Speech by Hon Rodney Hide to Meeting of LGNZ Zone One Representatives
Council Chamber, Ground floor, Auckland Town Hall, 301 Queen Street, Auckland.
Friday 12 March 2010

Good morning and my thanks to Local Government New Zealand for the invitation to speak to your Zone One representatives today. Zone One is very important to me as Minister at the moment!

You have invited me to talk about the Governments reform of Auckland’s local governance – a topic that I know is very dear to all your hearts – and my work on improving the transparency, accountability and financial management of local government

I’m not going to bore you with a lot of detail that you already know about, being so closely involved in all the Auckland changes. I will speak for a short time and then am very happy to take questions.

Before I begin - special greetings to Mike Cohen and Eugene Bowen, and to Grant Taylor representing the ATA.

And, I would very much like to thank all Zone One Mayors and Chief Executives for your open engagement with the ATA and hard work to support the changes underway in Auckland.

I know it’s an enormous undertaking for you, and I appreciate the personal and professional effect it must be having for you.

As you know, successive Government have attempted different arrangements for Auckland’s local governance in an effort to assist the Auckland region to speak with one voice, and to become the marvellous city/region that I know it can be.

Auckland is New Zealand’s only city/region that is positioned to take on the global connections NZ needs to succeed and prosper.

Auckland already exhibits a number of characteristics of a strong international city. We can be proud of Auckland with its natural beauty, a jewel of a harbour and its wonderful diversity. But in my view there is a huge untapped potential. It could be so much better.

Recent evidence shows that Auckland has a productivity premium of around 50 per cent higher than that outside Auckland. Although Auckland is a strong performer in the national context, we believe it has potential to significantly improve its productivity.

That is why the Government is determined to set up a regional governance structure that both enhances productivity and ensures that Auckland continues to be a great place to live and work.

Auckland's future depends on critical decisions being taken at a regional level. Effective region-wide decision-making must have region-wide governance arrangements to overcome the competing interests, parochialism and factionalism that held Auckland back for so long.

The Government’s changes will provide a better environment for Auckland citizens and businesses to interact with their local authority.

I’m excited about the potential we can unleash through these changes, and I’m getting more excited as the final pieces of the new picture start to fall into place.

Some of these final pieces are:

• The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill - the third and final Bill to effect the Auckland Governance changes, which as you know is currently before the select committee;

• The Local Government Commission’s final determination as to Local Boards and their members;

• The ATA’s discussion documents on Local Boards and CCOs – which I hope you are providing feedback on.

I will just briefly touch on these now

Third Bill
As you know, the third Bill develops and enhances the two earlier Auckland Acts and amends other pieces of legislation.

It will give the new Auckland Council the tools to be up and running effectively in November this year, following the election of new representatives in the October 2010 local government elections.

The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee received over 800 submissions on the bill, and has recently finished its hearings. They will report back to the House in early May and the Bill needs to be passed shortly afterwards so that arrangements are in place for the elections.

Local Boards and the Council
As you know the new Auckland council is going to have two complementary levels of decision-making in the new Council – the governing body made up of the Mayor and councillors, and the local boards which have specific decision-making responsibilities in their own right.

One of the most difficult issues facing us in designing these new arrangements is how to effectively provide for the local voice in regional decisions, and the regional impact of local decisions. We have tried to do this in several ways.

The governing body is responsible for decisions on the regulatory functions of the Council as a local authority, although it has the power to delegate many of these to local boards.

The governing body is also responsible for financial management, and ensuring the Council as a whole has the capacity to provide, or ensure the provision of, services and facilities, including local activities, across the region.

In meeting these responsibilities, the governing body must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision may affect the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

The Council’s local boards are responsible for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in their local board areas. It will consider the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council, and developing bylaws for their local board areas and proposing them to the governing body.

Responsibility for the Council’s non-regulatory activities has been specifically designed to reflect and support the different roles that the governing body and the local boards have in the Council structure.

As you know the Local Government Commission has made its final determination and has made a few changes as a result of submissions on the draft determination.

The proposed two member Orakei–Maungakiekie has been split into two single member wards (Orakei Ward and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Ward);

Two of the largest proposed Local Boards have both been split into two new boards. The Hibiscus, Albany, East Coast Bays board is now split into the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Upper Harbour Local Board.

The proposed Waitakere Board has been split into two separate boards (Waitakere Ranges Local Board and the Henderson-Massey Local Board).

A number of other ward and local board boundary have been made to ensure communities of interest are not split and to provide for fair representation across Auckland (i.e. within plus/minus 10 percent). For example, all of Mt Eden community is now in one ward

I hope that many of you here today are thinking of standing for the council or a local board.

CCOs
There are currently over 300 council-owned entities with some form of corporate or business-like structure, spread across the existing eight councils in Auckland.

The Government asked the ATA to review and rationalise the council-owned entities prior to 1 November 2010, and to develop proposals for a consolidated structure for the new Auckland Council.

The proposals need to meet certain criteria before the Government will agree to them. They need to:

• address inconsistencies in service delivery methods across the existing local authorities to achieve a consistent approach for the new Auckland Council; and

• eliminate multiple CCOs with the same purpose, to provide the Auckland Council with a consolidation of the entities.

The Government has already approved three CCOs for Auckland – these are Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Limited and the Waterfront Development Agency.

We expect that the stocktake and review of council-owned entities that the ATA is undertaking will result in the establishment of a small number of new CCOs, primarily based on the rationalisation of like activities that presently operate independently from local authorities through CCOs, trusts or business units.

Any of the existing 300 council entities that are not affected by the new CCO structure will simply transfer, as is, to the Auckland Council on 1 November 2010.

The CCO structure, once fully developed by the ATA and approved by the Government, will remain in place from 1 November 2010 until the new Auckland Council has completed consultation with Aucklanders, along with LTCCP consultation, on any proposed changes.

The Government is looking for effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery while also providing for the Auckland Council to remain democratically accountable for the delivery of those services.

We expect the new unified Auckland Council to bring many benefits to its residents and ratepayers, and serve as a positive example for other regions to follow in the future.

Further down the track, we will consider the implications of the review of Auckland’s governance for local government in general.

TAFM
I’d like to briefly touch on the government’s work on improving transparency, accountability and financial management in local government.

The local government sector has provided valuable input into this work through Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers. In fact, many of the changes I’m proposing had their genesis in work done by one of these organisations.

