The royal commission, initiated by the previous Government, cost $4 million and took 18 months. After three pieces of legislation, thousands of submissions, and hundreds of hours of Auckland Governance Legislation Committee hearings, we are near the end of this parliamentary process. We are on the cusp of what we all hope is a new era of local government for the people of Auckland. After 3 years of consultation, decisions have been made. There are some bold changes, but Aucklanders are presented with a workable structure and one that has the potential to offer greater representation, better access to services for disadvantaged people, and, ultimately, a more secure, prosperous, and sustainable city.

I think it is important at this point to recognise why the legislation has been challenging, and I acknowledge my colleague Hone Harawira and his comments on Māori representation. The first relates to the scale and the magnitude of the changes for people, to legislation, and to policies. This is the greatest change to Auckland in a generation, and it will have an impact for generations to come. The other reason that this has been challenging to this Parliament is that we have been effectively engaging with the rearrangement of power. The change from eight mayors to one, from over 100 councillors to 20, and from a few community boards to 21 local boards was never going to please everyone. These changes cannot be looked at in isolation. One must view the whole system to understand the shift to a better balance of power between local and regional government, and to understand how Aucklanders may be better represented. It is one of those areas that puts an obligation on parliamentarians to act responsibly; it is legislation dealing with people’s rights and how they are represented. I am confident that although it is not possible to please everybody, we have acted responsibly to deliver a system that will lead to improved representation for all Aucklanders.

Parliament has worked alongside the Auckland Transition Agency. The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and Ministers have recognised that whatever Parliament chose not to address within this legislation has had to be addressed by the Auckland Transition Agency. I acknowledge the huge dedication and commitment by the agency, and in particular by Mark Ford, for the task they have completed.

As I have worked on the legislation I have been acutely aware of the following principles. The first was to ensure that we achieve the appropriate balance of delivering a structure, while not exerting excessive central government control and prescribing every last detail. This ensures maximum flexibility for a city that will continue to experience great change in terms of our people and our environment, and enables improved autonomy for local body politicians. The second principle has been to ensure that Parliament has put in place what may be interim arrangements to ensure the council can operate from day one. After listening to Aucklanders, the select committee has made significant changes to the council-controlled organisations, both in terms of accountability and by ultimately giving back to the Auckland Council the responsibility as to whether most council-controlled organisations should exist. The third principle has been to take into consideration that any unique features of the Auckland Council may have implications for the rest of New Zealand. Some of these variances are evident in areas like the new obligation for the mayor to engage with people who are too young to vote. This is entirely appropriate for one of the youngest cities in the world. Auckland is unique in New Zealand in terms of its demographics and size. However, we are confident that although it is not this Government’s intention to initiate the process with other regions in New Zealand, the model could work in other areas if they want it. We have aimed to deliver an enduring, flexible structure that will last for generations.

The fourth principle is diversity, and it is reflected in the local boards. We know that even within my Auckland Central electorate there is incredible diversity, from Waiheke, to Great Barrier Island, and to the central business district. What is right for each of these areas could not necessarily be prescribed within legislation. Given the number of changes to people, places, and legislation, I think it is inevitable—and I am happy to stand up and say so—that it is not likely that we will get it perfect. There probably will be implementation issues. But I hope that the people of Auckland are able to be patient and grasp some of the extraordinary opportunities that lie ahead for our city—in particular, in the area of planning. We heard today that we are moving from a system of having over 800 consent documents, to 100 consent documents. This is about making people’s lives simpler in Auckland, and making businesses’ lives a lot more efficient and less costly.

I would like to be clear that although Parliament has put in a system of local government, it cannot control the candidates that step up. I encourage all Aucklanders of all ethnicities and ages, and in all places, to step up at this exciting time and make a contribution. I acknowledge the members of the royal commission for the huge contribution they made to this process. I thank my select committee colleagues Jackie, Tau, and Simon for all their hard work, and also all the other National MPs and Ministers who contributed to this process. I acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide in particular for his ability to listen to Aucklanders and to make changes to the council-controlled organisations. I acknowledge the Hon John Carter for his uncanny ability to negotiate through troubled waters and find agreement.

I want to finish on this note—the opportunity that lies ahead. This is a time of opportunity for Auckland, and it is time when I believe we could be on the cusp of some very transformational things happening in Auckland. In particular, I note the ability of having one spatial plan in Auckland and what we may see as a result. It is time for Aucklanders to finally be able to come together and discuss what kind of public transport system they want. It is time for Aucklanders to finally be able to come together and decide where they want the cultural fabric of Auckland to exist. It is time for Aucklanders to finally be able to come together and look at the poorer areas and communities in Auckland. Our city is gifted in both people and environments. This evening we have the pleasure to deliver to Auckland a new system of local government. I hope Aucklanders will look back and say that although the process was hard, and at times it was painful, this was the day that Aucklanders emerged stronger and with greater opportunity for our greatest city. Thank you.

