Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
First Session, Forty-ninth <strong>Parliament</strong>, 2008-2009<br />
<strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong> <strong>Debates</strong><br />
(HANSARD)<br />
Wednesday, 13 May 2009<br />
(continued on Saturday, 16 May 2009<br />
(Week 12, Volume 654)<br />
WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND<br />
Published under the authority of the House of Representatives—2009
WEDNESDAY, 13 MAY 2009<br />
(continued on Saturday, 16 May 2009)<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND REORGANISATION) BILL—<br />
In Committee—<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 11 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission................3621<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 10 Provisional Personnel Provisions of Auckland Council and<br />
Auckland Transition Agency ........................................................................3633<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 9 Protection of Public Assets .......................................................3652<br />
Speaker Recalled................................................................................................3664<br />
In Committee—<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 9 Protection of Public Assets .......................................................3666<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic<br />
groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council .................................3669<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement .............................................3682<br />
Speaker Recalled................................................................................................3695<br />
In Committee—<br />
Schedules ......................................................................................................3698<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic<br />
groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council .................................3700<br />
Clauses 1 and 2 .............................................................................................3704<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TAMAKI MAKAURAU REORGANISATION)<br />
BILL—<br />
Third Reading ....................................................................................................3718<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND COUNCIL) BILL—<br />
First Reading......................................................................................................3733
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3621<br />
WEDNESDAY, 13 MAY 2009<br />
(continued on Saturday, 16 May 2009)<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND REORGANISATION) BILL<br />
In Committee<br />
Debate resumed.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 11 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members, the Committee is resumed.<br />
Last night the Committee completed consideration of Part 3 of the Local Government<br />
(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 May, and we now have a<br />
series of new proposals in front of us to insert new parts. Although they have come to us<br />
in arithmetical order to make sure they are checked and everything is OK, we will not<br />
be dealing with them in exactly the same order, so I ask members to bear with us and<br />
with the Clerks. We also have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of the<br />
Hon George Hawkins to insert a new part establishing the Auckland Transitional<br />
Agency Review Commission.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That we report<br />
progress in order to send this bill to a select committee for a period of 4 weeks.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Committee report progress.<br />
Ayes 51<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Motion not agreed to.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): These amendments are not<br />
strictly in the right order, but this proposed new part deals with the establishment of the<br />
Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. This part would not be necessary if<br />
there had been a wee bit of goodwill by the Government and if it had faith in<br />
Aucklanders by giving them a say on this bill. The amendment would not have been<br />
necessary, but now we are here on Saturday, 16 May, which is still the sitting day of 13<br />
May here in <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Much could be achieved by establishing a commission. The commission would be<br />
headed by a person who is eligible to hold the office of commissioner “if he or she is, or<br />
is eligible to be, a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a District Court Judge at<br />
the time of appointment as a Commissioner, he or she shall be appointed as a District<br />
Court Judge at that time.” That shows the seriousness and importance we place on the<br />
appointment. We cannot just appoint our mates, as some parts of the bill allow. This<br />
appointment is very important.<br />
The proposed amendment goes on to state: “When considering whether a person is<br />
suitable to be appointed as a Commissioner the Attorney-General should have regard to<br />
the need to ensure that the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in<br />
matters coming before the Court, including knowledge and experience in economic,<br />
commercial, and business affairs, local government and community affairs:” That is<br />
really important.<br />
The amendment mentions local government and community affairs. It is interesting.<br />
We have drafted this amendment so that these now come together. Local government in
3622 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Auckland is being ridden roughshod over, and, worse then that, so is the community.<br />
The community has been left out in the cold by this Government.<br />
It is interesting. We will have a series of meetings all over the place that will be run<br />
and paid for by the National Party. In my area, Mr Bakshi will have one—if he is still<br />
around. He might be able to tell people how many houses they can turn into brothels<br />
and things like that. I understand he is a bit of an expert in that area.<br />
The appointment of commissioners is important because planning, resource<br />
management, and heritage protection are very important. They need to be up to speed<br />
with that.<br />
Dr Paul Hutchison: You’re right, George. Get on with it.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It is good to see my friend the member for Hunua up<br />
here bright and early. It is good to see that he is awake; sometimes it is hard to tell<br />
whether he is talking in his sleep or whether he is awake. Other important areas that<br />
commissioners should have knowledge and experience in are environmental science,<br />
including the physical and social sciences; architecture; engineering; surveying; mineral<br />
technology; and building and construction. Knowledge and experience of matters<br />
relating to the Treaty of Waitangi are also very important.<br />
Hon Tau Henare: It’s never concerned you before, George!<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is Mr Henare. He obviously did not get home<br />
last night, considering the condition he is in. He probably went straight to the clubs. He<br />
has come well fuelled for today. When we have Tau Henare well fuelled, it makes life<br />
interesting.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You<br />
told us that these additional parts will not be considered in numerical order—and I<br />
understand the reason for that—but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to<br />
know which part is to be debated after this part, so that we can read it and be well<br />
informed before we debate it.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member makes a good point. The<br />
next part we will consider will be Part 10. If the member wants to look further into the<br />
future, we will then consider Part 9. After that, we will go on to Part 5.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): <strong>New</strong> Part 11 is a serious response<br />
to a serious problem. The problem is a lack of independent oversight, which has been<br />
made worse by this bill’s being rammed through the House in the dead of the morning<br />
and the dead of the week. This bill will still be here next week. The bill is being<br />
rammed through without a select committee process, and we have to ask why. I say to<br />
all those sleepy-looking members opposite that it would have been quicker for this bill<br />
to go to select committee than to debate new Part 27. Bill English will not be happy,<br />
because we will still be here on Budget day. What about the pre-Budget announcement<br />
schedule? What about all of those nasty little things that those members want to hide on<br />
the day? The whole shambles will be disrupted by the fact that Paul Hutchison—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are dealing with<br />
a new part and new material. There has been no speech from this side, so there can be<br />
no need for any rebuttal. Members should confine themselves very tightly to the content<br />
of the part now being debated.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: It is very, very important that we have consistency through<br />
this debate. We have had over the last couple of days—or the earlier part of this day,<br />
depending on whether one looks at this in temporal or parliamentary time—a broadranging<br />
debate on various parts. The Government cannot change the rules now just<br />
because it wants to run away and go home.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. I say to the<br />
member that one of the finest parliamentarians this place has ever seen, the Rt Hon
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3623<br />
David Lange, once said that consistency is the last refuge of a fool. The point being<br />
made here is that members should focus to some degree on the part. Although the Hon<br />
Trevor Mallard is correct and we have had a wide-ranging debate, this is new material<br />
and it is quite tightly focused. We will have a little bit of latitude, but I want the<br />
member to talk to new Part 11, “Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission”,<br />
though he may introduce some other material.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: <strong>New</strong> Part 11 establishes the Auckland Transition Agency<br />
Review Commission. The commission will consist of a chair and five commissioners.<br />
The eligibility requirements for the chair will include being a District Court judge, and<br />
for commissioners will include having juridical experience.<br />
This part is important for several reasons. The appointment of the commission is an<br />
independent process. We all know that processes that are simply governed by politicians<br />
and delegated to officials can often run into trouble. It is noteworthy that the <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> National Party at this point has significant experience with independent judicial<br />
processes. For example, I understand that Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is experiencing—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member is<br />
trifling with your request to stay tightly within the bounds of this new part. He is<br />
introducing material totally extraneous to this particular debate and I ask you, given the<br />
expense that the taxpayer is being put to for the Labour members to exercise their brawn<br />
and filibustering skills—or whatever we want to call them—to keep the bounds very,<br />
very tight.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: Unlike the member who just raised the point of order, I<br />
listened carefully to your ruling. It was a ruling down the middle. You asked people to<br />
be narrower than they had been, but you also indicated that you would be reasonable.<br />
That member is inviting you to be unreasonable.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I reinforce one other point Mr Mallard made, which you<br />
neglected to touch on. You are the sole judge of relevancy under Standing Order 107,<br />
and for Mr Brownlee or another member to get up and continually bring to your<br />
attention his or her interpretation of Standing Orders on this matter is not correct. He<br />
should not challenge your ruling; you have already ruled on this.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have a couple of points. Yes, I want<br />
the debate to be a bit tighter, given the nature of the amendments. I think the member<br />
was addressing the material before him. I said that people could draw on other things<br />
and explanations as they went through; I will not be unreasonable about that. Mr<br />
Cosgrove is right: I am the sole judge and I will remain the sole judge, and I thank him<br />
but I do not need to be reminded of that. As for Mr Brownlee’s point about the<br />
monetary cost, I would have thought some members of the public would think it is a<br />
good thing to see the Chamber being used a bit more often rather than sitting empty. But<br />
never mind, that is another story.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me turn to a particularly serious reason why the<br />
Auckland Transition Agency needs an independent juridical oversight. It is dealing with<br />
assets of $28 billion—close to one-quarter of the country’s GDP if it were all expensed<br />
in one year. That is a huge amount of assets. It spans a range of subsidiary<br />
organisations, including the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, Ports of<br />
Auckland—which I will come back to—Metro Water, Watercare Services, North Shore<br />
Holdings, Enterprise North Shore, and Waitakere City Properties. Each of these entities<br />
has its own well-constituted governance process, and in many cases, its own<br />
independent board. But under the bill before this Committee they are simply placed<br />
under the jurisdiction of this transition agency. It is like some form of bizarre<br />
renationalisation of something that is already publicly owned.
3624 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Here is where the plot gets thicker. The agency will not report through an<br />
independent governance process to the Cabinet of the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Government, which<br />
would be, of course, the normal process for any State-owned enterprise or Crown entity.<br />
No—this agency reports to one Minister, the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide. Why<br />
on earth would that be? It is certainly not good governance practice, which is why in<br />
new Part 11 we are introducing the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission<br />
with additional juridical oversight.<br />
Members opposite have obviously been lobbied hard by Ports of Auckland. Ports of<br />
Auckland says that this legislation will not do. It is a private company trading in open<br />
markets, it has its own board, and it wants to be a special case. Let us admit that there<br />
are grounds for that special case, but why for Ports of Auckland? Why not Watercare<br />
Services? If the National Business Review and Trans Tasman are to be believed, the<br />
Minister in charge of this bill is going to appoint the chief executive of the water<br />
company to be the chair of the transition agency. How will they deal with that conflict<br />
of interest? I would not want to be that person. I have great respect for Mark Ford, and I<br />
think he is a very able man, but I would not want to be in his shoes. I hope he gets firstclass<br />
legal advice about his liabilities and his risks, because I think he is exposed.<br />
I think the Minister, in his rush to railroad this legislation through the House and to<br />
create a very clean reporting line that allows him to bulldoze his way through normal<br />
legal convention, is exposing one of the more able executives in the Auckland business<br />
community. I hope for Mr Mark Ford’s sake that he thinks very carefully not only about<br />
whether to accept that appointment but also about the conditions upon which he accepts<br />
it. I am sure that Mr Mark Ford would appreciate what the Opposition is doing to try to<br />
provide better independent cover, oversight, liability, and risk management through this<br />
important part that is being very seriously introduced this morning. I hope the<br />
Government members who are sitting here, and who will be getting used to sitting here,<br />
will give this new part their earnest consideration.<br />
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to take a<br />
call on new Part 11, which establishes the Auckland Transition Agency Review<br />
Commission. The Leader of the House, in relation to the first speech given on this part<br />
by the Hon George Hawkins, said it was bureaucracy gone mad.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: He’d know!<br />
GRANT ROBERTSON: He would know about that, I say to Mr Hughes, because<br />
since being in office the National Government has established 36 review committees.<br />
Most of them have been set up by Mr Brownlee, who is trying to review what he knows<br />
about the energy sector. Unfortunately, he does not know a lot, so he has had to<br />
establish 36 review committees.<br />
This particular review commission has been established for a very, very good reason:<br />
National has pushed this bill through <strong>Parliament</strong> under urgency, denying Aucklanders<br />
the right to have a proper democratic process. In the light of that and of the fact that last<br />
night we sat in this Chamber and established, without a select committee process, an<br />
agency that would be responsible for $28 billion of assets and for 6,000 people’s jobs,<br />
we need a review commission. This is a serious amendment and a serious new part,<br />
because this Government has decided that Aucklanders should not have a say about the<br />
transition to a super-city. It has tried to push that through without any input at this<br />
important stage in the process. A review commission, as established under Part 11,<br />
would be able to let Aucklanders have a say.<br />
We see very clearly, when we look at this part, that the review commission will be<br />
established on a far fairer basis than that of the transition agency it will seek to review.<br />
If we note the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission, we<br />
realise it will consist of the chair of the commission and five commissioners. We noted
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3625<br />
in the debate last night Part 3 that clause 11(1) states: “The Transition Agency must<br />
have a governing body consisting of a chairperson and no fewer than 2 but no more than<br />
4 other members appointed by the Minister.” There we go; we will finally have a<br />
sufficient number of people to look at this matter properly.<br />
I now turn to how those people will be appointed. For the review commission we<br />
have an appointment process that will involve a range of people. It will involve people<br />
such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Māori<br />
Affairs, and the Attorney-General; they will all be involved in the appointment of the<br />
commissioners. That is unlike the Auckland Transition Agency, where one person will<br />
appoint the members of the governing board, and that one person is the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide.<br />
The Hon Rodney Hide said that the Auckland Transition Agency will be responsible<br />
for a rationalisation of governance arrangements in the Auckland area. Members on this<br />
side of the Chamber know very well what Mr Hide and his ACT Party friends believe is<br />
a rationalisation of services. It is not about making them more efficient, and it is not<br />
about making them effective; it is about cutting and slashing them. That is the agenda. It<br />
is about privatising assets, taking them away from the people of Auckland, taking them<br />
away from the people of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, and returning them to Mr Hide’s mates. That is<br />
why, in this part, we are asking for a review commission to be appointed in a way that<br />
will reflect a wider set of interests than the narrow ideological interests of Rodney Hide.<br />
We are certain that when Auckland people see a review commission established in this<br />
way, they will know they are getting a proper review of arrangements for Auckland<br />
governance, rather than the sham of democracy that we have seen from members on the<br />
other side of the Chamber.<br />
I also want to refer to another reason why the review commission is vitally<br />
important. Clause 13(1)(b) of Part 3, which we passed last night, states that the<br />
transition agency will have the ability to look at and review every single item on the<br />
agenda of a meeting of an existing local government organisation during the transition<br />
period. If that is not the action of the nanny State, I do not know what is. Every single<br />
item, down to the toilet rolls and the stationery, of a local government organisation in<br />
Auckland will be reviewed by the transition agency. What kinds of decisions will we<br />
get in that environment? We need to be able to review those decisions and ensure that<br />
Aucklanders have a proper say about what is happening to their local government<br />
organisation. The transition agency is a sham from the Government.<br />
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on new<br />
Part 11, put forward by my colleagues, which introduces the Auckland Transition<br />
Agency Review Commission. Having sat through the debate on the bill, I have become<br />
more and more concerned about elements that give total and utter control to the Minister<br />
of Local Government. I think there should be some kind of independent judicial<br />
oversight and review of that. If members look, for example, at Part 3, which we passed<br />
last night, and the establishment of the governing body of the Transition Agency, we<br />
see that no more than two people are required on the Transition Agency. That is a<br />
concentration of a huge amount of power in the Transition Agency. We do not know<br />
who those people will be. They could be Richard Prebble and Christine Rankin for all<br />
we know. They could be Melissa Lee and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for all we know.<br />
Hon Member: A third job.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS: They could give him a third job. The Transition Agency will<br />
have a huge amount of power, so there should be some oversight of what it is able to get<br />
up to. There is a very, very tight time frame for the implementation of these local<br />
governance reforms. Clause 13(1)(a) suggests that the Transition Agency has to have
3626 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
everything in place and be ready to function from 1 November 2010. We know that it<br />
will be very, very tight. Mistakes could be made. There should be some oversight and<br />
some ability to review the decisions that are being made, because of the huge amount of<br />
power that the Transition Agency will have.<br />
I will go further, and look further through the bill at some of the things the agency<br />
will do. It is also worth noting that under clause 22 all the expenditure for the Transition<br />
Agency has to be approved by the Minister. That does reinforce the need for some<br />
independent review, given the huge amount of control that will be given to Rodney<br />
Hide and the very hand-picked select number of individuals who will ultimately end up<br />
in total control of Auckland—<br />
Hon Member: $28 billion.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS: —in control of $28 billion, and in control of—how many<br />
employees?<br />
Hon Member: Over 6,000.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS: And in control of over 6,000 employees. That is a lot of people’s<br />
jobs and a lot of people’s lives that Rodney Hide will effectively be given control of.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Tsar.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes—the “Tsar of Auckland”. Members should bear in mind<br />
that it is not the National Government that will be getting the control; it is Rodney Hide,<br />
the ACT Party Minister, with his 3.5 percent of the vote, who will have control of all of<br />
Auckland. There should be some oversight of that.<br />
I come back to new Part 11, which establishes the new Auckland Transition Agency<br />
Review Commission. It makes it clear that a judge has to be in control of it. It cannot be<br />
one of the political mates of the National Party or the ACT Party. They cannot make it<br />
Christine Rankin, Richard Prebble, or, John Banks, and we are very supportive of that.<br />
Hon Member: Why not?<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS: He is not a judge. If members would read the amendment we are<br />
debating, they would know that.<br />
This amendment gives the review commission the power to hear submissions. It<br />
gives it all the powers that a District Court might have in the exercise of its civil<br />
jurisdiction. If members look at the explanatory note of new Part 11, they will see that it<br />
sums it up very well. It states that the new part amends the Local Government<br />
(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill “to ensure decisions concerning members of the public<br />
are subject to independent review.” Once again, it comes back to the notion of the<br />
concentration of a very, very large amount of power in a very, very small number of<br />
individuals. There has to be some kind of accountability, some kind of oversight.<br />
It is particularly important, in my view, given the way this bill has been rushed. The<br />
bill has not been through a select committee process, so there has been no public<br />
scrutiny. People have not had the opportunity to make submissions and say they think<br />
there is a problem with this part or that part, or that they would like this amendment or<br />
that amendment. Having sat through a number of select committee processes on pieces<br />
of legislation so far in my time in <strong>Parliament</strong>, I can say that I find those processes<br />
incredibly valuable.<br />
On the surface, during a first reading, a bill may seem perfectly logical and wellwritten,<br />
but it is amazing what technical issues—that we would not otherwise get a<br />
handle on—are picked up during the select committee process. By not putting this bill<br />
through the select committee process, the public are being denied that opportunity.<br />
Having an independent review mechanism in place would pick up any mistakes that<br />
have been made because of a lack of consultation.<br />
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the question be now put.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3627<br />
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I say to the National Government, which is<br />
desperately trying to shut down debate on new Part 11, that Labour members would like<br />
to have a discussion about it. We are putting up serious amendments to try to do the best<br />
we can to rectify rotten and flawed legislation. Given that this is the only debate on this<br />
legislation happening in this country, we do not think it is too much to ask that those<br />
members of this House who care about the rights of the people of Auckland, who<br />
actually care about democracy in Auckland, are allowed to have a debate on this issue.<br />
So I thank the Chair for giving Labour the call. I say to Government members that they<br />
might do well to listen to what we are saying, rather than squawking like headless<br />
chooks. Nathan Guy might think it is funny to kill democracy in Auckland, but the<br />
Labour Party does not.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 11 is very important. There is one very simple line in this part, which the<br />
Labour Opposition has put up, that might not seem like a big deal; clause 38(2) says<br />
simply: “The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency.” Do<br />
members know what? The Auckland Transition Agency is not independent from<br />
Rodney Hide; it is not independent at all. Because of that, people should be very<br />
concerned. This hand-picked bureaucracy will have all the powers of the current eight<br />
democratically elected Auckland councils. As I said last night in the debate, given that<br />
the Auckland Transition Agency is basically, for all intents and purposes, going to be<br />
the Auckland Council for the next 18 months, the people of Auckland, the ratepayers of<br />
Auckland, need to know that there is some kind of check and balance on the power of<br />
that organisation.<br />
I see Sam Lotu-Iiga laughing; he thinks he is about to get a third job, on the<br />
Auckland Transition Agency. I urge Government members to look seriously at new Part<br />
11 and take a call to debate it, rather than just being annoyed that they are being made to<br />
work on a Saturday.<br />
Another very important point is that clause 50, “Hearings”, states: “The Commission<br />
shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition<br />
period.” This is a very interesting clause. When we go back to Part 3, which was voted<br />
on last night and was opposed by members on this side of the Chamber, we notice all<br />
kinds of clauses on the requirement for the Auckland Transition Agency to report to the<br />
Minister, but nothing about its need to represent the community. There is clause after<br />
clause about how the agency must report to the Minister at regular intervals on progress,<br />
and must provide a final report. What does the bill say the agency must do for the<br />
people of Auckland? The Government members have gone quiet now, because none of<br />
them have actually read this legislation. They have their research unit notes and they<br />
have been trotted down here to take closure motions, but none of them have read the<br />
legislation. Well, there is nothing in the bill about representing the people of Auckland.<br />
In fact, the agency is “to provide information to the public of Auckland … as it thinks<br />
fit,”. If we look at the process of this bill, which is going through the Committee stage<br />
without it having been to a select committee, we can probably guess that “as it thinks<br />
fit” will be never, unless the agency tells the councils not to buy toilet paper, as one of<br />
the Auckland councils suggested in the newspaper the other day.<br />
That raises a very important point. The Auckland Transition Agency has the power<br />
to veto any kind of spending a council wants to do. The agency will ask the Minister<br />
whether it is OK for the North Shore City Council to buy toilet paper this week, and the<br />
Minister will say no, because he is worried that the council will go over to Mount Albert<br />
and use it to block the bulldozers. The council can then say to the agency that, actually,<br />
the toilet paper is important for tourism; it needs to buy toilet paper for a lot of public<br />
toilets, and it is worried that without it people might not want to come to Auckland.