I started this work because it very quickly became clear to me, from letters I received and the public meetings I attended, that very many ratepayers are concerned about increasing rates, and many are struggling to pay these increases.

These concerns are well founded.

Recent analysis by the Department of Internal Affairs of data from 2009 to 2019 long-term council community plans (LTCCPs) shows that the cumulative increase in rates per head over the next 10 years is 49 per cent, and that rates funding will increase as a proportion of councils’ operating receipts.

At the same time, public debt for the sector is forecast to increase by 97 per cent and interest expenses by 91 per cent. And it is ratepayers, including commercial ratepayers, who are expected to pay for most of the increases.

More effective and responsive local government and a brighter future for ratepayers are most easily achieved by improving certain aspects of the Local Government Act 2002.

The three underlying principles guiding this work are:

• local government should operate within a defined fiscal envelope

• councils should focus on core activities

• council decision-making should be clear, transparent and accountable.

In general the changes agreed to by Cabinet will help ratepayers and residents to understand council costs, rates and activities a whole lot better so they can exert greater influence and control during planning and decision-making.

Long-term council community plans will be simpler and more strategic in focus, financial disclosures will be in plain English, and councils will have more flexibility in choosing effective and efficient delivery methods for water services.

Council reporting will be consistent so that residents and ratepayers will be able to make comparisons between different councils.

As from 2013, every council will produce a pre-election financial report to allow voters to make informed choices. And the return in focus to core services will mean that processes are simplified and streamlined.

I believe councils’ consultation processes are unnecessarily onerous and complex. Worst of all, they are largely meaningless to the average ratepayer.

Most LTCCPs are bulky documents running to hundred of pages and often more than one volume. This makes it difficult for residents to identify the things that really matter to their communities, and can also deter them from taking part in decision-making processes.

It is possible to remove a lot of the more descriptive, highly technical and non-strategic material from LTCCPs to produce a document people can more easily understand.

The community outcomes process will be merged into the long-term council community plan. LTCCPs will be renamed “long-term plan” and will have a more strategic focus. This will eliminate the costs and inefficiencies of running two separate long-term planning processes.

Other benefits of the changes include greater attention to the prioritisation and affordability of proposals, allowing communities to decide the issues they want their council to consider, and clearer links between a council’s outcomes and how it proposes to achieve them.

Essentially, there will be greater flexibility for councils in responding to community needs and clearer information for the public by integrating community outcomes into strategic planning.

It is important that decisions about the role of councils continue to be made locally, rather than by central government. And council activities and decisions should match the priorities of ratepayers who foot the bill.

Water Services
The present law restricts councils from structuring their water services in ways that best meet the needs and preferences of ratepayers and residents. Current restrictions reduce councils’ flexibility to choose effective and efficient delivery methods for water services.

The Government has agreed on changes to allow greater use of public-private partnerships in the construction and operation of water and wastewater treatment plants. Build – Own – Operate – Transfer (BOOT) schemes will become more feasible. However, ownership of assets would revert to councils at the end of any agreement to ensure public ownership is retained.

We are proposing legislative changes to extend the 15 year limit on water services contracts and joint arrangements with the private sector to 35 years to make these arrangements more workable.

The changes will repeal provisions that require councils entering into a contract or joint arrangement with the private sector to retain control over the management of water services, with control over pricing and policy to be retained by councils.

These changes will be provided for in the Local Government Amendment Bill, which I plan to introduce to the House this year. There will, of course be a chance for public input through the Select Committee process, and I encourage people to make their views known.

Ok, that’s enough from me – I’m happy to take your questions now, and I’m sure you’ve got a few.

Good morning.

Richard Manthel, the CEO of Robert Walters New Zealand; and Liz Nixon and the team at Robert Walters and all the attendees here today, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

I know, that as Chief Financial officers of Auckland based companies you will all have an interest in how the new Auckland governance structure will work, and the opportunities for businesses during and after the transition. I hope to address some of the questions you may have here today, after which I will welcome your thoughts and questions.

Auckland is New Zealand's only city that is positioned to take on a globally-connected city role. Auckland already exhibits a number of characteristics of a strong international city. We can be proud of Auckland with its natural beauty, a jewel of a harbour and its wonderful diversity. But in my view there is a huge untapped potential. It could be so much better.

Recent evidence shows that Auckland has a productivity premium of around 50 per cent higher than that outside Auckland. Although Auckland is a strong performer in the national context, we believe it has potential to significantly improve its productivity.

That is why the Government is determined to set up a regional governance structure that enhances the productivity and competitiveness of Auckland's businesses.

Local Government in the Auckland region needs to optimise the region's productivity and maximise economic development, tourism, and cultural and social events.

Auckland's future depends on critical decisions being taken at a regional level. Effective region-wide decision-making must have region-wide governance arrangements to overcome the competing interests, parochialism and factionalism that has held Auckland back for so long.

The Government intends to provide a better environment for Auckland citizens and businesses to interact with their local authority. Strengthening Auckland's governance will, in turn, make it a better place for businesses to operate.

As a unitary authority governing the region, the Council will represent the interests of the entire Auckland region and foster a common identity and purpose.

As a unitary authority, it will be well positioned to provide cost-effective, efficient essential services and facilities for ratepayers.

The structure will ensure better value from rates and central government funding, by reducing duplication and delays in previously intractable problems such as transport issues.

Services such as administration, office systems, finance, human resources and information technology will be integrated and streamlined.

Each council currently operates its own systems, so there are real savings to be made here.

Unified decision-making, better transport and infrastructure and more efficient delivery of services will all contribute to a great Auckland region where people will want to live and do business.

The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is the third and final Bill to effect the Auckland Governance changes and is currently before a select committee.

The Bill develops and enhances the two earlier Auckland Acts and amends other pieces of legislation.

It will give the new Auckland Council the tools to be up and running effectively in November this year, following voters electing their new representatives in the October 2010 local government elections.

The Auckland Governance Legislation Committee received over 800 submissions on the Bill, and has recently finished its hearings. They will report back to the House in early May. As the Bill will make changes to existing councils' planning decisions in June 2010, it must be passed by the end of May.

The new Auckland council is going to have two complementary levels of decision-making in the new Council - the governing body made up of the Mayor and councillors, and the local boards which have specific decision-making responsibilities in their own right.

The governing body is responsible for decisions on the regulatory functions of the Council as a local authority, although it has the power to delegate many of these to local boards.

