’s Bay is that of the cycleway. Fortunately, that is another fantastic opportunity in Hawke’s Bay. There is also one in Rotorua and one in Tauranga. It is absolutely fantastic. The cycleway will be a huge opportunity in Hawke’s Bay, and my constituents love it. We have three iconic rides in Hawke’s Bay and they will provide an opportunity for a number of jobs. It is a fantastic project. One ride is down the Tukituki Valley, the second one is out to the Ngātarawa wine area, and the third ride is down to Ōtātara Pā and around the back of the Taradale area. These rides will create not only tourism opportunities but also opportunities for small businesses, and they will provide employment. Once again, it is another jobs opportunity. In terms of the Community Max programme, which is part of the jobs creation programme, we are taking young Kiwis off the dole, putting them into employment, and really making a difference. It is absolutely fantastic.

I want to finish this speech by coming back to where I started, when I referred to the difference between members on both side of the House. Members opposite think that Governments create jobs just through programmes. On this side of the House, we understand that a wider plan for the economy that addresses tax and creates incentives for businesses to go out and employ people is what makes the difference. That is what we have done. The Prime Minister has laid out a map for the economy for the year that will take the country forward and will be a jobs machine. Thank you very much.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. This will not be a happy New Year for many New Zealanders as they face the prospect of an increase in GST. In that regard, I am particularly concerned for two groups: the elderly on fixed incomes, and Pacific Island people. My electorate of Mana has a large proportion of elderly people on fixed incomes, and a large number of Pacific people. Those are not the only groups who will not be looking forward to a brighter future. This year will be very gloomy for many New Zealanders. In my contribution to this debate, and as Labour’s associate spokesperson on health—specifically aged care—and spokesperson on Pacific Island affairs, I will focus on the elderly and on Pacific people, who were largely absent from the Prime Minister’s address.

During the Prime Minister’s speech I noticed no reference to the health and care of elderly people in New Zealand. This is very distressing because it shows that as this Government looks to the future it could not care less about the fate of older New Zealanders. During the 2020s the number of over 65-year-olds will reach over 1 million; we need to get aged care working properly now. I noticed that National’s pre-election discussion paper on aged care, Choice Not Chance for Older New Zealanders, includes a measure to simplify and provide improved flexibility for home-based care, yet home-based care is being cut. Elderly people across the country are receiving phone calls from their district health boards. Unbeknownst to them, they are being assessed for the hours of home support they receive, and in many instances those hours are cut. In a recent example on the Kapiti coast, a woman in her 80s was told that her home help hours would be cut by 75 percent. Canterbury District Health Board has cut the home help services of more than 1,200 clients.

Home-based care is a vital part of the aged-care sector. Home-based care gives elderly people the choice of staying in their own homes and helps them to stay independent. A few hours of home-based support can spell the difference between an elderly person having some independence and dignity through living at home, and moving into a much more expensive rest home. Reducing home-based care does not make sense socially and it does not make sense economically. The demise of home-based care will see thousands more elderly people needing to enter rest homes.

This is dark news for older New Zealanders, but it is made even worse by the Prime Minister’s statement, which signals a rise in GST to 15 percent. Most older New Zealanders survive on limited fixed incomes. They will receive no tax cuts and will be greatly harmed by a rise in GST. In effect, a rise in GST to 15 percent will represent a 2.5 percent increase in the cost of living for the elderly on fixed incomes. Older people are some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. The Prime Minister’s statement ignored the elderly. One test of the quality of a nation is the manner in which it treats its elderly citizens; the Prime Minister’s statement did not pass that test. It does nothing to give the elderly hope for a brighter future. The future looks distinctly gloomy for the elderly under this National regime.

I now turn to another group of vulnerable citizens and to see whether the Prime Minister’s statement gives them any hope for a bright future. Another group who were largely absent from the Prime Minister’s statement was Pacific Island people. The Prime Minister’s statement takes three strikes against Pacific Island people. Strike one is an increase in GST. It is obvious to the casual observer of such a move that lower-income people will be hit hard by any increase in GST. It is a tax on consumption, so those who must commit a greater percentage of their income towards buying goods and services, food to the feed the family, clothes to keep them warm, and power to run a household—the basics—will be paying a greater percentage of their income in GST. An increase in GST targets the poor. For Pacific Island families, most of whom survive on a much lower income than the average New Zealand family, it simply means higher grocery bills, a greater cost for day-to-day items, and fewer savings. It is a greater burden on the people who can afford it less, and that includes most Pacific Island families. It is not so bad for those of us on higher incomes. A slightly higher grocery bill will not dent our budget too much. We have a bit of room to move and to absorb the costs. But for those Pacific people and others on much lower incomes the ability to save may well dry up along with their future prospects. Many people even now are borrowing just to stay afloat. What happens to these people?

