Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) : I move, That the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill be now read a second and a third time. I would like to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their careful and thoughtful handling of this bill. I would also like to thank other members and parties from across the House that are supporting this bill. I would like to acknowledge the huge amount of work by the organisations promoting this bill, representatives of whom are present in the gallery tonight. They are Auckland City councillors Tony Miller and Greg Moyle, and representatives from all of the amenities covered by this bill—too many to name. However, I want to particularly acknowledge the work of Roseanne Meo, who is chair of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and was the catalyst for this legislation.

Many, many people have worked in a truly sustained team effort over 4 years to see the 10 organisations come together to draft and promote this private bill for the good of Auckland. In fact, many MPs from across New Zealand have come to me and asked whether this legislation could be extended to their area. I say to members of Parliament, just as I say to representatives of local authorities, that it is time we stood up in our communities for what we believe in. I am here in Parliament partly because my grandfather believed that politics is as good as we make it—just as the communities we live in and raise our families in are as good as we make them. This is a simple bill. It is about Auckland coming of age, taking responsibility for its own amenities, and taking the responsibility that all government—local and central—has to take to fund the organisations that make a difference to our families and our communities. Local government has a responsibility to look at the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of our communities, and it is time we did so.

This bill will establish a statutory framework for the secure and sustainable funding of 10 or more important services and organisations that provide facilities and services across the Auckland region. The bill will initially provide funding for the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, the Auckland Theatre Company, Coastguard Northern Region, the New Zealand National Maritime Museum trust board, New Zealand Opera, Surf Life Saving Northern Region, the Auckland Festival Trust, and WaterSafe Auckland Inc. I also want to tell the House that I and all of those amenities have given an undertaking that we will work with the kapahaka organisations in Auckland to make sure that a Māori organisation providing services in Auckland will also be supported and funded.

I want to concentrate on the organisations that have worked so hard for this bill. These organisations contribute to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders in terms of the services they provide, but they also contribute to the lives of tens of thousands of Aucklanders in terms of jobs and economic benefits, and opportunities to be involved in the local communities. I am talking about the Aucklanders who, with their time and money, support these organisations. They are an essential part of the fabric of Auckland, contributing to make the region a great place to live in, to work in, and to visit. These organisations are all truly regional in nature, and need to be funded as such. Independent surveys conducted over the last 12 years have shown that the public perceives them as being regional and supports the idea of these organisations receiving funding across all districts of the Auckland region. Right now, the funding for these organisations falls disproportionately on the ratepayers of Auckland City. Auckland City has given us an undertaking that it will not cut its funding when there is better funding across the region and, indeed, in many cases it will increase it. It is time that the eight councils of the Auckland region contributed to those amenities that everyone in the region uses, rather than leaving 90 percent of these amenities’ local government sector funding to Auckland City.

These organisations work hard. They work hard to raise money and they work hard to provide services. We know that New Zealanders and Aucklanders are very generous with their volunteer time and their financial support. A number of these organisations are in danger of falling over. We are in more difficult times and sponsorship is hard to get. A legislative framework is needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of these organisations, removing uncertainty—for example, for my constituents on Great Barrier Island and Waiheke, uncertainty that they will get rescue helicopter services if they or their children are ill. I have asked up and down New Zealand, as this Government has moved to support arts organisations, community organisations, and sporting organisations, why taxpayers should increase their support if we as citizens do not support these organisations as ratepayers. The time has come for local government across New Zealand to take that mature responsibility.

I say that this bill is necessary, and its time has come. This bill establishes the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Board, which will be the conduit between the organisations and the contributing authorities. It will specify the amenities and make sure they are providing good regional services and good value for money. The board will also set out a procedure for the approval of distribution of funding to amenities; it will enable those organisations to focus on their core activity, and to use their time and volunteer time and money well, demonstrating the good services that the community provides for the well-being of all of our communities.

There is a suggestion that this bill should be delayed because of possible changes to the governance of the Auckland region arising from recommendations of the royal commission. This is utterly unacceptable to all of those organisations that have worked so long for this legislation. Many pieces of legislation will have to change if and when the royal commission recommends that they do, and if and when any Government over the next 4 years or more decides to make those changes. These organisations should not have to wait for the ifs and buts of the royal commission and the political process. We have seen many organisations struggling. It is time we took that responsibility.

Everyone accepts that these organisations are valuable to Auckland and to our communities, and most of them are accepted nationwide. I came to Parliament to make a difference to the country I grew up in and the city I love—Auckland. I believe that Auckland will be a greater place to live and work in because these organisations have support. I also believe that, as Auckland is New Zealand’s major international city, it is time we passed this legislation.

Again, I commend this legislation to the House. I thank members who are supporting it. It is time that we did as my grandfather suggested, and make politics as good as we can. Let us make common-sense decisions that support the services that our communities need.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : The National Party will be voting in support of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. Let me just say at the outset that when I look at the list of organisations that will be the recipients, which Judith has already read out, I can say that obviously no one I can think of would not want to give them support. We are all very well aware of the challenges that face these organisations and many others. We are concerned, like many people in this nation, that these organisations, which provide a great service to our community—not just in Auckland, I might add, but across this nation in many cases—have at this time too long been left on their own to struggle to find the means to do those things that they do so well. We are all proud of them, and the National Party is proud to be associated with each and every one of them.

