Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Taxation (Budget Tax Measures) Bill. Mr Bennett said that this is a fine day for National and for the Government. I say it should have been a fine day, but it was not. It was a disappointing day. Many of the people who have been listening to this debate are now looking towards a long, dark, and cold winter. This Budget was about broken promises, about no jobs whatsoever, and about continuing unemployment for many hard-working communities throughout New Zealand. This Budget means that a lot of ordinary families will be reduced to receiving lower incomes for the next 5 years. That is what has been forecast in the Budget by this Government.

Earlier I listened to the Hon Roger Douglas conveying his philosophy to this House. I felt that it was a cruel philosophy. It is a philosophy based on the law of the jungle, whereby the strong survive. That is not the kind of New Zealand that I am prepared to create. At least one thing is that I can appreciate that the Hon Roger Douglas was making things clear for the rest of the nation about that kind of philosophy. It is not the kind of philosophy that I support, but at least he has been up front about it. But I cannot say that about the National Government and Mr Key.

The bill that we are debating repeals the National Government’s tax cut promises. This Government made promises at the beginning of its becoming Government and rammed through legislation to give tax cuts to 3 percent of the population. National members campaigned hard that a National Government would give tax cuts, and now we are having to debate this matter again, under urgency, to repeal it. Yes, the Labour Party is supporting the bill, because tax cuts was the wrong thing to promise in the first place, and it continues to be wrong.

Earlier today we heard from the Prime Minister. He cracked a few jokes at the expense of the Labour Party, and all the National MPs laughed and took great joy and relish in making fun of us. As usual, the public would have been watching that and would have noted that Mr Key uses jokes and laughter to hide the truth. What is the truth? I will quote it. John Key, in his speech at the National Party election campaign launch on 12 October 2008, stated: “In laying out our economic plan, National has been very clear about our priorities. We all know what will be the first to go under Labour, whether they want to admit it or not, and that is the rest of their tax-cut package. Well, unlike Labour, I’m going to be straight-up about my priorities. That’s why I’m sending a card to all of you. It’s called My Key commitments to You and it will be delivered to every household in New Zealand over the next 10 days. In it are 11 commitments that I make to you.”

The very first commitment on “My key commitments to you” reads: “Strengthen the economy, increase after-tax incomes, and ensure Kiwis can get ahead under their own steam by reducing personal taxes on 1 April 2009, 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011.” Mr Key then stated “unlike Labour, we won’t cancel our tax cuts.” What does this bill do? It proposes that the final two tranches of personal tax cuts in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 income years be repealed. That is what this bill is about. The tax cuts are being repealed.

This is a Budget of broken promises. Mr Key promised the nation that he would give tax cuts, he was laughing about it, making fun of it, and now we are having to repeal them in urgency. Mr Key and the National Party should never have promised to have tax cuts. They knew it was wrong. They were warned. The Labour Party protested about them. The Government should never have implemented the tax cuts, particularly when they favoured higher-income earners. What about the ordinary New Zealanders who not only are working day and night to make their families better off and trying to support their families but also are moving the engine of New Zealand ahead?

When the tax cuts were introduced, they created greed and individualism amongst many people who probably would not have ever considered tax cuts. It was probably the wrong thing to do, because in these times, and in the circumstances that we find ourselves in, we should be working together. We should be helping the weak, those who need help the most. But the Government did not give tax cuts to that group of people.

John Key, in my view, owes New Zealanders across this nation an apology for the Government’s turn-round. We know, because before the election he made those promises, and to now renege on them is wrong. It should never have happened. I call on Mr Key to be up front and go out to the public and apologise. He should not smile about it. He should be serious. These are serious times, and people want real solutions that will help them to overcome the recession that we are currently in.

 The bill shows up the Prime Minister as somebody who did not tell the truth. He gave a personal guarantee to the people of New Zealand that they would receive personal tax cuts for each of the next 3 years. People would have made plans based on that statement, and now what happens? What will happen to those plans?