Strike two is tax cuts. Pacific Island people, already disadvantaged by the rise in GST, will get absolutely nothing from John Key’s tax cuts. These cuts, aimed at those with higher incomes, will be of no good to anyone earning under the average wage of $48,000. This includes the vast majority of Pacific Island people, whose average wage is below the national average; Pacific Island people’s average income is closer to $35,000. With no help from the tax cuts and a rise in GST, Pacific people will be paying more in tax than before. This is, of course, consistent with National’s plan for Pacific New Zealanders, which includes ongoing personal tax cuts. It is in their 2008 policy paper. It is written there as part of National’s plan for improving Pacific New Zealanders’ education, health, and employment.

Strike three is unemployment. There is no plan in the Prime Minister’s statement for increasing employment. Unemployment is the biggest problem facing Pacific Islanders in New Zealand. Recent figures show that unemployment amongst Pacific Islanders has reached 14 percent; this is double the national rate. It is close to the 15 percent Pacific Island unemployment that we faced when Labour came into Government in 1999. It took us years to get Pacific and Māori unemployment down to low single figures. But under National, Pacific unemployment has shot up again. In the past year 5,000 Pacific people have lost their jobs. It is shameful that National has no clear plan in place to deal with the rapid growth in Pacific unemployment.

“Three strikes and you’re out”—Pacific Island New Zealanders have been struck out by this Government. The Prime Minister’s statement was silent on Pacific people, and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs was nowhere to be seen. Where was her advocacy for Pacific people? Labour will not be silent. We will advocate for Pacific people, we will advocate for jobs and policies that support the economic development of our people in this, their mother region—the Pacific—and we will advocate for the elderly so that they may live lives with dignity and have respect for their hard work and sacrifices for our generation of New Zealanders. We owe them that.

The Prime Minister’s statement gave no help for elderly New Zealanders. It gave no hope for Pacific Island New Zealanders. The Prime Minister’s speech had no details, no substance, no specifics, and, above all, no conscience. The Prime Minister’s statement has bought him some time but time is running out for him. He cannot keep playing the nice guy; he will have to make some tough calls. Perhaps he is leaving that to his deputy.

Kia ora koutou. A few days ago the Prime Minister, in his opening statement, proposed that this year will be a busy and interesting one for local government. The local government scene is most certainly already busy and interesting in the Greater Auckland area, where the resistance is well under way to Minister of Local Government Mr Hide’s demolition job on local democracy, and his attempt to wrest control of some $28 billion worth of assets out of the hands of the public, who paid for them, and into entities that will be ripe for selling to private interests from July 2012. We in Auckland are becoming very busy and interested in resisting this “Rogernomics Round 2” that is being imposed upon us. The battle to protect local democracy and representation is being fought out currently in Auckland, but we may be sure that if this Government succeeds in imposing that model on Auckland, other constituencies and other regions will very soon be made subject to the same regime.

Mr Key indicated that the reforms of Auckland governance commenced by the former Labour-led Government and picked up by this administration will continue, with a new Auckland Council to be in place from 1 November this year. Clearly, the Auckland region is significantly—in fact, uniquely—important to the nation’s economy, and any steps to improve its economic, environmental, and indeed social performance are to be applauded. Sadly, however, the process that is in train to reform Auckland’s governance, and the all too predictable outcomes of that process, are likely to be very destructive of the Auckland region’s economy, and to do real harm to its environmental, social, and cultural well-being.