3628 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Labour members are proposing a review commission. It will have to meet, it will<br />
have to be accountable to the people of Auckland, and—this is a really good part—its<br />
members will actually have to have experience in local government. Unlike the<br />
members of the Auckland Transition Agency’s governing body, these people will have<br />
to know what they are doing, and they will be there to serve the people of Auckland in a<br />
local government capacity. The review commission will be able to review the Minister’s<br />
decision about toilet paper.<br />
I think that is a really important safeguard for the people of Auckland. A transition<br />
agency is being set up to hand power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime<br />
Minister’s mates until a council structure can be put in place, which will then hand<br />
power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime Minister’s mates. We need a check<br />
and balance, and the review commission is that check and balance. As I said, the review<br />
commission will have to meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the<br />
duration of the transition period. There is no requirement on the Auckland Transition<br />
Agency to actually meet with the people of Auckland. There is no requirement at all for<br />
it to be accountable to the people of Auckland.<br />
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now<br />
put.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): Thank you for the chance to take a call on<br />
new Part 11 in the name of my colleague the Hon George Hawkins. There are two great<br />
questions in politics—only two. The first is: how on earth did Gerry Brownlee get that<br />
job? How on earth was Gerry Brownlee given that job? And, the second great question<br />
is: who guards the guardians?<br />
This morning, considering the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in<br />
urgency, we have to ask ourselves some questions about the basics of politics—some of<br />
the great questions about how it is handled for citizens and by citizens. This new part<br />
considers the question in this particular way: it appoints a review commission to oversee<br />
the work of the Auckland Transition Agency.<br />
I draw members’ attention to new clause 52, which sets out the powers of the<br />
commission that George Hawkins is recommending in this new part. It states: “The<br />
Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to reconsider a<br />
decision taken.” That is a very important point. I am not sure members opposite<br />
understand just how much power <strong>Parliament</strong> is devolving in urgency at the moment.<br />
They have been briefed at caucus that this is a simple bill, but it is not a simple bill. This<br />
bill shifts power in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> not to more people but to fewer people. And those<br />
fewer people are not elected; those fewer people are appointed. They are not appointed<br />
by the lead party in the Government, the National Party; they are appointed by a<br />
Minister from a party that enjoys about 3 percent of the party vote in our country.<br />
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: And a fine Minister at that.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Well, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is very easily impressed<br />
through his community board meetings, his council meetings, his district drainage board<br />
meetings, his annual plan meetings, and his draft long-term council community plan<br />
meetings. He is very easily influenced by power; he tries to collect every job that is<br />
going. Goodness knows whom he is invoicing for today for his being here, but I hope it<br />
is not the people of Auckland.<br />
The point here about new clause 52 is that under the bill as it stands, Mr Hide gets to<br />
appoint an authority whose actions cannot be reviewed by anybody. Mr Grant<br />
Robertson will talk about the process by which the review commission will do its work,<br />
and there is an important part around hearings. But my point is that the powers of this<br />
commission are important safeguards for our <strong>Parliament</strong>. We are trying to decide who<br />
will guard the guardians. One-third of our people will be governed by the transitional
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3629<br />
authority—one in three <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers’ lives will be affected directly by a bill that<br />
members opposite do not want to debate.<br />
After 15 minutes’ consideration of a commission that could review and be a backstop<br />
to this agency, National members want to move closure on it. They are shutting down<br />
debate on a topic that affects the lives of over 1 million <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers. Over 1 million<br />
people’s lives change as this bill goes through, yet National members are not interested<br />
in that. They think it is no problem. They trust Mr Hide. Mr Hide has been doing over<br />
the National Party since 1996, but they are too stupid to even realise it. Rodney Hide<br />
runs rings around these people, and he will find ways of getting his people into the<br />
agency. He even smartly put up a new amendment yesterday to give the transition<br />
agency five people, not four, so that he could appoint another of his people to run all<br />
this. That is how smart the Minister of Local Government is. The Leader of the House is<br />
so stupid, he cannot work that out.<br />
There are two great questions in politics. First, how the hell did Gerry Brownlee get<br />
that job? And, second, who guards the guardians? The Labour Opposition, through<br />
proposed new clause 52, gives an answer to the question of who guards the guardians.<br />
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Wasting taxpayers’ money.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: Sam Lotu-Iiga has the cheek to talk about wasting<br />
taxpayers’ money. He is so good at wasting money that he wastes not only taxpayers’<br />
money but ratepayers’ money as well. That is efficiency! It is machine-like efficiency<br />
to, in the same hour and on the same day, waste both taxpayers’ money and ratepayers’<br />
money! I do not know any other member in this Committee who can do that. Do<br />
members know the sad and terrible thing about it? Although he is getting money off<br />
both sides, both sides are getting poor value for money. I wish Sam Lotu-Iiga wore a<br />
big receipt on his chest so that we could rip if off him and get our money back. The<br />
Minister of Consumer Affairs is from the ACT Party. We know that the ACT Party is<br />
running rings around the National Party, so why does the Minister of Consumer Affairs<br />
not get our money back from Sam Lotu-Iiga? That is the question we want answered<br />
here this morning.<br />
I am in favour of new clause 52. It will be good for the decisions of this transition<br />
authority to be able to be reviewed by the commission, which will be set up to check<br />
these things. You know, after the one term that Paul Quinn is getting in <strong>Parliament</strong>,<br />
maybe he could be on this commission, because every commission needs a secretary.<br />
Everybody needs somebody who is useless, and he could be the person to make sure<br />
things are going well in that particular regard.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I move, That<br />
the question be now put.<br />
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): It is very good to get a call for<br />
the Green Party, after many attempts, on this excellent amendment in the name of my<br />
colleague George Hawkins to insert new Part 11, which appoints a review commission<br />
for the Auckland Transition Agency. If ever an organisation needed judicial oversight<br />
by a review commission chaired by a judge, this agency does. Three people—the<br />
Minister and two of his henchpersons appointed by him—will be able to countermand<br />
every decision made by every council in Auckland, and make them do something<br />
different.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: So it could be a squash player and a dancer who has been<br />
dropped on her head?<br />
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Well, the mind boggles at just who those two people<br />
might be, but regardless of who they are, they are clearly subservient to the Minister.<br />
Our largest city is not run as a dictatorship by one Minister in <strong>Parliament</strong> who,<br />
incidentally, had the support of some 3 percent of the population when his party was
3630 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
elected. That is what we call a dictatorship, and that needs judicial oversight and a<br />
review commission. Although the debate yesterday talked about the councils still<br />
having decision-making powers, it is very clear here that they do not actually have any<br />
decision-making powers at all, unless the Minister happens to like the decisions that<br />
they make. They will be completely neutered organisations for 18 months, they will be<br />
completely subject to the will of the Minister, and that could include doing anything. As<br />
colleagues have said, it could include selling assets, it could include taking a different<br />
approach to implementing the plan—the possibilities are limitless as to what these<br />
councils might be required to do by this transition agency.<br />
This review commission is a very sensible idea. It will be chaired by somebody who<br />
is, or is eligible to be, a District Court judge. That means that there is some respect for<br />
the law in what is going on there, and I think that will be a useful thing, as well. It is a<br />
five-person commission, so it is actually somewhat larger than the body that it is<br />
reviewing, which, I think, just reflects on the stupidity of having a mere three people<br />
able to run the whole of Auckland for 18 months. So it is a very well-worked-out<br />
amendment. It has all the detail in it about the appointments and the oath of office. The<br />
commissioners will even have special advisers to help them with proceedings. My<br />
colleague has thought of all the details about the remuneration of commissioners and<br />
their procedures and hearings. There is no doubt that they will also have staff and that<br />
they will be protected.<br />
We had concerns yesterday from the Government about 6,000 local government<br />
workers who were scared about their jobs. I have to ask who made them scared about<br />
their jobs. It is not the Green Party that is making them scared for their jobs, and it is not<br />
the Labour Party or the Māori Party that is giving them all this anxiety about their<br />
employment—it is the Government that is doing so. There is a very easy way to address<br />
their concern about their jobs, and that is to just get rid of this silly legislation or send it<br />
to a select committee so that we can hear from those people about whether they are<br />
adequately protected.<br />
Again, this is the first of many good amendments to this bill. I strongly support it,<br />
because if we are going to have this stupid structure there are a lot of checks and<br />
balances we have to put in place. The Green Party has six proposed new parts coming<br />
up, which will ensure that this transitional authority does sensible things, sustainable<br />
things, fair things, peaceful things, and democratic things in Auckland. Maybe when we<br />
have passed all those amendments we will end up with a transitional agency that will<br />
actually do what the people of Auckland want it to do, despite this legislation being<br />
very poorly conceived in the first place. As I say, this is just the first of a number of<br />
parts that will improve this legislation enormously. It would, of course, be much better<br />
if it were sent to a select committee so that the people of Auckland could have their say<br />
about how they want this legislation to be improved, and that may yet still happen if we<br />
persist.<br />
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. It is a very serious point of order that I bring to the Committee, and this is<br />
the sort of issue that arises when we are in urgency. Last night the Minister in the chair,<br />
Rodney Hide, moved amendments to Part 3 that could have some very far-reaching and<br />
unintended consequences. He moved that the employees of the existing staff of the eight<br />
authorities lose their current employment rights. Under this amendment, moved by the<br />
Minister in the chair, women currently employed by the Auckland authorities could lose<br />
the right to paid parental leave, and this is incredibly serious—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is raising a debating point.<br />
I know that the member feels strongly about this, but this is a matter for a call, and for a<br />
debate to be brought to the Committee’s attention. It is not a matter for order in the
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3631<br />
process of how the Committee conducts itself. If the member wants to continue with<br />
this, she will have to demonstrate that it is about order, not about substance. So far it has<br />
all been about substance.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I do not think my colleague was attempting to get into a debating matter; it<br />
is a matter of order of process in terms of what the Minister has advised the Committee<br />
of. We are seeking to find out whether the Minister is in a position to be able to supply<br />
us with a report or maybe a briefing from the officials about this issue of paid parental<br />
leave, because the employment relationship has changed, and we need to make sure we<br />
can get the information from the Minister, because the part has been dealt with.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you. If the member wishes to<br />
have a briefing from officials, then I am quite sure the Minister would welcome the<br />
member approaching the Minister and having access to the officials. That is entirely<br />
appropriate, and it is what normally happens, but it is not necessarily a matter of order.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I thank you for your advice in that particular area, but this is very serious,<br />
because it is my understanding that we will come up to a clause relatively soon that<br />
indicates that this amendment binds the Crown. It would be good if the Minister could<br />
supply to the Committee a written opinion on that particular area as to whether this<br />
amendment, in binding the Crown, overrides the Parental Leave and Employment<br />
Protection Act.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that I have just<br />
made the point that that is an issue of substance; it is not an issue of order. If the<br />
member wants to approach the Minister to get a written opinion from him, he is more<br />
than welcome to do that; this does not take up the time of the Committee. We want<br />
points of order to be on matters of order, not matters of process.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. In the past, Chairs and Speakers have had reasonable latitude around<br />
points of order where there is a genuine attempt, as there is in this case, to avoid<br />
disorder. I am sure that if what has been indicated is the case, this has the potential to<br />
lead to gross disorder during the week. I am attempting to help you to avoid that.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you. What I think I will also do<br />
is get the maintenance staff to check the member’s chair. It seems that there is<br />
something wrong with it in that the member does not seem to be able to stay in his seat<br />
for very long! I say to him that to imply that previous Chairs have done something quite<br />
differently is saying that I am not handling the job right. I am sure the member did not<br />
want to imply that that is the case. But I say to the member that my experience of being<br />
the Minister in the chair is that where members want information from the Minister and<br />
from officials, they approach the Minister directly, and the Minister makes the<br />
information available via the advisers he or she has in the Chamber. Points of order are<br />
to be about order, not about process.<br />
HEKIA PARATA (National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 63<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5.<br />
Noes 51<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.<br />
Motion agreed to.
3632 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George<br />
Hawkins to be agreed to:<br />
to add the following new part:<br />
Part 11<br />
Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission<br />
38 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission Established<br />
(1) The Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission is established immediately<br />
before the commencement of this section and which shall have the jurisdiction<br />
and powers conferred on it by or pursuant to this Act and any other Act.<br />
(2) The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency.<br />
39 Interpretation<br />
For the purposes of this part, Auckland Transition Agency Review<br />
Commission or Commission means the entity established by section 38.<br />
40 Membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission<br />
The Commission shall consist of the following members:<br />
(a) a Chair of the Commission:<br />
(b) five Commissioners.<br />
41 Eligibility for appointment as Chair of the Commission<br />
(1) A person shall not be appointed or hold office as Chair of the Commission unless<br />
he or she is, or is eligible to be, a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a<br />
District Court Judge at the time of appointment as a Commissioner, he or she<br />
shall be appointed as a District Court Judge at that time.<br />
42 Eligibility for Commissioner<br />
When considering whether a person is suitable to be appointed as a<br />
Commissioner the Attorney-General shall have regard to the need to ensure that<br />
the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in matters coming before<br />
the Court, including knowledge and experience in—<br />
(a) economic, commercial, and business affairs, local government, and<br />
community affairs:<br />
(b) planning, resource management, and heritage protection:<br />
(c) environmental science, including the physical and social sciences:<br />
(d) architecture, engineering, surveying, minerals technology, and building<br />
construction:<br />
(da) alternative dispute resolution processes:<br />
(e) matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Maori.<br />
43 Appointment of Commissioners<br />
(1) The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General,<br />
after consultation with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government<br />
and the Minister of Māori affairs, appoint a person as the Chair of the<br />
Commission.<br />
(2) The Commissioners shall hold office for the duration of the transition period.<br />
44 Oath of office<br />
A person appointed as a Commissioner shall, before undertaking any duties as<br />
such, take an oath of office that he or she will honestly and impartially perform<br />
the duties of the office.<br />
45 Special advisors<br />
(1) The Chair may appoint as a special advisor a person who is able to assist the<br />
Commission in a proceeding before it.<br />
(2) A special advisor is not a member of the Commission but may sit with it and<br />
assist it in any way the Commission determines.<br />
46 Registrar and other officers<br />
(1) The Commission—<br />
(a) shall have a Registrar; and<br />
(aa) may have 1 or more Deputy Registrars; and<br />
(b) may have other persons to assist it in an administrative capacity.<br />
(2) The Registrar, a Deputy Registrar, and every other person assisting the<br />
Commission shall—
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3633<br />
(a) be appointed under the State Sector Act 1988; and<br />
(b) be officers of the Commission.<br />
(2A) A Deputy Registrar has all the powers, functions, duties, and immunity of the<br />
Registrar subject to the control of the Registrar.<br />
(3) An officer of the Commission may also hold another office or employment in the<br />
Public Service.<br />
47 Remuneration of Commissioners and special advisors<br />
There shall be paid, out of money appropriated by <strong>Parliament</strong> for the purpose, to<br />
every Commissioner, and special advisor, remuneration by way of fees, salary, or<br />
allowances, and travelling allowances and expenses, in accordance with the Fees<br />
and Travelling Allowances Act 1951, and the provisions of that Act shall apply<br />
accordingly, and—<br />
(a) the Commission shall be a statutory Board for the purposes of that Act; and<br />
(b) every special adviser shall be deemed to be a member of a statutory Board.<br />
48 Commission sittings<br />
The quorum for the Commission is the Chair of the Commission and one<br />
Commissioner sitting together.<br />
49 Commission procedure<br />
The Commission may regulate its own proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit.<br />
50 Hearings<br />
The Commission shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the<br />
duration of the transition period.<br />
51 Hearing of submissions<br />
(1) All hearing of the Commission shall be held in public.<br />
(1A) Hearings will be informal with the Commission hearing submissions of any<br />
ratepayer in the Greater Auckland region that wishes to appear before the<br />
Commission.<br />
(2) The time and place of hearing before the Commission shall be fixed by the<br />
Registrar ensuring that all hearings are held within the current boundaries of the<br />
Franklin District, Papakura District, Rodney District, North Shore City,<br />
Waitakere City, Manukau City, Auckland City, Great Barrier Island, and<br />
Waiheke Island.<br />
(3) The Commission will also accept submissions by mail or email.<br />
52 Powers of the Commission<br />
(1) The Commissioners have the same powers that a District Court has in the exercise<br />
of its civil jurisdiction.<br />
(2) The Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to<br />
reconsider a decision taken.<br />
53 Review of decision by Commission<br />
Decisions of the Commission are subject to review by the High Court.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 51<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 11 not agreed to.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 10 Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland<br />
Transition Agency<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak in favour of new Part 10, which is<br />
about the personnel provisions for the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition<br />
Agency. This is a very important new part, and I hope the members across the Chamber<br />
will listen to the debate on it. It is about personnel provisions that affect 6,300 workers,<br />
and the treatment of those workers also affects their families. We are talking about a
3634 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
very significant number of Aucklanders who, as one can imagine, are feeling very<br />
nervous and insecure at the moment, given that the major structural change is occurring<br />
in a time of high unemployment and major economic crisis. I hope that there will be a<br />
fair hearing across the Committee of this issue. I am sure that Nikki Kaye—the new<br />
friend of the worker—will support this new part. The party leaders across the other side<br />
of the Chamber are not here, but if they were they would recognise the value of these<br />
sorts of provisions, as well. As I understand matters, recently they have understood the<br />
value of working with unions in trying to look at employment matters.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 10 proposes a number of important general principles. First and foremost,<br />
those general principles include the idea of being a good employer—that is a very<br />
important principle. It also requires that policies developed under that principle are<br />
available to employees, and that the Auckland Council would report on its compliance<br />
with those policies. We have outlined some of the things that good employers might do,<br />
including the fair and proper treatment of employees, providing good and safe working<br />
conditions, providing equal employment opportunities, recognising the aspirations of<br />
Māori, and making sure that employees of the Auckland Council maintain proper<br />
standards of integrity, conduct, and concern about the public interest. I reinforce that<br />
point, because the people who work for councils provide public services. These people<br />
care about the public services that they provide, which are very, very important things<br />
that affect the day-to-day living of people in Auckland. So we are very aware that those<br />
workers will want to be in a position to provide good-quality services to the public.<br />
The context of this part is very important, and we talked a little about that last night.<br />
Workers are feeling very insecure at the moment. Council employees—employees of<br />
the different councils and of the regional council—are feeling very concerned. Why is<br />
that? The royal commission said some very important things about the staffing issues<br />
related to this important change that is going on. It said it expected current council staff<br />
to form the nucleus of the new organisations. One of the royal commission’s reasons for<br />
adopting its proposed model was “to maintain stability in the council workforce, to<br />
minimise both the personal impacts of reorganisation on council staff and start-up costs<br />
for the new organisation, and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the<br />
transition”.<br />
The unfortunate thing is that although that statement provided a degree of certainty to<br />
the affected workers, on the other hand the Government has decided that there will be a<br />
rationalisation of council staff, which will start to occur immediately. That means there<br />
will be job losses. The Government is disregarding not only many of the other<br />
recommendations of the royal commission but also the recommendation about<br />
providing security for council staff. In the current economic environment, that is very,<br />
very difficult for people to deal with.<br />
If one looks at how workers in the Public Service are currently being treated by the<br />
Government, one would understand why council workers in Auckland are feeling<br />
insecure. I ask members to look at the level of job cuts that is going on at the moment in<br />
the Public Service. I ask members to look at the fact that those workers are being treated<br />
as second-class workers and are not eligible, for example, for provisions like the 9-day<br />
working fortnight—not that that has actually made a great deal of difference yet. But<br />
Public Service workers are not even eligible for it.<br />
We have already seen a number of attacks by the Government on workers. We have<br />
seen a number of workers lose the right to challenge unfair dismissal. The Government<br />
is now looking at the provisions around holidays. The Minister of Labour has put up a<br />
zero percent increase in the minimum wage, and actually does not agree with pay equity<br />
for women workers. I could go on, but I say those things also mean that workers are<br />
feeling very insecure and nervous.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3635<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson.<br />
Sandra Goudie: Mindless!<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I say to Mrs Goudie that I have a point of order. This is<br />
very serious point of order, and I want to word it as carefully as I can. We are in<br />
Committee and it is a Saturday morning. The Opposition has put up a lot of<br />
amendments and new parts by way of amendment. Obviously, some are more detailed<br />
than others. This particular new part, Part 10, is very important to the Opposition<br />
because it directly affects the lives of 6,500 people. My point of order is that on the last<br />
part considered by the Committee, if we include the time taken on points of order, a<br />
closure motion was accepted within 40 minutes of the Committee’s considering a brand<br />
new part that had never been near a select committee and had not been distributed to<br />
members until today.<br />
The point I am making is that I understand that there will be pressure on both you<br />
and the other Chair of the Committee to get this business through as quickly as possible.<br />
I respectfully say that a part must be given the due consideration of this Committee,<br />
regardless of whether it is a Tuesday afternoon, a Wednesday evening, or a Saturday<br />
morning. I think that we need to have the chance to debate our new parts, which have<br />
not been to a select committee. The level of public scrutiny—<br />
Hon Simon Power: This is outrageous! It’s your discretion; he shouldn’t be telling<br />
you this.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: The Deputy Leader of the House can interject. I said at<br />
the beginning that I was trying to take a careful but serious point of order to reflect to<br />
the Committee exactly how we feel about this, which is that this particular part is of<br />
importance to us. I am not challenging your ruling, Mr Chairperson, because there has<br />
been no ruling. There is no closure motion before you; we are at the beginning of the<br />
debate on this part. I respectfully submit to you that the previous part was shut down<br />
very, very early. I want an assurance that that was not a tariff simply because we are<br />
meeting on a Saturday morning, which appears to be the reason for the Government’s<br />
sense of urgency about the closure motions.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The first point I make is that the Chair<br />
will not feel pressured about accepting closure motions. I do not feel pressured in any<br />
particular way. I observe that I consider these new parts to be in a slightly different<br />
context from the parts that have been tabled in the House, because those were on notice<br />
and so on, and these are not.<br />
Secondly, I am guided—and I am sure that the other Chairs have been guided—by<br />
content. We need to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. I have said that I will be<br />
quite liberal and let people make other comments as they go through the parts. If<br />
someone makes an interjection and the member responds, that is fair enough. But we do<br />
not want the rest of the speech to be on the interjections; we want to be on task.<br />
Thirdly, I assure the member that there is no tariff. A closure motion having been<br />
accepted for the previous part does not mean that this is the rate that we will carry on for<br />
all other parts. It will be about the content of the part, the content of the speeches, and<br />
the way that the Committee conducts itself. The length of debate can go up; it can go<br />
down. But content will be important.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The chair again, Mr Mallard.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The first thing is that I do not appreciate comments of<br />
that sort. I do not think it is helpful.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Fair enough. I apologise to the member.
3636 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The other point I make is to ask you to elucidate on<br />
your ruling on one particular point that was not clear. You indicated that it would make<br />
a difference whether the parts had been on notice or not on notice. I could not tell from<br />
your comments whether something that had been on notice would have a longer debate;<br />
whether because something had not been on notice members needed time to look at it,<br />
and it would therefore have a longer debate; or whether something not on notice would<br />
have a shorter debate because there had been no notice. Could you indicate which of<br />
those you meant?<br />
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): I appreciate the member’s<br />
wanting some elucidation on some of the finer detail around some of these judgments,<br />
and the shadow Leader of the House’s views on these matters. It has always been my<br />
understanding that when a closure motion is taken by the Chair is a matter for the sole<br />
discretion of the Chair. It has been my experience over the last short while that<br />
whenever an attempt is made to try to define those parameters, the fall-back position is<br />
the Standing Order in that regard.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is absolutely correct. It has<br />
always been, and will always be, the sole discretion of the Chair whether a closure<br />
motion is taken, and the Chair will take it as he or she sees fit. I do not want to get into a<br />
long debate about the matter the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. Although members put up<br />
amendments and call them parts, that is only the way they themselves have described<br />
them. Those proposed new parts could in another way be looked at in substance, in<br />
effect, as amendments.<br />
Hon Annette King: You can’t make that decision.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I can make that decision about<br />
substance. For example, members get up and quite often say: “I am raising a fresh point<br />
of order.” when, in fact, they are not. They say that simply to relitigate the same matter;<br />
they describe it as a fresh point of order when it is not. I think everybody has been<br />
guilty of that at some stage.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you elaborate on the notice thing, Mr Chair.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the notice thing, the bill was put on<br />
the Table, and members have had a long time to read it, in terms of hours. But these<br />
proposed new parts have turned up—they have just appeared. The point I make is that I<br />
consider the bill, as tabled by the Government of the day, as being the issue we are here<br />
to debate. That is the main focus of this debate. When members table amendments to<br />
the bill, they are of lesser concern, to a degree, than the actual bill. When members table<br />
amendments that they put up as new parts, they may describe them as parts, but when<br />
one reads them one could describe them as amendments because they are not as<br />
significant as what we would normally have as a part of a bill. We will be flexible about<br />
this matter.<br />
I say to members that regardless of all that is going on around the edges, it will<br />
remain the sole discretion of the Chair how long the debate goes on for. There will be<br />
no correspondence entered into. The Committee will determine closure motions by vote,<br />
and the content of the speeches will be the Chair’s consideration. If speeches are on<br />
target, and are discussing and elucidating the amendments we are considering, then the<br />
debate will tend to go on for longer. If people get off task and we are on to everything<br />
else but the part or amendment we are discussing, then the Chair will consider closure<br />
motions much more quickly. Members should be assured of that.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling; it was very helpful. I would like to extend an<br />
invitation to you to make an examination of Part 2 of the bill and of the proposed<br />
amendments. When you are considering your tariff in relation to substance, I think you
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3637<br />
will find there is much more substance in these amendments than there was in Part 2,<br />
and therefore the debate should be proportionately longer.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member could make that argument,<br />
but I have read quite a lot of the proposed amendments and I think some of them have<br />
not added to the fountain of wisdom in this place. I also mention to the member that<br />
substance is quite often more than just the number of words counted on the word<br />
processor.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I reassure you that this is a fresh point of order and has nothing to do with<br />
the timing of debates. This point of order is about a comment you made that I require<br />
some explanation on. It is the point you made that the proposed new parts we are<br />
dealing with should be seen just as amendments. When amendments to parts were<br />
debated previously they were stand-alone, single, one-clause amendments. The<br />
difference with this proposed new part—if we take, for instance, the part we considered<br />
for a little over 30 minutes in total, Mr Hawkins’ proposed new Part 11, “Auckland<br />
Transition Agency Review Commission”—is that it contains 25 new clauses. Yesterday<br />
we were voting on amendments to clauses. I think to consider an entire new part as<br />
being just the same as an amendment leads to some confusion in the Committee.<br />
Clearly, proposed new Part 11—with 25 clauses—will be much more substantial than<br />
an amendment to omit a certain date and substitute another. Much more work goes into<br />
developing these proposed new parts. They cover a much larger ambit of issues, and I<br />
think to just dismiss them as being the same as amendments that the Committee has<br />
seen previously is neither fair nor correct, because these proposed new parts contain a<br />
substantial number of clauses. I just ask your advice on that matter, because I think it<br />
could lead to some confusion as the Committee considers proposed new parts this<br />
morning.<br />
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): The attempt to define the<br />
nature of the debate by what it is labelled and how many words are involved, rather than<br />
by the content of what is involved in the debate itself, is leading to confusion. I submit<br />
that it seems to me that an attempt to define these types of debates puts you in a very<br />
difficult position, Mr Chair. As I understand it, the position under the Standing Orders is<br />
simply that your discretion—and your discretion alone—determines when the closure<br />
motion is taken. That should be the end of the matter.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): My friend the Deputy Leader<br />
of the House misinterprets what I mean. I am not discussing closure motions. We have<br />
dealt with that issue, the Chair has ruled on it, and we accept what you said. We are<br />
talking about the difference between proposed new parts and amendments.<br />
The Committee of the whole House used to consider a bill clause by clause. Indeed,<br />
if the Government forgot to move a part by part motion, then we would be subjected to<br />
hours and hours in Committee as it worked through clauses. It was always a challenge<br />
for Government whips to make sure a Minister moved a part by part motion. We have<br />
moved away from that situation to an assumption that the Committee of the whole<br />
House will always consider bills part by part, and that amendments relate to clauses—as<br />
we have seen so far. It is completely different when amendments are put down that<br />
create new parts, as we see here. An amendment to create a new part is a separate,<br />
debatable question, as opposed to individual amendments on clauses, which are not<br />
debatable questions; they are questions taken at the end of a debate alongside the<br />
Minister’s amendments and other members’ amendments. It is a completely separate<br />
area. Your comments that these proposed new parts are just like amendments is the<br />
point the Opposition is raising with you.