There are, however, some points that need to be made in regard to this legislation. The first thing is that the way this bill is structured, it is likely to put an impost on to ratepayers. That is of deep concern. Every local authority that came before the select committee opposed this legislation, with the exception of the Auckland City Council. The Auckland City Council supported it out of its own self-interest. It supported it on the basis that if this bill goes through, it will mean that the contribution it currently makes to so many of these organisations will be reduced. So from the council’s point of view—

Hon Judith Tizard: It will not be reduced.

JOHN CARTER: Well, members opposite are saying that it may not be so, but we will wait and see. That was the basis on which the Auckland City Council actually supported the legislation.

But the worry is—

Hon Judith Tizard: That’s not fair. It’s not true.

JOHN CARTER: Well, OK, the member might say it is not fair and it is not true, but that was the text of the submission. The fact is the Auckland City Council was pleased to see that other local authorities, and citizens within those local authorities who receive the benefit of these organisations, were being asked to make a greater contribution to them. I have to say that, from the council’s perspective, I can understand that argument. The real issue is: how much do we continue to keep loading on to local government and on to ratepayers? That is the issue we have to address. That is the issue we have to be concerned about. On the one hand we have organisations in this nation of which we are all justly proud, and on the other hand we also well know that we have a problem with ratepayers in this country meeting the level of rates they are currently being asked to meet. That is one of the reasons why the National Party reluctantly supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill.

The second reason is that although there are a dozen or so organisations, whose names have been read out, that will be the beneficiaries of this legislation—assuming that Parliament passes it, and it seems that it will—a number of other organisations should also have been considered. That is the problem; the bill is limited in that regard. I notice the member in charge of the bill, Judith Tizard, recommended that at least one other organisation should be given consideration. But there are many others that quite honestly are just as worthy, and that deserve the support of the citizens that they cover. I have to say that is another issue that we will certainly need to address.

The third issue, and the thing the National Party wanted in this bill—unfortunately it was voted down—was a sunset clause. Why did we want a sunset clause? It is not because we are nasty, horrible people who do not want to see things happen and develop; the reasoning behind it was that if there was a sunset clause it would make this Parliament, the local authorities, and all the people concerned focus on coming up with a better alternative than is currently being provided. That is the main reason we wanted to include a sunset clause.

There are better ways in which the funding can be addressed. A number of options and alternatives need to be considered. On top of that, we well know that there is a thing called the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance—and to be fair, I know that this has already been commented on—which is very likely going to make some serious recommendations. It may well end up changing the structure and the way in which local government and, indeed, the organisation of Auckland are dealt with in the future. For that very good reason a sunset clause in this legislation is actually appropriate. It would have caused us to focus, and it would have actually insisted that, in thinking about the reorganisation of local government and the structure of Auckland City, this is one of the matters that should be addressed.

It seems that Parliament did not see fit to pass the amendment recommended by the National Party. Unfortunately, that therefore allows for this legislation to continue. I think that is a great shame. It seems to me that we need to insist that this whole matter be reviewed. So I can say tonight that if the National Party does become the Government after the next election, there will be a review of this legislation and a repeal once an appropriate structure is put in place to address the matters this bill addresses tonight. There will be an opportunity for people to review, an opportunity for reconsideration, an opportunity for the organisations to come up with a better structure, and an opportunity for those organisations that tonight are not covered in this legislation to be covered. I myself can think of a good number, as I am sure many people can.

We support this bill but we do so reluctantly, because we think there is a better way. We do not want to see the impost put entirely on the ratepayers of this country. Right at the moment, for the benefit of those who know west Auckland, I say there is serious concern out there amongst the business community, particularly about the rates increases people are being asked to meet. If members know the area of Rodney, one ratepayer’s rates, for example, have gone up from $28,000 to $62,000 in one hit. There are many examples of vast increases such as that one. To ask those people to meet more ratepayer costs is, quite honestly, not acceptable. For that reason, we will support this bill tonight, because many of the organisations are seriously in jeopardy. Many of them provide excellent services to our nation—services that we are all proud of; services that we want to see continue; and services that our society and our country need. But we also give notice that if we are elected we will want to have this legislation reviewed, and it will be repealed once a suitable replacement structure is put in place.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am very happy to take a call in this debate and to say with the greatest respect to the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, John Carter, that I am getting a bit tired of the “having your cake and eating it too” speeches—the “I support it and I oppose it” all-in-one speech. I say to National members that they should pick a position and stick with it. They should decide what they believe, say it, and stick to it. If they do not like the bill, then they should not vote for it. I can say that the Labour Party, unlike the National Party, enthusiastically supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. Also, I do not know who will do all these reviews for the National Party if it wins the election, given that it would fire all the public servants. I guess National will worry about that after the fact.

I want to start by thanking the promoters of this bill. I thank the officials who worked with us, and, as the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I thank all members of the committee. We worked hard on this legislation. I apologise to the bill’s promoters that we were not able to get it out of the select committee by July this year, but, as members will know, we had some issues looking at the Auckland Regional Council and its role that we simply were not able to resolve in time. So I apologise for that; we did very much want to do it.