Transcript:

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am delighted to support the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. This is the third of three bills that are designed to transform Auckland and improve the lives of all Aucklanders.

I would like to start by acknowledging the huge number of Aucklanders who submitted on two of the bills. I also acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide and the Hon John Carter for the huge amount of work they have done in this area. I acknowledge that change can be very hard. This is probably the biggest piece of reform that we have ever had in Auckland, and I acknowledge the number of people who have contacted me since we produced this revised legislation and told me that we have done a great job.

I want to remind the House of the reason the Government is carrying out this reform. Auckland is a city that does not need seven councils. Auckland needs one regional entity with one mayor and 21 local boards. The reason we need this reform in Auckland, and the reason the royal commission recognised the need for change, is that we need to have a city that is efficient in the way it delivers its infrastructure and caters for the disadvantaged. I want to address that issue.

One of the reasons I am very supportive of having one regional entity comes down to one simple question. We when we look across to South Auckland—and I have had this conversation with George Hawkins—we can ask ourselves this simple question: how on earth do we expect that community to be able to deliver the kind of infrastructure it deserves with the rating base it has? We are finally delivering one rating base that will enable the major and councillors to be able to look across Auckland and deliver greater equality of opportunity. In my view, this bill will deliver greater social outcomes for Auckland.

The other area that I want to deal with, which the select committee spent a lot of time on, is the area of council-controlled organisations. I hope that members opposite have acknowledged, as many Aucklanders have acknowledged, the changes we have made in terms of transparency and accountability of these entities. In fact, these council-controlled organisations will be more accountable than other council-controlled organisations in New Zealand. We have put a number of provisions into the legislation that also enable the local body politicians to appoint directors from day one.

The key issue we faced was that we had to put an interim structure in place from day one, and, via the select committee process—and I acknowledge members opposite who were part of that process—we have managed to put in the nuts and bolts that enable the city to function from day one while also handing over power to the new local body politicians. I think we have struck that balance really well.

The other issue I will deal with, which the select committee dealt with, is the issue of greater participation for youth within Auckland. We have done something quite special within this legislation. Many submitters said they did not feel that they had a voice within the city. We have put within the legislation a clause that makes the mayor have to recognise, consult, and engage with people who are too young to vote. So I am very proud. I worked on that piece of the legislation. I am very proud that one of the youngest cities in the world will now have a mechanism that will enable youth to be better engaged in the process.

NIKKI KAYE: The member talks about a youth council. I want to address that. There are two reasons why we did not put the structure formally within the legislation. Firstly, I would ask members opposite to develop a selection clause that would have enabled youth to be selected. That is a very difficult thing that we would have had to do. Secondly, we wanted to leave that up to the new local-body politicians, because part of the balance of this bill has been that we put in what we need to enable the city to function while not directing local body politicians too much.

The third area I want to talk about, which I am very excited about, is that we will have greater environmental responsibility in Auckland, finally. There will be one regional entity responsible for things like stormwater drains, and there will also, finally, be a spatial plan. I commend the select committee members for recognising the fact that now the spatial plan has a reference to economic, social, cultural, and environmental issues in terms of Auckland. We will finally get planning that represents the holistic view of local government in Auckland. I think that is very significant, and I have had great feedback about that part of the bill.

I also acknowledge the many submitters who talked about the cultural fabric of Auckland. I think we acknowledged that, as I said, within the spatial plan. But we also acknowledged that by this Government recognising that it would carry on the provisions of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act. My predecessor, the Hon Judith Tizard, deserves the credit for that legislation. The select committee had many submitters who were concerned that that would not carry through, so I am proud that we have delivered it for those submitters.

The fifth issue, and, I think, the most important, is about having accountability, transparency, and efficiency in terms of public money. That is what we are doing by not having as much duplication across Auckland. What we are delivering, actually, is a system that has greater accountability and transparency in terms of council-controlled organisations. We are delivering a system that will enable Auckland to finally reach its potential from a cultural and a social perspective. We are delivering a system that will have greater environmental responsibility.

One of the biggest issues the select committee faced was the line between what is regional and what is local. I have thought about this quite a lot. Members opposite criticised us for not putting the functions and powers in legislation. The difficulty that we have—and it was raised by another member today—concerns how we distinguish between what is right for Waiheke, what is right for the central business district, or what is right for Waitakere. We have said that the Auckland Transitional Authority will make those initial allocations and that the new Auckland Council will be prevented from changing those allocations except to add extra functions or powers for a period of time to ensure that those local communities are protected and can live up to their potential in terms of diversity. I am very proud of that.