The governing body is also responsible for financial management, and ensuring the Council as a whole has the capacity to provide, or ensure the provision of, services and facilities, including local activities, across the region.

In meeting these responsibilities, the governing body must consider any views and preferences expressed by a local board, if the decision may affect the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area.

The Council's local boards are responsible for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in their local board areas. It will consider the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council, and developing bylaws for their local board areas and proposing them to the governing body.

Responsibility for the Council's non-regulatory activities has been specifically designed to reflect and support the different roles that the governing body and the local boards have in the Council structure.

The Local Government Commission is announcing its final determination on the numbers and boundaries of local boards, and board members later this morning.

There are currently over 300 council-owned entities with some form of corporate or business-like structure, spread across the existing eight councils in Auckland.

The Government has asked the ATA to review and rationalise the council-owned entities prior to 1 November 2010, and to develop proposals for a consolidated structure for the new Auckland Council.

The proposals need to meet certain criteria before the Government will agree to them. They need to:

* address inconsistencies in service delivery methods across the existing local authorities to achieve a consistent approach for the new Auckland Council; and

* eliminate multiple CCOs with the same purpose, to provide the Auckland Council with a consolidation of the entities.

The Government has already approved three CCOs for Auckland - these are Auckland Transport, Watercare Services Limited and the Waterfront Development Agency.

We expect that the stocktake and review of council-owned entities that the ATA is undertaking will result in the establishment of a small number of new CCOs, primarily based on the rationalisation of like activities that presently operate independently from local authorities through CCOs, trusts or business units.

Any of the existing 300 council entities that are not affected by the new CCO structure will simply transfer, as is, to the Auckland Council on 1 November 2010.

The CCO structure, once fully developed by the ATA and approved by the Government, will remain in place from 1 November 2010 until the new Auckland Council has completed consultation with Aucklanders on any proposed changes to the entities structure.

The Government is looking for effectiveness and efficiency in service delivery while also providing for the Auckland Council to remain democratically accountable for the delivery of those services.

The ATA has recently released discussion documents on local boards and CCOs and has invited feedback on their thinking to date.

The Auckland Council will collect rates on the basis set by existing councils until 1 July 2012. After this, the Council will implement a unified rating system. The Council will retain the current flexibility set under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to decide on the mix of several categories of rates it considers most appropriate for the region.

Decisions on rating policy will be based on the Council's long-term plan, and consultation with residents. As Minister of Local Government I am strongly committed to ensuring there is genuine consultation with ratepayers about the rates they pay and to keeping rates at a level that is sustainable for communities and businesses.

The Council will have a mechanism to manage any significant changes in rating liability, during the three-year period starting on 1 July 2012 and ending 30 June 2015.

Tenders and similar processes now under way with existing councils will continue, unless there is a clear reason to change in the light of the Auckland Council's proposals. The ATA will be working with councils to ensure tenders and similar processes support the new structure and the anticipated needs of the whole region.

Where a council has given a formal commitment to a community or individual, this commitment will continue to be enforceable under the new structures.

Where a commitment is not of a type enforceable by law, the Council will be accountable to its communities for acting in a responsible and honourable way.

The Council will be responsible for contracting services through competitive tendering processes. I expect that a range of contractors will provide services for the new Auckland Council and the people of Auckland.

I have every confidence in the ability of New Zealand based contractors to be competitive and innovative in this environment.

While I appreciate there will be uncertainty for some stakeholders through the transition period, the potential benefits of more cohesive and effective local government in Auckland to New Zealand businesses and residents alike are great.

Finally I would like to acknowledge the great work being done by Mark Ford and the Auckland Transition Agency. Their professionalism and commitment is fantastic.

There is much that my Government colleagues and I are doing to improve Auckland governance, and make Auckland a greater place to do business. We are committed to making Auckland a truly great city to live and work in.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you this morning about this important issue.

I am happy to hear your comments and take any questions.

ENDS

Transparency and accountability is a key feature of council-controlled organisations. Last week, the Auckland Transition Agency released its proposals for council-controlled organisations under the new Auckland Council.

Contrary to what some have suggested, this is not a new structure. We have plenty of them already - in fact, too many.

That is why the Auckland Transition Agency was asked to review and rationalise these existing wholly owned entities.

There are currently over 300 council-owned or council-funded entities with some form of corporate or business-like structure, spread over the existing eight councils in Auckland.

The Government has already approved three such organisations - Watercare Services, Auckland Transport and the Waterfront Development Agency.

To use transport as an example, this means one agency - Auckland Transport - will replace the nine separate existing transport entities across the city.

The result will be an agency equipped to provide the focus and continuity in decision-making needed to deliver a transport network that supports Auckland's growth and economic success.

This streamlining and simplification is the whole point behind the super city - we are working to improve governance, vision, planning and service delivery.

For too long, Auckland has suffered from a duplication of councils, plans and processes. Even when the regions' councils agreed on an overall vision and way forward, they couldn't agree on implementation of that plan and service delivery to Aucklanders.

That is why we decided to have one council, one mayor, one regional plan and efficient and cost-effective service delivery through, in part, council-controlled organisations.

Much of the interest and discussion of them has focused on those that will be responsible for the waterfront and transport. It is important to be clear about the accountability arrangements that will apply to all these organisations.

The new Auckland Council-controlled organisations will be no different to current ones in their relationship with the council, and they are accountable to the community through the council.

It is the council that sets the objectives and accounts to ratepayers for the performance these organisations. The model includes strong accountability mechanisms between the council and the council-controlled bodies, including an agreed statement of intent with council that will be made public.

There will be regular reporting to the council, audited by the Auditor-General.

The organisations will be required to give effect to Auckland Council plans and they will be monitored by the Auckland Council governance and monitoring unit.

The Auckland Council will appoint board members and have the power to remove them.

The Government expects all these controlled organisations to establish and foster a meaningful relationship with the new local boards for the Auckland region.

In addition to the council's influence, local boards will influence the organisations' activities through local board plans, input into statements of intent and oversight of agreed service delivery levels.

The new Auckland Transport organisation will focus on delivering integrated transport services and functions across the region.

The public will have a say on transport matters through consultation on the transport strategy, funding allocations, the prioritisation of projects through the regional programme and local board plans.

Local boards will feed local priorities into the funding process through local board plans, and must also be consulted on the Regional Land Transport Programme.

Auckland Transport will essentially be a duplication of the NZ Transport Agency, which operates at national level.