The only way that tax cuts were ever going to provide an economic stimulus was if the people receiving the tax cuts spent them, and the only way the tax cuts were ever going to provide any meaningful relief to New Zealanders in an economic downturn was if they were directed at those who need them the most. National’s tax cut promise was completely misguided on both of those counts. Either John Key was oblivious to the catastrophic recession when he promised tax cuts, or he did know and chose to continue anyway.

That is why I say that the Prime Minister, Mr Key, was not telling the truth. There are harsher words that ought to be used, but I know that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would pull me up again and ask that I withdraw them. The Prime Minister did not tell the truth. He knew that what he was doing would not eventuate. He went ahead anyway, rushed things through this Parliament in the beginning, and now we are having to rush through a bill to repeal the tax cuts. He is using, I believe, the recession to be able to repeal them.

Listen to what Colin Espiner said about the Budget in his blog today. He stated “there’s no real vision or big new ideas.” The Government has already raided KiwiSaver, and now it has stopped contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. How will the more than $20 million lost to the Superannuation Fund be paid back sometime in the future? Mr Colin Espiner asked what we got for this recklessness. We got nothing; not even new training, not even new investment to ensure that this economy will grow.

A lot of fancy words are being used when I listen to this debate, but they are all hollow words. There has been no substance. I know that families out there who are listening to this debate will see the hollowness of this Government’s words.

We are on the eve of the Government’s first Budget. We are also in an environment where there is a lot of uncertainty in many homes. There will be a lot of expectation on this Government and on what it will be providing to meet those uncertainties, and to provide confidence to the increasing number of people who are finding themselves out of a job. The last figures I saw showed that there are 115,000 unemployed people in New Zealand. Many of those people, when there are no jobs, will be looking at opportunities to take up jobs. It may be that they will consider the jobs that are outlined in new schedule 2, which is inserted by the amendment in the name of Ms Fenton.

I acknowledge my colleague Darien Fenton, because this is an important issue for a large and significant sector of the community—and not just of my community but, I suspect, of the country. People want this bill to pass so that they have some form of protection. When there is rising unemployment most of those people are in vulnerable positions and will be forced to negotiate their terms and conditions from a very weak standpoint. If they do not accept what is on offer, then somebody else, who is prepared to be paid less and to work in very unsafe environments, will take it up. That is what will occur if there are no protections for these workers.

By and large, our employers are good people who genuinely work their guts out to try to ensure that workers can have jobs and are protected. But I think they are looking to this Government for some leadership. They are looking to this Government to provide some confidence, and to provide not just jobs but sustainable incomes that can enable a father or a mother to sustain themselves and their families in the years ahead. Without that protection they will feel let down. I suspect that that is what will happen if this Government does not provide the leadership that our nation needs, and that leadership is about jobs and about providing incomes that people can live off.

I suspect it will be very difficult for National members on the other side of the Chamber to fully understand why the minimum wage is important. I will provide some figures to help them. Labour raised the minimum wage every year that it was in Government. It was raised from $7, as it was in 1999, up to $12 in 2008. When this Government came into power, 5 or 6 months ago, it moved it by 50c. Was it 50c?

Chris Hipkins: Yes, it was 50c.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: So it is now $12.50. If somebody is working 8 hours, that gives him or her $100 a day. If he or she is working 5 days a week, that is $500 a week. After deducting taxes of $4,580 a year, the person has $21,000 left, which comes out to about $412 a week. If that person is renting a private home, and $300 is spent on rent for a two-bedroom or three-bedroom home in an area of Manukau City, that leaves that person with $112 for the week. If the average-sized family in Māngere, for example, comprises four people, we are condemning this family, with a one-income earner, to live on $111 or $112 per week. If the family puts aside $50 a week for power, or $50 a week for the telephone bill, what is left? That is what National is doing.

I move, That the motion be amended by omitting the word “now” and adding the words “this day 3 months”.  

Earlier this week this House was united in standing in silence to mourn the death of an officer of the law who was killed in the line of duty. I felt that it was right to do so, and I was proud to stand, united with all the other parties in this House, to mourn the loss of that officer.