I say to members opposite, who have finally acknowledged within the select committee report that they support one regional entity, that I assume they now support the local boards. Even though their position has changed dramatically throughout this whole process, because Mr Twyford is leading the charge for them, they are finally acknowledging that they actually support the basic tenants of the system. They have issues about the council-controlled organisations, but I think that it is really important for people out there, particularly in Auckland, to recognise that 80 percent of the Parliament supports the basic structure of this legislation.

I am very pleased, as I have said, that we are delivering a system that will give greater local democracy for Auckland. We are delivering a system that will have greater efficiency and transparency of people’s rates through one regional entity. We are delivering a system that will have greater potential for the cultural fabric of Auckland. We are delivering greater environmental responsibility.

I want to mention a couple of things that we will not take responsibility for, because I think it is really important for Aucklanders to recognise this. We can put the structure in place, but what also matters, and what I have not heard many members talk about this afternoon, is the people. There will be some people who will step up for Auckland. We can put the legislation in place. I hope that many Aucklanders take the opportunity to stand for council or to stand for a local board position—and I already know of a number who are looking at putting themselves forward—because they are important too.

What also became very clear throughout the select committee process was that regardless of what we do in terms of the legislation, there are thousands of Aucklanders who give their time in a voluntary capacity to support community groups, to support local government, and to support projects with in their region. I acknowledge them. I acknowledge all the people who have been involved in this process.

I think this is a really exciting time for Auckland. It is a time of opportunity. It is a new era of local government for Auckland. I think that people have realised that we have listened, we have made significant changes to the legislation, and that, finally, Auckland will get one regional entity delivering strong infrastructure across the city, and strong, empowered local boards. We will finally get the Auckland we deserve—a greater Auckland.

Hon Paula Bennett: Go through them all!

NIKKI KAYE: I would love to go through them all, but I do not have the time to do that. I also note that one of the wonderful things about Statutes Amendment bills is that they bring people together. The reason that they do is that we actually cannot disagree, because if we do, the clause in question drops out. It is a lovely moment being on the Government Administration Committee.

I will deal with a couple of things that the previous Labour speaker mentioned. The decision on clause 156(2)—to not have to reprint the bill—was a really good one by the committee. I also acknowledge that clause 196(1) regarding the validity of wills will be dealt with, I think, during the Committee stage in the House. There are a number of amendments that it is very important that the House scrutinise, but they are not controversial. They include amendments to the Electoral Act, the Juries Amendment Act, and the Copyright Act. I commend this bill to the House.

If I could sum up this bill, I would say that this is about greater freedom of information for residents and ratepayers. Recent analysis by the Department of Internal Affairs shows that the cumulative increase in rates per head in the next 10 years will be 49 percent. We know that many ratepayers are concerned about increasing rates, so more and more New Zealanders want to know how their hard-earned money is being spent. We on this side of the House stand up for the right of those New Zealanders to have access to that information.

That is why I find it so difficult to understand members opposite and their position on this bill. They are opposed not only to New Zealanders having greater access to information and accountability on how their rates are being spent, but also to giving communities more power over that information, which could see better use of that money. So when members come to this House and talk about helping disadvantaged people, and greater transparency, it is really hard to believe them. When it comes to the crunch with a bill about transparency and delivering greater use of people’s rates, what do they do? They vote against it. It is really difficult to believe those members of the House.

As we sat through the select committee process on the legislation that changed Auckland governance, so many people came and said they could not get even basic access to information about how their rates were being spent. It is really difficult to understand the position of members opposite on this legislation.

The other point I will talk about is public debt. It is forecast to increase by 97 percent, and expenses are forecast to rise by 91 percent. We on this side of the House think it is unacceptable to have a situation where local government cannot produce transparent information about how people’s rates are being spent. Let us talk about some of the mechanisms that are within this legislation to try to achieve this greater transparency and accountability for the New Zealand taxpayer.

The first step in this bill is about a principle that says local government should operate within a fiscal envelope. As I have said before, we all know of examples of local authorities that have racked up accumulated debt in a way that has not been transparent to the New Zealand taxpayer. The other key thing, which came out during the select committee hearing of submissions on the Auckland governance legislation, is that within long-term council community plans some of these documents are hundreds of pages long. Do we on this side of the House really expect people to wade through those documents to understand how their little local project is being dealt with? Actually, that is not possible for a lot of New Zealanders.