While the Government (and in Auckland's case, the council) has oversight and sets priorities, the transport agency is responsible for delivering on those priorities.

In Auckland, the Government and the current local authorities together provide about $1.5 billion a year for Auckland transport.

It is essential that spending is managed effectively and efficiently by a dedicated agency overseen by the Auckland Council with directors who have a specific mandate to deliver on council expectations.

Consultation on the implementation of transport activities will also occur under the Resource Management Act and other regulatory requirements that will impose their disciplines on Auckland Transport, as well as giving process rights to those affected by an activity.

Having one Auckland transport body will provide the focus and continuity in decision-making needed to deliver a transport network that supports Auckland's growth and economic success.

The Waterfront Development Agency has also drawn much comment. Its establishment will provide much needed leadership for revitalising Auckland's CBD waterfront.

It will have no extraordinary powers and no more powers than those that already apply to existing council-controlled organisations through the Local Government Act 2002.

One of the agency's first tasks will be to review and update the vision and plan for the waterfront, working with key stakeholders, and seeking public input.

The Royal Commission report noted that such arms-length agencies are now international best practice.

Around the world, similar agencies have transformed their waterfronts into outstanding places, making a major contribution to the economic, social, cultural and environmental wellbeing of those cities. These structures work.

Auckland's controlled organisations will have rigorous accountability checks and monitoring. There will undoubtedly be intense media scrutiny of them and that is only right. Aucklanders will know more about the performance its local government and organisations than ever before.

The Government is totally committed to improving Auckland's governance and service delivery in a transparent and accountable way. We are confident these proposals will make Auckland an even greater city in which to live, play and work.

* Rodney Hide is Minister of Local Government and MP for Epsom. Steven Joyce is Minister of Transport.

Local Government Minister Hon Rodney Hide, welcomes the release today by the Auckland Transition Agency of the Discussion Document: Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) of Auckland Council.

He says that CCOs will strongly support local government transparency and accountability in Auckland. “I am particularly pleased to see that the ATA has recommended that CCOs must take account of the views expressed by local boards as a requirement of the SOI approved by the Auckland Council.

“The Council’s Governance and Monitoring Unit will monitor CCOs performance. The role of the Governance and Monitoring unit is similar to that of Central Government’s Crown Ownership and Monitoring Unit. This will ensure that CCOs are publicly accountable and transparent in their work,” says Rodney Hide.

He says the document sets out the structure of the proposed Auckland Council CCOs that were approved in principle by Cabinet last year. The discussion document also describes the accountability mechanisms that will exist between the new Council and its CCOs.

The CCOs will be accountable to Auckland ratepayers through the Auckland Council. CCOs will:
• Give effect to the Auckland Council’s Spatial Plan and other plans
• Agree Statements of Intent (SOI) with the Council and make them public
• Report regularly to the Auckland Council, and be audited by the Auditor-General

“The Discussion Document seeks feedback on the assets and activities, structure and responsibilities, accountability and governance arrangements of the proposed CCOs. I encourage the citizens of Auckland to put forward their views,” says Rodney Hide.

Aucklanders can have their say by providing feedback online at www.discussiondocuments.co.nz
or in writing to Auckland Council CCO Feedback, Auckland Transition Agency, PO Box 99394, Newmarket 1149, Auckland by 26 March 2010.

Speech by Hon Rodney Hide to ACT National Conference 2010; Wellington College, Dufferin Street, Wellington; Friday, February 27 2010

Welcome.

Today I want to talk about Promises.

When politicians mention the word promise it usually generates a good chuckle.

And fair enough.

For the simple reason that political promises are easily made and easily broken.

Today I want to take you through promises made and promises kept. ACT promises.

New Zealand is now enjoying stable centre-right government. That’s something we haven’t had since the start of MMP. And you can put that down to ACT.

It’s a promise ACT made. It’s a promise ACT has kept.

As you all well know, ACT is constantly written off by experts. They have done this in every election since ACT was formed. But in every election we have come through. Last year with John Howard we celebrated our 15th Anniversary. Against all prediction, against all odds, we have not just survived, we have thrived.

Why? How?

Because the Party is based on ideals and values.

And you don’t work away in the ACT Party unless utterly committed to them. We aren’t here because of any individual, or because of a powerful party machine.

What unites ACT — all of us — is an inspiring political ideal and timeless values.

The ideal that people should be free. The ideal that our government exists to uphold our rights as free citizens, not to hold us hostage to political whim and fancy.

The belief that human dignity comes from self-reliance, and that a free person should be, wants to be, responsible for his or her decisions.

As a Party we champion values that encourage self-reliance, not dependency.

We favour choice, not compulsion.

Competition, not government monopoly.

One law for all.

These are the ideals and values that hold ACT together.

These aren’t just handy slogans. We are absolutely committed to them.

I put my job on the line for the principle of one person, one vote.

ACT made the promise. ACT stuck to the promise.

There is no greater call than the call for people to be free. For each and every one of us to be treated the same, no matter our religion, our skin colour, our creed.

That’s what the ACT party stands for. That’s what ACT means.

We embrace the world of free markets, of competition, entrepreneurship and profit. Unashamedly.

We embrace the world of private enterprise, of hard work, new ideas, exciting innovation.

We applaud those who want to see a more successful, wealthier, higher income country.

Our message touched a chord at the last election. In Epsom and around the country.

Now we have a place not just in our Parliament, but in government.

The people of New Zealand voted us into a position of great privilege. Great influence. We have to respect that.

ACT must continue to show that we can provide New Zealand with stable government.

A promise made, a promise kept.

But we must do more than be the guarantor of stable government.

ACT must now show it makes a difference. That not only does New Zealand have a stable government because of ACT but we have better government because of ACT.

We need to show New Zealanders that a party vote for ACT ensures better government, better living standards and a better future for New Zealand.

John Key has made it abundantly clear that our handshake on the deal was more important to him, and so it was to me, than any words on paper.

John Key has been true to his word. Our relationship with National is based on mutual respect and trust.

John Key understands MMP. He knows for his government to succeed, both ACT and National must be successful.

Success that can only be built on promises made and promises kept.

And yes, we promised stable government. But we made serious policy promises too.

To give New Zealand the safeguard of a Regulatory Responsibility Bill; a

Productivity Commission; a 2025 Taskforce to show the way to lift New Zealand incomes; RMA reform; a review of the climate change policy; an Inter-Party Working Group on school choice; local government reform.