I acknowledge all the councils in the Auckland region for the amount of funding they already give to many of these organisations. It certainly is appreciated. I thought that the comments from the National Party about the Auckland City Council were incredibly unfair. I want to just quickly bring to the attention of the House the analysis of some of this funding. If we look at a group such as the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, we see the total amount of funding it gets is $809,000, of which $750,000 comes from the Auckland City Council. The Auckland Theatre Company receives $105,000, all of which comes from the Auckland City Council. The Maritime Museum receives total funding of $747,000, of which $725,00 comes from the Auckland City Council. So I think it is a bit unfair to accuse the Auckland City Council of somehow being disingenuous with this when it has, in fact, been incredibly generous to these organisations. It should be thanked by the National Party, not pilloried, for what it has done. As we know from what the promoters of the bill showed us, when we look at the people using these organisations, we see they are spread out amongst the Auckland region; that is certainly not represented by the funding figures we have seen here.

I quickly point out, in relation to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance, that the terms of reference do not address the issues that these organisations face. It may well be that they happen to be covered, but they are not specifically addressed, and I do not think it is OK to leave that to the royal commission when it is not something that it is particularly looking at. John Carter raised the matter of other organisations not being included. The criteria for inclusion are clearly set out. A lot of work was done on this before it came to Parliament. These organisations were chosen based on clear criteria. The criteria are still there for other organisations to be added by Order in Council. I certainly do not believe that there will be the problem the National Party is trying to make out there will be.

Yes, ratepayers are always concerned about rates increases. The cost in year one will be an average of $5 per head per resident, or an average of $16 per year per household. [Interruption] I say to Mrs Goudie that that is the rates impost we are talking about to save these organisations. What if one of these organisations fell over? There would then be a hue and cry and screaming about what the local council had been doing and how the organisation would be funded. I congratulate the promoters of this bill on the foresight they have had in bringing forward this bill before that happens and before we have to go into panic mode to save these organisations. Surveys have been done that were given to the select committee that showed that the people of the Auckland region were supportive of sharing the funding across the region more fairly, and the cost was part of that.

I congratulate the promoters. I know the bill has been a long time getting here. I cannot wait for Dail Jones’ speech. I have already told him that if he gets into trouble on a beach in Auckland there will be an eftpos machine on the surf lifesaver who comes out to get him. He said to me that it would be covered by the SuperGold card, and I said: “Only if you get into trouble off peak.”! I am very much looking forward to his speech. I congratulate the promoters, thank the select committee, and thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : As Mr John Carter indicated, this was a very, very finely balanced decision for National. We had a lot of discussions within our caucus and with the promoters of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. There is a reason why the decision was finely balanced. It was finely balanced because it would inevitably load additional costs on ratepayers at a time when ratepayers—residents, in fact—are experiencing a certain level of difficulty. The economy is officially in recession. Petrol prices have gone up, interest rates have gone up, and food prices have gone up. There are pressures on households, so to add another rate on to households is a big ask, and it is important to recognise that. It is very easy for people to say that we should dismiss the issue, as it is not very much. But the truth is that each little bit does matter.

It is also noteworthy that the territorial local authorities, with the exception of the Auckland City Council, were not in favour of the bill. Some members may recall that when this bill was introduced I said that the proper entity to be funding this was the Auckland Regional Council. I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked very hard, I know that the Minister promoting the bill worked very hard, and, indeed, I know that the promoters worked very hard to persuade the Auckland Regional Council to step up to the responsibilities. These assets are regional. People benefit from them from across the region, and they should therefore be funded regionally. For various reasons—mostly, I have to say, the intransigence of the Auckland Regional Council—that was not possible. Yet we are visited by the reality that some of these organisations—perhaps not all of them, but many of them—are under very severe financial pressure.

We also made it clear that we had a particular preference for the lifesaving organisations—Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, Coastguard Northern Region, and Surf Life Saving Northern Region. It is obvious why one would choose these three organisations above the others. They are, arguably, the most broadly used organisations across the region; that would certainly be the case on the North Shore. In many instances the other entities cater to a narrower group of people. We have always had the view that not all 11 organisations really qualified for ratepayer funding. They certainly qualified for charitable donations and all of those things, but rates are different because they are compulsory.

Tonight National reluctantly supports this bill because we see it as something of an emergency measure for those entities. The challenge is to really look forward. There is a royal commission that will undoubtedly improve regional governance in the Auckland region. How exactly that will be done is up to the royal commission, but I think there is a pretty clear consensus that regional government will be strengthened and that—as one would quite clearly expect in that situation—it will take over these responsibilities. National is committed to ensuring that a better regional arrangement is in place by 2010. We are not forecasting exactly what that will look like, but clearly there is some level of consensus about improved regional governance and the expectation that the new entity will pick up this funding. So National says that this bill is a stopgap measure, a one-off that will last effectively through to the new arrangements, which will be in place within 4 years. The new arrangements will be in place for the 2010 local body elections.