We on this side of the House support the fact that the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide, and this Government are interested in making these plans simpler and clearer for people to understand. What we are trying to do is give more individual power to New Zealanders through clear and simple information about how their money is being spent. The bill also includes provisions on financial disclosures, which have to be in plain English. This ensures that simple information is available to members of our community, be they local board members within Auckland, or constituents who are able to decipher the gibberish that is being thrown up by some of these councils. I think it is important to acknowledge that this information could also be more available to some community newspapers. I have had some of them come to me and say they cannot get basic information about projects within their areas.

The other key aspect of the bill, which is very important, and I find it very interesting that members opposite do not support it, is the concept of pre-election reports. That is about saying to local body politicians that they must go into an election with greater transparent information about what the council’s financial position and commitments are. How can members opposite not support that basic level of transparency? No longer will I accept those members going around public meetings in Auckland talking about transparency and accountability, when they are voting against this bill. Under this legislation the chief executive of a local authority will have to prepare a report before each triennial election, providing information to promote public discussion on the issues facing that local authority.

The next aspect of the bill that is very important is the concept of a financial strategy. The purpose of this document is to help facilitate local authorities’ proposals for funding and expenditure by making transparent the overall effects of funding and expenditure proposals on local authority services, rates, debts, and investments. Again, this was a core principle that came through a number of submissions from people within the community who said “Look, we just want to know what our council is doing, what the debt is, and what the basic financial position is.” I find it very difficult to understand how members opposite cannot support those provisions. I also believe that the council consultation processes are unnecessarily onerous and complex, so I am really pleased that the bill will help achieve less complex consultation processes.

In conclusion, I say that this National Government is delivering legislation that is about greater transparency and accountability for the New Zealand taxpayer. I am proud to support this bill.

Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here. Before I start I would like to publicly acknowledge Trevor Mallard who did a superb time at the Lake Taupo Cycle Challenge yesterday of 4hr and 59 minutes. Notice that I congratulated him on a superb time but that does not mean if I hadn’t fallen off my bike I wouldn’t have beaten him.

I want to thank Roadsafe Auckland for inviting me to speak to day and I want to acknowledge the people and organisations in the room including Barb Cuthbert from Cycle Action Auckland who are doing their bit to improve cycle safety in Auckland. I think we all are here because we know there is a problem. It is not just recent events on Tamaki drive that have highlighted this.

In each year in NZ from 2003 to 2007, an average of 280 cyclists were hospitalised and 10 were killed from crashes involving a vehicle. However, an additional 1,900 cyclists were hospitalised in 2007 for crashes that did not involve a vehicle – most of these crashes were on public roads.

Consultation on road safety

The Government is focussed on road safety, as you will know we are in the process of developing a new ten-year road safety strategy.

In August we issued a consultation document called Safer Journeys asking the public for their feedback on road safety priorities.

There were over 1,500 submissions focused on drink driving, young drivers and recidivist offenders. Walking and cycling also featured with a focus on improving walking and cycling infrastructure.

The Ministry of Transport has issued a summary of submissions and is now working on proposals which will be announced in the New Year. I think it important to all acknowledge the expenditure dedicated to cycling. The 2009/12 National Land Transport Programme has an allocation of $51 million for the walking and cycling facilities.

In addition, the NZ Transport Agency estimates that an additional $90 million of expenditure from other activity classes will deliver benefits for cycling over the next three years.

Expenditure on walking and cycling will be higher over the next three years (2009/10 – 20012/13) than over the last three years. I want to acknowledge that it is not just about the money that has been committed to cycling.

The reason we are here is to recognise that people’s behaviour matters and must change for our roads to be safer. That is why I support this campaign.

The key thing is not to play the blame game and create a war between cyclists and motorists. It is about recognising that there may need to be behavioural changes from both groups.

Speaking of behavioural changes, parliamentarians are coming together to think about ways to improve cycle safety. I want acknowledge Kevin Hague from the Green party who has been initiating some initial cross party discussion on cycling.

As you can imagine I have over the last month had a greater personal focus on cycle safety since my accident, in fact I can’t stop thinking about it.

I have met with a number of key people in cycling groups and government agencies that have raised possible initiatives that could be considered to make our roads safer. They include:

<> Speed reduction in specific areas
<> Better Cycle training initiatives
<> The 1.5 metre rule as a law change
<> Cycle lane infrastructure
<> Signage
<> Better road code information regarding cyclists

These are just a few initiatives that people raised with me and I have no doubt over the coming months they will be discussed further. Additionally I personally am supportive and working on some local cycling projects including the Waiheke cycleway and the Great urban rides. I believe that there is benefit in having some focus on specific routes within the city.