Tonight, however, I stand sadly to indicate that Labour opposes this bill. I feel sad because this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill guts—takes away—local government in Auckland as we know it. I feel as if I am standing to mourn the death of the Manukau City Council. If a farmer was to gut an animal, he or she would be very careful not to penetrate the intestines with the knife, because then the faeces would stink and make the meat bad. I feel this bill rips the guts out of the Manukau City Council and all other local authorities, without a care in the world about what happens to the people.

Nathan Guy: Not true!

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: It is true.

Nathan Guy: No, it’s not.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Well, the Prime Minister, Mr Key, and his National Government keep saying he is listening, but this bill is a significant change. It will establish the super-city once and for all, and Aucklanders have not had a say.

Despite the results of the polls that have been promoted in the local Manukau Courier  and all the other suburban newspapers, the Government is still not listening. In the poll that we conducted in Māngere, the first question was “Do you agree with the plan to have a super-city?”, and 66 percent said no, 22 percent said yes, and 12 percent said they were unsure.

Hon Tau Henare: Out of how many?

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: I will get to it; I will let that member know soon. That is the response that is coming out of Māngere.

There is a similar response throughout Manukau City. When this bill passes under urgency, without our having heard the voice of Aucklanders and without public consultation, we are doing away with Manukau City. We are doing away with the councillors who represent Māngere. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Ōtara. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Papatoetoe. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the ward of Manurewa. We are doing away with the councillors who represent the wards of Botany, Howick, Pakuranga, and Clevedon. That is what this legislation is doing. We are also doing away with the work and effort that past generations have put into this city and into the culture of this city. Why? Because Mr Hide is not prepared to give Aucklanders the opportunity to say what they have to say.

The Government is not even listening to the recommendations of the royal commission on, for example, the Māori seats. I acknowledge the Māori Party for standing up for the three Māori seats that the royal commission asked for, but I ask that party what sort of relationship it is in. To the outsiders, our kaumātuas of Te Puea Marae, of Tāmaki-makau-rau, of Pūkaki Marae, they feel that that is an abusive relationship in which the Māori Party gets dealt to by the National Government—and still it stays in coalition. Our kaumātua said three Māori seats on the proposed Auckland Council were a good start. But this Government’s proposal is zilch—none at all. That reflects badly on the National Government. It is not recognising the special status of tangata whenua.

That is why, at a meeting earlier this week, the tangata Pasifika—the people of the Pacific—in Manukau said that as much as they wanted a seat on the new Auckland Council, they felt it was best that they support Māori, because if this is the way that the National Government treats Māori—who must beg and go out and protest just to have one seat at their own table—what does that mean for the rest of the minority groups in New Zealand? Where is that going? It is not good.

Community boards as Aucklanders know them will be gone under this legislation. The people who freely contribute their time and advocate for the local community will be gone. So I stand here to mourn the loss of Manukau City, and to mourn the loss of our community boards as we know them. If the Government is so intent on sending this bill through—it is very confident that it has the numbers and that it is doing the right thing—then it should give Aucklanders the opportunity to have a say on the super-city.

This bill also legislates for the Auckland Transition Agency. What will the membership of this agency be? Who will be on the agency? We have concerns from the local community—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Christine Rankin.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: It could be Christine Rankin. I do not know; I hope not. We in Labour want to know who will be on the agency. What conflicts of interest will these people have? Will they be buddies of Mr Rodney Hide? Will they be the next-door neighbours of Mr Key? Who will these people be, and whose interests will they be pursuing on the transitional authority? What is at stake is significant; it concerns billions of dollars in assets. In Manukau City, the people are concerned about these assets. We currently have a significant amount of money invested in shares in Auckland International Airport. For the past several years those airport shares have contributed significantly to our free swimming pools, our libraries, and our free parks. Under this bill these assets will now be lumped in together as part of the assets of the new super-city. Who will control these assets? Our fear is that if it is not one of us from the wards of Manukau City, then our interests will not be considered in the discussion of these assets.