In summary, I say that it is necessary at this point in time to pass the bill. We are concerned that it was not possible for the Auckland Regional Council to understand its responsibilities around this, and that is a considerable disappointment to us. I am also of the view that a much fairer and more democratic means to select the entities needs to be in place. It comes back to that fundamental principle: no taxation without representation. In this instance, the citizens of the region have never really had a proper say—despite surveys and so forth—in determining, literally household by household, which organisations they would favour and which ones they would fund. We need to improve that part of it, and that was a point I made at the first reading of the bill, when National supported the bill’s referral to a select committee. Again we pointed out our reluctance and our concerns, but we have arrived at this situation.

This Parliament does not have long to go. National agreed that this bill would have to pass into law tonight or else it probably would not do so at all. So the procedure of the second and third readings being dealt with today was done with the consensus of the House across the board. I have to acknowledge that even New Zealand First, which is voting against the bill, nevertheless recognised that reality. So I guess one should acknowledge that fact.

In closing I say that tonight we have done something of a rescue mission, if you will, but it is no more than that—it is short term until new solutions are in place. I say to the regional amenities that they will need to get closer to the communities in order to get a deeper level of support in the communities. I can say that in North Shore City, for instance, many people are not happy about this bill passing. Some are but many are not, and I have received numerous representations from those people and from the local council on this issue. We have to recognise the strength of that concern. I can say the same about Manukau City and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Waitakere City as well. We just cannot ignore those issues, and that is why our support is very, very conditional. Next year we will fix this up with an improved model that is fairer to the city and to the residents and ratepayers across our region.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : When the Hon Brian Donnelly was New Zealand First’s spokesman on local government, he spoke during the first reading debate on this bill and made this point: “New Zealand First members have made it absolutely clear that we give no guarantee that we will support this legislation beyond this stage. We will, however, give a guarantee that we will listen very carefully to the arguments for and against, and make, as we always do, sound and sensible judgments.”

I have taken the opportunity to have a look at the bill. I am familiar with the bill because a remit effectively opposing this legislation was passed at the North Shore annual general meeting of New Zealand First last year, and we in New Zealand First take notice of remits that are passed at annual general meetings.

Rodney Hide: What about the remit to sack the leader for being a liar?

DAIL JONES: We actually have meetings, unlike ACT, which can meet in a telephone booth. We have regular meetings around the country. So New Zealand First will be opposing this bill.

I made it clear to the New Zealand First conference that I, as the spokesman on local government, want to make sure that rates are reduced and that bureaucracy is reduced, and I actually gave some credit to Rodney Hide for his initiatives a couple of years ago. Now I understand that Mr Hide will be supporting this bill, which increases rates and increases bureaucracy, and I find that very staggering. Of course, I find it even more staggering that the National Party, which opposes increases in bureaucracy, is supporting the increase in bureaucracy proposed by this legislation, in a half-hearted sort of way.

We do not know what National’s policy is—it is worse than a flip-flop, because it is somewhere in between. It is up in the sky. Will it fall on one side of the line or on the other side of the line? New Zealand First is very clear—we support a reduction in rates. We support a reduction in local government bureaucracy, so we must and do oppose this legislation.

I will make it very clear, though, that New Zealand First believes that the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust must be funded by the Government. We cannot allow something as important as this to be left to local authorities and left to some sort of an electoral college system that may not favour the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust in the way it ought to. This is really a national responsibility and it should be the responsibility of the Government of the day, and New Zealand First will be making sure that that is what happens with the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust.

This bill will obviously increase rates. For people like myself, for example, not only will it increase my rates but I and many North Shore people will actually end up paying twice. My rates will go up and I will still have to pay for the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra; I am paying twice for the same thing. If someone had been clever with this bill that person might have said: “Well, we might give you a few free tickets to one of these things, in lieu of the rates going up, because there are always empty seats.” If someone had been clever and had had a simple idea, that might have made me happier. It might have made a lot more people happier if they could have a free ticket to the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, the Auckland Theatre Company, or something like that. But no, it was far too simple an idea to come up with. So many people on the North Shore and around Auckland will pay twice for the same thing.

Of course this will increase rates, and we know it will increase rates on the North Shore. I have lived in the East Coast Bays area since 1970. I left in 1976 and came back in 1993, and I have lived there since. This legislation will increase Manukau City rates by $2.51 million, and it will increase North Shore rates by $2.34 million. New Zealand First says to the people in Manukau City and to the people on the North Shore that it does not support this bill and it opposes the views of all parties in this House that support it. If people really are keen on voting for a party that wants their rates to be reduced and wants their bureaucracy to be reduced in rating areas, then they must obviously look at supporting New Zealand First.

What does this legislation do to the people of Manukau? A submission from the Manukau City Council said: “Manukau City Council has studied the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill and opposes the intent on the following grounds.” The important thing to bear in mind, as it says, is: “Manukau City residents have a median income of $24,200 per annum, which is 4 percent lower than the national median of $25,220.” Yet in this area that struggles to survive, we are going to increase the rates of landowners and property owners in Manukau City by over $2 million, as I have already indicated. The Manukau City Council also stated: “Residents of the city are already levied a considerable sum: $6,352,868 for the Auckland War Memorial Museum, the Museum of Transport and Technology, and the Aotea Centre, all by the way of a legislatively imposed levy. The amount proposed, $2 million in the first year, not including the Auckland Zoo, will just add to the rates burden of our low and fixed-income ratepayers and residents.”