And Three-Strikes.

Promises made. Promises kept.

But we have had our differences.

The Emissions Trading Scheme. The woeful ETS.

Climate-gate has revealed one of the greatest scandals in the history of science.

It turns out that the previously prestigious agencies involved in leading climate change science were breaking official information laws. They were arbitrarily adjusting raw data, hiding the reasons for these adjustments and then somehow contriving to lose the original unadjusted data so that it could not be independently checked.

And there are some worries about our own agencies as well. In Parliament John Boscawen has been trying to get from NIWA a simple analysis of the adjustments they have made to produce a warming trend from the raw data which shows no warming.

Seems straightforward doesn’t it. Routine science. Basic record keeping.

But they won’t release that information, and now it appears the reason for that is that they can’t. They haven’t kept proper records. In other words, as far as the

New Zealand climate is concerned, the government is flying blind.

The cost to New Zealand? Over a billion dollars a year.

I have followed the UK climate-gate revelations, thinking that at least that couldn’t happen here. Now we have to wonder whether it has.

Be assured, ACT will not be silent on this issue.

The ETS must be dumped. The government promised we would follow the rest of the world on climate change policies. We are now actually leading.

New Zealand is now terribly out of step.

We have jumped the starters gun, and are hurtling down the track in a race that is most likely to be cancelled. And that will hurt us all.

Lost jobs, lower incomes.

But back to the good news.

ACT campaigned hard at the last election for tougher sentencing.

The highlight of the past year was our agreement with National to enact ACT’s Three Strikes policy.

A law that will be a huge step to getting the most violent, repeat offenders off our streets, and keeping law-abiding citizens safe.

For too long, successive governments have done nothing.

Because of ACT, the message has now been spelt out loud and clear. New Zealanders will no longer tolerate repeat violent offending.

Our thanks to David Garrett for his energy and perseverance. He came into Parliament to get Three-Strikes into law, and he will do it. Most MPs don’t achieve that much in their entire career. David’s a first term ACT MP.

And what do the critics say? What does the centre-left say?

They say Three Strikes is too tough.

Too tough! What about the victims? One strike and they are dead. Their families sentenced to a life of pain, fear and anguish.

It’s easy to avoid the Three Strikes. Stop killing and maiming innocent New Zealanders. And that’s the message this government has sent.

Three Strikes and You’re In!

A promise made. A promise kept.

New Zealanders will now be safer in our streets, in their homes and at their places of work because of your efforts in getting your friends, your neighbours and complete strangers to give their party vote to ACT.

That’s a huge achievement of which we can all be proud.

There have been many other significant achievements.

Education is central to ACT policy. ACT has long campaigned for more choice, more options, more and better information for parents and children.

That is why we support the introduction of National Standards. But we need to do more. Much more.

Last year, ACT reached agreement with National to introduce 600 Aspire scholarships. There are students now enjoying an education that just last year they and their parents could never even have dreamed of.

And that is just a start.

The Interparty Working Group of National, Maori and ACT MPs chaired by Heather Roy has recommended the government establish a taskforce to provide full school choice next year for the top five percent and the bottom 20 percent of students. ACT is championing school choice in Parliament, in government, and students are already benefiting.

ACT is directly driving improved transparency, accountability and financial management in local government.

Three principles underpin our work:

* Local government should operate within a defined fiscal envelope

* Councils should focus on core activities

* Council decision-making should be clear, transparent and accountable.

From 2013, every council will produce a pre-election financial report, giving an account of activities over the previous three years, and identify proposed items of expenditure for the next three years.

Ratepayers will know whether what they voted for was delivered and what the next lot of priorities are.

These measures will encourage well-informed debate about expenditure priorities, and electors will have a chance to put the hard questions to council candidates about past and proposed expenditure.

Remember, everything I am saying today is happening. It is not a pipe dream. It is not a promise. It’s a promise kept.

As Local Government Minister I am leading the reorganisation of local government in Auckland. We will have the new arrangements in place in time for the 2010 local body elections and we are moving fast and effectively to achieve that goal.

The new unified council for Auckland – that will be lean and focussed – will boost Auckland’s performance and that of the country.

ACT is demonstrably making a policy difference. But the most important difference we have made is not in policy but in lifting the sights of the government, and of the country. It’s because of ACT that John Key has set government’s big goal of catching Australia by 2025.

That’s the goal that Roger Douglas set for ACT and now for the country. We are saying as a country we are not satisfied with the crumbs off the Aussie’s table. We can do better. We must do better.

We haven’t just set the big ambitious goal. We established the 2025 Taskforce to report each year on how the government is doing in achieving it.

The 2025 goal and Taskforce gets our government thinking beyond the day-to-day politics to where we want to be as country in 15 years and beyond.

That’s unprecedented. A government that has set a long term ambitious goal and is every year independently reporting progress – or lack of it.

And we haven’t just set the goal. The no-nonsense report of the 2025 Taskforce provides the plan to achieve it. That’s the bold goal and the big picture. To dramatically boost New Zealand’s performance.

To do that, we need a bonfire of red tape. ACT’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill lights the blaze.

It sets out the principles of good law making and requires Ministers to declare their legislation up to scratch. It also establishes the systematic review of all existing legislation against tried and tested principles of good law making.

Better and less regulation is vital to boost New Zealand’s productivity growth, international competitiveness, living standards and human potential.

We are well underway. ACT has introduced new and improved regulatory principles and procedures to Cabinet. That’s good progress. But the country needs the Regulatory Responsibility Bill passed into law to ensure that progress.

My goal is to pass the Regulatory Responsibility Bill into law this year. It’s the single most important thing the government can do to boost New Zealand’s economic performance.

Government spending is out of control.

It needs to be reigned in. That’s why ACT is pushing hard for a fiscal cap. We need to put a lid on it. We are wanting to get the cap on this year.

And later this year a select committee will start work on ACT’s Taxpayer Rights

Bill to put the cap under taxpayer control. Another promise we will be working hard to see become law.

ACT is working too to get a New Zealand Productivity Commission up and running, it will investigate barriers to productivity and ways of improving New Zealand’s performance.

A Commission completely independent of politicians. It will be objective, independent and provide the potential for real progress on the productivity goal.

Lets come back now to the ACT vision, our ideals and values.

There is much to be done.

We can cut out wasteful government spending.

We can improve our infrastructure.

And we can certainly improve our social institutions.