3638 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member, with all due<br />
respect, that the whole structure of his argument is based on a wrong assumption. The<br />
fact is that whatever name the member puts on these amendments—whether he calls<br />
them “parts”, “model parts”, or whatever—they are all amendments. Each one is an<br />
amendment. An amendment that has “part” on it has exactly the same status in this<br />
Committee as an amendment that takes out one word and substitutes another. It is an<br />
amendment—it is nothing other than an amendment to the bill. It is no different. It is<br />
irrelevant whether the member calls the amendment a part; it is still an amendment.<br />
However, the Chair, instead of having a very narrow debate on an amendment, has<br />
given consideration to the fact that the amendment has a substantial amount of clauses<br />
in it, which is why we had multiple speeches on the amendment and did it slightly<br />
differently from any other amendment. That is the point we are at.<br />
I reiterate two things. Firstly, the Chair will be the sole determiner of the debate and<br />
will then simply allow the Committee to make its own decision about whether the<br />
debate continues. Secondly, the Chair’s decision will be driven by two things: whether<br />
there has been relevance, and whether there has been undue repetition. So there are two<br />
criteria: relevance and repetition. If members are relevant and are providing fresh<br />
material, then the Committee will continue to debate the part. The moment it changes—<br />
there is repetition, and relevance goes down—then the Chair will start to look at a<br />
closure motion.<br />
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Speaking to the amendment to insert new Part<br />
10, in the name of Carol Beaumont, I draw attention to a couple of points in particular.<br />
First of all, the members opposite are of the view that these amendments are vexatious,<br />
and they are expressing some irritation that the Opposition should be bringing such<br />
amendments to the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is<br />
that we have been opposing this bill because it is an affront to democracy and because it<br />
is an affront to the rights of the people of Auckland.<br />
This amendment, in particular, although not addressing the democratic rights in<br />
substance, actually goes to the question of something that is even as profound as<br />
Aucklanders’ democratic rights. It goes to the question of the working conditions and<br />
the security of the people who work within local government services in Auckland. That<br />
is the issue. That is why, I say to Mr Power, who is now the Minister in the chair, this<br />
could in no way be considered a vexatious amendment. It is nothing of the sort.<br />
In fact, I draw to the attention of the Committee the Government’s voting on matters<br />
such as this even as recently as last night. The Government voted down amendments<br />
that asked for the views of women, of Māori, of Pasifika, and of people of different<br />
ethnicities to be represented in the consideration of the Auckland Transition Agency.<br />
This amendment gives the Government a chance to reconsider the mistakes it made<br />
last night. The effect of what the Government did last night was to forbid women,<br />
Māori, Pasifika, and other interest groups to have any kind of consultation on, or<br />
representation in, the activities of the Auckland Transition Agency. Time and time again<br />
the Opposition put up amendments that asked for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to be<br />
consulted and for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs to be consulted. The<br />
amendments did not even go as far as to call for a poll, although there was a moment<br />
when we did call for one. In fact, the amendments asked just that the Ministers<br />
responsible for the portfolios of women, Pasifika, people with disabilities, and ethnic<br />
affairs be consulted in the process.<br />
The Government voted against every one of those amendments. That needs to be<br />
sheeted home to the Government, because we will be talking about that around<br />
Auckland for years to come. This amendment gives the Government another
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3639<br />
opportunity to do the right thing. We are looking for some protection for the workers<br />
who provide the public services administered through local government in Auckland.<br />
Is it too much to ask of this National Government that there should be good and safe<br />
working conditions, that there should be equal employment opportunity programmes,<br />
that the aspirations and aims of the Māori people should be recognised, that there should<br />
be opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees, that there<br />
should be recognition of the aims and aspirations of ethnic or minority groups, or that<br />
there should be some recognition of the employment requirements of women—<br />
including paid parental leave?<br />
The Government now has an opportunity to do the right thing, to take notice of the<br />
progress that has been made in employment law in the last 9 years, to recognise the<br />
rights of our workforce in Auckland and the differences in its composition—especially<br />
in relation to the workforce in local government—and to defend its rights to those<br />
provisions I spoke about. If the Government proceeds to oppose each of these parts of<br />
the bill—these amendments, I should say, based on the procedural debate that has just<br />
taken place—and if it votes down this part, then it can expect all 6,500 of the workers in<br />
local government in Auckland to know which side their bread is buttered on. That will<br />
be a very clear indication of what this Government stands for.<br />
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I am delighted to take a call. I was invited<br />
earlier by the Chair to take a call when I raised a very serious point of order, but the<br />
debate on new Part 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, put<br />
forward by my colleague Carol Beaumont, is the perfect debate for me to put my issue<br />
into context.<br />
I inform the Committee that I was invited by the Chair to speak to the Minister in the<br />
chair about our very real concern, which was raised by the people of Auckland early this<br />
morning, that their right to paid parental leave might have been expunged by an<br />
amendment last night from the Minister of Local Government. This is a very serious<br />
issue. I went to the Minister, as I was invited by the Chair to do, and the Minister said—<br />
and members should listen to this, because the Auckland Transition Agency reports to<br />
that one Minister, with nobody else providing any checks or balances over his powers<br />
and authorities—“You had your turn last night; you didn’t take it.” We were voting on<br />
amendments last night. We were voting yes or no to amendments; we could not debate<br />
or discuss amendments in the Chamber last night. When I took up the offer of the Chair,<br />
the Minister said: “It is finished. You had your turn last night.” Is that the sort of<br />
attitude he is going to take when the transition agency raises issues? It will report to Mr<br />
Hide only, as the Minister. Are those the sorts of powers and authorities that he will<br />
extend over the rights of the 6,500 workers whose current terms and conditions might<br />
have been amended very badly last night, with an impact on their lives?<br />
Those members opposite were not in the House when we voted on paid parental<br />
leave—which women members in the previous Opposition voted against—but I am sure<br />
that the new women members do care about women’s rights and paid parental leave, as<br />
do many, many men. The amendment last night may have been an unintended<br />
consequence. In the point of order that I reasonably raised I asked whether it could be<br />
looked at, and whether the Minister could clarify it for the Committee. If that is the sort<br />
of attitude the Minister is going to have, as the one person with power and authority<br />
over the transition agency, it is deeply worrying.<br />
In this new Part 10 that we have put forward, we suggest that we establish a code of<br />
practice for employees—for those full-time employees who have worked for over a year<br />
for the current authorities that will go by next year. Clause 108(2)(k) states: “there shall<br />
be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee;”. These are serious<br />
amendments that we have put up. We had no opportunity to look at this bill before we
3640 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
got it to debate in the House, and the relevant part of it was pushed through last night in<br />
urgency. We are using the one democratic tool that we have got to try to make this bill<br />
better, and the response from the Government benches has been that we are wasting the<br />
Committee’s time.<br />
I tell the members of the Government that people have been phoning us all night. My<br />
daughter phoned and asked: “What is this bill that is going through the House?”, and I<br />
said: “We are in urgency to fight about the bill to establish the Auckland Council.” She<br />
said: “What is the bill all about?”, and I said: “Tough! You will not have a chance to<br />
debate this bill. You will not have a chance at all.” Calls came through all night long<br />
from people in Auckland, and we are receiving calls this morning. They are taking it<br />
seriously. They are anxious and they are worried. They are hugely concerned about their<br />
rights. They are hugely concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill.<br />
This is when a Government gets things wrong: when it rams things through the<br />
House and does not involve community voices. That has happened, and that is why we<br />
are here, and I am pleased that we are here. We are going to fight this fight. It is<br />
absolutely critical to consider our code of practice for workers, their rights, and their<br />
conditions. It is not just about structural changes to the transition agency. The<br />
Government sees it as simplistically as that—that it is just about structural amendments.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I am sorry that we have to<br />
take time to debate part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that<br />
was actually passed last night, but the Opposition members who are introducing new<br />
parts are sowing confusion. I think it is because they are genuinely confused. Let me be<br />
very, very clear. Paid parental leave is a statutory entitlement. Nothing in this bill<br />
changes that, and I would have thought that members opposite understood that.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): Opposition members are in the<br />
Chamber together because we are the last line of defence, and up until now this debate<br />
has been about the rights of Aucklanders—<br />
Hon Members: Ha, Ha!<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: They may laugh. What exactly is it about democracy that<br />
they oppose? What is it about democracy that “Gerry-mander” opposes? We are not<br />
here this morning, debating new Part 10, to talk about the democratic rights of all<br />
Aucklanders. [Interruption] The importance of Part 10—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Those<br />
exchanges across the Chamber between members are not acceptable. The member is on<br />
his feet and speaking in a debate. Interjections are fine if they are fair and reasonable,<br />
but interchanges between members are out of order. I invite the member to continue.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: <strong>New</strong> Part 10, unusually compared with the other parts of<br />
the bill, is not about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders; it is about the<br />
employment rights of those some 6,000 Aucklanders who are employees of the<br />
organisation. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition asks Government members to specify<br />
exactly which of the provisions they object to, because I understand, from their barrage,<br />
that they are likely to be voting against this new part. They should tell us why they<br />
object. Is it because they disagree with the proposition that there should be an obligation<br />
on the part of the Auckland Transition Agency and the Auckland Council to be a good<br />
employer? Is it because of the good and safe working conditions in this part? Do they<br />
object to an equal employment opportunities programme? If they do, why not put out a<br />
press release in support of that view? Is it the impartial selection of suitably qualified<br />
persons?<br />
Perhaps that is it, especially when we look at clause 104, “Appointments on merit”,<br />
because that goes to the heart of our concerns about the bill. It is particularly concerning<br />
when one puts it together with the governance structure that is over this entity, because,
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3641<br />
unusually, it is not reporting to a Cabinet committee—it is not reporting to Cabinet.<br />
Those people will be the sole appointees of one Minister—the Minister of Local<br />
Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. Why does that matter? It matters in two respects in<br />
relation to clause 104. It gives that Minister absolute jurisdiction over appointments.<br />
The board has only two to four people, in addition to a handpicked chair. That is not a<br />
wide enough range of skills, or people, to give diversity of opinion. This is designed to<br />
be a directive. It is designed as a diktat; that is how it is structured. Because of that, it is<br />
essential that it has written in, as a statutory obligation, those things that we would<br />
expect a good organisation to take for granted. But there can be no guarantee here,<br />
because the governance structure is flawed from the outset.<br />
Why has the governance structure been designed that way? It follows a model of<br />
change management called “shock and awe”. Roger Douglas used it—crash through<br />
opposition, move so quickly people cannot unite or take to the streets, move before they<br />
work out what is really happening, and drive through the middle. That is exactly what<br />
this legislation is about.<br />
That is why we are in the Chamber, historically, on a Saturday morning; why we will<br />
be here on Monday morning, and Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning, and in<br />
Budget week; and why the legislative programme of this diktat Government is going to<br />
be a shambles. The junior Government whip is looking very worried, because he knows<br />
that he will be taking responsibility, in the eyes of the people of Hawke’s Bay, for the<br />
fact that he cannot manage the House. And the Leader of the House, who is already a<br />
public joke, who has barely opened the Standing Orders, must take primary<br />
responsibility for the fact that it took the Government 2 days to question an amendment.<br />
Change a comma, and it took them 2 days to work out how to question that amendment!<br />
What kind of House skills is that? No wonder the “Business Herald” yesterday had a<br />
diary piece asking who the lamest duck in the Government was, arguing whether it was<br />
Richard Worth or Gerry Brownlee. It is, I think, a lay down misère. Gerry Brownlee is<br />
next, but at the moment we have not finished with his colleague. Gerry Brownlee is<br />
next, because he will never recover from this process.<br />
Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”—<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is an oxymoron, is it not? How about the pot calling<br />
the kettle black? Because I do not have confidence that the Minister of Local<br />
Government is one to appoint people on merit; I think he is one to appoint on ideology.<br />
I think he wants to appropriate and privatise the assets built up by the people of<br />
Auckland over 45 years. He will ensure that the people who are there are doing just that.<br />
PAUL QUINN (National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support this very<br />
important new Part 10. I am pleased the Minister has accepted that paid parental leave is<br />
well established and will be covered in the legislation, perhaps regardless of this<br />
amendment. But some other provisions are quite important. For example, clause<br />
101(2(d) requires “Recognition of—(i) The aims and aspirations of the Maori people;”.<br />
I think that is important. It might be quite educational for the little group that will run<br />
the Auckland Transition Agency to have to take into account the aspirations of the<br />
Māori people. In the process of running the transition while taking into account the<br />
aspirations of the Māori people, the agency might come to the realisation that the new<br />
body really should have direct Māori representation, in the form of three Māori seats. It<br />
is quite possible that if the agency takes to heart the provision in this new part, it may<br />
make very strong recommendations to the Government saying: “Now we’re operating<br />
and we’re listening to Māori in the process of operating this transition, we very strongly
3642 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
recommend that the Government reinstates the three directly elected Māori seats<br />
proposed by the royal commission.” That would be excellent.<br />
Clause 101(2)(f) requires “recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment<br />
requirements, and the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups;”. As is well<br />
known, quite big meetings have been held in places like South Auckland, and there has<br />
been very strong Pacific Island participation in those meetings. Those people are<br />
worried about the loss of the identity of Manukau City, and about how account will be<br />
taken of the interests of Pacific people, who are concentrated in that city. But if the<br />
transition agency really takes on board the provision in clause 102(2)(f), then perhaps it<br />
would say to the Government: “Well, hold on. The structure you have put in place,<br />
which strips out local representation and knocks out sub-regional representation like<br />
that for Manukau City, really affects the rights of different ethnic groups, particularly in<br />
the case of South Auckland, Manukau City, and Pacific Island people.” Again, perhaps<br />
the agency would make urgent representations to the Government to make alterations to<br />
the legislation, at the last minute. That would, at least, improve the possibilities of subregional<br />
identity and the interests of the Pacific Island people being taken into account.<br />
The same applies to other non-European groups in our society who feel shut out by this<br />
big structure, where rich white people will tend to get the positions. There will not be—<br />
Jacinda Ardern: Rich white men.<br />
KEITH LOCKE: Rich white men; I apologise.<br />
There is also a provision in clause 101(2)(g) to recognise the employment<br />
requirements of women. Again, as has been rightly pointed out, that may educate the<br />
transition authority to recommend to the Government urgent changes to the structure, so<br />
that women are not disadvantaged in the way that they will be under this legislation and<br />
the companion Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill that will go through<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”, is quite important, because we know that the<br />
appointments to the transition agency are to be made directly by the Minister of Local<br />
Government, without any reference to a Cabinet process. We know that will be hard to<br />
achieve, so having that provision might at least make his Cabinet colleagues and others<br />
say “Hold on, there should be a merit procedure.”<br />
Clause 105, “Acting appointments”, could be very relevant, because it deals with<br />
resignations from the transition agency. I would expect there might be quite a few<br />
resignations, even though the agency is supposed to go for only a short time. After a<br />
few weeks in the job, a new appointee might say: “I’m in a horrible position here,<br />
operating like a dictator, intervening in agenda items of local bodies all across the place.<br />
The body I’m helping to set up here isn’t going to work.” There might be a lot of<br />
resignations, so this provision could be very pertinent.<br />
Clause 108(3)(a) provides for the maintenance of service delivery levels. That could<br />
be important too, because there would be a tendency for the new—<br />
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I am happy to take a call to support clause 101 in new<br />
Part 10, which is in the name of Carol Beaumont. There are three points that I would<br />
like to make in this debate. Firstly, I will talk about the Auckland Council and the<br />
Auckland Transition Agency being good employers. My second point will be about the<br />
aims and aspirations of Māori. My third point will come back to the fact that this is all<br />
about democracy and transparency.<br />
In respect of the Auckland Council being a good employer, I point out that it is really<br />
about caring for and protecting the rights of workers. When I was a school principal we<br />
had a framework saying that any employer or teacher who was dictatorial and lacked<br />
support would breed a resentful child. This is what I see in the legislation that is being
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3643<br />
pushed through. We are being dictated to, and there is a lack of support, which will<br />
breed resentment in the community.<br />
This issue is also about the aims and aspirations of Māori people. I say to members<br />
that Māori aspire to be heard in their workplaces, to be influential. I struggle to see what<br />
is wrong with recognising the aims and the aspirations of Māori, the employment<br />
requirements of Māori, and the need for greater involvement of Māori in Auckland<br />
public affairs. I wonder why it is such a hard issue to deal with, why it is so hard to<br />
debate, why we have to push this bill through so quickly, and why Māori people do not<br />
have an opportunity to participate in any sort of debate on an issue that really does<br />
affect them, and to participate in settings that allow Māori to be heard. To have public<br />
meetings is fine, but I just wonder how many public meetings will be held on marae,<br />
and I wonder how many public meetings will be held at times when whānau can get to<br />
those meetings and actually contribute. It is really important that the aims and the<br />
aspirations of Māori people are not overlooked in this whole debate.<br />
One of the greatest aims and aspirations of Māori is simply to get a job. When we see<br />
that our unemployment rate is up at around 11 percent, which is higher than that of most<br />
groups aside from the Pacific Island population, we realise that it is really important that<br />
Māori rights and Māori conditions at work are considered and looked after. Again, this<br />
comes back to democracy. We hear National members say they are listening. But I ask<br />
whether they have heard what the people are saying. There is a big difference. When<br />
those members sit in a meeting and simply listen to what people are saying, and then<br />
move on in their own direction, they are not hearing what people are saying. People do<br />
not like the direction that all this is heading in.<br />
To come back to the issue of the Auckland Council being a good employer, I say that<br />
this is about people having an opportunity to be selected. What we are seeing here is<br />
that the Minister of Local Government will base his selection criteria on individuals or<br />
groups that support his ideology. That ideology is quite intimidating for the Māori<br />
people, because our values are totally different from those of the Minister. We have a<br />
fear that the people being selected will be mainly male, mainly wealthy, and mainly<br />
Pākehā. Let me tell members now that Māori are certainly not Pākehā. We are certainly<br />
not generally wealthy, and we certainly do not live in the suburbs of Remuera,<br />
Pakuranga, Howick, and those other places. We tend to be the people who live in west<br />
Auckland, Glenfield, Ōtara, and Māngere.<br />
Moana Mackey: They need a code of practice.<br />
KELVIN DAVIS: They do need a code of practice. The Minister must notify the<br />
House and make a workforce transition code of practice.<br />
Moana Mackey: Why do they oppose that?<br />
KELVIN DAVIS: Indeed—why do they oppose having a code of practice?<br />
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora nō tātou. Thank you very much for the<br />
opportunity to speak for the voices of Auckland that have been silenced as a<br />
consequence of the chilling erosion of democracy being orchestrated by Rodney Hide<br />
and Mr Brownlee this morning. It is good to see Mr Harawira back here after practising<br />
his salute with a Melanesian flavour to it.<br />
I stand to speak about the importance of the rights of those Aucklanders whose<br />
democratic entitlements have been swiped away as a consequence of the Auckland<br />
Transition Agency. Now we focus on their rights as employees. They cover a large and<br />
vast distance. My colleague earlier spoke about those who are disadvantaged, those who<br />
occupy marginal positions. Their level of irrelevance grows by the hour in the mind of<br />
the National Government. It does not care about people who do not have powerful<br />
friends in shiny towers. It does not care about people who do not belong to the chamber<br />
of commerce, who do not belong to other powerful professional organisations. All it
3644 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
cares about is turning the transition agency into a small, unaccountable group of people<br />
who will be driven by profit. They will not think of the humanitarian considerations that<br />
employees deserve at a time when avalanche after avalanche of bad news is coming<br />
from overseas. The rights of children, mothers, fathers, and grandparents are the rights<br />
that we should be concerned about, and they have been completely forgotten.<br />
The Minister of Local Government stands up and gives lame accounts as to how<br />
Opposition members are either being trivial or not treating the House seriously. This is<br />
the highest court in the land. Aucklanders have every right to look to the Opposition to<br />
hold the Government to account in terms of speaking up for their right—given that to<br />
date we have failed to make any difference whatsoever in relation to their democratic<br />
rights—to be able to go to work and continue to contribute to and enrich the city of<br />
Auckland and its broader environment, knowing that they will not fall victim as they did<br />
in the 1980s to Mr Roger Douglas’ foul schemes, knowing that they will not fall victim<br />
to half-baked ideas from people who, unfortunately, will not be elected but will be<br />
appointed. The Government will not appoint Māori from the local tribes. It will not<br />
appoint tangata whenua and give them a decent fee to represent the indigenous<br />
dimension. Similarly, the Government wants to appoint people on fat salaries who will<br />
not be accountable to us. They will smash the rights, smash the entitlements, and accept<br />
none of the obligations that fall upon good employers.<br />
So it falls to us to remind the media, to remind our friends here in the broader<br />
Opposition, and to remind the Government that these sorts of things open up ill will.<br />
These sorts of things cause people to feel that they no longer have a decent stake in the<br />
development of what is meant to be the super-city. This provision enables the creation<br />
of a mega-city over the bodies of good, God-fearing, decent workers. How can that<br />
possibly be sustainable? How can that possibly lay down a basis for productivity, and<br />
for growth in the confidence of people who want better parks, who want better goods<br />
and services, but who fear they will be unable to achieve them, because every time they<br />
have a request of a significant nature to improve their working environment it will have<br />
to go across Rodney Hide’s desk? His desk will be littered with applications for<br />
contracts and a variety of other foul schemes to erode and undo the good work that the<br />
very workers we are concerned about have created and contributed to.<br />
It might be said that we should not focus too much on those groups that we will get<br />
to speak about later in the day—that is, the tangata whenua and the Pasifika. But those<br />
are the groups, along with other vulnerable sectors of the employment force, that this<br />
bill is designed to protect. I would like to hear from Mr Rodney Hide. How on earth<br />
does he think that instilling power in a small group of corporate-driven, unaccountable<br />
people will enrich the rights of workers?<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. Towards the end of that speech I was watching the clock fairly carefully. I<br />
want to check with you that the clock did not go a little bit fast towards the end.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It certainly did not go fast. There are two<br />
of us here checking. That is completely out of order.<br />
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—<strong>New</strong> Plymouth): I move, That the question be<br />
now put.<br />
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): Kia ora, talofa lava,<br />
and warm Pacific greetings. I am very pleased to stand in this Chamber to support Carol<br />
Beaumont’s amendment to insert new Part 10.<br />
I want to put forward a bit of history from a Pacific woman’s perspective in relation<br />
to the importance of being a good employer and having good personnel policies that<br />
acknowledge and look after the diversity of our communities and our country. Pacific<br />
unemployment has gone up from 8 percent to 13.7 percent, yet Auckland is the biggest
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3645<br />
Polynesian city in the world. I will talk about a personal story, to put it in context. I say<br />
hello to my mother, who is 80 years old and is watching us on television. Mum came<br />
over from Samoa in the 1950s. She worked as a shorthand typist for the Department of<br />
Social Welfare, and she managed to become the manager of 30 women. She became the<br />
first Pacific equal employment opportunities coordinator in that department, together<br />
with Elsie Ellison of Ngāti Porou, who was the first Māori equal employment<br />
opportunities coordinator. The point about having those communities represented in the<br />
workplace is that it means there is a better connection with those communities. Having<br />
them represented ensures that they participate and have information, but, more<br />
important, it ensures that the needs of those communities, and some creative responses<br />
and innovation, can be part of the mix.<br />
I am very, very proud to say to the Minister of Local Government that it is important<br />
in this debate to honour the contribution that Pacific people have made to this country.<br />
We should think of the big picture. I think of the Rugby World Cup. Who plays in our<br />
rugby team? Who plays in the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Warriors and in the Kiwi netball team?<br />
Who won the Lexus opera competition last week? It was a Kiwi-born Samoan. Who<br />
heads Black Grace? It is Neil Ieremia from Cannons Creek, who now lives in Auckland.<br />
Jonah Lomu and all those other people came from very humble beginnings.<br />
It is those workers who need to be looked after. It is about value for money, but it is<br />
also about value for people. It is really important that we address that issue in terms of<br />
work, workers’ rights, and better investment to support those workers to lift their<br />
capability. It is also important to have an organisation that reflects the look of<br />
Auckland, because that is good for <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, good for the Pacific, and good for the<br />
world. Our whole community, like any other community, has contributed to “<strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> Inc.” <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> is very, very well known all over the world in terms of its<br />
Māori, Pacific, Asian, and Pākehā contributions. Each contribution enhances us. Unless<br />
those groups are reflected in the workplace, not just at the level of a cleaner but at the<br />
management level where decisions are made, the delivery of the agency will be<br />
ineffective and fall short of its responsibility.<br />
I stand as a <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> - born Pacific woman. I am very proud to be a Kiwi.<br />
Pacific people are very proud of our country. We do not want to be honoured just for<br />
playing good rugby; we have a contribution to make in terms of the economy and our<br />
society. Our people, like those in many other communities, work extremely hard no<br />
matter what job we do. We see examples of that in <strong>Parliament</strong>, from bottom to top. It is<br />
important that we look after our people, because they contribute to the economy, and<br />
they contribute enormously in terms of social capital, too. They do a lot of voluntary<br />
work in the areas of sports, culture, spirituality, and faith. Those areas are all part of the<br />
package.<br />
I congratulate Carol Beaumont on her vision of creating personnel policies that are<br />
not token gestures or responses but actually enhance, are integral to, and reciprocate the<br />
enormous contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. After all, Aotearoa<br />
is part of the Pacific. Thank you.<br />
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise to support this excellent new part proposed by<br />
my colleague Carol Beaumont. I can only echo what all my colleagues have said. But I<br />
also affirm our plea to the National Government to seriously consider this part, and to<br />
think about what we are talking about when we talk about good employment practices,<br />
being a good employer, and how important that is, particularly at a time when 6,300<br />
workers are living with enormous uncertainty. They do not know whether they will<br />
have a job in 18 months. They do not know what the rationalisation of their jobs means.<br />
That is what the Government has proposed—that their jobs be rationalised by October<br />
2010.