I would like to acknowledge Councillor Ken Baguley for his commitment in this area regarding the Great Urban Rides and. As you are also aware the Prime Minister has a personal commitment to cycling, we know how much he loves cycleways.

It is important to realise that the New Zealand cycle trail project primary objective is on regional development not commuter cycling, whilst there may be complimentary benefits of some of the cycle trails that is not the main focus. I believe that in order to improve cycling Auckland we need to make sure all the government agencies or initiatives are working together that local body, NZTA and the New Zealand cycle trail.

I want to thank you for your commitment to road safety. Safe cycling everybody.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I am pleased to report that last week I turned the first sod on construction of the new, $400 million Victoria Park project, which is the first road of national significance project to get under way. This is also one of the first projects to benefit from the Government’s decision to increase State highway construction funding by $1 billion over the next 3 years. It provides further certainty in an important and vulnerable time for the construction industry. I am pleased to report that the project is expected to employ 450 people: 350 directly on-site, and a further 100 in downstream jobs.

Nikki Kaye: What long-term economic benefits will the Victoria Park project provide?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This project will greatly ease congestion for the 160,000-plus vehicles that use this route every day, as well as allow for improved bus priority measures between the city and the bridge. It is expected that by 2016 the project will deliver time savings of up to 20 minutes during peak times. In addition, the Auckland Harbour Bridge is a key freight route through the region, and this project will improve access to markets, economic efficiency, and productivity.

Nikki Kaye: What progress is expected to be made on the other roads of national significance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Over the next 3 years there will be significant construction on five out of seven of these vital routes, with all seven to be substantially advanced within 10 years. Within 3 years we expect to complete the Victoria Park project and begin construction of the Waterview Connection, the Waikato Expressway, and the Christchurch Southern Motorway. Design work continues on the Wellington, Tauranga, and Pūhoi to Wellsford routes. The roads of national significance are being developed alongside key regional roads and public transport services, and they will all help secure a step change in economic growth for this country.

The purpose of the bill, as has been mentioned by many other speakers, is to improve security at our borders. I want to touch on a point that was incorrectly stated by a number of Labour members.

Hon Darren Hughes: Name them!

NIKKI KAYE: Mr Hughes has asked me to name one of them—Clayton Cosgrove mentioned the reduction of 55 staff. I make the point that those staff were involved in biosecurity operations at the border, but the whole point of that particular system was that it concerned the investigation of containers. It was a user-pays system. The issue is that in the recession the number of containers dropped, so there was not the need for those particular officers—that was in the area of biosecurity. I think it is really important to make the point that we are talking about two separate issues. I can see how Labour members have tried to draw the longbow in terms of border operations, but the point is that a key focus of this bill is technology. It is about bringing the New Zealand Customs Service into the future. I raised the point regarding those particular staff—that it was a user-pays system. The number of containers dropped, therefore the need for those particular staff dropped. This bill is specifically dealing with some issues, in terms of taking the New Zealand Customs Service into the future.

One of the key amendments in this bill concerns the SmartGate system, and I must admit that in my electorate I have had some great feedback about it. People are all for making it easier to travel between New Zealand and Australia. I think there has been a lot of good feedback regarding the announcements from Prime Minister John Key and Kevin Rudd in this area.

The other point is that there are a number of other amendments in this bill that I look forward to looking at more closely during the select committee process. One of them focuses on technology, as well, and around the use of future technology. The amendments will have the effect of allowing for future technology to be used, instead of the traditional seal that was envisaged at the time those definitions were drafted. This is quite important because it might include “smart” packages that are able to detect interference with their contents. That is crucial because we need to be able to know that the packages that are coming in have not been interfered with. We need to use technology to help us to do that.

The previous speaker, Grant Robertson, criticised our Government in terms of its investment in people. But one of the key points in this bill is that we are taking the New Zealand Customs Service into the future and using technology. I want to give members an example of that. If we had been asked 10 or 20 years ago about the use of electronic boarding passes, would people have really ever questioned now how beneficial they are? I think there is an issue of the Labour Party being a bit in the dark ages. Labour members need to understand that technology can be very beneficial. The National Government is bringing the New Zealand Customs Service into the future.

The other key amendment I want to bring to people’s attention concerns false allegations or reports to a customs officer. This is a very serious issue, but I can see in the draft bill that a new offence is seen as necessary for people with false intentions who allege to customs that an offence has been committed or that the safety of people or goods is jeopardised. This offence is based on section 24 of the Summary Offences Act, which relates to the police. This is quite crucial. We are giving customs officers the power to penalise those people who are wasting the time of the New Zealand Customs Service.