And we must do all these things.

But it is entrepreneurial activity that really makes an economy grow, that generates more and better paying jobs.

This is the realm of ideas, innovation, imagination and initiative.

It’s entrepreneurs who start new businesses and new industries; who create not just new jobs, but new sorts of jobs.

Think about it.

Much of today’s economic activity didn’t exist 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

Most of us know about the remarkable story of TradeMe, and the wealth creation that resulted.

Hundreds of new on-line businesses now use TradeMe as their platform. One good idea feeds another.

Entrepreneurial activity occurs in every part of the economy.

From the couple who bought into a franchise and made it grow; to those who boldly grew a new business such as the Central Otago wine industry; or the new olive oil industry; or small companies innovating in the telecommunications or biotech industries.

You see it in the software and film industries.

And in hundreds of small businesses linked to the tourism industry.

Or those many new companies focused on fashion and design.

A theatre company, or an artist or writer, or a rock band, all are engaged in entrepreneurial activities.

These people are putting everything on the line, taking risks, backing themselves.

Government doesn’t drive these enterprises. It tags along for the ride.

This is what happens in the private sector: it is the world of work and risk-taking, of innovation, of turning ideas into businesses that employ people.

This is where new jobs and wealth creation come from.

There is plenty of excitement and vitality here. We need to ensure that our young people know it, and feel that they can be a part of it, and do well right here in this country.

Otherwise that initiative, imagination, energy and flair will be exercised in a country other than New Zealand.

In the ACT Party we embrace freedom, and its manifestation in free markets, competition, and entrepreneurship.

We want people to have a go;

we want them to succeed;

and we will celebrate that success.

Fixing the problems that this government inherited, and unleashing Kiwi initiative and our entrepreneurial spirit.

That is what I call being ambitious for this country.

For ACT is about the future. Where we can be. Not where we are.

It has been said before and it bears repeating, endlessly:

Without Vision there can be no hope.

Without Aspiration there can be no future.

ACT is about both. Vision and Aspiration.

ACT embodies the aspirations of all New Zealanders.

We can point to our successes, as I have today, and be proud of them.

And know that ACT aspires for the nation at large — not for the self-serving individual or interest groups.

The great yachtsman Peter Blake had a simple philosophy.

Before spending a single cent on a new sail or even a new photocopier or desk he would ask the fundamental question: Will this make the boat go faster?

If the answer was NO – the money was not spent.

We need to ask … will this make the good ship New Zealand a better country to live in for all New Zealanders, will this help to create jobs and higher incomes in the future.

ACT is united in a single-minded focus of making life better for one and all. That is what the focus on productivity growth represents.

That is what the 2025 Taskforce is all about. Productivity growth is the only thing that guarantees higher incomes for all.

But plenty of other aspects of policy matter.

What will make life better for one and all?

Will Three Strikes do that? — sure will.

Will our education policy do that? — sure will.

Will a more efficient health service do that? — sure will.

Will slashing red tape do that? — sure will.

Why do our opponents attack such policies?

Because these are not policies aimed at small interest groups.

These are polices aimed making the boat go faster. Policies aimed at making

New Zealand a better place to live.

We are working with National

to allow them,

to help them,

and at times such, as with opening up ACC to competition, to forcefully encourage them

to do the right thing.

So let me come back to the ACT vision for a more prosperous and socially cohesive nation.

Here is what we need to do in this country.

We face huge challenges, but we have enormous resources.

The greatest resource we have is the energy and enthusiasm, the talent and the drive of the extraordinary people that make New Zealand great.

What we have to do is unleash it.

What makes the boat go faster?

Fundamentally, it is people backing themselves and trying something new.

So the job of government, especially one as bloated and inefficient as ours, is to

get out of the way.

Stop regulating every damn thing.

Stop taking so much tax from people.

Give them choice in the education and health services they need.

Get the government out of the way.

Then hang on for the ride as we rev up.

Ignore the depressing folk who say we can never catch Australia.

Of course we can. And when we have done that, we had better start focusing on

catching our Asian neighbours.

So what can ACT guarantee to voters at the next election?

ACT can guarantee stable government – the electorate wants that, and we will have the track record to prove it.

But most importantly ACT can guarantee better government.

Much better government – and the electorate both wants and needs that.

To have a first-rate country, we need first rate policy.

That’s ACT’s promise. That’s the promise we are delivering on.

That’s why we can be confident that, 15 years on from ACT’s foundation, the best is ahead of us.

The best for ACT. The best for New Zealand.

Thank you.

Hon Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, welcomed the release today of the Auckland Transition Agency Discussion Document Auckland Council local boards.

“The document shows how we put the local back into local government. It sets out the decision making powers, roles and responsibilities of the local boards in the new Auckland council structure and seeks public feedback.

“Local boards will provide unique local representation and allow the local residents to take responsibility for a range of activities in their community. These include overseeing the management of local facilities like swimming pools and parks, community programmes and local services such as refuse collection and graffiti control. I am pleased to see that the ATA is suggesting that the Auckland Council could delegate responsibility to local boards for regulatory functions such as liquor controls,” says Rodney Hide

He says local boards are an integral part of the representation structure that will make Auckland greater. “The local boards will complement the mayor and councillors elected from across Auckland.

“They are also a new entity in local government. They are not community boards. They are more significant and will operate independently of the Mayor and Auckland Councillors.

“For the citizens of Auckland local boards will be an important gateway into the work of local government in the region. Local Boards will contribute to the development of regional strategies, policies and plans, propose bylaws. They will also contribute to the oversight of Council Controlled Organisations,” says Rodney Hide.

Local Boards will be operating from day one of the new Auckland Council structure. Each Board will have a budget and specific decision-making powers.

“Because local boards will be a key link between local communities and the Auckland Council responsible for regional issues I am strongly encouraging people to have their say. It will help make Auckland greater,” says Rodney Hide.

People can have their say by providing feedback online at www.discussiondocuments.co.nz
or by writing to Local Board Feedback, Auckland Transition Agency, PO Box 99394, Newmarket 1149, Auckland by 5pm 26 March 2010.

ends

Hon Rodney Hide speech to the Public and Administrative Law Conference; Te Papa, Wellington; Friday, February 19 2010

Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the Regulatory Responsibility Bill – a subject close to my heart. I know also that many New Zealanders are looking to the changes that I am proposing to contribute to making New Zealand a better place to live in and do business in.