New Zealand First says to the people of Manukau City—those people in the electorates of Pakuranga, Botany, Manukau, and Manurewa—that New Zealand First knows they are struggling, and it knows that life will be much harder if National ever takes office and they have to pay $50 a week in road tolls, as Maurice Williamson has so truthfully told—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Or $100 if you go home for lunch.

DAIL JONES: Or $100 if people go home for lunch—as some people do, especially the people Mr Williamson might support. It is going to create massive difficulties there.

I have looked at the North Shore City Council’s submission as well, and it makes it quite clear that currently the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill is opposed by all Auckland councils except the Auckland City Council. New Zealand First makes it clear to the people of North Shore that we want to make sure that their rates stay down, we want to make sure that bureaucracy stays down, and we are opposing this bill.

How much of this money—this $12 million that is collected—will actually be spent on these bodies? That is the tragic part of this type of legislation that creates more and more administration and more and more bureaucracies. This legislation creates a funding board, and that board has a membership of 10 members, an electoral college of six members, and an amenities board of four members—that is 20 more members. How many staff will each of these 20 members have? We can see $1 million going out of the window—no trouble at all—by the time an office for these people is set up, they are given a secretary, and they are given telephones. People understand this only if they have been in business—and I have. I know what it costs to set up these things, unlike so many people with a bureaucratic background who have no idea what it takes to run a business.

Here we have a bureaucracy being established by this bill; it is another bouncing baby. National says it will repeal the legislation, but we all know what happened—was it in 1906?—when some Prime Minister first introduced income tax as a temporary measure. Income tax was a temporary measure, and we know what has happened to that. The National Party says it will support the legislation now as a temporary measure. This measure will stay permanent, and there is no way in which the National Party will ever repeal it. The people of the North Shore will suffer, the people of Manukau City will suffer, and even the people of Auckland City will suffer.

Of course, if the people of Auckland City want all these things, that is great; they can have them. But what does the legislation do for people on the North Shore? Nothing at all. We have the Bruce Mason Theatre on the North Shore. Does this bill do anything for the Bruce Mason Theatre? We have a big amenity in the North Harbour Stadium, which costs us a bit of money. Does this bill do anything for the North Harbour Stadium? Not at all. We have a lot of other theatres—as Manukau City does, and as I am sure Waitakere City does. What does this bill do for those burgeoning theatre groups, and music groups around Auckland? Absolutely nothing at all. It gives the funding to the expressly mentioned groups.

I say to the people of Auckland City that if they want a champagne way of life on a beer income, that is their problem. That is what the ratepayers of Auckland City should be telling their city councillors. This legislation is a champagne way of life on a beer income. That is what it boils down to.

Sandra Goudie: New Zealand First should know!

DAIL JONES: Sandra Goudie supports more rates. She is a former county councillor, she supports an increase in the bureaucracy, and that is what this bill gives. Does the National Party not know that this bill increases the bureaucracy? It obviously does, and it is quite disgraceful that we have parties in this House whose members say they want to see rates reduced, but here they are, supporting legislation that increases rates and increases bureaucracy. New Zealand First opposes this legislation.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party supports the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. The organisations that I have talked to, such as Auckland Zoo, the rescue helicopter, and the Auckland observatory, are very good organisations that need to receive more regular funding. As was said in the previous speech, the outlying cities are governed by not wanting to increase their rates. Quite a lot of freeloading is going on, because the amenities tend to be naturally concentrated in the centre of the region. This bill is the best way forward at the moment. The situation may change with the new regional structure, but the Green Party certainly supports the legislation at present.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tēnā koe, Tau Henare. When the Italian tenor Andrea Bocelli touched down at Auckland airport last week, he described his welcoming ceremony as a wonderful surprise, complete with beautiful music. The beautiful music he was referring to was not that of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, of New Zealand Opera, or the Auckland Theatre Company. The music he was referring to was a traditional Māori welcome from Te Pou o Mangatawhiri—a historic association that all of Auckland can be proud of.

Back in 1860, when Matutaera Pōtatau Tāwhiao became the second Māori King, he named a small settlement near Meremere Te Pou o Mangatawhiri after the river. Sixty years later, his mokopuna Princess Te Pūea started a kapahaka group at Tūrangawaewae. She later toured with the group to raise funds to restore the marae and for the building of Māhinarangi. The concert party travelled far and wide, inspiring interest from Sir Apirana Ngata, who became so interested in the Māhinarangi project that he became directly involved in supervising the tukutuku work, finding a builder to complete the plans, and bringing expert carvers from Te Arawa to do the interior carving. That building was eventually opened in 1929 by the Rt Hon J G Coates, a former Prime Minister and Minister of Māori Affairs.

The House may wonder what all that has to do with the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. The answer is everything, and nothing. It has everything to do with it because the history of our national identity, our cultural heritage, and our distinctive sites of significance, such as those at Ngāruawāhia, Maungakiekie, Ōrākei, Rangitoto, and the beautiful Waitematā, are intimately connected to the well-being of the region we now know as Auckland—our history, which visitors from all around the world see when they enter our world at Auckland airport. I hate to break this to the “MP for Western Springs”, but despite Auckland Zoo’s having 179 different species and over 1,300 animals, it is not the primary reason that tourists come to Tāmaki. Aotearoa is the home of the Māori, and kapahaka is the cutting edge of the renaissance of a positive Māori identity, but the “nothing” part is how much recognition the bill has given to kapahaka.