There are the issues of how much the transition will cost and how much the super-city will cost. I will again share with members the survey I undertook in Māngere. In answer to the question “Do you think that the royal commission’s plan for a super-city will lead to an increase in rates?”, 79 percent of our people in Māngere said yes, 7 percent said no, and 14 percent were not sure. Let me give members a further statistic. Another question asked: “Do you think there has been enough consultation by central government about a super-city for Auckland?”, and 80 percent of our people in Māngere polled said, no, they have not been consulted by central government, 11 percent said yes, and 9 percent were unsure.

In respect of the cost of the super-city, the transition, and the ongoing cost, I heard Mr Hide say that he wanted to cap rates for the sake of Aucklanders, but is he prepared to cap the costs of the transition to the super-city? I doubt that very much. The costs are in the millions of dollars. The ongoing costs will be several millions of dollars, because one also has to consider the 7,000 employees of local government in Auckland who could lose their jobs. We want to make sure that those workers throughout Auckland are being looked after. We do not know what those costs are. This Government is ramming through legislation for a super-city without even telling the public how much it will cost. At the end of the day, it will be the ratepayers of Auckland who pay for this.

I move, That the following words be added to the motion after the words “Māori Party 1”and before the words “and that the committee”: “all members of the committee must have been elected to represent a seat in the Auckland region or have registered a permanent home address with the Parliamentary Service which is in the Auckland region”. 

This is an important amendment to Government motion No. 2. It appears that the Government is very determined to do away with the Local Government and Environment Committee, and to attempt to ram through a special select committee. Standing Order 184 establishes the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is that very committee, out of 13 select committees, that is charged with the powers, rights, and privileges to determine all matters concerning local government. This afternoon we heard from Mr Auchinvole, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: If the Government is so intent on ramming through a motion for a special select committee without listening to the voices of Aucklanders, then it is important that we have Aucklanders on that select committee.

As other members have stated, there is currently a Local Government and Environment Committee, which was established under Standing Order 184 for the purpose of considering matters of local government. We heard earlier this afternoon from the chair of that committee, Mr Auchinvole. After my colleague the Hon George Hawkins had questioned Mr Auchinvole about the committee’s work, Mr Auchinvole said that it was currently working on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. But that work will be completed and reported back to the House by 19 June, so why are we setting up a special select committee? That is the big question. Why does the Government want to ram through a motion to set up a special select committee on the proposed super-city, when there is already a constituted parliamentary committee to carry out that work?

I believe that this is a display of naked arrogance by the Government. There has been a consistent pattern of arrogance after only 6 months of it being in Government. Sure, Mr Key says he is listening, but all the time his offsider the Hon Rodney Hide is rushing through significant bills that will have an effect on the lives of over 1 million people for the next 50 to 100 years. These people are not even being given a voice. In my view, it is pure, blatant, naked arrogance. This Government believes that because it has the numbers in the House, it can do whatever it wants. That is what Government members have been saying to the public. The message that this Government is sending to the public of Auckland is that the Government has the numbers and is going to do whatever it wants to do. That is the message that is going out.

But in setting up this select committee the Government is sending out another message to the public of New Zealand. That message is that the Government does not trust Mr Auchinvole, the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust him to administer local government matters. It is also—and this is the sad thing—sending a message to the people of the West Coast – Tasman electorate, whom Mr Auchinvole represents. It is telling them that the Government does not trust its own MP. That is the kind of message that is going out. The message is also that this Government does not trust its other MPs on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It does not trust Nicky Wagner, the deputy chair. It does not trust Nikki Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central. It does not trust Jonathan Young, the MP for New Plymouth. It does not even trust Louise Upston, the MP for Taupō. I give those members my deepest sympathies. Their Government colleagues do not trust those members of the Local Government and Environment Committee.

If this Government does not trust any of those members, whom does it trust? It certainly does not trust Aucklanders enough to give them a voice. Let us consider the MPs of the Auckland region. The Prime Minister, the Hon Mr Key, is quite happy to say he is listening to people, but is he really listening, and whom is he listening to? The community tells me that he is listening to big business and the elite and is not listening to ordinary working people. Earlier tonight Newstalk ZB released the results of a poll conducted by Research New Zealand. It showed that 45 percent of respondents said no to the super-city and 41 percent said yes. Is Mr Key listening to those people? He might be listening, but is he really hearing the voices of ordinary, hard-working Aucklanders? I doubt that very much.