This Bill is new. Kiwis are drowning in red tape. Compliance costs and investment uncertainty are killing business.

The Regulatory Responsibility Bill is designed to clean it up. The Bill is a new institution, one that demands proper and deliberate reflection on new and existing regulation.

New Zealand has to move to deal with this issue. Our starting points are the existing regulatory impact statement requirement and the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines.

The first is an economic approach centred on using cost-benefit analysis to test the worth of a regulation. The second approach uses legal and constitutional principles as tests.

There is much in them that is good. But in the last decade and more, they have largely been ignored. This is despite them being Cabinet Manual requirements.

This must stop. Good regulatory practice requires that as a general rule regulations should conform to sound principles. Departures from these principles should be acknowledged. Reasons for those departures should be clearly stated. Responsibility for the opinion that departures are justifiable and in the public interest should be assigned.

And some disciplines need to be put around all this. Otherwise, the all too familiar empty and contemptuous assertions of compliance that we have seen in the past will re-emerge and make a farce of what we are attempting to achieve.

The Regulatory Responsibility Bill that I introduced to the House in the last term of Parliament imposed such commonsense requirements.

The Bill itself was referred to Parliament’s Commerce Committee. The Committee saw the potential value of it, but had some questions about the statement of regulatory principles and the proposed role of courts.

The Committee recommended that a taskforce review the proposal.

So, in line with the National-ACT confidence agreement, the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce was asked to examine the Regulatory Responsibility Bill and make recommendations.

The Taskforce’s recommended Bill is in many ways similar to the model I introduced, but it provides more specifics about how Ministers and regulators can depart from principles and about the role of courts. The Bill is primarily a transparency measure.

It blends the two existing approaches into a single set of principles and requires those responsible for promoting regulations or administering them to certify as to their compliance or non-compliance

One of the most exciting parts of the Taskforce’s proposal is the idea that people can hold a government to account should the government mislead the public over whether proposed legislation complies with the principles of good law making.

Any member of the public may apply to the Courts for a Declaration of Incompatibility, which states that a particular piece of legislation does not comply with the principles. This Declaration has no effect on the validity of the legislation, but will nevertheless send a powerful message to the government that sloppy legislative practices will be exposed.

Ministers will need to state where the legislation departs from the principles and the reasons why.

If they don’t they will be found out. That’s what transparency and accountability in law making is all about. So changing the mindset across all areas of government is an important objective alongside removing the “dopey” legislation that we endure in our daily lives.

The Taskforce also proposed various supporting measures to give the Bill more bite. For example, they suggested that a Special Select Committee be assigned the task of reviewing bills for consistency with the principles of responsible regulation.

The Taskforce’s Bill is a challenge to Parliament, but it is a challenge that Parliament asked for.

The taskforce is saying: “Here is a set of tools and disciplinary measures that we expect to improve the way you regulate.” And the rest is up to us.
There is no close international precedent to the Regulatory Responsibility Act I am proposing. That of course means some people will be nervous about its impact.

I will always argue that we need to be bold in dealing to red tape, sloppy law and outdated and wealth sapping legislation. And we need to be bold in making New Zealand a better place to live and work.

Nothing in this Bill asks Parliament not to respond to public concerns; rather, it asks ministers to explain how and why its actions satisfy those concerns and regulatory actions.

Regulatory Responsibility legislation will run parallel to the Public Finance Act.

The Public Finance Act imposes on government spenders certain responsibilities. It says if you are spending public money, justify it, and be accountable for it.

The Public Finance Act has created a cultural shift in the way that money is spent in New Zealand and the whole mindset around public expenditure.

The Regulatory Responsibility Bill will do the same for the way we make law and regulate.

Of course, we are not relying on the Bill alone to guard against government failure. We have already introduced the “Better Regulation, Less Regulation” policy statement, which sets the agenda for improvements to regulation under this Government.

We have strengthened the Regulatory Impact Analysis regime, demanding better, more independent analysis from officials, and more responsibility for that analysis.

We have asked for regulatory scans and plans so that we can get a picture of how much regulation we will impose on people, and how much we are imposing already. And we have targeted some of the most important regulations for review, to see what we need to keep and what we need to fix.

The point of all these measures is to get people thinking about the costs of regulating. I don’t mean the financial costs to government (which are easy to think about), or even the compliance costs to business, but also the dynamic, opportunity costs.

Those costs are the least easy to observe, but often the most important.

Regulations that cost little to enforce and impose no direct costs on business can still be burdensome if they prevent firms and individuals from taking advantage of opportunities or from taking on our competitors. Regulations that stop businesses and others from doing valuable things need particular, systematic scrutiny.

As I’ve mentioned, Ministers have all sorts of incentives, some immediate, some medium-term and some long-term, but not are not necessarily aligned at any time with the long-term interests of the public.

Systematic disciplines, such as the Regulatory Impact Analysis regime and the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, offer a way of constraining the short-term dynamics of policy formation so that it better aligns with the long-term interests of the public.

Let me give you an example. No-one dislikes energy efficiency except perhaps those who sell energy.

One regulatory response might be to achieve better energy efficiency, through, for example pursuing a pollution tax. Another regulatory response might be to identify technologies that are currently in use, determining which are more energy expensive and which are less efficient.

This alternative response might ban less efficient technologies or impose differential taxes on them.

The second approach will be more expensive for every joule, every unit of energy saved. Why?

Because when the inefficient technologies are determined by civil servants and by ministers, their values will almost certainly not match the value of the same amount of energy saving by the market.

Expensive as it might be, banning a technology is an easier and more effective way to reduce energy use, but not more efficient.

If you say that certain light bulbs or car engines or vacuum cleaners are illegal, then they are, and people will need to find an alternative or stop consuming.

If, on the other hand, you charge people for the extra cost of energy, then they will stick with what they have (if it is worth it to them), or else substitute a lower cost alternative.

We have too often seen the first approach on people’s actual goals and values and too seldom the second. The first approach has the political advantage that it is immediate and definitive. The second is less obvious, and relies on people’s actual values to get objectives met.

I am not committing the Government to taking the second approach rather than the first; rather, I am asking, what are the consequences of doing so? Present those consequences to the public when taking a decision and be accountable for them.

I am working on convincing my ministerial colleagues that passing the Regulatory Responsibility Bill is the way to go.

We need to abolish dopey regulations like having to register anti-dandruff shampoo as a medicine, or those that prevent an entrepreneurial Northland woman from making preserves for a local hospice.