The Prime Minister correctly notes in his statement that Auckland will elect representatives for the new council and local boards this October. But the reality is that Aucklanders have already been largely disenfranchised at the local level, to the extent that most of the power has been taken out of the hands of the people whom we elected in 2007 to represent us, and put in the hands of the Auckland Transition Agency—a group containing no elected person, but rather people appointed by Mr Hide in his role as local government Minister. There is a real transfer of power happening under the guise of Auckland governance reform. This genuinely does constitute a step change, notably the removal of direct control of public assets away from our elected councillors, and the transfer of control into the dubious care of unelected directors of so-called council-controlled organisations. Those worthies are to be appointed by the Minister of Local Government, if he manages to push through his latest reform bill. We have already heard those council-controlled organisations be referred to as “council-controlling organisations” and as “cash-cow organisations”.

Polling tells us that a majority of Aucklanders do not want to have the super-city model that is being imposed on them. Over the last 2 weeks I have spoken to and listened to hundreds of people in communities all around the Auckland region, alongside a number of parliamentary colleagues from the Labour Party. Of the hundreds of people who have turned out to local halls in the communities all around Auckland, I can report that two individuals expressed some hope that the new model would deliver long-overdue infrastructure development, particularly to the rural areas. I did not have to attempt to disabuse those two people of their belief, as their own neighbours quickly dispelled their false hopes. It may be, and perhaps ought to be, of concern to some National members, especially to those in marginal Auckland seats, that the opposition to Mr Hide’s plan is both wide and deep. Even in the heart of Mr Key’s own Helensville electorate, a few nights ago a very crowded hall of irate ratepayers expressed their distaste for being brought under this regime, which is not of their making, and of which they want to have no part.

The Prime Minister suggest that: “The reforms will simplify and streamline governance structures within the Auckland region. This will result” he says “in better, more cost effective public services for Aucklanders delivered through integrated planning and service delivery across the region.” This is presumably some sort of code for what is really happening, which is the removal of most of the functions and virtually all of the significant assets currently managed by local authorities—some $28 billion worth of assets—which will be passed over to a number of council-controlled organisations. These organisations will be effectively beyond the control of the councillors whom we will elect. Mr Hide has reserved for himself the right to appoint the boards of directors who will run these organisations, of which only one, the transport organisation, may have up to two elected members on a board of perhaps six or eight members. No other of the six or eight council-controlled organisations may have any elected people on their boards.

We can readily anticipate that the veil of commercial secrecy will very quickly be drawn down, which will deny Aucklanders the right to know how and in whose interests their public assets are being managed. This fact alone makes a mockery of Mr Key’s claim in his speech that the Government is committed to changes that will give all ratepayers better information about their local council, and ultimately more influence over their council’s activities and spending. In fact, residents and ratepayers will have very little information about what is happening to their hard-earned assets, and they will have even less influence over the council’s activities and spending than they currently do. The legislation puts in place a moratorium on the sale of strategic assets, but only until July 2012, which means that the council elected in a few months’ time would have ample opportunity to propose and implement privatisation plans before the next election in 2013.

Returning to the claim that we will enjoy more integrated and better services, I ask how seven, eight, or more corporate entities, nominally publicly owned but in reality one large step away from public control or overview, can possibly deliver cost-effective public services or the integrated planning and services that the Prime Minister talked about.

The one tool in the third Auckland bill that ought to and might provide a coherent, long-term strategic plan, based on an extensive consultation process with residents, is very obviously flawed. A spatial plan is proposed in order to facilitate growth and development in the new enlarged city. There are no qualifiers on those words, like “sustainable” growth, or “systems-based” development; there is just growth and development. To me, and to many others of the hundreds of concerned citizens we have spoken to and listened to in the last couple of weeks, this signals a return to the worst excesses of “Rogernomics Round 1”, which saw the massive tearing apart of the physical, social, environmental, and heritage fabric of Auckland, and indeed of much of the country, during the 1980s and the 1990s. Mr Key’s stated goal of lifting our country’s economic performance, delivering jobs, increasing incomes, and creating better living standards will not be achieved by a return to those failed policies and Wild West development practices.

Aucklanders will be denied the right to propose any reorganisation until at least 2013, a right that residents of every other constituency have. Aucklanders will be obliged to stay with the first-past-the-post election process, unlike every other constituency in New Zealand, which may propose a change to its electoral system.

One thing that this legislation has achieved is that it has raised interest in local Government. It has certainly stimulated people’s interest in their local government, but perhaps not in the way that the Government intended or would hope for. Thank you.

I move, That this debate be now adjourned.