Mr Hide said he wants to give people the opportunity to have a say. The problem is that the first bill that he has introduced on this issue rips the guts out of local government as we know it today, and the general public have not had a say about that. I tell the public who are listening to this debate to make sure they send their faxes, emails, and letters to Mr Hide to let him know what they think about the decision to rush this bill through the House under urgency.

I do not know whether the Hon Maurice Williamson will have time to be on the new select committee. He does not care one iota about the people of Pakuranga and their view on this matter. If he did, he would have called a meeting with his electorate. But I understand from members of that community that he has not called a meeting, because he just does not care.

Will the Hon Dr Richard Worth be on the select committee? I am not sure. He has been quite busy of late with his private, or public, business trip to India. He will be ducking and dodging that issue for a while and will not be too interested in Auckland. Will the Hon Judith Collins be on the committee? No, I doubt it. She has her hands full, because she has just worked out that speaking tough on crime does not actually solve crime. I am not sure whether Melissa Lee will be on the select committee. She has been quite busy doing TV interviews of late, so I think she will not be available to sit on the special select committee. I am not sure whether my friend Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga will be available; he is still trying to figure out which job he should do.

Dr Paul Hutchison—now there is an MP. He is the only National MP who I have heard has called a public meeting with his constituents. The message he heard was that they do not want the super-city. In fact, the good people of the Franklin District Council do not want to be part of the super-city. They want to go south. Will Dr Paul Hutchison give voice to what he has heard from his community? More important, will the National MPs on the proposed select committee have a voice? Will any of them have a voice on that special select committee?

The Hon Paula Bennett is one of the few National MPs whom I have heard speak out on the Government’s super-city proposal, but she is now busy restructuring the Ministry of Social Development through 200 redundancies. People who were employed by the ministry will now become clients of it.

The public wants its voice to be heard, but because this Government is not listening, let us at least let the Auckland-based MPs consider the Government’s super-city proposal. That is what my amendment is about. I hope that members of the Government and other parties who are listening will ensure that people who live in Auckland are part of the new select committee. The Prime Minister says he is listening, but his offsider the Hon Mr Hide is ramming through the House in urgency the first and probably the most important bill about this issue.

The member who just spoke, the Hon John Carter, said that his Government is all about consultation. I remind the member that prior to the election, the Hon Mr Key, who is now the Prime Minister, said that when the royal commission had completed its work, National would consult Aucklanders. Where has that consultation taken place? Is the member talking about consultation at the select committee consideration of the second bill and the third bill? But this bill—the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation Bill)—is the key bill that sets up the super-city and puts an end to all local governments in the Auckland region. That is what this bill is about. The Government has not consulted the people of Auckland.

Chris Tremain: You have not read the bill, really.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Well, I have read it. Part 2 establishes a super-city, like it or not. That is the message that has been sent by this Government: that whether Aucklanders like it or not, the Government is doing away with their local governments as they know them today, and it will impose a super-city on them. That is what is happening.

I want to say that at times such as this, I feel that I am grieving for the loss of Manukau City. I am reminded of an old Māori saying: ask me what is the most important thing in this world, and I will say it is people, it is people, it is people. If this Government had any care for the people of Auckland it would be out there face to face with every community throughout Manukau, Waitakere, Auckland City, North Shore, Franklin District, and Rodney District telling them what it intends to do. But it has not, because it does not trust the Auckland people. It does not trust them, and it is so intent on ramming through this legislation in urgency. Ramming through this legislation in urgency means that Aucklanders will not have a voice on whether they want the super-city. The Government is doing so despite the polls that indicate that people do not want a super-city; people want to be consulted. Yes, perhaps there are benefits of having a super-city and of having a plan—perhaps there are. But the decision to rush through the legislation in urgency indicates to the people that the Government does not care—that is what this Government is saying.