3646 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Last night we heard a whole lot of platitudes about how Part 3 was about protecting<br />
the workers. Well, no, it actually is not. It may protect the workers who transition at the<br />
point of the changeover in October 2010, but I ask how many of them will be left. How<br />
many of them will have been rationalised in the meantime? That is why this provision is<br />
extremely important. But, in addition to that, I would like to put forward some<br />
additional amendments to clause 101, “General principles”, in new Part 10. I propose<br />
that we add new subparagraphs (i) to (v) to subclause (1)(a).<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is, I think, the<br />
most serious point of order I have taken with regard to chairing in a very long time. Mr<br />
Chairperson, in giving the call you went from my colleague Winnie Laban to Darien<br />
Fenton. Colin King attempted to take the call at that time. I accept that it is your<br />
discretion to call whom you like. What I would like from you is an assurance that you<br />
received no comment at all from John Carter—as I thought you did—indicating that you<br />
should not accept the closure motion.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not correct. I have sole discretion<br />
over who takes a call. I am impartial in these matters, and that is where the matter ends.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a long tradition,<br />
well established in this House, that calls go from side to side. You chose not to take the<br />
call—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have made my decision. I have sole<br />
discretion as to who is given the call.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I am seeking an assurance that you did not get an instruction<br />
from John Carter.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is impugning my integrity.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: It is.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is, and I do not like that. I ask you to<br />
withdraw that comment.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.<br />
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are involved at the moment in a very<br />
technical process, which some of us are playing very carefully by the rules, as to the<br />
timing of the tabling of amendments. What you have done in your approach has the<br />
effect of showing considerable favouritism towards the Government. I want to know—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is completely out of order. I strongly<br />
object to that assertion. The discretion as to who takes a call is entirely in the hands of<br />
the Chair at the time. I will choose who takes the call—it is as clear as that. I offered the<br />
call to Darien Fenton, and she has the call. That is where the matter ends.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the point the<br />
Opposition is raising is a serious one. It is not done to challenge you or your authority,<br />
but it is very important that all the Chairs of the Committee are not seen as liaising with<br />
the Government in any way. Last evening I was surprised to see you meeting with the<br />
chief Government whip and the Clerk of the House at the same time.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you say; thank you for those<br />
comments. I want to assure you that I do not get my instructions from the other side of<br />
the Chamber. I am an independent person; I chair the Committee as I see the points that<br />
were made earlier by the previous Chairperson presiding as to content, as to delivery,<br />
and as to substance. At this stage, I have given the call to Darien Fenton, and that is<br />
where the call lies.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that I am at<br />
some risk in doing this, but the Committee would be entirely satisfied if you gave it the<br />
assurance that you did not receive any comment from Mr Carter before he left the<br />
Chamber.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3647<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging my ruling, and that is<br />
completely out of order. I am impartial; I make the decisions based on how I see the<br />
flow of the debate. Whom I choose to speak is at my discretion. That is why I chose<br />
Darien Fenton, following Winnie Laban.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: You are not prepared to give the assurance?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I have given you my assurance that I<br />
do not get instructions from anybody. You are asserting that I do, and I take strong<br />
exception to that.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept absolutely<br />
what you have said—that you are not getting instruction in any way or taking<br />
instruction. But I just wanted an assurance that it is not your practice to meet with the<br />
chief Government whip and the Clerk at the same time—that that is not your practice—<br />
as I discovered you doing last evening.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it is true that you did. I happened to<br />
be with the Clerk of the House at the time—just to explain to the Committee—and the<br />
chief National whip came in. That had nothing to do, I can assure you, with the process<br />
of deliberations last night; it was just fortuitous that we happened to be in the same<br />
place at the same time when you came in, and I left immediately afterwards. I can<br />
assure you there was nothing untoward in that. Once again, I do take exception to that<br />
assertion.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: I accept that.<br />
DARIEN FENTON: I go back to the amendments I am moving to clause 101,<br />
“General Principles”, to add new paragraphs to subclause (1)(a). Paragraph (i) of my<br />
amendment states: “The principles of a good employer must include the views of<br />
employees”, and paragraph (ii): “The principles of a good employer must respect the<br />
democratic rights of employees”. I will go on to the rest of the provisions in a moment,<br />
but I tell the Committee that we cannot help but notice how desperately National<br />
members have been called on to hold meetings in Auckland, to go and get the views of<br />
Aucklanders. You know, there have been big ads in the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Herald, and those<br />
members have been running around. There are some gaps in those meetings, I must say,<br />
but the National members have been running around and saying they want to listen to<br />
people’s views. Here is a chance for National members to put things right, to go beyond<br />
listening to the views of Aucklanders—which, clearly, they have not done—and to<br />
ensure that the views of employees are listened to. This is a chance for employees’<br />
democratic rights in the workplace—to have a say in their workplace, to contribute to<br />
the change that is happening, to be listened to, and to be treated as partners in the<br />
workplace—to be actually affirmed.<br />
Paragraph (iii) of my amendment states: “ The principles of a good employer must<br />
include the shared understanding of employees”, and paragraph (iv): “The principles of<br />
a good employer must include regular consultation with all employees”. Well, the<br />
principle of consultation is well established, but we believe that because of the inability<br />
of the National Government to understand what consultation means—and particularly<br />
consultation with the people of Auckland—we need to have that written into this bill,<br />
when it comes to employees. The word “consultation” means that employers sit down<br />
and take the time to share views with their employees. It means they talk about<br />
proposals, ask for input on those proposals, genuinely consider the employees’<br />
responses—genuinely consider them—then come to decisions and work with employees<br />
to implement them.<br />
The final paragraph in my amendment is that “(v) The principles of a good employer<br />
must include a regular statement that no employee”—no employee—“should feel<br />
obliged to participate in the making of political videos for the employer”. I wonder why
3648 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
we think we need that! I think the events of the last week have been very, very difficult<br />
for the National Party candidate for Mt Albert, and many, many questions are still to be<br />
answered about the making of a particular video that stars a particular National MP who<br />
is now a Minister. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions, but I want<br />
local government employees of the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition<br />
Agency to be assured that they will not be required to make political videos for Rodney<br />
Hide or for the transition agency, with goodness knows who being in those videos. The<br />
type of employment practice that National favours was, I think, confirmed last night<br />
when it did not support our amendments to Part 3. When it came to giving a voice to<br />
workers in the transition authority, National’s call was “if the face fits”—if the face is<br />
white, male, and rich.<br />
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now<br />
put.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 53<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to the amendment to add new Part 10 in the name of Carol Beaumont be agreed to:<br />
to omit clause 101.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 53<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Further amendments in the name of<br />
Charles Chauvel and Darien Fenton are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the<br />
previous decision.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. During the period of the extended speech when you did not take a call<br />
from the Opposition, that amendment was tabled. I want to tell you that the effect of<br />
your action was to cause these amendments to be ruled out.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Mr Chairperson, I ask you to<br />
have a look at Standing Order 85, because the repeated questioning of the way in which<br />
this process is being conducted by a presiding officer is in fact extremely disorderly.<br />
Everyone knows that great effort is being made by the Opposition to put up a fierce<br />
fight against this bill. That is perfectly reasonable, but it does have to be within the<br />
rules. Mr Mallard himself said that his party is paying particular attention—pedantic<br />
attention—to the rules, in order to prolong this debate. There is nothing wrong with that,<br />
but there is a procedure, Mr Chairperson, that works in this <strong>Parliament</strong> and that is yours<br />
to preserve, and I think that it is time Mr Mallard was informed that his repeated
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3649<br />
questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the<br />
Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Chairperson, I want to<br />
take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said, and assure you that your<br />
integrity has not been questioned, at all. But, obviously, as the Committee has<br />
undertaken its proceedings, there are differences between the Government and the<br />
Opposition about the way things should be handled, and the only recourse we have is to<br />
you, as the Chairperson, and the other chairpersons as well, to protect the minority. The<br />
notion of disorderly conduct, I think, is a red herring, coming as it does from a man who<br />
once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly<br />
conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures<br />
should not be going that way, at all, and to try to put words into Opposition members’<br />
mouths, because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we<br />
are concerned about, I think is ridiculous.<br />
The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side<br />
were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you, as<br />
the Chairperson, did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr<br />
Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it, so<br />
for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our<br />
raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments. I<br />
act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill.<br />
There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have<br />
had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not<br />
spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of<br />
order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take<br />
strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that<br />
and move on, but I just make that point.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time,<br />
because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is<br />
a new practice, because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House,<br />
that when more than one Government member is seeking the call, as was the case when<br />
you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was<br />
seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): A quick perusal of the<br />
<strong>Hansard</strong> of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a<br />
similar practice.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to go into that. It is entirely<br />
at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is<br />
entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time, and I exercised that prerogative. I will<br />
now put the amendment.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to:<br />
to omit clause 104.
3650 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 53<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister’s amendment has now been<br />
agreed to. Therefore, the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton are now ruled out<br />
as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont<br />
be agreed to:<br />
to insert the following new part:<br />
Part 10<br />
Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland Transition<br />
Agency<br />
101 General principles<br />
(1) The Transition Agency and new Auckland Council must—<br />
(a) operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good<br />
employer; and<br />
(b) make that policy (including the equal employment opportunities<br />
programme) available to its employees; and<br />
(c) ensure its compliance with that policy (including its equal employment<br />
opportunities programme) and report in its annual report on the extent of its<br />
compliance.<br />
(2) For the purposes of this section, a good employer is an employer who operates a<br />
personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the<br />
fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment,<br />
including provisions requiring—<br />
(a) good and safe working conditions; and<br />
(b) an equal employment opportunities programme; and<br />
(c) the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and<br />
(d) recognition of—<br />
(i) the aims and aspirations of the Māori people; and<br />
(ii) the employment requirements of the Māori people; and<br />
(iii) the need for greater involvement of the Māori people in Auckland<br />
public affairs; and<br />
(e) opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees;<br />
and<br />
(f) recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment requirements, and<br />
the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups; and<br />
(g) recognition of the employment requirements of women; and<br />
(h) recognition of the employment requirements of persons with disabilities.<br />
(3) In addition to the requirements, specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this<br />
section, the chief executive shall ensure that all employees maintain proper<br />
standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest.<br />
(4) This part applies for three years from the commencement of this Act.<br />
102 Equal employment opportunities<br />
(1) For the purposes of section 101 of this Act, an equal employment opportunities<br />
programme means a programme that is aimed at the identification and<br />
elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures, and other institutional barriers<br />
that cause or perpetuate, or tend to cause or perpetuate, inequality in respect to the<br />
employment of any persons or group of persons.<br />
103 Employee context
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3651<br />
(1) In this part an employee of a local government does not include a person who, in<br />
the context of local government employment, is a casual or temporary employee,<br />
other than a long term casual or temporary employee, of the local government.<br />
(2) In this section long term casual or temporary employee of a local government,<br />
means a casual or temporary employee of the local government who has been<br />
employed by the local government, or by the local government and its<br />
predecessor local government, on a regular and systematic basis, for several<br />
periods of employment, for at least 1 year immediately before the issue arises as<br />
to whether the employee is a long term casual or temporary employee.<br />
104 Appointments on merit<br />
The chief executive, in making any personnel appointments, shall give preference<br />
to the person who is best suited to the position.<br />
105 Acting appointments<br />
(1) In the case of absence from duty of any employee (from whatever cause arising)<br />
or on the occurrence from any cause of a vacancy in any position in the Auckland<br />
Transition Agency or Auckland Council (whether by reason of death, resignation,<br />
or otherwise) and from time to time while the absence or vacancy continues, all or<br />
any of the powers and duties of the employee or pertaining to the position may be<br />
exercised and performed by any other employee for the time being directed by the<br />
chief executive to exercise and perform them, whether the direction has been<br />
given before the absence or vacancy occurs or while it continues.<br />
(2) No such direction and no acts done by any employee acting pursuant to any such<br />
direction shall in any proceedings be questioned on the ground that the occasion<br />
for the direction had not arisen or had ceased, or on the ground that the employee<br />
has not been appointed to any position to which the direction relates.<br />
106 Application of Part 10 for transferring employees<br />
(1) For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council, this Part applies to any<br />
local government in the Auckland Region as defined in Part 1.<br />
(2) For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council, this Part applies to a<br />
person as an employee of a local government, other than the chief executive<br />
officer of a local government.<br />
107 Prohibition on retrenchment because of reform matter implementation<br />
(1) A local government must not take any action to end an employee’s employment<br />
with the local government if the action is taken, whether completely or partly and<br />
whether directly or indirectly, because of the taking effect under this Act.<br />
(2) For deciding whether a local government has contravened subsection (1), the<br />
reason given by a local government for taking action to end a person’s<br />
employment must be considered but is not conclusive.<br />
108 Local government workforce transition code of practice<br />
(1) The Minister will approve codes of practice (workforce transition codes of<br />
practice) directed at ensuring the proper transition of local government<br />
workforces from any existing local government to any new or adjusted local<br />
government as in existence after the changeover day for the new or adjusted local<br />
government area.<br />
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a workforce transition code of practice may<br />
establish employment terms and conditions for employees, that are consistent<br />
with—<br />
(a) firstly, the essential principles stated in subsection (3); and<br />
(b) secondly, the supporting principles stated in subsection.<br />
(3) The essential principles are that—<br />
(a) services delivery levels should be maintained or enhanced; and<br />
(b) as far as possible, the locations at which local government employees<br />
perform their work should not be changed.<br />
(4) The supporting principles are that—<br />
(a) employment security for local government employees should be maximised;<br />
(b) local government staff should be retained to the maximum extent<br />
achievable;
3652 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
(c) the impact of reform matters on local government employees should be<br />
minimised;<br />
(d) there should be maximum employee involvement in the implementation of<br />
the reform matters as they affect employees;<br />
(e) contracts of employment should be honoured;<br />
(f) there should be maximum support given to employees;<br />
(g) employees should be treated fairly and with respect;<br />
(h) merit and equity should apply in all appointments;<br />
(i) there should be prompt and sensitive dispute resolution;<br />
(j) there should be no overall loss of employment across the local government<br />
employment sector;<br />
(k) there should be no overall reduction in working conditions for any<br />
employee;<br />
(l) there should be no overall disadvantage to an employee in relation to the<br />
employee’s working conditions.<br />
(5) It is the responsibility of each local government to ensure, to the extent a<br />
workforce transition code of practice applies to the local government, that the<br />
local government acts in conformity with the code of practice.<br />
(6) A workforce transition code of practice, whether made before or after the<br />
commencement of this subsection, is not subordinate legislation, but is a statutory<br />
instrument.<br />
109 When workforce transition code of practice takes effect<br />
(1) The Minister must notify the House of making of a workforce transition code of<br />
practice.<br />
(2) A workforce transition code of practice takes effect—<br />
(a) on the day the Minister’s notice is notified or published in the Gazette; or<br />
(b) if a later day is stated in the Minister’s notice or the workforce transition<br />
code of practice—on that day.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 10 as amended not agreed to.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 9 Protection of Public Assets<br />
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The assets involved in the entities to which the<br />
bill refers are worth about $27.2 billion. They provide annual revenue of about $2.3<br />
billion. The royal commission report and the explanatory note of the bill reveal that<br />
those assets, which are currently owned by the people of Auckland, are central concerns<br />
of this reform. One has only to turn to the general policy statement in the explanatory<br />
note to see that that is so. The need for safeguards and constraints in decision making by<br />
local authorities and their subsidiaries during the transition period is also identified as a<br />
central matter of the concerns being dealt with by the Committee today.<br />
That is why it is unusual, in my view, that there is nothing in this legislation to<br />
ensure that those $27.2 billion worth of public assets are protected during the transition<br />
period. An extremely powerful authority is being created by the legislation. It has all the<br />
powers of the entities that it replaces, yet nowhere is there any safeguard to guarantee<br />
that those assets owned by the people of Auckland—which are listed in my proposed<br />
new schedule 2—will be protected and kept in public ownership during the transition<br />
period. The people of Auckland and, indeed, the people of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> deserve an<br />
assurance that that will occur, They deserve an assurance that this reform is not all about<br />
privatisation, as many of us suspect, either in the short term or in the long term, but, in
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3653<br />
fact, there will be a guarantee that those assets are kept in the ownership of the<br />
ratepayers of Auckland.<br />
That is what my Part 9 would ensure. It requires that the Auckland Transition<br />
Agency should not sell or otherwise dispose of, or sell any equity securities, or<br />
surrender any voting rights in, or relinquish any right to appoint trustees, directors, or<br />
managers of any asset or organisation listed in schedule 2 during the transition period.<br />
Obviously, because of the scope of the bill, the amendment deals only with the<br />
transition period, but members on this side hope that no assets will ever be alienated in<br />
Auckland as a result of this reform. The protected assets that are set out in schedule 2<br />
are the parks of the people of Auckland, the swimming pools of the people of Auckland,<br />
and the public libraries of the region, and the assets of the region such as those held by<br />
the Auckland Regional Transport Authority.<br />
Simon Bridges: Stop reading!<br />
CHARLES CHAUVEL: That member might benefit from actually reading the<br />
schedule, instead of interjecting, and deciding what his position is. It would be nice if<br />
National were to commit once and for all to public ownership of these assets, rather<br />
than using mealy-mouthed weasel words about whether it has any commitment to the<br />
ownership of public assets. Make no mistake, members on this side of the Chamber<br />
strongly believe in retaining these assets in public ownership. That is what my Part 9 is<br />
about and that is what my schedule 2 will bring about. It will forbid this shadowy<br />
appointed agency from selling these assets during the transition period without any<br />
public scrutiny and without any ability for the public of Auckland to have a say on it. I<br />
would like to hear the Minister in the chair, John Carter, take a call and commit that side<br />
of the Chamber to the position that is set out in this part. It would be great to hear a<br />
commitment not to sell Ports of Auckland Ltd, Metro Water, Auckland International<br />
Airport Ltd, or Watercare Services. Those fantastic assets have delivered a great return<br />
to the people of Auckland. They are strategic to the future of the region, and they must<br />
be kept in public ownership, not alienated by the shadowy body of appointed cronies<br />
who will be running Auckland for the time it takes to deal with the transition.<br />
I would like to talk in particular about the assets in South Auckland, because they are<br />
of real concern. Members on this side of the Chamber have been to meetings in South<br />
Auckland and have heard from ordinary people in that part of the region that they are<br />
worried that they might lose access to their free swimming pools as a result of this<br />
reform. They might lose access to the fantastic services that are currently provided by<br />
the excellent Manukau City Council, of which my colleague Su’a William Sio was<br />
formerly the deputy mayor, and of which Len Brown is currently doing a fine job as<br />
mayor. That city has made a real effort to reach out to its people and provide them with<br />
excellent services, as have Waitakere City, Auckland City, and the other entities dealt<br />
with by this legislation. But nowhere in this bill is there any interdiction against the<br />
selling of those assets, and that is a major omission. It is just like the absence of any<br />
decent personnel provisions, which was the deficit that my colleague Darien Fenton<br />
sought to remedy earlier. This deficit must be remedied, because the people of<br />
Auckland must be assured that there will not be any alienation of assets, either during<br />
the transition period or afterwards.<br />
I spoke about the quantum of the assets involved, and I said that the value of the<br />
assets was $27.2 billion, with annual revenue of $2.3 billion. There must be an<br />
assurance—we must hear it today from members on the opposite side—that the assets<br />
will be kept in public ownership.<br />
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Mr Chair—<br />
Hon Member: Unbelievable!
3654 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
GRANT ROBERTSON: That was unbelievable from Todd McClay, as my<br />
colleague said, because we have not had one speech from him in this debate. It is<br />
interesting that the debate on the retention of public assets is the debate that the National<br />
Government wants to shut down the quickest. Is it not interesting that the one thing<br />
National does not want us to talk about in this Chamber today is the retention of public<br />
assets? We on this side of the Chamber know that the real agenda of the Minister in<br />
charge of this bill, Rodney Hide, is privatisation. That is the real agenda. Roger Douglas<br />
will not deny it. He knows that that is the real agenda of the ACT Party and of the<br />
Minister who is responsible for this bill.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 9, proposed by my colleague Charles Chauvel, will protect public assets for<br />
Auckland people at least for the time of the transition agency—because that is what this<br />
bill deals with. If we could put forward something that could protect those assets<br />
beyond that, then we would, because we know that the agenda of Rodney Hide and the<br />
National - ACT Government is to privatise those assets. We know that is the agenda.<br />
Simon Bridges: Give me the evidence.<br />
GRANT ROBERTSON: Simon Bridges wants some evidence. The evidence is the<br />
Minister in the chair—at the moment it is John Carter, although usually it is Rodney<br />
Hide. The Minister responsible for the bill and the Minister in the chair are the evidence<br />
for the privatisation agenda. Rodney Hide said that the transition agency would be<br />
responsible for the rationalisation of governance arrangements. We know what<br />
rationalisation means to people in the ACT Party. It means selling off public assets that<br />
have been built up over generations in Auckland. Generations of Aucklanders have<br />
contributed to the growth of the services and assets in their region. The parks, the<br />
swimming pools, and all the securities they now have in that region are the result of<br />
generations of hard-working Aucklanders, who are now having all that trashed by the<br />
National Government.<br />
National and ACT should be ashamed that they will not support this new part,<br />
because it would give at least a scrap of reassurance to people in Auckland that their<br />
assets are safe. The powers of the transition agency are so broad and so wide that<br />
anything is possible under it. Every single decision of the existing councils is under<br />
review. The wide-ranging powers of this agency need some kind of control, and that is<br />
what <strong>New</strong> Part 9 does. It ensures that for the time of the transition agency the list of<br />
public assets in schedule 2 will be protected.<br />
We know that the people who Rodney Hide will appoint to the transition agency will<br />
not be the kind of people who are interested in the protection of public assets. We know<br />
that the agency will be made up of Rodney Hide’s friends. Mr Hide will be the only<br />
person who decides who will be on the transition agency. What kind of democratic<br />
approach is that? Here is an agency that is taking on the powers of councils right across<br />
Auckland, and one man—Rodney Hide—is deciding who is on that agency.<br />
As my colleague Darren Hughes said earlier this morning, Rodney Hide has been<br />
playing National for years, and its members have fallen in right behind him. Rodney<br />
Hide will decide who is on the transition agency and who will control the assets of<br />
Auckland. We on this side of the Chamber have absolutely no confidence that the<br />
transition agency will not seek to sell off public assets.<br />
We have no confidence, because we know the background. It is the reason that Roger<br />
Douglas is back here. He has returned from the political grave to come back into this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> and force on that party over there the agenda of privatisation. That is why he<br />
is here. He tried it in the 1980s, but he did not quite get there in the end. He was foiled,<br />
so he is back now to run this agenda through the National Government. He and Rodney<br />
Hide will make sure that those assets can be sold off in time, and they will bring their<br />
cronies in to run the transition agency.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3655<br />
We on this side of the Chamber are saying no. We are here on a Saturday morning<br />
trying to protect the public assets of Auckland, which were built up over generations of<br />
hard-working Aucklanders who have said that they want assets they can all share in.<br />
They want swimming pools. They want parks that their children can play in. So here we<br />
are today, on a Saturday morning, saying that we will not let Rodney Hide run his<br />
agenda through this <strong>Parliament</strong>—we will not do that.<br />
National had the option to send this bill to a select committee. It could have done<br />
that. Why has it not done that? I want to see a member of National get up and say why<br />
the people of Auckland do not deserve a chance to make submissions on this bill. Why<br />
do they not have the opportunity to say they believe their public assets are important<br />
and that they want to ensure their children have parks to play in? That is the opportunity<br />
National should be giving Aucklanders today, and it has taken that right away.<br />
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I want to take the opportunity that Charles<br />
Chauvel’s amendment presents to bring home again why we are here today. The point<br />
about this whole debate is that the people of Auckland have not been given a chance to<br />
have a say on things that will affect their daily lives—things that will intimately affect<br />
the way their lives are governed in the wider Auckland region. That is why we are here.<br />
I am delighted that members of the public have taken the opportunity of the Committee<br />
sitting on a Saturday—in outside terms; in temporal terms—to come and see why we<br />
are doing this.<br />
Let me be completely explicit and transparent about this. The Government worries<br />
that our amendments are frivolous and vexatious, and that we are wasting the time of<br />
the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that this<br />
Government is trying to railroad issues through this House that the people of Auckland<br />
have not had a chance to examine through the usual democratic process of making a<br />
submission to a select committee. That is why we are challenging the faults, the deficits,<br />
and the liabilities in the legislation that is in front of us.<br />
My colleague Charles Chauvel has introduced an amendment here that goes to the<br />
heart of the matter. It is about the protection of public assets. There is no protection for<br />
public assets in the bill before us on the whole super-city structure that is being<br />
promoted by the Government, against the recommendations of the royal commission.<br />
There is no protection for public assets to remain as public assets. Let me just be clear<br />
what we are talking about here. We are talking about assets that people in local<br />
communities have agitated for, campaigned about, petitioned on, donated money<br />
towards, and been rated for, for years and years. They are places like the Long Bay<br />
Regional Park. They are places like Little Shoal Bay Foreshore Reserve in Northcote.<br />
They might be places like Rocket Park in Mount Albert. They might be places like<br />
Mountford Park in Manurewa—a very fine park named after a very fine Labour<br />
councillor, in fact. They might be places like the regional botanical gardens in<br />
Manurewa.<br />
Those kinds of local assets, regionally and locally held on behalf of the people for<br />
the public’s enjoyment, are many of the things that make our local communities as rich<br />
as they are. If we go to libraries and swimming pools—and if the members opposite<br />
would care to read the amendment, they would see those facilities are listed on it—we<br />
will realise this is a question of equity. This is a question about who gets access to<br />
books and sporting facilities unless they are held in the public domain for the use of the<br />
public. Those assets must be protected. It must be possible for poor families who do not<br />
have facilities on their doorsteps and swimming pools in their backyards to have access<br />
to the local facilities that have been built up over time, after having been petitioned for,<br />
argued for, and funded by local people.