These are the sorts of things that not only impose costs but strangle the spirit out of people and strip us of jobs, income and the ability to be innovative.
Every day I hear heartbreaking stories of lost opportunity and the frustrations caused by poor law.

Over the years many new regulations have come into effect.

Between 2000 and 2008 over 63,000 pages of regulation was passed. That’s significantly up on the previous decade and the decade before that. And that’s on top of all the existing regulations.

Every new regulation represents more compliance for some part of the economy and before we know it the trickle has become a torrent.
That’s why I am proposing this Bill. To clean up the red tape and to provide better law making.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Regulatory Responsibility Bill can probably do more than tax cuts to improve productivity and make the economy more competitive than any other measure the government could take.

And just think if we channel all that resource – not just financial resource, but the ideas, endeavour and energy that we currently devote to unnecessary and wasteful compliance – what we could achieve as a nation. It pains me to see great New Zealanders giving up on great ideas, or worse moving offshore, because they are tired and worn down by the plethora of silly regulations.

In closing I would just like to say where I see this proposed legislation in the New Zealand of the future.

The law when passed will not just be a pact between the 2008 Act Party and the people, nor yet the National-Act Government, until things change at some future election.

This is meant to be a contract between the people and all Parliaments and all Governments.

The aims of regulation are subject to cyclical policy, but how we achieve these aims can be subject to proper disciplines and principles. That is the promise of the Bill, and that is the focus of my energies.

Thank you.

ENDS

ACT Leader Rodney Hide was today pleased to announce that ACT's 'Three Strikes' policy is to be incorporated into the Government's Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill for passing into law.

"'Three Strikes and the Max' sends the clear message that repeat violent offending won't be tolerated. It is about making our homes, our businesses, and our communities safe once more," Mr Hide said.

"The strike offences are listed. As a general rule the list comprises all the major violent and sexual offences that have a maximum penalty of seven years or more.

"An offender's first conviction counts as Strike One. They will serve the sentence the judge sets and be eligible for parole. A conviction for a second strike offence will count as Strike Two. They will serve the full judge-given sentence - no parole. Subsequent offending will count as Strike Three - these offenders will serve the maximum sentence for their crime with no parole. The judge sentencing a Strike Three offender will have no option but to sentence the offender to the 'max' unless it would be 'manifestly unjust' to do so.

"'Three Strikes' deliberately escalates the punishment for repeat violent offenders. Most offenders won't want to risk a second strike. Repeat offenders will be locked up without parole and for maximum sentences. The result will be a safer New Zealand.

"Three Strikes has long been core ACT policy. We campaigned hard on it in Election 08 with ACT's Justice Spokesman David Garrett leading the charge," Mr Hide said.

"'Three Strikes' received huge support from a public sick of repeat violent offending and is well overdue," ACT Justice Spokesman David Garrett said.

"The key issues were the list of 'strike' offences, whether there should be a three or five year sentence to qualify for a 'strike' or just a conviction, and whether the 'Third Strike' would mean 'life' or the 'max'," Mr Garrett said

"As part of our Confidence & Supply Agreement National agreed to give ACT's 'Three Strikes' a fair hearing at Select Committee. David Garrett drafted the initial policy and through the past year ACT and National have worked co-operatively and constructively together to develop 'Three Strikes' into policy to keep Kiwis safe," Mr Hide said.

"National Ministers and the Prime Minister worked hard with me and the ACT team to get the best result for New Zealand. It's a proud day for ACT. It's a great day for law-abiding Kiwis. We finally have a Government cracking down on violent offending," Mr Hide said.

ENDS

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has announced Cabinet decisions for a third bill to complete the legislative framework for the reform of Auckland’s governance.

Rodney Hide has already brought two bills to parliament, which began the work of creating a new Auckland Council to replace the region’s existing eight councils.

"The two previous Bills have been about the what - the structure Auckland’s new Council will have, and the who - the power and roles of the mayor, councillors and local board members. This Bill is about the how", said Mr Hide.

The third bill will
- transfer Auckland’s assets and liabilities to the new Council
- protect the interests of staff who move from the old councils to the new Council
- give the new Council the powers it needs to be up and running on 1 November 2010, while ensuring that change can occur smoothly.

Cabinet made further decisions on details for the operation of local boards. It also put in place a process for the creation of new Council Controlled Organisations, and made decisions that will lead to a statutory board to represent the interests of Maori, with specific recognition of the rights of the mana whenua of Auckland. Arrangements will be made for a Pacific advisory panel and an ethnic advisory panel to have input into Council decision making. Transition provisions for staff, assets and liabilities are also included, along with details of how Auckland will move from eight planning and rating processes to just one.

"Less than a year from now, Aucklanders get to vote for a mayor and councillors for all Aucklanders, and for local boards with real local authority", said Mr Hide.

"After 50 years of meandering debate, a government has finally acted to meet the needs of Auckland. I will be proud to introduce the third bill before the end of the year, and look forward to it being considered at a select committee."

Cabinet papers covering these decisions will be published as soon as possible on www.dia.govt.nz

The 2025 Taskforce’s report clearly identifies the issues New Zealand needs to tackle to achieve higher wages and a better standard of living, Regulatory Reform Minister Rodney Hide said today.

Under the chairmanship of Dr Don Brash, the Taskforce was charged with recommending ways to improve productivity and close the income gap with Australia.

“That income gap is one of the reasons we lose so many talented, hard-working New Zealanders every year,” Mr Hide said.

“The Taskforce has clearly identified the tough issues we need to face as a country to achieve the better future we all want.

“For too long New Zealand governments have put off dealing with the big issues that must be addressed if we are to improve wages and living standards, including taxation, superannuation, spending, and the effectiveness of the public sector.

“The private sector has been hamstrung by regulation. We’ve started cutting that back, but there’s a lot more to do. The public sector has significantly under-performed, and that is holding the country back. The Government needs to tackle these issues if we are to make progress.

“The Taskforce’s report makes it clear where the problems lie and presents solutions. The challenge for the Government is to deliver those solutions. The longer it waits, the more opportunities we lose and the harder it gets to achieve the standard of living New Zealanders aspire to.”

Mr Hide said the quality of the report reflects the high calibre of the Taskforce’s members and their commitment to succeed in achieving their goal.

The establishment of the 2025 Taskforce was a key component in the ACT-National Confidence and Supply Agreement.