When the Minister of Local Government, through a stroke of the pen, signs off this legislation it means the death of Manukau City as we know it. The mayor will no longer exist as the mayor, the 18 councillors will no longer exist in Manukau City, the community boards throughout Manukau City will no longer exist, the powers of that council—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, they do.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: If members look at Part 3 of the bill, they will see that those things will exist in name only, while the Auckland Transition Authority essentially takes over the running of those cities. This means that it is a sad day for Manukau City; it is a sad day for local governance.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s a great day!

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: It is not. The concern I have is that—

Hon John Carter: You don’t want the city to function better.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: No. If the super-city is there to benefit all people, I ask how ordinary workers will benefit from the super-city. How will the residents of Māngere benefit from the super-city? How will the residents of Ōtara benefit from the super-city? I do not believe that the Minister can answer those questions truthfully, because, frankly, from the perspective of the people in Manukau City, it is difficult to see the benefits. They want to keep their city. Members should talk to the people of Franklin, who are saying that they want to stay as Franklin; they do not want to be part of this city. Has anybody spoken to Mr Bill Birch, a former Minister of the National Government? He does not want to be part of the super-city; he wants to keep Franklin. Members should talk to the people of Rodney. They do not want to be part of the super-city; they want to maintain their own identity.

In Manukau City we want to be able to maintain our council’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi committee—a committee set up with elected councillors and appointed representatives from tangata and mana whenua. Where will that committee be placed in the super-city that Mr Hide and Mr Key are setting up? Concerns are coming from people on fixed incomes and old people who currently live in pensioner flats. We know what has happened in Auckland City under Mr John Banks. He sold off those flats. Will that happen with Manukau City’s pensioner flats? We have a rating system in Manukau City that acknowledges that not all of our people are at the same economic level. What will happen when we come under a new rating system? What sort of rating system will it be? We proudly promote a social philosophy in Manukau City. What will happen with the social well-being of the people of the new super-city?

This Government does not even intend to put forward the recommendation of the royal commission to have a social policy forum. Where will that forum be? We talk about local democracy. Where will the representatives of Māngere be on the Auckland Council, which will have only 20 councillors—eight of which this Government is proposing will be elected at large? How many councillors from the ward of Ōtara will be on that super-city council? How many representatives from the ward of Manurewa will be on that super-city council? How many representatives from Botany, Howick, and Pakuranga will be on that super-city council?

The answer is zilch. There will be none. I am not sure that this is the way to go. If this Government was intent on acknowledging and showing some care for the people of Auckland, it would have taken the time to confront and engage them face to face, and would be able to discuss the proposal that has gone through. Unfortunately, having consistently shown a pattern of arrogance over the past 6 months, this Government does not want to listen one iota to the voices of Manukau.

Some of my constituents are saying that this super-city will make the rich richer, and the poor even poorer. I again ask the Minister of Local Government to please tell the ordinary workers and those on fixed incomes what the benefits of the super-city will be for low socio-economic communities. That is the question that needs to be answered. Sure, we will have a brand that goes out to the rest of the world and says that we have one Auckland City, but we in Manukau City are proud of the fact that we have a population that is quite diverse, with 182 different ethnic groups. We are proud of the fact that we are able to acknowledge the existence of these people. Wards like Manurewa have diverse representation on their community boards. Representatives include small-business people, Māori people, Pacific people, our kaumātua, and professional people. In a similar league, there is diversity in the wards of Ōtara, as well as in Botany and Howick. I ask what will happen under this super-city governance arrangement, which will have only 20 members on the council, of whom six or eight will be elected at large. Only those who have enough money to campaign across the whole of Auckland will be elected.

This Government says it is listening. If it means what it says, and if it is intent on saying that local democracy is important, then it needs to consider that power should be given to local councils, community boards, or whatever name they will be given by this Government under the new structure. Local government is not simply a name on legislation; it needs to be given powers, irrespective of how many boards or people are involved—whether it is six, 12, 15, 20, or 30. The real issue for local communities is that they should be given the power to make decisions for themselves on local issues.

Hon John Carter: That’s right—exactly. We agree.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Well, I ask why that is not reflected in this legislation. The Government is giving the public the opportunity to have a say on the second and third bills, but that is a fait accompli. The people have a super-city, whether they like it or not.