3656 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
It is that richness of facility and asset that my colleague Charles Chauvel is trying to<br />
protect in his amendment. There is no protection in the bill currently before the House<br />
for those assets. Why would the members opposite not expect the Labour Opposition to<br />
get up and defend those things? They are public assets, and there is no guarantee that<br />
the kinds of transitional arrangements that the Government is putting up will protect<br />
these assets.<br />
I will say one more thing about this amendment. It is a modest proposal. It is only<br />
about the transition period; it is not even in perpetuity—although goodness knows we<br />
could do with that kind of protection, as well.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Colin King—[Interruption] I have<br />
called Colin King. The member has not been able to get a word out so far, and I have a<br />
constant barrage coming from the other side of the Chamber. Can we just please hear<br />
what Mr King wants to tell us.<br />
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): My colleague Maryan<br />
Street has noted that new Part 9 is a temporary measure, if you will, in respect of the<br />
Auckland Transition Agency. But I just point out a couple of things, as well. The<br />
National Party pledged in its election campaign that it would not sell any public assets<br />
at least in its first term. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill sets up a<br />
transition agency of which all assets—including those that Manukau, for instance,<br />
retained—fall under the purview and the power. Effectively, then, those assets have<br />
been nationalised to the Government, because that agency is appointed by and reports<br />
directly to the tsar of local government, Mr Hide. Mr Hide will appoint his assetstripping,<br />
villainous mates to that agency, so one could quite logically say that Mr<br />
Hide—and therefore, since he is a Government Minister, the Government—will control<br />
all assets brought into the agency from Greater Auckland. Yet not one clause in this bill<br />
guarantees that any of those assets will not be sold.<br />
I ask the Minister—or perhaps a National member, because it was National’s<br />
promise—to get up today. If National is not prepared to accept Mr Chauvel’s new part<br />
that would guarantee that those assets would be retained at least during the transition,<br />
then I invite a National Minister, perhaps Mr Brownlee, to get up and provide us with<br />
that guarantee, therefore fulfilling his and his Government’s election promise.<br />
Hon Member: An Auckland member.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, an Auckland member, as my colleague says;<br />
an Auckland member would do. I look around. Maybe an Auckland member is hovering<br />
around here—Mr Hide is the Minister in the chair.<br />
This is important. We have to ask what the motivation is for not giving such a<br />
guarantee. We know that Mr Hide’s whole life has been one of attempting to strip out<br />
public assets and public ownership. His whole purpose for being, he tells us, is to assetstrip<br />
from the public purse. There is no guarantee in this legislation that he will not<br />
appoint his villainous mates to this agency—because he will. He will appoint those<br />
people who have a motivation to strip out assets. I know I am right, and do members<br />
know why? Why would Rodney Hide appoint people who did not agree with him? Of<br />
course he would appoint those who agree with his philosophy—<br />
Hon Shane Jones: And they’ll get a gong!<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And, as my colleague says, they will probably get a<br />
gong. Mr Hide is on record many times as saying in respect of this super-city<br />
proposal—and I am sure he will not disagree with me—that he wants more private<br />
enterprise in local government. We know what “private enterprise in local government”<br />
is code for. The good people of Manukau—and of other places, in other local<br />
authorities—who chose to keep their assets, build them up, retain them, and gain
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3657<br />
revenue from them, will now have those assets completely stripped away under an<br />
agency that Mr Hide will appoint his mates to, and that is absolutely answerable in all<br />
ways to him. His policy is to sell off assets.<br />
I ask Mr Brownlee whether he will take a call. Will he respond, perhaps by<br />
interjection, and say that he will guarantee that Mr Hide will not be able to strip,<br />
through his mates on this agency, the assets of the super-city? Or perhaps Georgina te<br />
Heuheu will respond. There is silence. Silence means they have answered the question. I<br />
say to those who ask why we are sitting here today that today, if this bill passes, the<br />
Government will have nationalised unto itself—yea, nationalised to Mr Hide—all the<br />
assets of the Greater Auckland region. Then I tell those people who are listening to hold<br />
their breath.<br />
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s not listening.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: What an arrogant little new member that member<br />
is. He said: “<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s not listening.” I suspect that in that member’s electorate,<br />
and in Epsom and in other places, they are listening and they will be listening if asset<br />
stripping takes place.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Michael Woodhouse.<br />
Michael Woodhouse: Mr Chairperson—<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order,<br />
Mr Chairperson. I point you to Speaker’s ruling 16/1 in regard to the use of cellphones.<br />
I ask you to ask Mr Quinn to remove the blockage from his ear. He has been using his<br />
cellphone for about the last half an hour.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not really a point of order.<br />
Members know the rules about cellphones. They are not to be used in the Chamber,<br />
although, having said that, there is some inconsistency because the Chamber is littered<br />
with other sorts of phones. I am not sure how we justify the distinction, but we do.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My colleague<br />
Mr Roger Douglas pointed out to me that he wondered whether you had noticed that we<br />
were here and were trying to take a call. He thought that maybe you had not noticed us.<br />
I just wanted to make the point that we are here and we are very, very anxious to take a<br />
call on this matter.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that I am well<br />
aware that she and the Green Party are here.<br />
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this<br />
proposed new part, because this actually gets to the heart of the Local Government<br />
(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I have already said that what we are seeing here, with<br />
this bill, is “Rogernomics Part 2”. Suddenly all of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> can understand why<br />
Roger Douglas took himself out of retirement to come back to <strong>Parliament</strong>, and why<br />
Rodney Hide chose to be Minister of Local Government. At the time some people were<br />
a bit perplexed. Why would Rodney Hide want to be Minister of Local Government?<br />
But now the reasons are all unfolding.<br />
We need to be clear that ACT and the new right have realised that they have been<br />
thwarted in this term of Government from selling off assets—further State-owned<br />
enterprises—at the national level. The Prime Minister has made that clear. I can imagine<br />
a breakfast where they all got together and contemplated “What are we going to do to<br />
advance our agenda in this term of Government, because unfortunately we will not be<br />
able to achieve our objective of selling off the remaining publicly owned, State-owned,<br />
enterprises in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>?”. They said: “Ah, I know what we’ll do. There is $28<br />
billion worth of assets in local government.” I can imagine them sitting around at a<br />
breakfast meeting, saying “I know what we will do. First of all, we will get rid of those
3658 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
annoying, irritating eight city councils and that whole layer of democracy, because they<br />
have really been quite irritating and they have not yet fallen into corporate hands. We<br />
will get rid of them. Then we will set up a completely new local government<br />
structure”—which this bill is doing—“that concentrates power in the hands of the<br />
executive and the hands of the mayor.”<br />
This is what academics call “the new strong mayor model”. Basically it means that<br />
the mayor can have complete control of the Auckland Council by picking the deputy<br />
mayor and the chairs, and by coming up with the agenda and the long-term plan. Then<br />
the mayor can unleash the agenda on to the unsuspecting voters of Auckland. And they<br />
are unsuspecting, because none of this was mentioned in the ACT Party or National<br />
Party manifestos before the last election. What will the agenda be? We know that the<br />
agenda is to sell off local government assets. Someone on the Government benches<br />
yelled out “What’s your proof?”. Can I suggest that National Government members<br />
read the ACT Party’s local government policy. It is on the website, and it is plain and<br />
clear for everyone to see.<br />
At least ACT is honest about its policies. It does not try to hide them. ACT is quite<br />
up front. ACT says in its local government policy that it wants to privatise effectively<br />
all of the commercial assets that these councils own, such as the Ports of Auckland, the<br />
airport, and so forth, and it wants the roads to be privatised, and water to be privatised.<br />
The rest of that $28 billion worth of assets will be put into corporate boards and then<br />
those corporate boards will be at arm’s length from the council. The councillors, those<br />
who are not in the control of John Banks and his merry men—even if there were some<br />
left-wing members who were able to find themselves elected on to the Auckland<br />
Council—will have no control because all of these assets will be put into these<br />
corporate boards, at arm’s length, and of course they will all meet in secret, and they<br />
will then begin to unleash this agenda of privatising the assets of Auckland; assets that<br />
have been built up for many years.<br />
This is the second part of the agenda. It was plotted out. It is the reason they have all<br />
come together and got Roger Douglas back into <strong>Parliament</strong> and why we have Rodney<br />
Hide as Minister of Local Government. I am worried that Aucklanders will realise this<br />
when it is too late.<br />
Hon Member: That’s what happens.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY: It is what happens. There was another piece of legislation that<br />
slipped through last year. Nobody cared much about it. The Green Party tried frantically<br />
to alert <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers to this legislation.<br />
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): This amendment, to insert a new Part 9, goes to the<br />
heart of this debate. If the inevitable happens and the National Government succeeds,<br />
with the assistance of Rodney Hide—<br />
Hon Member: And Peter Dunne.<br />
PHIL TWYFORD: —and Peter Dunne, thank you—in ramming through this<br />
legislation, then this day will go down in history for Aucklanders as the day when<br />
National and ACT stole their democracy. The day will also go down in history as the<br />
day when National and ACT stole $28 billion of public assets and put them on the<br />
auction block for future administrations to flog off.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to<br />
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to insert the following new clause:<br />
38A Interpretation<br />
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3659<br />
sell has the meaning it has in the Sale of Goods Act 1908<br />
voting has the meaning it has in the Electoral Act 1993.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to<br />
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to insert the following new clause:<br />
38B Poll of electors before sale<br />
Any authority this Act can only sell assets after conducting a poll of electors<br />
under the Local Electoral Act.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That brings us to the substantive<br />
amendment—<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I know there is quite a lot of movement going on to your left and to your<br />
right, but many more amendments were tabled before the question on the first<br />
amendment was put. Those amendments have been tabled to the Clerk’s Office; they are<br />
on this part. It may take a few seconds for your staff to catch up with you, but I think it<br />
is fair to say that there are hundreds of questions for you to deal with before you get to<br />
the substantive question on the part.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. I cannot wait. It is<br />
always good for people to try to catch up with me; it is not usual. I will ask the Clerk to<br />
check the veracity of what the member has said, and to ensure that all the amendments<br />
to the amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel are being considered, before I put the<br />
question on the Charles Chauvel amendment to insert a new Part 9. We will just pause<br />
for a moment in silence, unless someone has a very good story or a humorous yarn to<br />
amuse us with while we sort this out.<br />
Members, I will do something unusual here. The amendments to proposed new Part 9<br />
that were moved by Moana Mackey follow a very similar form, which is:<br />
“Notwithstanding any other provision the residents of [Dominion Road] in [North Shore<br />
City] shall be understood to have a public interest in any Auckland Council owned<br />
assets.” The test for relevance of an amendment is that it has to be serious, has to stand<br />
in law, and has to be accurately described. The Clerk and I have been backwards and<br />
forwards across this issue, and it seems that a judgment call needs to be made. I invite<br />
someone from the Opposition, which has put forward these amendments, to put the case<br />
for why the amendments should stand. I also invite Government members to make a
3660 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
submission on whether they think the amendments should stand—I will not prejudge<br />
what they think. Following those submissions, I will make a decision.<br />
Before I make a decision and we have some discussion about it afterwards, I want<br />
members to make a submission as to why they believe that these amendments meet the<br />
requirements not only of the Standing Orders but also of the interpretation of Dave<br />
McGee, who wrote <strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong> Practice in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> and is well known to<br />
members.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you give us the reference?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Page 379. [Interruption] Just to answer<br />
the question by Gerry Brownlee, when I make a ruling on this matter there will no doubt<br />
be some controversy, because people put a lot of time and effort into these amendments.<br />
I thought it would be better to have some discussion about them before I ruled than to<br />
have a continuous stream of points of order after I rule. I thought we should get the<br />
issues on the table and have a bit of a discussion about them before I make a ruling.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. Speaking on your course of action, I think you are doing the right thing.<br />
There needs to be some consideration of this matter. Certainly, on the face of it, this<br />
side of the Committee will have an opinion. I wonder how you feel about putting<br />
yourself in this position. I do not want to be in the position of recalling the Speaker<br />
because we are questioning your course of action; we are not. I just wonder, given the<br />
nature of this particular ruling—you are not in a position to recall the Speaker; that is<br />
not how it works—how you feel about it. Are you comfortable progressing with this<br />
course of action? If you are, then I think we would leave it there at this point.<br />
Otherwise, if you indicate you wish to have the Speaker back, then we will cooperate<br />
with that course of action, as well. That statement is not meant in any way to detract<br />
from the course of action you have proposed; I think it is probably the right way to go<br />
about things.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just say to the member that it is a line<br />
call. I have outlined the criteria for amendments, and I have outlined that I am about to<br />
rule, but I thought that before I make a decision I would invite opinions from either side<br />
of the Committee. I have indicated where the terms of McGee and the Standing Orders<br />
are in relation to what I am interested in. I know from past experience that when I make<br />
a decision—as I will do—it will be litigated, so I am just turning it round and<br />
suggesting that we have some litigation in front, and then the issues will be a bit clearer,<br />
rather than having endless points of order after the ruling. If, at the end of that<br />
discussion, members are unhappy with my decision, I accept that you can recall the<br />
Speaker, but at that point the issues will have been much better clarified. I do not have<br />
any ego about this; if you want to challenge my ruling, I am OK about that. I presume<br />
that Mr Mallard will put forward a case as to why these amendments should stand.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. Yes, Mr Chair. I am working on the assumption that the consideration is<br />
not whether the amendments are vague or lacking form. I just want to test that with<br />
you—that the question before you, I presume, is not a question of vagueness, because<br />
the amendments are not vague; they are quite clear. I think they are in the proper form<br />
for amendments and for incorporation into law, and I want to make sure before I start<br />
this discussion that that is accepted. If that is not accepted, then we could come back<br />
again with more discussion.<br />
We then go to the question of whether the proposed amendments are frivolous. That<br />
is an important question, and I accept that there could be a discussion on the question.<br />
The particular amendment we are talking about concerns Dominion Road in North<br />
Shore City, and whether the residents of that particular road have a public interest in the
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3661<br />
Auckland Council - owned assets. I am working on the assumption again that there is<br />
not a lot of debate around the Auckland Council and that it owns assets, that they are<br />
public assets, and that the public has an interest in them.<br />
We then go to the definition of “frivolous”—and a number of people will be looking<br />
in their different dictionaries. A key part of the definition goes to the words “not<br />
serious”, “trifling”, and “futile”. I want to make it clear that Opposition members are<br />
absolutely serious on this particular issue. There is a fundamental debate to be had here<br />
about the assets and about who has an interest in them—whether it is the residents,<br />
including the residents of particular areas, who have an interest in the assets, or whether<br />
the assets should be available for transfer away from the residents of those particular<br />
areas to others.<br />
That is my view, and it is certainly the view of the Opposition. I am not suggesting<br />
that it is automatic that the Committee will necessarily agree with this amendment. It is<br />
a question of whether the Opposition should have the right to test the will of the<br />
Committee on this amendment. It is my view that the amendment is a serious<br />
amendment, and one that deserves the attention of the Committee. It is something on<br />
which the Committee can express its view, and it should be allowed to do so.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): We most certainly have a<br />
view. If one thinks about the substantial bill, one will find that it is about the transitional<br />
arrangements that are to exist beyond the passing of this bill, for the integration of the<br />
various Auckland local authorities into one entity. I am pleased to hear the Opposition<br />
agree that there will be many assets across the city of Auckland, it is certain, that will<br />
come under some structure directly accountable to the Auckland Council, which will be<br />
the much wider body to look at these things.<br />
This amendment attempts to suggest that certain residents in certain roads—I believe<br />
that some 500 roads are nominated—have a greater interest in those council-owned<br />
assets than any other person in Auckland. That is simply not the case. The Auckland<br />
Council is there for the residents of the Greater Auckland City, whatever that<br />
configuration may end up being—that is yet to be determined. It would be quite<br />
inappropriate to suggest that the interests of one street, or these 500 streets, are greater<br />
than any others. I think the suggestion that we need to protect these particular streets<br />
because of a particularly special interest is quite wrong.<br />
I suppose these are attempts to call attention to the part that Labour is attempting to<br />
insert in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which, in National’s<br />
view, is an unnecessary part. We most certainly think that it goes back to a single point:<br />
are the interests of any one resident, in any of these streets, identified in successive<br />
amendments, any greater than the interests of another? That would, on its own, suggest<br />
that this is an utterly frivolous way to go about considering these matters.<br />
The protections of Aucklanders are intrinsic in the transitional arrangements that<br />
have been dealt with by the Committee so far. For Labour members to come along and<br />
suggest that they are doing some great and good work for particular residents is an<br />
extreme stretch. Putting up amendments in the names of a mere 500 streets inside the<br />
Greater Auckland area does indicate an act of trivial pursuit in this particular debate. A<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> cannot be made to look stupid by things like this. We cannot be put in a<br />
position where, having dealt with the substantive part of a bill, we then insert some part<br />
or amendments that tend to second-guess the intention of Part 3.<br />
It is also interesting to note that these are amendments to one of the extra parts that<br />
Labour itself wishes to submit. I would have thought that, in the consideration that<br />
clearly would have gone on during the preparation of this particular part, that reference<br />
might have been raised about the need to protect particular streets. I cannot believe that
3662 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
the preparation of these 500-odd amendments was a last-minute thing, which leads me<br />
back to the point that Labour members are very much engaged in a trivial pursuit.<br />
If members go back to Part 3, which has been dealt with by the Committee, the<br />
interests of the people in Auckland and the assets that will be part of the new Auckland<br />
City are extremely well-protected as far as transitional arrangements are concerned.<br />
This Committee cannot pre-empt what might be in the bill that is expected in<br />
September, and where some of these matters may be made more clear. The reason for<br />
having a transitional agency is so there can be consideration about how things will go<br />
forward.<br />
I think three points are relevant. The first point is that this is an amendment to<br />
Labour’s own proposed amendment to the bill by way of a new part, and is therefore<br />
very poorly considered at this late point. The second point is that the transitional<br />
arrangements in Part 3 already make the protections for all Aucklanders, and the<br />
Committee has dealt with that matter. The third point—and it must be upheld—is that in<br />
a bill dealing with an entire region, to single out individual streets as apparently having<br />
some greater interest for no reason other than that they are a street inside the proposed<br />
Auckland Council area, cannot be allowed to stand. It is a great effort in trivialising the<br />
activities of the Committee, and I think it would be appropriate if these amendments<br />
were ruled out of order.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I have taken some time,<br />
because we have been directed to page 379 of McGee’s <strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong> Practice in <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>. The point of that particular reference is that the Chair or Speaker has the<br />
power to rule out amendments that are frivolous, vague, or lack legislative form—that is<br />
to say, they lack precision. Amendments must be in a form of words that may be<br />
embodied in law.<br />
I suggest there is no other course of action but to rule these amendments out, because<br />
when one goes through them, one can see that a map of Auckland has been used, and<br />
that each clause picks out a street name at random and says that particular street is<br />
understood to have a public interest in Auckland Council - owned assets. That has to be<br />
regarded as frivolous, because street after street is named. When taken in the context of<br />
the amendments that have been put up, that has to be frivolous, and it would cause this<br />
Committee to become a laughing stock.<br />
The proposed amendments are also vague. It is not quite clear how it is possible for<br />
one street to have a particular interest over and above that of any other street. I say that<br />
what that would mean is a mystery to all and sundry. The proposed amendments are<br />
vague and therefore lack legislative form. Of course, there is the final problem: no one<br />
street in the Auckland Council area has any greater interest than that of any other street.<br />
That in itself makes the amendments a nonsense. The primary bill that members are<br />
here debating does not threaten anyone’s interest in publicly owned property.<br />
I submit that there is no option but for the Chair to rule these amendments out of<br />
order.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I have three points to make.<br />
The first point, Mr Chairperson, is where your call, on balance, should go. It is my firm<br />
view that generally it is the right of Oppositions to put amendments. It is the democratic<br />
right of all members of <strong>Parliament</strong> to put amendments. If there is any doubt at all, then<br />
it should be the House that decides whether an amendment is put. The second point I<br />
would make is that the arguments we have heard from both Mr Brownlee and Mr Hide<br />
are arguments—which some members might find compelling—on the substance of the<br />
amendments. They think that the amendments are bad, that they are wrong, and that<br />
people should not vote for them. There is a pretty clear answer to that, and it is to vote<br />
against the amendments when they come up. This is not a debate about whether they are
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3663<br />
good amendments or bad amendments, or whether the propositions that are put are right<br />
or wrong; the question is whether the House has the right to consider to them. It is my<br />
submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that they are serious, relevant, in the right form, and<br />
serve to emphasise a point that is very important to all Opposition members. They were<br />
lodged properly—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s covered. The matters are covered in Part 3.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Chairperson, is the member allowed to make a<br />
running commentary?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the member is quite right. I want<br />
to hear just Mr Mallard.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: So, in summary, your discretion should be exercised<br />
very sparingly. These amendments are substantive, and if members disagree with them,<br />
they have the right to vote against them.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank members. That has clarified<br />
matters quite considerably for me. The first point I make is in response to the point<br />
raised by Mr Brownlee about the House looking stupid. That is a fair point, but it is not<br />
entirely for the Speaker to prevent the House from looking stupid—that is up to<br />
members and how they deal with things. The second point I make to Mr Mallard is that<br />
members do have the right to move, and that is what has been exercised here. Mr<br />
Mallard said that the Committee should decide whether these amendments are right or<br />
wrong. The question before us is whether we will do this collectively or individually. If<br />
we were going to make this decision collectively, then I could put it to the Committee,<br />
to test the will of the Committee, as to whether we accept these amendments. However,<br />
that is abrogating the role and responsibility of the Chair, and I am not about to do that.<br />
Regarding the issue raised by Mr Brownlee about fairness to Aucklanders, I think it<br />
is almost like a bill of rights test as to whether this should be a consideration. I think<br />
that gets closer to the point. There is no doubt that the amendments as they stand are in<br />
the legislative form. There is no doubt that they could be written into legislation. The<br />
Clerk said to me that one of the considerations I should have as a Chair is about<br />
consistency. There are many examples in legislation of inconsistent bills and Acts. I ask<br />
the members to look at the smoke-free legislation. <strong>Parliament</strong> has not always been<br />
consistent, and I do not think that consistency is entirely the right test.<br />
I think that we are getting closer to the point, which was made by Mr Brownlee, that<br />
this is a bill about all Aucklanders. That point has been re-emphasised by the Hon<br />
Rodney Hide—that one interest group should not be superior to another. The bill we<br />
have before us is a public bill about setting public policy for all Aucklanders. It is not<br />
about setting policy for the interests of private individuals. I think that the issue here is<br />
that these amendments as they stand will be setting policy for private individuals and<br />
private interests. It is about individuals who are private residents in particular streets,<br />
that is, they are residents in those streets as private individuals. Therefore, I am of the<br />
view that these amendments are about private interests and not about the interests of<br />
Auckland or about public policy for Auckland. The amendment to insert new Part 9 that<br />
has been put up Mr Chauvel was in order, because it was about public policy that treats<br />
all Aucklanders in the same way; it was about public interests. But the interests of<br />
individual property owners in a street are private interests, and they should be dealt with<br />
by way of another bill—a private bill. I therefore rule the amendments out of order.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): As you anticipated in your<br />
preliminary remarks, this is something that, in my opinion, requires a Speaker’s ruling. I<br />
move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the judgment given by the<br />
Chairperson.