There are a number of amendments here. I have mentioned the particular ones relating to technology, which are about bringing the New Zealand Customs Service into the future. We have heard a whole lot of stuff from the Labour Opposition, which I do not think is particularly relevant to this bill. I saw that David Shearer launched Mike Lee’s mayoral campaign. I do not believe he has announced that he is standing yet, but David Shearer said that he had. A whole lot of irrelevant stuff has come from the Opposition, but I am very proud to be supporting a bill that is about taking the New Zealand Customs Service into the future, supporting technology, and supporting Kiwis and Australians to be able to travel more easily to each other’s countries. I am proud to be supporting this bill.

The cost is in what we pay out to help the victims of meth crime. The cost is in our health system, and the rehabilitation and treatment for meth addicts. The cost is in the prisons and in the police officers that we need to fight this drug. But the more difficult cost to measure by far is the personal cost to so many New Zealand families. How do we measure the personal cost to the father or mother who has spent months cleaning up the trail of destruction that their son or daughter has caused as a result of this drug?

How do we measure the sleepless and tearful nights of parents waiting for the next phone call, not sure whether it will be a call from the police or a call from the hospital? How do we measure the cost to the parents who have had to bury their daughter or son because of this drug? How do we measure the impact on a young child who has been abused at the hands of someone on this drug? Some of the most horrific and violent crimes against our young children in this country have involved people on meth. Some of these crimes have snuffed out the lives of these young children. The question that our Government had to ask, given the devastating cost to New Zealand of this drug, was how far we, as parliamentarians, are prepared to go to try to get rid of methamphetamine from New Zealand.

The plan that we have delivered is tough, and it tackles the P problem from many different angles. The plan includes using powers to break drug supply-chains by attacking the gangs and criminal organisations that make, supply, and distribute this drug. The plan provides support to families and communities to stop people from becoming P users.

I want to focus on two key parts to the plan, which are restricting access to the precursor chemicals that P is made from and improving treatment services. One part of the proposal that has been criticised by the Opposition is the banning of over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine. This step has not been taken lightly, and this action reflects how seriously our Government takes the P problem. We want to make it harder for people to make P, and banning over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine will help us achieve this. One-third of all P labs busted each year were using cold and flu medication to create P. This is clear evidence that these medications are fuelling our P problem. Let us be clear. We are not banning pseudoephedrine at this stage. But making it available only with a doctor’s prescription will make it harder for people to make P. The other key point is that it is not about banning all over-the-counter cold and flu medication. Between 60 and 80 percent of cold and flu medications contain phenylephrine rather than pseudoephedrine. These medications are a safe and effective alternative, and will still be available over the counter at pharmacies.

Many New Zealand drug addicts and their families have struggled because they have wanted help but have not been able to get it. That is why we are ensuring more P addicts get treatment through rehabilitation and addiction services by providing more treatment capacity and better routes to treatment so they can quit. There will be an extra $22 million for P treatment over the next 3 years. This includes 2,700 patients who will be able to access new beds and social detox facilities. Another key aspect of this treatment plan is that families will be given the power to force addicts into compulsory treatment. Too many families in New Zealand feel absolutely powerless to help their loved ones. This aspect of the plan will help give power back to the families so that they can help their loved ones.

No one today has disputed the devastating effect that methamphetamine is having on so many New Zealanders. We all know the cost to mums, dads, and young kids. We are taking strong action in this Parliament to help New Zealanders suffering from this drug. I am proud to be part of this Government.

There are many builders, electricians, and insulators who are staying afloat as a direct result of the Warm Up New Zealand package. Over 8,000 homes have been retrofitted in the first 8 weeks of the scheme, and a further 172,000 homes are on the cards. That is a lot of work for builders and electricians who will be in jobs because of the Government. The Youth Guarantee is about saying to young New Zealanders that they should not go on a benefit and instead should take up one of the 2,000 places that our Government is offering to study and learn practical skills.

It is important, though, to contrast our commitment and approach to job opportunities with the Labour Party’s. Under the Opposition’s plan, debt would spiral from $6 billion to $18 billion by 2012. Other brainstorms include the “Donald Trump Welfare Scheme”. That scheme would not see New Zealanders who are most at need getting welfare; it would see millionaires on benefits. The Opposition has reverted to typical ideology in terms of its “Welfare for Everybody” policy. The Opposition also proposes a populist policy of no more dividends from power companies, after it conveniently forgot the $3 billion that those companies ripped off New Zealanders in the good times.