Members would not notice this from going through the bill, but kapahaka has a significant and growing market, and nowhere more so than in Tāmaki-makau-rau. The Auckland regional kapahaka competition always pulls more than a thousand participants and thousands more spectators. The Ngā Manu Kōrero regional speech competitions draw thousands more people, and the ASB Māori and Polynesian festival gets up to 100,000 visitors every year. The Ahurea kapahaka competition and the primary school kapahaka competitions pull tens of thousands more people.

That, as my colleague Pita Sharples will tell members, is just the tip of the kūmara pile, a mere glimpse into the passionate and incredibly rich world of kapahaka and Māori performing arts, nearly all of them organised by the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society every year. The society made a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee that everyone in this House should read, because it gives an idea of the massive effort that people put in to ensure that kapahaka flourishes in the Auckland region, and that visitors to the region can continue to be welcomed and entertained appropriately. Indeed, it is the society’s view that kapahaka and Māori arts are fast becoming the flagship of Auckland’s cultural expression. Furthermore, with only 3 years until the 2011 Rugby World Cup is held there, we know that Māori will be very much the face of Auckland, that kapahaka will be the enduring memory that people will take home of the mighty All Blacks, and that cultural tourism will help to shape our unique regional and national identity.

Just as important, we who are charged with ensuring that the best interests of the nation are upheld must appreciate that the promotion and enhancement of Māori performing arts are fundamental to our development as a nation. The issue is not just an Auckland issue. In fact, kapahaka is of huge relevance to my constituents in the Tai Tokerau, as well, right from Te Rerenga Wairua down to Te Raki Pae Whenua, and across into Te Atutū, Massey, Henderson, and Kelston. Indeed, Hoani Waititi Marae, long revered in Auckland circles as one of the heartlands of urban kapahaka, sits proudly within the Te Tai Tokerau electorate, as do Waitakere and North Shore cities. So naturally the provision of arts, education, and community facilities are high on my own priority list, though I do not know whether the 11 amenities that are given preferential treatment in this bill are the same ones my constituents from the Tai Tokerau would have voted for.

That is not to say that some of those amenities are not doing a fine job, of course. Waiora, for example—WaterSafe Auckland—along with the Auckland surf lifesaving organisation and the coastguard, shows a strong commitment to kaupapa Māori and waka ama. Waiora recently appointed Moana Tamaariki-Pohe to oversee a programme dealing specifically with reducing the alarming 21 percent of drownings that are Māori. Being able to swim well is more than just a school subject for Māori; it is an investment in a future that includes Māori people’s love of the sea, diving, fishing, surfing, swimming, waka ama, waka hourua—just name it, Māori do it, all the way up to the America’s Cup. The importance is seen of recognising and including mana whenua and Māori organisations within decision-making bodies such as those. That will support Auckland’s regional amenities by including Māori representation on the funding board and avoid the glaring and outstanding omission from the list of amenities included in this bill: the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society. Inclusion of that society is an essential element in the renaissance of Māori identity, the participation of Māori across the region, and the value of cultural tourism.

In terms of the Manukau Harbour, a local icon, Angeline Greensill, Māori Party member of the “house of Hauraki-Waikato”, who grew up in the area, tells me that the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Manukau Harbour includes stories of the people of Ihumātao and Māngere catching heaps of flounder with just their feet. In a more current setting, another good friend of mine, Derek Fox, Māori Party member of the “house of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti”, who is known for not being backwards in coming forwards for a free feed of kai moana, tells me that the Manukau Harbour has provided him and his scurrilous mates with many a choice feed over the years of kahawai, parore, tarakihi, moki, hāpuku, toheroa, pipi, pāua, kina, pūpū, toitoi, karengo, kōura, and many other little treasures contained within the Manukau’s inlets, rivers, and creeks. Water safety is a huge part of the life and livelihood of Māori in and around the Auckland region, and we congratulate Waiora on lobbying long and hard for amendments to this bill, to ensure that mana whenua would have a role under the legislation through the membership of the electoral college, which now includes specific representation “as appropriate to represent the interests of Māori in the Auckland region”.

Returning again to the point about the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society, I tell the House that inclusion of the society is an essential element in the renaissance of Māori identity, the participation of Māori across the region, and the value of cultural tourism. Exclusion of the society would have led to some strident and justified charges of racism against those who would try to deny Māori their rightful role in the cultural fabric of Tāmaki-makau-rau, which is home to the greatest concentration of Māori people in the entire universe. We are glad that at the eleventh hour the Minister has said that the Tamaki Makau Rau Senior Kapa Haka Society will take its rightful place as one of the lead agencies encompassed within the scope of this bill. In that light, at the eleventh hour of this debate, the Māori Party will support this final reading of the bill. Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT party to also support the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill, but I have to say that we are very disappointed that New Zealand First is not supporting it. I believe it is the only party in the House not to support this bill. It is true that if we took the Spencer Trust and rolled that into these amenities we would not need this bill; there would be enough money there to fund all these facilities. But without New Zealand First doing that, I am afraid that that is not possible.