3664 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
House resumed.<br />
Speaker Recalled<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Mr Speaker, the Committee has asked<br />
for you to consider the matters that I have ruled on and for you to make some decisions.<br />
It extends from an amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to insert a new Part 9,<br />
“Protection of Public Assets”. In his amendment Mr Chauvel wants the bill to reflect a<br />
register of assets that should be protected in a variety of ways. That is not the issue here.<br />
Subsequent to that, the Labour Party moved a range of amendments—I have not<br />
counted them, but they are substantial—to amend Charles Chauvel’s part. Objection<br />
was taken to those amendments and I was asked to rule them out, and I invited<br />
comments from both Labour and National on them.<br />
It seems to me that it gets down to a particular issue, which the Clerk has raised with<br />
me, that the bill before the House is a public policy bill. It is not about establishing<br />
rights for individuals. The Clerk’s view of this bill is that although the amendments are<br />
consistent in form and could stand in legislation, they have to have some form of<br />
consistency. However, I did not think that was a turning point, because this House has<br />
passed legislation before that has been inherently inconsistent—like the liquor<br />
legislation and so on. I did not see that as a particular test. The particular test that I did<br />
put weight on was that these amendments would give private individuals and businesses<br />
in particular areas rights or interests that would not be available to the general public of<br />
Auckland, and that, therefore, the amendments sought to be about private interests and<br />
not public interests.<br />
The bill is about establishing public policy for Auckland—it is a public policy<br />
decision. On that basis, I ruled the amendments as being out of order. There are many<br />
other points that could have been made in submission, but I am sure representations will<br />
be made by both National and Labour on those other particular points. That is the<br />
summary of the position as I see it.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. The first point I would like to make is that I think the process that was<br />
followed by the Chair in calling for members’ comments on this issue is a good process.<br />
Unfortunately, I think we have reached a point where we do not agree. The decision<br />
goes to the question of whether these amendments are frivolous. We have had<br />
acceptance that they are not vague; in fact, they are very specific. They do not lack<br />
form; we have had acceptance that they can be written into the law. The Chair of the<br />
Committee has indicated that in his opinion these amendments are not appropriate<br />
because they give private rights to individuals. We could have a debate about that<br />
matter. They are not private, transferable rights. If someone leaves a street, he or she<br />
does not take those rights with them. There is not ownership of rights. But if I were to<br />
have that debate, I would be getting into the substance of the debate.<br />
That is the problem with the Chairman’s ruling. He has actually got into, in making<br />
his ruling, a view on the merits of the amendments, rather than whether they should be<br />
ruled out under the areas that are very well outlined by McGee on page 379. My<br />
submission to you is that no one has made the case that these particular amendments are<br />
frivolous. Given the tests that have been applied in this Chamber by Chairs today—in<br />
parliamentary terms, or during the last 4 days in temporal terms—these amendments<br />
could not possibly be frivolous. A whole series of date changes and a whole series of<br />
name changes have been accepted by the Chairs, which, if one were applying a frivolity
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3665<br />
test, would have been much more frivolous than these amendments. On the standards of<br />
frivolity, these amendments cannot be ruled out.<br />
The point I will go back to is that it is my submission to you that the judgment of my<br />
friend and colleague the Chair of the Committee Rick Barker in this particular case is<br />
wrong because he has gone to the merits of whether it is appropriate to grant a private<br />
right by way of a public bill. There is nothing that prevents this <strong>Parliament</strong> from doing<br />
that. People might think it is wrong. People might not like it, but my submission is that<br />
for groups of people it happens all the time. When we have bills that deal with local<br />
authority matters it happens quite regularly that groups of individuals gain, and other<br />
groups of individuals lose. I will go back to the point about the substance that the rights<br />
are not transferable rights.<br />
As a final point I say that the Chairman made a very good argument on the<br />
specifics—one that I might even find rather compelling, if I were considering it<br />
carefully—but it is not the basis on which items should be ruled out.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think it is very interesting<br />
that part of the argument advanced by the Hon Trevor Mallard is some assessment<br />
against a frivolity scale. We should remember that this proposed new part that Labour is<br />
attempting to insert is to protect the assets of the citizens of Auckland. To then amend it<br />
to protect the interests of residents in particular roads I think trivialises the point of the<br />
part in the first place. In all other respects—not wishing to prolong proceedings—I<br />
think the Chairman of the Committee, Rick Barker, outlined extremely well for the<br />
House why he was choosing to rule these amendments out of order. I am sure you will<br />
have noted the comments he made in his address to you, in which he was explaining<br />
why he had reached this conclusion. Without wanting to prolong proceedings I simply<br />
want to say that we concur wholeheartedly with his decision, and accept fully the<br />
rationale he has applied.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I think the judgment you have to make as<br />
Speaker in this situation must take into account the context in which this debate is being<br />
held. It is pretty clear from the conduct of the Committee that the Opposition is trying to<br />
delay progress—we are trying to filibuster this bill—and that the Government wants to<br />
bring the debate to an early end. I want to cause the Speaker to reflect on the fact that<br />
the fourth estate has actually been commenting on whether this filibustering is an abuse<br />
of parliamentary process. I suggest that it is not. It is already clear that although the<br />
progress that has been made on this bill is slower than the Government might like, none<br />
the less it is substantial.<br />
This bill has been considered under urgency, and even at the current rate of slow<br />
progress it is very clear that this bill will be completed in accordance with the<br />
Government’s agenda within a week, which is far, far quicker than would be the normal<br />
process were it not for urgency. It is the right of the Opposition to use the Standing<br />
Orders to filibuster. Filibustering does not bring this place into disrepute. It is not an<br />
abuse of process. It is not frivolous. We are using the rights we have as parliamentarians<br />
in the Opposition to slow down the progress the Government wants to make under<br />
urgency. I make the point again that substantial progress has been made. I do not think<br />
anyone thinks this debate will go on for weeks or anything like that. This is the only<br />
opportunity we have to scrutinise the bill. Many other jurisdictions use filibustering. We<br />
have a practice now whereby we do not get even to the end of debate where new points<br />
are being raised on proposed new parts, yet closure motions are taken. It is completely<br />
appropriate that the Opposition be able to filibuster this bill.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members. Dealing with the previous<br />
contribution first, the Speaker may well have views about whether filibustering is taking<br />
place and whether time is being wasted, but those views should not in any way
3666 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
influence the Speaker’s decision on this matter. The matter that is currently before the<br />
House has been argued by both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Gerry Brownlee,<br />
and has already been ruled on by the Chair of the Committee. There are a number of<br />
matters perhaps I should touch on in ruling on the question before the House.<br />
The first one is perhaps to come to the substance of the argument that was given<br />
greatest weight by the Chair of the Committee. It is a matter of some importance.<br />
Standing Order 249 deals with the classification of bills. Members will see there that<br />
there are different categories of bills, and we are dealing with a Government bill, and<br />
with a matter of public policy, introduced by a Minister. Therefore, matters that relate to<br />
private interests are not properly dealt with under a public bill; they are matters that are<br />
dealt with under a private bill.<br />
This is not the first time this issue has come before <strong>Parliament</strong>. Some members may<br />
recollect that when the House was previously considering liquor legislation, individual<br />
amendments were proposed to deal with the interests of each hotel and tavern in <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>. The amendments were ruled not to be in order, as they dealt with private<br />
business interests more appropriately dealt with in private legislation. So this is not the<br />
first time this kind of issue has been dealt with by the Committee. That is the first issue<br />
to cover. In terms of the substance of the decision made by the Chair, under the<br />
Standing Orders there is an issue around the nature of legislation, and in respect of<br />
previous precedent in the House the Chair’s ruling is absolutely consistent with those<br />
previous precedents.<br />
The other important issue is that the Chair is required to rule on the admissibility of<br />
amendments. The Chairperson’s rulings are not to be corrected or reversed by the<br />
Speaker. That is Speakers’ ruling 78/1. That change can be done only by the House by<br />
resolution upon a motion with notice. Our Speakers’ rulings indicate that the standard<br />
practice of the House is for the Speaker not to overrule the ruling of the Chair. But in<br />
this case I must say that the argument accepted by the Chair is totally consistent with<br />
the Standing Orders and with previous precedent, and the Chair’s ruling must stand. I<br />
declare the House back in Committee on the bill at hand.<br />
In Committee<br />
Debate resumed.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 9 Protection of Public Assets (continued)<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to<br />
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to insert after “those Acts” “, of <strong>Parliament</strong>”.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): We have just had a little bit<br />
of confusion, and the whips of ACT and the Māori Party had to correct their votes. I<br />
think it would help if you named the person putting the amendment.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies. We have three amendments<br />
in the name of Sue Moroney, and I will mention her name each time I put the question.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3667<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to<br />
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to insert after “Transition Agency”, “of only 4 people”.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to<br />
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to insert before “Transition Agency”, “the unelected group of friends called”.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson<br />
to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to add the following new clause:<br />
39 The local government together with the citizens of Auckland, both present and<br />
future generations, have the right to—<br />
(a) realise the benefits of fixed and variable public assets, including those held<br />
by Crown corporations and Crown agencies:<br />
(b) full public disclosure and unfettered public access to information regarding<br />
the financial and legal status of Crown corporations and Crown agencies<br />
held in the public trust:<br />
(c) be consulted about any planned changes to Crown corporations and Crown<br />
agencies.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson<br />
to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:<br />
to insert the following new clause:<br />
40 This Part 9 is made for the purposes of—<br />
(a) providing for peace, order and good Government of the Auckland region:
3668 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
(b) protecting public assets vested in Council from damage, accelerated<br />
deterioration or abuse:<br />
(c) ensuring future generations of Auckland citizens have the use of public<br />
assets:<br />
(d) protecting important public assets from privatisation which may limit the<br />
access of future generations of Auckland citizens.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel<br />
be agreed to:<br />
to add the following new part:<br />
Part 9<br />
Protection of Public Assets<br />
38 Protection of Public Assets<br />
Nothing in this Act, the Local Government 2002, the Local Government (Auckland)<br />
Amendment Act 2004, the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Electoral Act 2001,<br />
or any regulations made under those Acts, shall permit the Transition Agency to—<br />
(a) sell or otherwise dispose of, or sell any equity securities in; or<br />
(b) surrender any voting rights in:<br />
(c) relinquish any right to appoint trustees, directors, or managers of any asset or<br />
organisation listed in Schedule 2 during the transition period.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 9 not agreed to.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I move that progress be<br />
reported, and that there be an instruction to the House that this bill be referred to the<br />
special select committee for Auckland legislation for it to have hearings on it, and to<br />
report back to the House within 4 weeks.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A member can only move that progress be<br />
reported; an instruction cannot go with it. If the member wishes to move that progress<br />
be reported, I will accept that proposition, but he cannot include with it an instruction<br />
about what will happen after that.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek the leave of the<br />
Committee to move a motion to report progress that includes an instruction that select<br />
committee consideration take place, and that the select committee report back to the<br />
House within 4 weeks of it receiving the bill.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there<br />
any objection? There is objection.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3669<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic<br />
groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council<br />
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā tātou katoa. <strong>New</strong> Part 5 is a very grave part<br />
of the bill, because it points to the delinquency and the severity of the complete<br />
disregard for the history, constitutional, and demographic importance of Auckland in<br />
the planning for Auckland’s future mega-city status, and the complete level of<br />
ignorance about the future character of the mega-city of Auckland. That is why we<br />
stand with a degree of hope that is clouded by the bad decision-making that has guided<br />
the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, to date, which has resulted in his<br />
isolating, marginalising, and completely neglecting a growing percentage of Auckland’s<br />
population.<br />
In 1867 Donald MacLean derived a response to the growing unrest amongst iwi that<br />
the Crown was governing the country without any inclusion of a meaningful nature of<br />
Māori. That was when statutory Māori representation—after the failure of the rūnanga<br />
experiment early in the 1850s—took root. This part is an extension of that. Why would<br />
a modern nation want to provide distinctive Māori representation in its largest city, as it<br />
seeks to use that city as a catalyst to transform the wider economy? Why would it want<br />
to do that? Not only because of heritage but because the reality is that these are the<br />
people whose population percentage is growing disproportionately faster. They are the<br />
Asian proportion, they are the tangata whenua in a broader sense, and they are the<br />
Pasifika people. So what is being asked for here is a continuation of that proud tradition<br />
that exists at the level of national Government.<br />
Nā reira, ko tāku ki te Whare, he aha oti te raruraru me whakaae tātou kia<br />
waihangatia wēnei tūranga Māori hei noho, e kitea ai te kanohi Māori i te aroaro o te<br />
motu; ngā tūru Māori e rua, mā te marea me tētahi atu tūru motuhake mō ngā tāngata<br />
whenua? Nui noa atu te pōuri ahakoa te moe tahi a Te Pāti Māori ki ō rātou hoa, kāhore<br />
he paku aroha e puta ana ki a rātou.<br />
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]<br />
[So, mine to the House; what problem is there that we agree to create these Māori<br />
positions to enable the face of Māoridom to be seen before the nation—the two<br />
positions for Māori, for the public, and a special one for the people of the land? I am<br />
greatly saddened that although the Māori Party has bedded together with their<br />
colleagues, they display no compassion for them.]<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise. This is a<br />
matter in which I have no expertise, but I think, from my limited knowledge, that we<br />
might have had a slight miss in the interpretation right at the end. I think the “two” that<br />
my colleague outlined was for Māori seats and the “one” was for mana whenua. I think<br />
it is important that we get that right.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. If there was a wrong<br />
interpretation, I am sure that when the member resumes his speech he will pick up on it.<br />
I am leaving that to the discretion of the Hon Shane Jones. Was there a mistake in the<br />
interpretation, or was it accurate? If there was a mistake, you have an opportunity to<br />
correct it.<br />
Hon SHANE JONES: I shall take that opportunity. With due respect, this<br />
correction, I am sure, is not included as part of my formal speech. I mean absolutely no<br />
disrespect to the interpreter, a senior scholar of our language, but the essential point is<br />
that my proposed new part corrects the absence of tangata whenua and mana whenua<br />
representation, and provides two slots for Māori in general.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My proposition to you was about the<br />
interpretation provided by the interpreter. Did the interpreter report accurately what you
3670 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
had first said? If the interpreter did not report you accurately, I am giving you the<br />
opportunity to correct the record. We are not getting into a debate on what you said; all I<br />
want to know is whether it was interpreted accurately. This is your opportunity to<br />
correct the interpretation, if it was incorrect—not a debate, just a correction if that was<br />
the case.<br />
Hon SHANE JONES: I have nothing further to add in relation to that issue.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you.<br />
Hon SHANE JONES: Let us move on to my very clever innovation as to how the<br />
people of Pasifika will actually be included. Arā, noa atu te aroha ki ō tātou huānga mai<br />
i Te Moana-nui-a- Kiwa. I tae mai ki konei hei horoi i te paru a ētahi kē atu. I hara mai<br />
hei tātā wahie, i hara mai hei waha wai engari i te mutunga he tangata, he iwi rangatira.<br />
Ko te mea tika kia kite ai tō rātou kanohi i roto i tēnei kaunihera hou kei puta te kōrero,<br />
kāhore wā rātou pānga, horekau ō rātou kanohi e tika ana kia kitea ai i roto i ngā tūranga<br />
teitei.<br />
Ahakoa te kitea o te kanohi Hāmoa i tērā taha, poto noa ake te wā mōna ki reira. E<br />
kore oti i a ia te kake i ngā hōiho e rua i roto i te hāora kotahi. Nā reira, he utu kei te<br />
hara mai mōna engari, hāunga anō tēnā take.<br />
Te wāhanga tuatoru, ko ngā tāngata i tae tata mai, mai i te whenua o Āhia. Ērā<br />
tāngata i hara mai i te rawakoretanga, ētahi i arumia e ētahi kē atu, ētahi i ahu mai ki<br />
konei kia tatū ai te noho o wā rātou tamariki ki Aotearoa. Nā reira e tika ana ō rātou<br />
kanohi me ō ngā motu, me ō te tangata whenua kia kitea ngātahitia. Kaua e waiho ko<br />
ngā hoa o te Minita anakenake hei whakatutua, hei whakarite mō te noho a te iwi mai i<br />
ngā moutere, mai Āhia, mai i ngā marae o te motu he rite ki te pononga noa iho nei.<br />
Kāhore he mana. Nā reira koia tā mātou e tautoko i tēnei wāhanga. Tēnei wāhanga<br />
rangatira kia kore ai te iwi Māori e ’hakatahangia.<br />
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]<br />
[There is much sympathy for our relations from the Great Sea of Kiwa, the Pacific<br />
Ocean. They came here to clean up the mess left by others, to be woodchoppers, bearers<br />
of water, but in the end they are humans and a dignified people. To have their faces<br />
seen on this new council is the proper thing to do. It would allay any talk that they have<br />
no interests and they should not be seen in these positions of high standing.<br />
Although the face of Samoa can be seen on the other side, the member’s presence<br />
there is limited. He will not last on both horses for a single hour. So there is a cost<br />
ahead for him, but that is another matter.<br />
The third part relates to recent arrivals from Asia. Some came from poverty, some<br />
followed other Asians over here, and some immigrated here so that their children could<br />
settle here in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. So it is right that their faces are represented alongside<br />
those of Pasifika and the people of the land. Decisions on how people from Asia,<br />
Pasifika, and from the marae of the land should live should not be left solely to the<br />
Minister and his cronies. That makes the people subservient and without dignity. So that<br />
is what we are supporting here in this part, this noble part that ensures Māoridom is not<br />
marginalised.]<br />
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ā, kai te<br />
Heamana, ki tāku nei mōhio mēnā ka huri te tangata ki te kōrero i te reo Māori i roto i te<br />
Whare nei, ka katia te wāti tae noa atu ki te mutunga o tana kōrero. Otirā, ka huri atu ki<br />
te reo o tauiwi, ka tīmata anō.<br />
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3671<br />
[Mr Chairman, my understanding is that when one speaks in Māori in this House,<br />
the clock is stopped until the end of that address in Māori. It is turned on again once<br />
one starts speaking in English.]<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a very good point, and I thank the<br />
member for bringing it to my attention. The interpretation is in addition to what the<br />
member is saying, so the time allocation is not reduced. In the case of the previous<br />
speaker, Shane Jones, the clock was turned off while we had the interpretation.<br />
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you<br />
for those words of assistance. The point remains, however, that during the course of the<br />
debate on this particular part there will be a great deal of bilingual debate. We need<br />
reassurance. When we lapse from one language to the other, the timekeeping will be<br />
essential. This debate is the only chance that that portion of Auckland’s population will<br />
ever hear their language being spoken in defence of their rights.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that point. In terms of the<br />
timekeeping, there are two of us here who keep the time. In fact, in relation to the<br />
member who spoke before—I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard is keeping his eye on<br />
the clock—I gave the member about 10 seconds extra, because we had not turned off<br />
the clock as quickly as we might have.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to support proposed new Part 5 of the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. In doing so I put in context why we<br />
think it is important that this specificity is laid down now: to ensure that in future we<br />
achieve Māori representation.<br />
I think it reflects no honour at all upon the National Party that, after 3 days of debate<br />
on a bill that is being considered in urgency and that is not going to select committee,<br />
not one of the amendments that have been put by the Labour Party, by the Green Party,<br />
or by others other than the Government have been supported by the Government. So<br />
after 3 days of debate, the bill is as it was proposed by the National Party. People would<br />
think on that basis that we have an infallible Government. This Government is so<br />
confident of its own abilities that it thinks it does not have to listen—not only will it not<br />
listen to the will of the people through the select committee process, but it cannot even<br />
listen to Opposition submissions in order to find kernels of good ideas that it can bring<br />
itself to agree with.<br />
People considering whether that is a realistic assessment of how this Government<br />
deals with personnel, and of the appropriateness of appointments that it causes to be<br />
made to bodies, need only reflect on mistakes that have been made by the Government<br />
in the last week in terms of the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families<br />
Commission. It is the Government’s right to appoint her, but it shows that if people<br />
have the ability to make appointments, or to control who the representatives of the<br />
people on important bodies like councils—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to<br />
those members who are obstructing my view that I would like to be able to see the<br />
speaker when he is speaking.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER: The appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families<br />
Commission shows that it is very important to have checks and balances on those who<br />
control the appointments, in order to make sure that we have fair representation, and<br />
that we do not have inappropriate appointments or a lack of representation. The example<br />
of Christine Rankin shows that this Government, above all others, is not infallible when<br />
it comes to the matter of representation and who it appoints to bodies.<br />
Representation is what lies behind proposed new Part 5. This part inserts<br />
mechanisms to make sure that the discretion of those involved in the future as to who<br />
should be elected to councils and what groups ought to have some representation is
3672 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
limited by the legislation, rather than being left completely at large. We know that if it<br />
is left completely at large the National Government could make the same mistakes in<br />
respect of future representation in this new Auckland body—in terms of not achieving<br />
fair representation of the 1.4 million citizens of Auckland—as we have already seen in<br />
respect of the Families Commission this week. That is why I am so supportive of this<br />
amendment brought forward in the name of the Hon Shane Jones.<br />
Part 5 will make sure that these mechanisms work fairly for the people of Auckland<br />
by prescribing limits—instead of the absolute absence of limits in the current<br />
legislation—to give some direction as to what is fair representation in the future. It is<br />
important to note that this is not done just for the local tangata whenua in the narrow<br />
sense. The amendment does not say that these are only the people who have whakapapa<br />
back to the lands of these areas, and, therefore, have rights of representation. We know<br />
there are ethnicities and ethnic groups in the Auckland area—substantial groups within<br />
our democracy, but not strictly tangata whenua in that they cannot whakapapa back to<br />
an iwi showing land-based links—who will not have a voice on this new area. None the<br />
less these are representative or discrete groups of people who should have some voice if<br />
they are going to believe in the democracy that we have in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>.<br />
If these groups do not have a voice—if they find that their large percentage of<br />
population is effectively prevented from having a voice on this new council—they will<br />
not vote, and they will not believe in our democracy. They will have less faith not just<br />
in local government democracy, but in all of our political institutions, and that would be<br />
a bad thing. That is why new Part 5 sets out the mechanisms to ensure representation<br />
not just of that narrow group of land-linked tangata whenua, but of Māori more<br />
generally, and also of Pacific peoples. We know that the largest Polynesian city in the<br />
world, or rather the largest centre of population of Polynesian peoples in the world, is<br />
Auckland. Yet this bill in its current form does not recognise their right to a voice in<br />
Auckland.<br />
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): Ā, tēnā koe kai te Heamana. Tū noa iho tēnei ki te<br />
tautoko ake i ngā kōrero, i te wero o taku hoa a Shane Jones tino Hōnore. Nāna i tū ake i<br />
roto i te Whare nei ki te tautoko nei nā i te kaupapa kei waenganui i a tātou. Nāna i kī<br />
mai rā kua takahia te mana o te iwi Māori o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki raro iho. Koi nā, e<br />
āhua tino raruraru ana mātou ki tēnā kaupapa a te tangata e noho nei ki tō taha, te Minita<br />
mō ngā Kaunihera-ā-Rohe. Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā kai te Heamana e tika ana kia tuku<br />
wero ki tēnā taha o te Whare, ki ngā mema Māori o tēnā rōpū, o tēnā rōpū, otirā, ngā<br />
rōpū katoa e huihui nei i roto i tēnei Whare, kia tū ake rā ki te whakapuare ō rātou<br />
whakaaro mō te kaupapa kai runga kai te tēpu i te mea rā, ko te mana o Ngāti Whātua.<br />
Ko ahau tēnei e tū atu nei kua takahia ki raro. Nā, ko te mana o Tainui o tēnei kua tū<br />
ake nei kua takahia ki raro. Ko te mana o te Kawerau-a-Maki, kua takahia ki raro. Pērā<br />
anō i te mana o Pare Hauraki, kua takahia ki raro. Kua takahia ki raro i te mea rā, ko<br />
tēnei pire e kīa nei me wahangū kōtou, me wahangū ki tēnei kaupapa. Korekau he mana<br />
kei waenganui i a koutou. Kua tuku atu te mana ki ngā rōpū paku āhua kiritea ngā<br />
tangata, mā rātou e tāhaetia i ngā taonga a Tāmaki-makau-rau ka hoko atu ki tāwāhi.<br />
Koinā te take e tū ake ai.<br />
Kua takahia hoki te mana o ngā iwi o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ngā whanaunga mai i<br />
Hāmoa, i Tonga, i ngā Kuki Airana, i Whītī, mai i ēra motu katoa. Kua takahia ki raro.<br />
Nō reira, taku wero anō ki ngā mema Māori o ngā rōpū tōrangapū katoa, tū ake, tū ake<br />
ki te whakahē i te kaupapa kei runga ki te tēpū. Ki te Minita Poraka e noho nei ki tō<br />
taha, kua āhua hōhā a Tāmaki-makau-rau whānui tonu ki a ia.<br />
Nō reira mihi ana hoki ki ngā rōpū kua huihui nei i tēnei Whare. Otirā, kia kaha ki te<br />
tū ki te kōrero i ngā kōrero hōhonu, ngā kōrero whānui e pā nei ki te mana motuhake a
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3673<br />
te iwi Māori. Nō reira, e Hone tēnā koe. Otirā, āhua hōhā ki tō tumuaki rā ki a Tariana,<br />
hara mai ki roto i te Whare i nanahi, ka tuku i tana wero ki ā mātou ka kī mai rā, ē, āhua<br />
taurekareka noa iho a kōtou kōrero e Reipa. Kai te tino whakahe ki tēnā wero i te mea<br />
rā, mātou o tēnei taha ka tuku wero ki te Kāwanatanga kia āta whakaarohia, kia āta<br />
whakarongo ki ngā nawe, ki ngā pōrarurarutanga kua horahia nei i roto i te Whare.<br />
Kīhai i te whakarongo. Nō reira, nāna nā Tariana i kī ai, ē, āhua taurekareka noa iho ngā<br />
wero, ngā kōrero katoa o te Rōpū Reipa. Ē, kai te tū a Reipa ki te tautoko i ngā iwi<br />
katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ko wai a ia ki te kī mai, kai te āhua korotake noa iho ngā<br />
kōrero?<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have not had the<br />
interpretation.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I did pause. Is there to be a<br />
interpretation?<br />
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]<br />
[Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to endorse the statements and the challenge set<br />
down by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones. He stood up in this House to support the<br />
matter in our midst. He stated that the authority of the Māori people of Auckland has<br />
been trampled upon. We are troubled by that, a matter that the person seated by you,<br />
the Minister of Local Government, created. Because of that, it is right that we challenge<br />
that side of the House, the Māori members of each party, and, indeed, all parties<br />
gathered here in this House, to stand up and express their views on the matter that is on<br />
the Table about the authority of Ngāti Whātua.<br />
As a descendant of Ngāti Whātua, I say that the authority of this one standing before<br />
you has been trampled upon. As a descendant of Tainui, as well, my authority has been<br />
trampled upon again. Kawerau-a-Maki’s authority, just like Pare Hauraki’s authority,<br />
has been trampled upon, because this bill states that in respect of this matter you<br />
collectively must remain silent. You have no authority at all. It has gone to smaller<br />
groups whose members are somewhat fair in colour and who will steal Auckland’s<br />
resources and sell them offshore. That is my reason for standing up.<br />
Trampled upon as well is the authority of the people of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, of<br />
the Pacific, those from Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands, Fiji, and all those islands. My<br />
challenge once again, therefore, is for Māori members of all political parties to stand<br />
up and oppose the matter on the Table. To the Minister seated at your side, Mr<br />