The contrast is very clear. We are seeing positive signs in terms of our economy. This is about delivering smart, solid policies aimed at reducing debt and getting people into jobs. The news today is good, but we will continue to work harder to get people into jobs. As the Labour Party cranks up its barbecues this summer and Phil Goff puts on his bomber jacket to ride around the country to hold on to his leadership, the National Government will continue its progress. There was a spark in the New Zealand economy today. The bike is going slightly faster, focusing on getting young New Zealanders and other New Zealanders into jobs. We are doing a good job and we are focused on what matters.

Despite Auckland’s gift in nature, there has been concern about the governance arrangements in Auckland for the last 50 years. In the past there have been attempts to fix this, such as the establishment of the Auckland Regional Authority in 1963, and the amalgamation and the establishment of the Auckland Regional Council in the 1980s. However, none of these initiatives managed to provide solutions to the fragmentation and incoherence in Auckland local government. We may be the fifth best city in the world, but we are ranked 43rd in terms of infrastructure. As the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance said, the governance arrangements in Auckland have led to competing leadership, duplication of facilities, complex and fragmented decision-making processes, and weak accountability. The royal commission heard about the endlessly increasing rates, suffocating red tape, transport bottlenecks, delayed development, and lost opportunities. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will give Auckland, the mayor, councillors, and local boards the power and structure to fix these problems.

To members of the House who say we should wait, consult, and do endless referendums, I say that there has been an 18-month process with over 3,500 submissions to the royal commission, followed by 2,500 submissions from Aucklanders to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. Aucklanders have had the opportunity to have their say for over 2 years. At what point does one say that we have had enough consultation and should get on with it? That is the feeling that I am getting from Auckland’s local government staff, who are waiting for job certainty. That is the feeling that I am getting from some local body politicians who are already out there campaigning. That is the feeling I am getting from the people of Auckland who want the world-class city that they hear so much about, but that they have never had.

The royal commission agreed with the Government about moving quickly when it challenged the Government to make changes in time for elections little over a year from now. We will achieve those changes. This bill is the beginning of a process that will lead to better connections across the region, better value from rates and central government funding, better community control of what matters in Auckland’s neighbourhoods, and better decision-making on the key issues affecting Auckland’s and New Zealand’s future.

We have been focused on two simple goals: delivering effective regional governance on regional matters, and delivering strong local representation. As a result of the submissions, there have been significant changes to the legislation. Some of the most significant changes have been in the area of local boards to ensure strong local representation. We have significantly beefed up the powers of local boards, ensuring that they have the power to really represent their communities. The mentality of the past of patch protection is one of the reasons that local government is being improved. Under this bill, local boards will get real authority to deliver to their communities. We propose 20 to 30 local boards because we believe in grassroots democracy. This structure will better enhance and protect the community voice. The local boards will be small enough to account for the future population growth of Auckland. Local boards will develop local board plans to reflect the priorities and preferences of their communities for council services and facilities. The local boards will be able to use these plans to establish agreements with the governing bodies.

Many submitters came to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and made the point that with greater functions and powers, there needs to be adequate funding for local boards to deliver for their communities. The select committee has listened. As a result, the boards will have funding and control of their budgets that will enable them to function appropriately and effectively for their communities. The local boards will have responsibilities for making decisions on local issues, and will be able to reflect the particular character and preferences of their communities. I am pleased that the communities of Waiheke and Great Barrier Island have been guaranteed local boards, as islands in the Hauraki Gulf are surrounded by water and are clearly communities of interest.

Inevitably, the boundary decisions will be some of the most contentious, as we heard during the select committee process. There were more representations from the people of Rodney, and the Government listened to those representations and responded. Now, in response to the wishes of the residents of Rodney, the entire area of Rodney will fall within the Auckland Council.

Finally, the Auckland Council will be able to provide leadership and deliver core services across the region efficiently and effectively. The mayor and councillors will make decisions on Auckland-wide matters, including resource management, building code requirements, public health, and civil defence arrangements. We are delivering for Auckland on what they have missed out on for the last 50 years. A strong regional entity will help deliver the transport system that Aucklanders want. It will help deliver better regional, environmental, arts, and disability strategies across the region.

I acknowledge the many Aucklanders who submitted as part of this process, and the officials who supported our select committee. I am proud to be part of the Government making a historic change for Auckland. This is the beginning of a new era in Auckland—one strong city with many diverse villages.