I ask those people who object to this bill to ask themselves what it is they want to close. Is it the Auckland Observatory and Planetarium, the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, the Auckland Theatre Company, the New Zealand National Maritime Museum, the Coastguard Northern Region, the Opera New Zealand, or perhaps the Surf Life Saving Northern Region? Perhaps it is the Auckland Festival Trust, or WaterSafe Auckland. They are the organisations that are to be funded by this bill, and if people say that they do not want those organisations to fall over, then they have to ask themselves what an equitable funding mechanism is. Is New Zealand First saying “Oh, well, we want to keep all those, but the only fair way of doing it is to tax and rate just those in Auckland City.”? But as I read through the list, I think that everyone—I guess, everyone bar Dail Jones—can see that these are regional facilities. And if they are regional facilities, is it not fair and equitable that they be funded regionally? I know that Dail Jones might think that it is quite clever, given he is from New Zealand First, to live on the North Shore and travel across the bridge to enjoy everything for free while other people pay—which seems to be a New Zealand First sort of habit—but I think that it is fair and equitable that the region pays for these regional facilities, and this is what this bill allows.

So, yes, it is a difficult one. But I just make this observation, too: I do not think that it is right to put this bill under a review. I think that that is too tough for the organisations concerned, because how can they plan if, in 3, 4, 5 years, looming over them is a potential change to the mechanism by which they are funded?

Mark Blumsky: It’s the mechanism, not the funding.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, the mechanism is the funding. That is how we get the money. What we do have is a royal commission into the organisation, at the local government level, of Auckland and, I suspect, from that will flow a different approach. But just to say that we will have a review of this puts these organisations back on to tenterhooks, which is what we are trying to get away from.

I would also say that it is hard to imagine Dail Jones wanting to fund himself as an MP in the way that he expects, say, Surf Life Saving Northern Region in Auckland to be funded, which would mean that Mr Dail Jones would have to fund his MP activities from the good people of North Shore only. I think that Dail Jones would rather tax everyone he serves—right through New Zealand, God forbid! It is also very hard to imagine Dail Jones not actually having some certainty about his funding as an MP.

John Hayes: There’s no certainty about his future.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, he has no certainty about his future; that is true. But do members see my point? What we are talking about with regard to these organisations is some certainty and some secure funding on an equitable basis.

I will close by saying that it is good to see that we have such agreement in this House—and the bit of disagreement that we have will not be here after the election, so it will not be a problem. I would like to thank the many, many people who have worked for many, many years to get this bill here. That work is the unsung work of people who support organisations that we all enjoy and that we all benefit from, and I do not think that those people get sufficient recognition. I would like to place that on record, on behalf of the whole House, because we all live in communities where people give up their time and make sacrifices for the things we enjoy. In particular, I would single out Mr Don Trott, who, I know, has put such an enormous amount of time and energy into this bill. I know, on behalf of Auckland, that he will be very, very proud today to see this bill becoming an Act of Parliament. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) : I will speak briefly in support of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. I will plead guilty to some discomfort about being in the division lobbies, effectively, with Rodney Hide. When the House is divided, that is not a place that I am used to being in.

I compliment the leadership of Auckland in the social, cultural, and sporting area on getting its act together. Speaking as a Wellingtonian, I say that it is something that we are not very used to seeing Aucklanders doing, and it is something that we very much welcome.

I will make a very brief comment about the National Party. I do not think that I have heard more of an AC/DC approach to legislation than its approach. Those members just cannot make up their minds. I will tell them that when there is a picket fence around, if one tries to be on both sides of it, then one ends up with unfortunate injuries. I think the National Party is in that position at the moment.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) : I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed being on the Local Government and Environment Committee during this whole process, and it is probably only when one gets bills like the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill that one starts to debate the merits of actually staying in the place. But then one realises that one could be on the other end and maybe helping Wellington to put together a bill somewhat like this, because I reckon that if I am lucky enough to have a shot at the other one, I will be doing the same thing quite soon.

I like what the bill’s promoters have done. They have taken control, big time. Like those speakers who have gone before me, I can only congratulate them, because they have been on a hell of a trip. I am well aware of the hurdles and of the local government processes they have been up against. Is it not a pain in the backside having to go every year—every single year—to every single annual plan and ask, like Oliver Twist, whether one can have some more? Often local authorities say that they will be there, absolutely. Then, of course, the annual plan goes through the process and, lo and behold, it has gone, or the bit the local authority said that one would get is a hell of a lot smaller than it was because there has been a bit of a noise about rates, rate increases, and so on. This has been a journey. I say that the bill’s promoters have done well and I was delighted to be on the select committee.

The process in the select committee was fascinating, because one learnt a lot. One did learn a lot, because 500-odd submissions came through. I tell members now that one learns a lot from listening to the people who made the submissions about the difficulties that they have been in. Thank God for many of those organisations, which I call the group of 11—there are really 11, as the zoo is in there—because if they were not there any more, we can just imagine the problems there would be. I have plucked out a couple of the submissions as examples. The Wiri Central School just made it quite clear that it was a decile 1 school and that it would not be in a position to pay. Its parents, the families, cannot afford to go to the organisations it needs to go to for learning, like the Stardome Observatory and Planetarium, and the zoo. That school needs those organisations to be there.