Chairman, Auckland at large is somewhat weary of him.<br />
And so I acknowledge the parties gathered here in this House. Be staunch and<br />
address us at length and in depth about Māori independence. Greetings to you, Hone. I<br />
find your leader Tariana a bit of a bore. She came into the House yesterday and stung<br />
us by saying: “Labour, all your challenges and talk amount to nothing.” We reject that<br />
taunt entirely, because we on this side are challenging the Government to really<br />
consider and think through the complaints and concerns being presented in the House.<br />
The Government is not listening. So for Tariana to say that all of Labour’s talk and<br />
challenges amount to nothing is being somewhat extreme. Labour is actually standing<br />
up in support of all the people in Auckland. Who is she to tell us that what we have<br />
stated is pointless?]<br />
Hon MITA RIRINUI: I thank the interpreter for his very close description of what I<br />
said.<br />
I would like to summarise one particular point. I was very offended—and I have to<br />
say this while Hone Harawira is in this Chamber—by the comments made by the Hon<br />
Tariana Turia yesterday. She came to this Chamber and described as vexatious Labour’s<br />
efforts to have the Government recognise the needs of the Auckland people and allow<br />
them to have a say in this process. That is absolutely ridiculous. If that member cannot
3674 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
accept that this <strong>Parliament</strong> has a process that everybody, including the general public,<br />
has an opportunity to take part in, then she is just as guilty of a dictatorial attitude as the<br />
Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, and as the Leader of the House, and as many of<br />
those members sitting on that side of the Chamber. The junior Government whip is<br />
waving the paper in the air. He knows I am right. There is a process issue at hand here.<br />
The people of Auckland have the right to have a say in what the Government has in<br />
mind for their future.<br />
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now<br />
put.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Heamana.<br />
Tēnā koe, Mr Jones, e ngaro haere ana. Tēnā tātou katoa, tēnā koe Mita. Greetings to<br />
you, Mr Chairman, to my whanaunga, Mr Jones, and to Mita Ririnui, who has just<br />
spoken. Tēnā tātou, ’hakoa tangi ana taku ngākau, pau te kaha te rongohia i ngā kōrero<br />
kua puta mai i te māngai o taku whakanaunga, a Shane Jones, me te tautoko anō hoki a<br />
Mita Ririnui—although my heart grieves greatly to hear the words spoken by Shane<br />
Jones and supported by Mita Ririnui here today.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Sincere apologies to<br />
the member, but I think there is a risk of this member being treated inequitably. He is<br />
providing his own translation and, therefore, he is not getting the benefit of the clock<br />
being stopped while that translation is occurring. If that were to continue, it would result<br />
in his speech being half the length of any other member’s speech.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is entitled to have the clock<br />
stopped when he speaks in Māori—that is, if he provides his own translation.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: He has been.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I understand. Thank you for bringing it to<br />
our attention. I ask the member to continue.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: He pātai, he pātai. I have a question, Mr Chairman: me<br />
tīmatangia anō ahau? May I start again?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member has spoken for well over<br />
1 minute, and we have stopped the clock. So I ask the member to continue.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point I was<br />
making is that about half of that time was for translation, and the clock was not stopped<br />
for that.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I said that at the time, and we<br />
will take that into account.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe. Tangi ana taku ngākau i te mea, kua rongo ahau i<br />
te kōrero me te whakaaro o Shane Jones, e ōrite ana te tū o te Māori ki tērā a wētahi atu.<br />
Tangi ana taku ngākau ki tērā. I was very grieved to hear Shane Jones put forward the<br />
view that Māori are just like anybody else. Tangi ana taku ngākau i te mea, ehara mātou<br />
i te tangata e ōrite ana ki tētahi atu. I am grieved to hear Shane Jones say that, because<br />
we are not the same as everybody else. He tangata whenua mātou te iwi Māori. We are<br />
the people of this land. E rongo ana au i ngā kōrero mō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, e rongo<br />
ana au i ngā kōrero mō wērā kei roto o Haina, me wērā atu o ngā rohe. I hear the call for<br />
representation from the Pacific peoples and from Asian people. Engari, kei hea te kōrero<br />
mō ngā Tararā, kei hea te kōrero mō Kenya, kei hea te kōrero mō Somalia, kei hea te<br />
kōrero mō ētahi atu? He whai pōti anake tēnei kaupapa. Kāre au i te whai<br />
rangatiratanga. Koi rā taku riri. Tēnā koe.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3675<br />
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.<br />
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to Hone<br />
Harawira, who has the call. I have deliberately raised my point of order at this point,<br />
rather than interrupt him when he resumes his speech. We are considering new parts to<br />
this bill, and I express a concern that the time being allowed for the consideration of<br />
these parts is obviously a lot less than the time allocated for earlier parts that were put<br />
forward by the Government.<br />
I make the point that it is the Opposition’s right to put forward new parts, and to have<br />
them properly debated. It is, of course, proper of the Chair to cut off debate when no<br />
new points are being raised and where there is undue repetition. That, of course, Mr<br />
Chair, is within your rights, but I suggest that in respect of some of the closure motions<br />
that were moved earlier in the morning, we are verging on having debate cut off before<br />
all points have been exhaustively covered by speakers.<br />
I know there is a tension here between the Government getting its business through<br />
and the Opposition delaying it, but I suggest that it is the right of Opposition members<br />
to act as we are acting. That Opposition members are able to exercise their rights to the<br />
limits of the Standing Orders, particularly in urgency, is an important check against the<br />
powers of the Government, and I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to consider that in your<br />
rulings this afternoon.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Chairperson, an interesting point of order has been put to<br />
you by the Hon David Parker, but it directly challenges your authority in the Chair. I<br />
simply remind the Committee that it was the Hon David Parker who this morning told<br />
anybody who was here to listen, or anybody listening in, that the Labour Party was in<br />
fact engaging in a filibuster on this bill. I would have thought that that was a clear<br />
indication to everybody that most of the matters being dealt with at the moment are not<br />
serious. They are simply vexatious and frivolous, and they are being put forward by<br />
Labour to try to prolong the debate today.<br />
The other thing is that if we were engaged in an actual debate on this bill, that debate<br />
might be interesting, but the vast majority of time spent on this bill has been spent on<br />
dealing, through the vote process, with the extensive range of frivolous amendments put<br />
forward by Labour. Some 8,000 amendments, I think, have now been dealt with in one<br />
way or another. The real point, though, is that National thinks that continued challenges<br />
to the Chair are completely unacceptable, and should not continue to be a feature of this<br />
debate.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Chairperson, I think it is important at this junction that the<br />
Committee consider very carefully, under your guidance, the way forward. In the first<br />
place, I submit to you that the point of order raised by my colleague David Parker in no<br />
way trifled with your rulings. It sought a clarification from you, and it asked, at your<br />
discretion, that you take into account the various factors as we go forward. I echo the<br />
strongly expressed sentiments of my colleague David Parker in this respect.<br />
The second point is that the Leader of the House has, in his submission, failed to<br />
distinguish between amendments and parts. The submission of David Parker<br />
specifically related to parts, not clause amendments, and asked that parts be fully<br />
debated. As is well known to you, Mr Chairperson, and to the Leader of the House,<br />
amendments to clauses—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member should read the Standing Orders.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I know what the point of order will be. I<br />
ask the Leader of the House to let the member make his point of order. If I feel he is<br />
getting off the point, I will stop his point of order.
3676 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: The example given by the Leader of the House—about socalled<br />
trivial changes to dates, and so forth—is clearly distinct from proposals to add<br />
entirely new parts. I submit to you, Mr Chairperson, that the application of the word<br />
“trivial” to a part such as new Part 5, which the Committee is currently debating, is a<br />
gross insult to the communities affected, which are Māori, Pacific, and other ethnic<br />
groups. It is simply not appropriate that members of this Committee should describe<br />
mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of that nature as “trivial”.<br />
That brings us, I guess, to the core point of what the Leader of the House submitted,<br />
which was that these parts are, in his view, no more than a filibuster and therefore do<br />
not deserve the protection of the Standing Orders. That brings into question the matter<br />
of whether the member’s perception of the part should stand for the whole Committee.<br />
Clearly, it should not, and new Part 5 should be seen as an example of an extremely<br />
substantive and well-thought-out part. Why is it necessary? That is the whole point—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is straying into the<br />
substance of the part. Let me make a number of points. Firstly, it is not helpful to have<br />
descriptors of what members do as being trivial, or this, that, or the other. A point of<br />
order is about order; it is not about the emotional words that one might wish to attach to<br />
it.<br />
Secondly, I make the point that no matter what members write on their<br />
amendments—whether they insert new parts, new multi-parts, and so on—they are still<br />
amendments. So according to the Standing Orders we are considering amendments, not<br />
parts. However, because they are amendments of such a nature, they will get a little<br />
more air time than they would if they were just one-word amendments, and that is<br />
reflected in the Chair’s consideration. I repeat for the Committee the point I made<br />
before, which is that the two Rs, which are relevance and repetition, will guide the<br />
Chairs’ decisions.<br />
The third point I make, again—and this will never change as long as we have this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>—is that the decision will be the Chair’s and the Chair’s alone. No<br />
correspondence will be entered into, and there will be no emails, no texts, no groans, no<br />
sighs, and no rolling of heads or eyes—that will all wash over the Chair, whose opinion<br />
is impartial. The Chair will determine the appropriate time for the Committee to<br />
consider an amendment.<br />
I also make another point, which I think is important and fundamental here. <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> is a democracy. We argue and battle over words. This is a contest of words, and<br />
this is a contest of wills. It seems to me, in a way, that it is a little bit like Ogden Nash:<br />
when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping. He did not say that, but in this<br />
situation, when the going gets tough in the Committee, the tough write amendments or<br />
parts. That is what this is about; it is a wrestle. But at the end of the day we have to have<br />
the debate. It has to be relevant, cogent, and to the point, and repetition should not be<br />
entered into.<br />
Both sides will feel aggrieved and disappointed at some point—such is the role of the<br />
Chair. But we will make these decisions as we go, piece by piece. I state it again: it is<br />
the Chair’s decision—no correspondence will be entered into—and it is about relevance<br />
and repetition.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Chairperson. Kia ora tātou katoa. If<br />
Labour’s proposal for Pasifika nation seats was genuinely about representation, then<br />
where are the seats for the Somali, the Kenyan, the Dalmatian, or the South African?<br />
Although I respect much of what Labour has had to say today, this proposal is nothing<br />
but a naked grab for the votes of the large Pasifika nation populations in Auckland.<br />
Although I have the greatest respect for my Pacific cousins, I note the fact that the<br />
phrase “sons of Māui”, attributed to George Hawkins, was actually one coined first by
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3677<br />
me in this Chamber, in recognition of our historical relationship to one another.<br />
Although I respect the right of Asians to be heard, I can never accept the betrayal by<br />
Labour’s Māori MPs of the primary right of Māori to be on the Auckland Council, as<br />
manu whenua, as tangata whenua, and as Māori.<br />
I am outraged by the cringing position taken by those Labour Māori MPs, in<br />
allowing the status of Māori to be downgraded to that of other ethnic groups, for we are,<br />
and always will be, the first people of this great land of Aotearoa. I call on those Labour<br />
Māori MPs to speak up for Māori, to fight for Māori, and to be Māori. I call on them<br />
either to fight for those seats on the Auckland Council—for mana whenua first, for<br />
Māori second, and for anybody else after that—or to admit their failings, to recognise<br />
their duplicity, to confess their complicity, and to resign their seats forthwith. Their<br />
mana, for what it is worth, the mana of their people—and indeed the mana of their<br />
tūpuna—deserves nothing less. Kia ora tātou.<br />
RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I feel obliged to take a call on new Part 5, which<br />
contains Subpart 1 and Subpart 2, in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. This part is<br />
important. We are proposing this part to ensure that the representation of Māori, Pacific,<br />
and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of Auckland City is protected. Earlier in this<br />
Chamber I cited what North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams said on this bill and the<br />
other related bill. He said: “These Bills effectively shut down elected local government<br />
in greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of handpicked,<br />
unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months, until the deeply<br />
flawed super city takes over.” We have to introduce this part because this bill, amongst<br />
other things, will remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of<br />
Auckland. Labour thinks that the National Government’s complete failure to consult on<br />
this plan is wrong and that Aucklanders deserve a say in the future of their city.<br />
Auckland is home to many Asian Kiwis, and I am one of them. Statistics <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> predicts that about one-third of its residents will be of Asian ethnicity by 2016,<br />
up from 20 percent in 2001. But it is sad that, in response to such important<br />
legislation—which has created the biggest challenge Auckland has faced in its entire<br />
history—National’s Asian MPs are systematically silent on the issues. Mr Kanwaljit<br />
Singh Bakshi was here last night smiling to himself, and he was here this morning as<br />
well. But where is the Hon Pansy Wong? Where is the honourable Melissa Lee? I saw<br />
her on television, on Close Up, busy apologising for the comments she had made the<br />
night before. But what about the interests of thousands upon thousands of Asian<br />
Aucklanders, whom those MPs at least claim to represent? Under National’s plan, in<br />
future the people of South Auckland and west Auckland in particular are unlikely to be<br />
entitled to influence local government in Auckland. I think the small but growing<br />
number of elected community board members and councillors of Asian ethnicity will be<br />
denied any real ability to influence the future of local government in Auckland. I am not<br />
blaming National Asian MPs. The 800-page of the report of the Royal Commission on<br />
Auckland Governance took 18 months to prepare, it cost millions of dollars, and it<br />
received 3,537 submissions. The National Government’s sham version of a super-city<br />
that is being forced on Auckland was thrown together in just 3 days.<br />
We are introducing new parts and further amendments. At this Committee stage it is<br />
very important for me to reiterate that I oppose this bill for three main reasons. The bill<br />
is procedurally unfair, because as Part 3 shows, existing local authorities will have their<br />
powers stripped from them, and 1.4 million people in Auckland are not able to have a<br />
say about that. Goodbye Pork Pie? I do not think Aucklanders are impressed. Clause 49<br />
of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a referendum on<br />
reorganisation proposals. This bill will override those provisions. In a broad<br />
constitutional sense, this bill is flawed. The bill also creates huge uncertainty. Both Mr
3678 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
John Key and Mr Rodney Hide have admitted in this Chamber that they have no idea<br />
how much their sham version of the super-city is going to cost.<br />
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now<br />
put.<br />
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koutou<br />
katoa. I stand to support Labour’s position on new Part 5 of the Local Government<br />
(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, but also I tautoko Mr Hone Harawira’s comments. We<br />
stand here under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our rights do not come from multiculturalism;<br />
they come from te Tiriti. Although we acknowledge the multiple cultures of Aotearoa,<br />
the first point is the difference between mana whenua rangatiratanga and minority need<br />
for representation. Any legislation in this House should be passed on that basis,<br />
recognising the value of mana whenua, first-nation people first, then recognising the<br />
diversity that Auckland undoubtedly has.<br />
The other main problem with this bill is its capacity to reinforce a trend that has been<br />
dominating local government since its inception in Aotearoa. I have named this TMPM<br />
syndrome—“Too Many Pākehā Men” in positions of power syndrome. Local<br />
government in Tāmaki-makau-rau and throughout the motu is already cursed with<br />
TMPM syndrome, with current and historical dominance of Pākehā men just about<br />
everywhere we look. This is not an attack on Pākehā men. I have lived with two of<br />
them, though not at the same time. Members should not get me wrong: I value my<br />
Pākehā men very deeply, especially the current one. However, I think for Pākehā men a<br />
minority experience in a decision-making process would be a salutary lesson because<br />
unless one has experienced marginalisation as a minority in the decision-making<br />
process, one has no idea what one is talking about or what it feels like.<br />
What is the problem with TMPM and local government? If we are to have<br />
representative democracy, which is not necessarily the only way we can do things in the<br />
Pacific, it should absolutely be representative. In addition, we must acknowledge mana<br />
whenua and the three Māori seats as recommended by the Royal Commission on<br />
Auckland Governance. To my knowledge there is no local authority district in Aotearoa<br />
where two-thirds of the community is Pākehā men, yet 90 percent of local councils<br />
Pākehā men. Fifty percent of all communities are women, and many other cultures are<br />
well represented in most communities, but we will not see them on local authorities<br />
except in corners desperately trying to be heard.<br />
Mr Rodney Hide’s bill exacerbates the problem we have with TMPM syndrome.<br />
There will not be a choice to stand for the super-city council. An “at-large” voting<br />
system is about the money needed to establish name recognition before one can start to<br />
have a chance. That fact immediately marginalises tangata whenua and other people in<br />
the city. The system is also not about numbers. Even if Pākehā men were the majority,<br />
councils would still need to represent different perspectives. Tāmaki-makau-rau needs a<br />
vibrant system of participatory local government that uses creative techniques of<br />
engagement with the diversity of communities, whilst staying based on Te Tiriti o<br />
Waitangi. Māori are not a stakeholder to be consulted, but are the first nation, with<br />
whom we Pākehā—and I am speaking for the Green Party, which is predominantly<br />
Pākehā—via the Crown, need to negotiate relationships based on the article signed on 6<br />
February 1840. Te Waiōhua have made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, and hence the<br />
Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour are calling for the Prime Minister to support the<br />
recommendations of the royal commission on this issue. There will be a hīkoi, and we<br />
will support it with weary hearts as yet again the Crown pays lip-service to the Tiriti<br />
relationship but gatekeeps the actual political process.<br />
Unsurprisingly I expect to hear proponents of this bill say that if people want<br />
diversity in the super-city then they can vote for it, and if they want Māori seats they
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3679<br />
will vote them in. We have heard this line of argument since 1800—that if the citizens<br />
at large want the Māori seats they will vote for them, and that there is no need to<br />
recognise mana whenua—let alone anyone else. Sadly, this argument flies in the face of<br />
everything we know about the history of political representation, <strong>Parliament</strong> being a<br />
case in point until MMP. Even since then the Māori seats have been essential to allow<br />
Māori voters self-determination, albeit in a Westminster-Pākehā hybrid framework,<br />
which is not exactly the tangata whenua or Pacific way.<br />
Yes, we could go to the citizens of Auckland and hold a referendum and ask them<br />
whether they would like to have the three Māori seats.<br />
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move that the question be—<br />
Hon Member: No, no. Take a call.<br />
COLIN KING: The time we are spending in the Chamber today is very important. It<br />
is significant from the point of view that we need to be very conscious about what we<br />
are actually here for. We are here at this time to be conscious of the importance of every<br />
citizen in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, but, more important, to be concerned that we do what is right<br />
and fair for the future of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>.<br />
Many an amendment has been proposed from the Opposition today. When we look at<br />
the title of this particular proposed new Part 5, “The mechanisms to ensure<br />
representation of Māori, Pacific, and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the<br />
Auckland Council”, we start to understand the future vision that the other side of the<br />
Chamber is proposing. The Government of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> is proposing to do away with<br />
those impediments that are holding back <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, and have done for the last 9<br />
years under the previous Labour Government, which is now a very bewildered and<br />
confused Opposition.<br />
Those members continually try to divert people’s attentions away from the main<br />
issues, like ensuring that we have a united focus as a country and that we build up a<br />
future for this nation that we and our grandchildren can be proud of. We can form such<br />
a future by way of a combined city of Auckland that reaches its potential. We must all<br />
acknowledge that at the moment it is the young generations whose potential we want to<br />
realise, whether they are Māori, Pasifika, or people who come to <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> in the<br />
future.<br />
The proposed configuration of Auckland governance is presently being obstructed by<br />
a very distracted Opposition. It is an Opposition that had 9 years to do something<br />
positive for this country when it was Government, but, unfortunately, the Labour<br />
Government will be remembered for its wasteful 9 years in office. We now have a<br />
Government that is determined to make the very most of a situation, yet we tend to trifle<br />
around the edges at a time when we should be pulling together as a nation. I believe that<br />
we are at a stage here with the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that is<br />
certainly significant. The debate around the bill is hugely significant from our point of<br />
view because it is a contest of ideas. It is about the future and representation of the<br />
people. It is not about ideologies and contests to bewilder, confuse, and distract, which<br />
we hear from the Opposition.<br />
We have had some interesting debates and some very broad debates. Some have been<br />
well off the mark and have not concentrated on those things that will make a significant<br />
improvement not only to Auckland but also to the nation of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. Auckland is a<br />
shop window to the world, a capital city in the context of the largest city of <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> with 1.4 million people. It is very important that those citizens are comfortable<br />
in the knowledge that they have an overarching arrangement in Auckland that ensures<br />
we do not have the dislocation that there has been for many, many years.<br />
Every other <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>er who looks at Auckland is bewildered that it does not<br />
have the cohesion that one would expect. The situation we find ourselves in today can
3680 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
only point back to the previous administration, which lacked the courage and ability to<br />
take <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> forward. The Government today is endeavouring to address and work<br />
through what will be the most efficient and practical solution for the candidates, the<br />
citizens, and the arrangements that have existed in a dislocated fashion throughout<br />
Auckland’s recent history. Whether it is Māori, Pasifika, or other ethnic groups that<br />
need to be considered, let us move forward today. It is a goal to have one people and<br />
one nation.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be<br />
now put.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. All morning, all afternoon—<br />
Hon Annette King: That’s not a point of order.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —I am allowed, I am making my point—all last night,<br />
all day yesterday, and right from the start of this debate, Labour members have said<br />
“We want to debate this bill fully.” This afternoon, shortly after David Parker spoke,<br />
those Labour members have been trying to shut down debate on what they are<br />
describing as the most important bill for Auckland. My point is this—<br />
Hon Members: What’s the point of order?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the interjections are fair, in that<br />
the member should come to his point of order. There is a question before the<br />
Committee, which is that the question be now put. It is a relatively straightforward<br />
question. I am more than happy to hear the member’s point of order, providing it is<br />
about the question being now put.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My apologies. It is actually a point of irony.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. On a proposal about whether Māori, Pacific Island, and Asian seats will be<br />
put forward on to this council, why is Labour denying its own Pacific and Asian<br />
speakers the opportunity to speak on this amendment? Or is it trying to bury this<br />
proposal in order to try to dig its Māori MPs out of a hole for sacrificing the Māori seats<br />
and downgrading the status of Māori to that of other ethnic groups in Auckland? It is<br />
absolutely unacceptable.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members, we are in a very interesting<br />
position here. We have had three closure motions put forward by National members that<br />
the question be now put. We are in the remarkable position of having the Opposition<br />
move that the question be now put. It is a procedural motion—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’d like to speak—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not think there is anything to speak<br />
about. The member may raise a point of order about the order of this matter, but not on<br />
the substance of it.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. We had two senior members of Labour giving impassioned speeches this<br />
afternoon and asking for more time to be taken on this matter. We have not moved a<br />
closure motion since those speeches. I think you need to consider whether the<br />
generosity of the Government in allowing Labour the time it wants for this debate is<br />
going to be abused. Or do we have confirmation that the entire attack from Labour is<br />
trivial? On the one hand those members asked for extra time and got it, but now they<br />
have decided they want to shut things down.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The proposition put to you by<br />
the Leader of the House is not correct. Since we have returned from lunch, Mr<br />
Macindoe sought a closure motion, and Mr King got two-thirds through a closure
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3681<br />
motion before being told he was not to do that. So Mr Brownlee is not correct. I have<br />
moved a motion, and I would like you to consider the motion I have moved.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): A whole raft of<br />
amendments have been tabled. Under Standing Order 293(1)(c), as Minister in charge of<br />
this bill I require that consideration of this part be postponed to give the presiding<br />
officer time to prepare the papers.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I can probably be helpful and<br />
say that my reading of the Standing Orders means that you do not have any discretion in<br />
this matter.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I say to the honourable member on<br />
this matter that I think I agree. I will confirm with the Clerk precisely the effect of this.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I raise a point<br />
of order, Mr Chairperson. I may also be able to help the Committee.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I raised a point of order before Mr John Carter.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I just first say to the honourable<br />
Hone Harawira that I heard the point of order. I did not think it was particularly relevant<br />
to this. The Hon Darren Hughes had moved a procedural motion. It is not debatable, it is<br />
not about content and it is then for the Committee to decide. I have the choice of<br />
whether I put the motion. I was in the process of making that decision. In the meantime<br />
the situation has changed because the Minister in charge of the bill has exerted his right<br />
under Standing Order 293(1)(c), which states: “the member in charge of the bill requires<br />
that consideration or further consideration of a part or other provisions be postponed.”<br />
The Minister is now saying that he is postponing consideration of that part, and that is<br />
his right—it is his motion. If that right is exercised, then the debate on this stops. The<br />
Hon John Carter has a point of order. Once I have dealt with his I will come back to the<br />
member.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairman. I raised a second point of order before Mr John Carter rose to make a point<br />
of order.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just told the member I am going to<br />
listen to John Carter first and I will come back to that member second.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I am not<br />
raising a new point; I am speaking to the point of order following that of Mr Mallard. I<br />
am hoping to help the Committee by saying that you are quite right that the Minister, as<br />
you have already stated, has the right to make that decision and postpone, and it is not<br />
debatable. It is the right of the member in charge of the bill. That is the advice that I<br />
have sought and that is the motion that—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): All right. I now call the honourable<br />
member Hone Harawira.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I was simply going to say<br />
that, although I respect the right of Mr Hughes to call for the motion to be taken, that<br />
does not deny the right of other members to stand and ask for the call. Is that correct?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, that is not quite correct. Members<br />
might stand to seek the call but once a member has sought and moved the motion that<br />
the question be now put it is the Chair’s decision as to whether the question is put. If it<br />
is put, the Committee will decide whether the question is put. If the Chair decides not to<br />
take the motion, then of course the floor is open for other members to take a call at that<br />
point.