(Second Speech)

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : First of all, I acknowledge John Carter and also the Hon Rodney Hide for the leadership and consistent position that they have taken on this bill. The first point I will make is to say that tonight we are hearing a phoney war in Parliament. The reason we are hearing that phoney war is that the Labour Party has committed to one unitary authority—yes, that is what those members believe in; that is what they have argued for at many different stages throughout the progress of this legislation through this House—but when we come to the issue of local boards, we see members on the other side of the Chamber slip-sliding away. We have seen those members argue for six local entities. We have seen them argue for six to 12 local entities. Then we saw a press release from Mr Twyford arguing that there should be from 10 to 12 local entities. Now in the legislation we have seen them arguing for 14 to 20 local entities. We have seen the Labour members consistently slip-sliding on their position on Auckland governance.

It is no wonder we are seeing a real difference between two parties: the National Party, which has consistently said it wants one unitary authority and 20 to 30 local boards; and the Labour Party, which is confused and has said it wants anywhere from six to 20. But the real story is that Labour supports one unitary authority. The real story is that Labour actually supports the number of local boards that is similar to what National supports. So what are Labour members debating here this evening? It is very difficult for Aucklanders listening this evening to find out, because those members believe in one regional entity; they believe in 20 local boards. So what are they here arguing? We will have 12 hours of debate from a party that believes in one regional entity. Labour members believe in 20 local boards. So what are they here arguing? We will have 12 hours of debate from Labour members—they will talk about everything but those two things. They will talk about everything except having one strong regional entity, because they believe in it; and having 20 local boards, because they believe in it.

We will hear arguments about everything else, but I tell the Aucklanders who are listening tonight that Labour supports what National is supporting this evening. Labour supports this legislation. I challenge any Labour member to get on his or her feet tonight and argue against a unitary authority and against 20 local boards. They will not do it, because they absolutely support this legislation this evening.

The other point I make, which has been made by many other members tonight, is that the members of the select committee turned up and listened. They did not agree with everything that was submitted but they have shifted their position, and both Ministers have acknowledged that this evening. We have seen a shifting, a change in position. There are now no councillors “at large”—many people submitted against that and we listened. There is now no split in the boundary in terms of Rodney, because we listened. There are now much stronger powers for the functions of boards, because we listened. There is now decent funding for those local boards, because we listened. So what we have here this evening are strong local entities that will be able to finally deliver for their communities, and a strong regional entity for Auckland.

The Labour Party does not disagree with that. That is the key thing we are debating this evening, so what we will hear from that side of the Chamber is everything but those two core matters, which are integral to the future of Auckland and to the hundreds and thousands of young people in Auckland who want to finally be connected to their communities. And that is why members on the other side of the Chamber could not turn up and vote against it. That is why they slipped from six to 20 in terms of the number of local boards. They would not turn up and vote against strong, grassroots democracy. They could not turn up to this Chamber and say they would not give the people of Mount Albert a local board. They could not say they would not give the people of Papakura a local board. They were not going to do that, and that is why they slipped so much.

I am pleased to stand and support this bill. I am pleased to be here at a historic moment in Auckland’s history when we are finally delivering the unitary authority that the royal commission agreed with and that the Labour Party agrees with. I am also pleased to be supporting many local boards that will be able to deliver for their communities—finally—in Auckland.

The other point I make concerns the tremendous contributions of Simon Bridges, Jackie Blue, and Tau Henare to that select committee. They are outstanding members of the committee.

(Third Speech)

NIKKI KAYE: I acknowledge the contribution from Simon Bridges, Tau Henare, and Jackie Blue. I also acknowledge the contribution from the other side of the Chamber. I acknowledge at this point that the minority report from the Labour Party actually backs up everything I have just said. Labour members will not oppose one unitary authority. There is no opposition to it anywhere in the minority report, because they absolutely support it. In the minority report, they show that they have shifted significantly—from six to 12 local boards, to 14 to 20 local boards, and we could end up in a position where both major parties agree on that number of local boards for communities in Auckland.

So the people listening tonight can take out these messages from the debate. The first is that the Government has listened. We have listened in the area of “at large” councillors. We have listened in the area of the boundaries for Rodney. We have listened in the area of stronger functions and powers for local boards. We have listened in the area of providing decent funding for those local boards. But people listening can take this second message. The Labour Party is here to waste Parliament’s time for the next 12 hours and talk about a bill that it actually supports. I look forward to 2011 and to getting around the communities and talking to them about the fact that the Labour Party supported this legislation. This legislation will finally deliver a strong regional entity for Auckland, for the communities and the young people who want to be involved in their communities. It will finally deliver the public transport system we have always wanted. I am pleased to support this legislation, and I am pleased to support a Government that is making decisions, unlike the Labour Party, which will not make decisions. National is in Government today because we are prepared to make the hard calls and we are prepared to deliver for the people of Auckland.