Then we had a submission from Kelly James. Kelly James would be dead if the rescue helicopter had not picked her up when she had a dolphin land on her. She went into a respiratory arrest and nearly died, but was brought back to life because the helicopter got there. We have to say that was fantastic for Kelly James.

Then we look at the submission from Ian Tuck, the director of junior surf, who said that his group saved 227 people last season and performed 307 first aid treatments. We have to say: “Thank goodness they were there, and, by gosh they had better be there next time.”

Then we have the Chinese new settlers. They are here, they have come from a strange land, they have all this water around them, and they do not know a thing about water safety. So we need WaterSafe Auckland to be there to take them through those educational issues. I knew the member would like that one.

I had the pleasure, as I said, to go through the submissions, which really rammed home to me the importance of the group of 11. It also rammed home to me how important volunteers are, and I know that Mr Hide mentioned that. Many, many volunteers are tied up in these organisations. They do not get paid and they do an outstanding performance for us. But I also need to thank another group in this process for the learning I had in going through their submissions. They are the community organisations that fund—for example, the ASB Bank Community Trust. We are lucky that it is there and that it is generous. We are lucky that the Lion Foundation is there and that it is generous. I congratulate the Auckland City Council, because I think it has done good. It has taken a big share of the burden—a bigger share than it probably deserved—and it has made a real difference. I say to the Manukau City Council—Mr Dail Jones mentioned Manukau, not me—that 25 percent of its population use those services but it provides only 3 percent of the funding. That is not fair. That is not fair, at all.

Coming back to earth, there has been a problem. Serious money is an issue. There is an issue with viability, hence the need for this bill. The bill establishes a framework to secure sustainable funding. Money is tough to get. It is not easy to get money for these organisations. I am on the board of Wellington Free Ambulance. We are forever trying to raise money. Donations are harder and harder to get from the public. Every Friday on the street corners in Wellington a different bucket is being shaken. It is a different bucket from a different organisation needing funds. Then, of course, costs are going up. Petrol prices are going up, rental prices are going up. Money is hard to get. Then we have examples like that of the Lion Foundation, which admits that 2 years ago it contributed $59 million to the New Zealand community and this year it will be $43 million. So the big funders that have been there historically and have done a fantastic job will struggle to have the degree of moneys available.

If we look to the future, we see Auckland is getting bigger. There is more pressure on the services in Auckland. There will be more risks to those organisations, so there will be an issue for how that group of 11 will be funded. There were three options. The first was to ask the Government for more money. I have to suggest that life saving, WaterSafe Auckland, and the Auckland rescue helicopter, for example, should probably get more Government funding. I think there is a case for them to get more Government funding. Another option is to up the user-pays. Well, there is user-pays, and there should be user-pays, in many of those 11 organisations—and the cultural arts are a part of that—but we have to make sure that they are affordable, because we have to make sure that Aucklanders can enjoy them. So there is a need, even in the cultural aspect, for the subsidies to go forward. The last option is local government, and that is why this bill is here. I note that the Auckland City Council submission stated that independent market research undertaken in 2005 indicated a high degree of support across the region for the regional funding arm of the group of 11. This was reconfirmed in October in 2007 in a separately commissioned North Shore City Council survey. So what I am hearing is that the people of Auckland, through surveys by Auckland City Council and North Shore City Council, are saying this group of 11 should be funded by the region. To say it again, this was reconfirmed in 2007 in a survey commissioned by the North Shore City Council.

The local government option makes sense. I must admit I am a huge fan of the Auckland Regional Council stepping up, and I think it is a pity we could not get that in the process because it did not meet the requirements of the bill, or whatever. I believe that is the cleanest and easiest way for this to occur. So in a logical way we are picking up second prize, but I suppose that is not as important as the fact that the funding is going to come forward, which is important for sure.

As a National Party person on the Local Government and Environment Committee I was also very conscious of the fact that I did not like the bill in its original form. I liked the Auckland Regional Council stepping up, and I liked waiting for the royal commission to do its work—I think the royal commission will play an integral part in the shape of Auckland. Auckland has to get itself together, which it is not doing at all, actually, and I am sure that if the National Party comes forward as the next Government—as I hope it will—it will address that in conjunction with the royal commission. Something has to be done, and I admit the fact that we cannot wait until 2012 as we suggested in the Supplementary Order Paper. If we do not send a stronger message to those organisations, we actually run the risk of them falling over.

I suppose, just to those who are in the gallery—and I know a number of people are here from different organisations—I send a final message. This bill will pass and there will be a pretty strong funding stream from local authorities for organisations to get. I think they will get $7 million or $8 million. That is not a cash cow for those organisations to then sit back and think: “We’ve got all the money in the world now. Let’s spend it. Let’s go for it. Let’s buy this, that, and the other.” It will be too easy for those organisations to fall into that trap. What they have to do is say: “We have a serious lifeline. This Parliament has recognised the importance of us as organisations, and recognised the importance of us to Aucklanders.” Parliament is saying: “Here is the money to keep you alive and to keep your organisations strong. Don’t abuse that privilege. It is a privilege you’re getting. Don’t abuse it. Be careful with our money, please.”