3682 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I have two points of order to raise with you. First, regarding the status of<br />
the motion that I moved, you will have to give a decision on whether the question would<br />
be put. Second, in respect of the Minister in charge of the bill not wanting to consider<br />
the bill that is in urgency before the Committee at the present time, when we return to<br />
this part we will be at the point after my closure motion. That is my first point of order.<br />
My second point of order relates to the time factor in which the Minister in charge of<br />
the bill wants to postpone consideration of this part. We will need to know what time<br />
we are going to come back to that, in order to consider it, because we have other parts<br />
ahead to debate. If we get ourselves into a position where we have finished those parts<br />
and have to report progress, the opportunity for this part to be voted on by the<br />
Committee and for the amendments to be considered by the Committee will not come. I<br />
am presuming it is not a catch-all, so that the Minister can delay for consideration just<br />
this part for another day—whatever that might mean.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I have now had time to<br />
consider Standing Order 293 as far as (4)(a) and (4)(b). I was under the impression that<br />
the Minister was not specific on his delay, and therefore the effect of what he has done<br />
is to put this right down to the bottom before the preliminary clauses. So we will do the<br />
other 27 or 28 parts, unless they get similarly deferred, and then we will come back to<br />
this at the end before we deal with the preliminary clauses—probably on Thursday or<br />
Friday, maybe.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): We have a very interesting position<br />
here. I cannot remember the Committee being in this gymnastic position before. It is a<br />
very unusual twist and I think that people who are listening to this will be unaware that<br />
there are other circumstances outside this Chamber that are driving this and the<br />
timeliness of it. But, firstly, to the simple point: the situation, as I understand it, is that<br />
the Hon Darren Hughes has moved a closure motion, at which point I was about to<br />
consider whether we should put it. Then enter stage right the Hon Rodney Hide, who<br />
says that he wants to exercise his authority as the member in charge of the bill to have<br />
the consideration of this part or provision postponed. That is his right; there is no<br />
argument about it. At the moment that occurs, it then freezes everything on this part; it<br />
is simply sealed in an envelope and pushed to one side. So we do not deal with the<br />
closure motion from this point; the whole lot is locked up and is moved.<br />
We then go to Standing Order 293(4)(a), the part I would rely on here, which states:<br />
“any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt<br />
with, other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. It seems to me that<br />
the Standing Order is saying to us that we are now reorganising things so that this part,<br />
which is in the name of Shane Jones, now moves right to the back of the queue and we<br />
now start on the next part that we have for consideration. At the point we reopen it, will<br />
be the time we then consider—I suspect I will get some advice from the Clerk on this—<br />
the motion moved by the Hon Darren Hughes.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: Right at the end, just before the preliminary clause.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is correct. If the Clerk advises me<br />
differently on that I will come back to you but that is as I see it at that point.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 5 postponed.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): This new part will be<br />
vigorously debated by Labour members. There has been one of the sneakiest attempts I<br />
have ever seen to strip the working women of Auckland—and, for that matter, in a<br />
minor way, the men as well—of their right to paid parental leave. This Government is
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3683<br />
trying, by a change of employer, to take away the current entitlements of the pregnant<br />
women of Auckland. Having Judith Collins as the Minister in the chair is the most<br />
massive irony, because a woman from Auckland is taking from her sisters the right to<br />
paid parental leave.<br />
There are women who quite carefully and properly have timed their pregnancies in<br />
order to get paid parental leave. It is something that thousands of women, including<br />
hundreds—<br />
Hon Tau Henare: How do you do that?<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Tau Henare wants to know how one times a<br />
pregnancy. I plead guilty to not having a lot of expertise in it myself, but I want to make<br />
the point—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It appears as though<br />
there are no copies of new Part 12 on the Table at the moment. I am sorry to interrupt<br />
the member; no doubt he got his copy from his research unit, which we do not have<br />
access to. I cannot see it; there are none on this side of the Table. [Interruption]<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Please, members. The floor is the Hon<br />
Gerry Brownlee’s.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: They are not here. I cannot see them on this side of the Table.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): If the member’s complaint is that there<br />
are no amendments from Steve Chadwick on the Table, I think that is a legitimate<br />
complaint. Members should have access to the paperwork, and I ask the Clerk’s Office<br />
to do the necessary work to bring the paperwork to the Table for them. But that should<br />
not in any way interrupt, stymie, or stop the flow of the debate.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This is a relatively simple matter. Under the paid<br />
parental leave legislation, a woman has to work for a particular period of time—6<br />
months—before she is entitled to paid parental leave. She has to be with an employer<br />
for that length of time. It is one of the debatable points of the legislation. Labour, when<br />
last in Government, considered whether that period should be reduced or whether it<br />
should be there at all. But it is clear that an entitlement is triggered by employment with<br />
a particular employer.<br />
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill changes the employer<br />
without a proper transitional provision to carry forward the entitlement, with the effect<br />
of taking away the entitlements of women in Auckland who are employed by any of the<br />
eight councils—the seven territorial local authorities and the one regional authority. I<br />
say to members I had some doubts about this provision. I was not sure when I first saw<br />
this provision. I said surely it would not be true, and surely the right would be there. But<br />
then it was pointed out to me that, firstly, the provision binds the Crown, and,<br />
secondly—and even more interestingly—the KiwiSaver legislation has a transitional<br />
provision with regard to the employer. Why is people’s entitlement to KiwiSaver<br />
maintained with a change of employer, but a woman who is pregnant does not have an<br />
entitlement to paid parental leave? It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—and it is<br />
shameful.<br />
I make it clear that this is yet another reason why this bill should go to a select<br />
committee. It should go to a select committee so that this cock-up—the one where John<br />
Banks can put in Sam’s replacement—can be fixed. It is a relatively simple matter of<br />
fairness. I am informed by my colleague Annette King that 50 percent of women’s<br />
pregnancies are planned, so why should a woman employed by one of those councils<br />
who has planned her pregnancy around her entitlement to paid parental leave have that<br />
entitlement expunged? Why should she have that money taken from her as a result of<br />
this legislation? It might be all right for rich Tories.
3684 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to take a call on this very important<br />
part. This is an indication of why it is so important that we spend time in this Chamber<br />
reviewing what this legislation actually does. It is being rammed through. It is not going<br />
through the select committee process, whereby members of the public can come along<br />
and have their say, and whereby parliamentarians can look clause by clause at the nittygritty<br />
of the legislation, to make sure that something has not slipped through that would<br />
have an unintended consequence, or an intended consequence that the people of<br />
Auckland do not want. We have found one of those here, which concerns paid parental<br />
leave.<br />
We know that the Government does not like paid parental leave. It was a dead rat<br />
that Government members had to swallow, because they knew that taking it away<br />
would be too unpopular. But we have here legislation that removes the right of women<br />
who work at these councils to have their paid parental leave entitlement carried over in<br />
the transitional period. What will happen is that whenever this legislation passes,<br />
basically the eight elected councils in Auckland, as they are known today, will cease to<br />
exist. They will cease to exist as employers, and we will move to a transitional<br />
arrangement up until the next local body elections. Because the employer is to change, it<br />
means that unless we put in this very simple amendment to make it clear that there is no<br />
intention to stop the paid parental leave entitlement, those women will lose their<br />
entitlement. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, whether the<br />
Government will be supporting this amendment.<br />
There are two options here: this situation is the result of either a conspiracy or a<br />
cock-up. Usually in such cases there has been a cock-up; that is the reality. If it is a<br />
conspiracy, it means that in an underhand, back-door way the Government is using this<br />
process to undermine paid parental leave. If we go with the alternative point of view,<br />
which is that this is just a cock-up, then the Government should have no problem in<br />
supporting a very simple amendment to clarify it is not intended that women who work<br />
for these local authorities will lose their paid parental leave entitlement. I will be<br />
watching very carefully to see what the Government does with regard to this particular<br />
amendment.<br />
We know that Government members will not take any calls, apart from closure<br />
motions, unless they suddenly decide there is a procedural reason why they need to start<br />
filibustering on their own legislation. I hope Colin King makes another fantastic speech<br />
on this issue. The Labour Party cannot wait to put his speech on Māori representation<br />
on its blog Red Alert as the only National speech on Māori representation. That will be<br />
fantastic. I am looking forward to Mr Colin King taking a call on this particular<br />
amendment.<br />
The amendment is very, very simple. It states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the<br />
rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental<br />
Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.” If members of this Committee have no<br />
problem with regard to the women of Auckland who work for these local authorities<br />
keeping their paid parental leave provisions, then they will support this amendment. If<br />
the National Party and the ACT Party are genuinely trying to undermine paid parental<br />
leave—and they are well on record as not liking it—then they will oppose it. This will<br />
be a very, very interesting vote. Mr Brownlee, the Leader of the House, looks like he is<br />
poised to jump up. He has been trying to make out that everything that is going through<br />
this House has been frivolous. That is not the case. We have had to buy time to actually<br />
look at what this legislation does. We have said to Mr Brownlee that if the Government<br />
sends the bill to a select committee, he can go home now. If Government members send<br />
it to a select committee, the debate will end. But they will not do that, because they do
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3685<br />
not want the people of Auckland to find out about things like this fish-hook, which says<br />
paid parental leave would be undermined.<br />
I say it is the job of a good Opposition to scrutinise the law. Let us not forget that<br />
every minute that we spend in this Chamber debating this legislation is another minute<br />
that Aucklanders continue to be run by their democratically elected councils, and not the<br />
unelected anti-democratic bureaucracy that Mr Brownlee, Mr Hide, and Mr John Key<br />
want to put in charge in Auckland. I think that is reason enough for us to be here today<br />
debating this part. I look forward to Mr Gerry Brownlee’s speech. Maybe we will see,<br />
for the first time, the Government being rolled and, in desperation, having to support a<br />
Labour Party amendment because Gerry is on the job.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): I am a little<br />
perplexed as to why this particular part has been allowed to be debated today. Let us<br />
read the entire part. Clause 250 states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and<br />
entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and<br />
Employment Protection Act 1987.” The next clause, clause 251, states:<br />
“Notwithstanding anything in this Act, all current councils and all new councils created<br />
under this legislation will be related employers for the purposes of the Parental Leave<br />
and Employment Protection Act.”<br />
I want the Clerk at the Table to listen to this, because it is a very important point and<br />
it would be good if the Clerk would listen. Will we be going through the farcical<br />
situation over the next few days whereby the Clerk’s Office accepts new parts of this<br />
bill that simply restate the existing law?<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to<br />
my point of order. The first is that it is not appropriate for the member to deal with<br />
questions of procedure, which should be dealt with by you, in the middle of a speech<br />
rather than by raising a point of order. Secondly, it is completely inappropriate—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not a point of order.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: That is my point, if Mr Brownlee would listen to it;<br />
interjecting on a point of order, as the member knows as Leader of the House, is outside<br />
the Standing Orders. My second point is that it is inappropriate for any member of this<br />
Committee, let alone a senior member and let alone the Leader of the House, to exert<br />
influence over the staff of the Office of the Clerk. If he wishes to make a comment<br />
about House procedure, he should direct it to you, Mr Chairperson; he should do it<br />
through a point of order, not through a speech; and he should not harangue the Clerk.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I make two points. Firstly, I do<br />
not think anybody in this Committee who has been here a while would believe that the<br />
Clerk’s Office would be moved by any pressure by any member on any point. In actual<br />
fact, members have often complained that the Clerk’s Office is immovable to any<br />
pressure on any point. Secondly, I do not think it is necessarily good for the member to<br />
address the issues to the Clerk directly. Yes, the Clerk has an influence over these<br />
things, but I feel that the member should direct the issues to the Chair, as the Chair is<br />
responsible for them. If the member is grumpy about decisions, then he should heap it<br />
upon the Chair, as the Chair’s shoulders are big enough to take all of his discontent on<br />
this issue. But members should direct issues at me, not the Clerk.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I suppose I am somewhat surprised that it now seems<br />
that in the days ahead the Labour Party is going to introduce to this bill new parts that<br />
reconfirm existing law. I know that the Labour Party is now struggling with its 27 parts,<br />
so here is another one from me: “That all council vehicles will obey all the rules of the<br />
road while they are operating for the council.” That could be a new part. Then, of<br />
course, any number of other existing pieces of law could be put into a new part.
3686 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
I cannot understand why the Labour Party cannot work out that existing, settled law<br />
is just that. Nothing in this bill can undo other laws. That is not possible. Poor old<br />
Darren over there is scratching his head and tapping his head; I assume he is trying to<br />
stay awake, but I am not sure. It is pretty darn simple. The transition authority, which<br />
this bill is about, gathers together the opportunities that exist for the creation of the new<br />
council. A third bill is coming, and I want to say very emphatically that this bill does<br />
not impose the new transition agency in the role of employer; it simply puts a duty on<br />
that authority to work with—<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: It does so!<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, that is the point, is it not? We have written this<br />
bill over a long period of time and we understand it; that side of the Committee does<br />
not. It will be a sad day for <strong>Parliament</strong> if all existing law is to be somehow turned into a<br />
new part of this bill for the Committee to consider. It is an utter nonsense. It is a<br />
pathetic device, and it utterly trivialises the process of <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
It is sad to me that a party that went out to set up this whole process in the first place<br />
is now so desperate that it has to resort to these sorts of beltway tactics in order to make<br />
itself feel good. Are we going to see more of it? I suspect we will. I suspect that<br />
throughout the afternoon the statute book will come out and every little bit of law that<br />
relates to anybody’s activity anywhere—<br />
Hon Maryan Street: That’s our job.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —will somehow be written up into a new part. They<br />
are confirming it. Maryan Street is confirming it. That is the tactic. David Parker was<br />
right that this is a massive filibuster. The only thing I will say about Trevor Mallard is<br />
that he is probably going to get me out of a hole. He said the bill will be passed on<br />
Thursday, but I guess in the end it is our choice which Thursday.<br />
It is very, very sad for <strong>Parliament</strong> to see this sort of part accepted into this type of<br />
bill. It would be interesting to know where the connection is that has caused the concern<br />
and, I think, the mock outrage expressed by members of the Opposition today. This bill<br />
is about an authority that will gather up the other eight authorities in Auckland to work<br />
with them in order to ensure that the transition to the new one-Auckland council, which<br />
will not even be settled until September, is successful. It is an utterly pathetic effort.<br />
SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the right to speak<br />
in this debate. Over the course of the last 3 days I have not had the opportunity to<br />
participate. The Government has been so keen to close down debate on this bill that—<br />
never mind the people of Auckland getting a say—as a member of <strong>Parliament</strong>, I have<br />
not been able to take a call yet.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: We need longer.<br />
SUE MORONEY: We need significantly longer on all these parts. I have wanted to<br />
comment on many of them and, to date, I have not been able to.<br />
In regard to this new part in particular, I am pleased to rise and take a call to stop the<br />
Government from taking away the ability of employees of local body authorities in<br />
Auckland to have paid parental leave in the transitional period. If Mr Brownlee had read<br />
the legislation, he might realise this. Mr Brownlee’s speech was very important, because<br />
it reminded us of exactly why this bill should be going to a select committee. The<br />
Minister does not realise what occurred yesterday during this very debate on this very<br />
legislation. His own Government moved to withdraw a provision before the Committee,<br />
and in doing that it actually put at risk paid parental leave for women employees of<br />
councils. He has not even worked out that that clause—and if my colleague would be<br />
good enough to pass me his copy of the bill—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Clause 36.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3687<br />
SUE MORONEY: Yes; clause 36(1). So he knows that the Government put forward<br />
an amendment to take this clause out. I will read out that clause, which the Government<br />
took out of the bill yesterday. Clause 36 is headed “Transfer of remaining employees”,<br />
and subclause (1) states: “Every person who is an employee of an existing local<br />
authority immediately before the close of 31 October 2010 becomes an employee of the<br />
Auckland Council”—that is the transitional body—“on the same terms and conditions<br />
as applied immediately before he or she became an employee of the Council.”<br />
I read that clause out because that is what the Government removed from the<br />
legislation yesterday. That is why we are putting forward an amendment, in the name of<br />
the Hon Steve Chadwick, to add <strong>New</strong> Part 12. We want to guarantee that women—and<br />
men, actually—who are about to have children can take paid parental leave.<br />
It is no surprise that National is trying this on, because every single time the issue of<br />
paid parental leave has been put before <strong>Parliament</strong>, it has voted against it. National has<br />
voted against paid parental leave on every single occasion. That is why it is the job of<br />
the Opposition to watch out for this, and to make sure that the Government does not slip<br />
in something like this. That is exactly why the people of Auckland—and, in fact, the<br />
people of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>—should have the right to see this bill referred to a select<br />
committee. These are the very questions that need to be addressed. They are complex<br />
situations, and we do need to ensure that all the rights of these employees are protected.<br />
As I said, it is no surprise that National is doing this. Just last week, National also<br />
canned the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce. So it is no wonder National<br />
members are trying to make sure that there are no rights for these employees going<br />
forward. National members have removed that provision from the bill.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is utter rubbish.<br />
SUE MORONEY: No, it is absolutely true. They did it to ensure that the<br />
employment terms and conditions did not automatically transfer through to the<br />
transitional authority.<br />
This is a serious issue, because 6,300 employees are involved in these eight councils.<br />
They need to know—and they should have the right to ask this question—why the<br />
Government has taken out of this bill those workers’ right to have the same terms and<br />
conditions that they have worked many years to acquire. Why did National move to take<br />
that right away from them as it moves towards this sham of a transitional body? It is an<br />
important question, because the very act of creating that transitional body changes the<br />
employer and, therefore, the employment circumstances of 6,300 workers. This is an<br />
issue that will be important to the families of Auckland. If National members do not<br />
think that paid parental leave is important, then they are wrong.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): Now we<br />
understand what the deal is. It is right that yesterday clause 36 was taken out of the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was set aside because that matter<br />
will be dealt with in a successive bill. Two further bills will be dealt with before the<br />
Auckland Council is established. [Interruption] If members would just calm down, I<br />
will explain it all to them.<br />
Firstly, it is worth noting that this particular part, new Part 12, refers to the transfer of<br />
remaining employees. These are employees who are not part of the transition in the<br />
initial stages. It is important that they are protected. National understands that. Labour<br />
members wanted to muck around so much with the bill that they put up 8,000<br />
amendments to this particular part. That is utterly absurd. National has said: “All right, a<br />
select committee can deal with this, and it will be included in a successive bill that deals<br />
with the Auckland transition arrangements.” The members opposite know that is how<br />
this works. Even today, they are putting up their own little part, and then they want to<br />
amend it. Here we have an exceptionally confused Opposition engaging in mock
3688 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
outrage over the employees of these organisations, when the harsh reality is that the<br />
Government is well aware of the issues, and is doing the right things to ensure those<br />
protections are there.<br />
No one can contract out of employment obligations put in the law. Opposition<br />
members can wave all the bits of paper they like, and they can get as excited as they<br />
like, but they are simply wrong. So we have the absurd situation of Moana Mackey<br />
asking what harm there was in putting this provision in the bill. That is like asking why<br />
the 50 kilometre per hour rule should not go in the bill, or why all the pedestrian rules<br />
should not go into the bill. That is like asking why a raft of other civil matters that are<br />
part of legislation should not be included in the bill, or why everything on the statute<br />
book should not be included. The reality is that that is an absurdity. When the law<br />
applies, it applies, and one cannot contract out of it.<br />
Our friends on the other side of the Chamber are as confused as ever. I would love to<br />
know—and here is the real question—what is so wrong with a select committee<br />
considering this issue, because that is what Labour is now opposed to. National has said<br />
that a select committee should consider this matter. We have taken the provision out of<br />
the bill so that a select committee can consider it. Mr Hide has said there is an issue<br />
here, and we will remove it from this bill. Labour members have put up 8,000<br />
objections to protecting workers, so the Government will let the select committee decide<br />
which of those amendments are valid and which are not. Then, Labour comes back<br />
today and starts putting into the bill another part—another couple of hours of <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
wasting its time—to put in place a law that already exists. I hope Labour members<br />
recognise that it is time to get off this silly course and to let this part be dealt with. They<br />
can bring in their 20,000 amendments that they claim they have sitting in the back<br />
room, and <strong>Parliament</strong> can once again go into this farcical situation of voting down the<br />
nonsensical, halfwitted thoughts of Labour members.<br />
I will make it abundantly clear that, in the action the Government has taken, there is<br />
no intention to remove from this bill the protections for employees who will be left over<br />
after the transfer—far from it. National wants a select committee to consider what is<br />
right and fair. Why does Labour oppose that?<br />
Grant Robertson: Send the whole bill to the select committee.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If Labour members oppose the whole bill, why are<br />
they so hell-bent on changing it from top to bottom with the raft of ridiculous<br />
amendments that we are seeing? The trivial pursuit exercise that the Labour members<br />
are engaged in is a great tribute to the Labour research unit. There is no doubt about it.<br />
The members of the unit are clearly the brains of the Labour Party. Labour does not put<br />
its brains up front; it puts its beautiful people up front. And that must also call into<br />
question the quality of the brains that back up Labour members. It is with considerable<br />
regret that the Government will not be supporting this part. It is utterly ridiculous and it<br />
is completely stupid.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): Gerry Brownlee needs to<br />
understand <strong>New</strong>ton’s first law of holes: when in a hole, stop digging. Gerry Brownlee<br />
said the Government has no intention of threatening the principle of paid parental leave,<br />
and that the matter should go to a select committee. I say “Bravo!” to “Mr Mander”—he<br />
is known as “Gerry Mander” because of the overall intent of the Local Government<br />
(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—because he has hit the nail on the head. It is rather a<br />
large hammer, but he has hit the nail on the head.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have worked very<br />
hard to get an extraordinary range of nicknames in this <strong>Parliament</strong>, but I really do not<br />
like that one.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3689<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure the member will be able to<br />
rectify that and have his say in future speeches.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I withdraw the epithet. The Opposition and the<br />
Government are actually in direct agreement on this point of paid parental leave. The<br />
Labour Opposition and the National Government, led by the esteemed Leader of the<br />
House, agree on two things: firstly, that the principle of paid parental leave is too<br />
important to be left in doubt, and that there is no harm in having a provision for the<br />
avoidance of doubt; and, secondly, that the matter should be sent to a select committee<br />
if there is any doubt on it at all.<br />
I say to Gerry Brownlee that if the Government agrees to those two things, then he<br />
can go home; otherwise, it will be a long day and a long night. I will tell members why.<br />
Paid parental leave is really important because when people need it, they have no choice<br />
but to need it. It is not possible to be half-pregnant. If a woman is pregnant and<br />
expecting a child, she is well down the track. It is therefore essential that women can<br />
rely on the terms and conditions of their employment when they most need to rely on<br />
them.<br />
There is a delicious irony here. The women and men of Labour are standing up for<br />
the rights of women and families, but the men of National are prepared to ignore those<br />
rights. Are the women of National leaping to their feet in defence of family rights? I ask<br />
why the Minister of Corrections does not rise to say “Harden up, ladies!”. Where is the<br />
Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police at this time? What about the Associate<br />
Minister of Immigration? What about any one of the innumerable blonde members from<br />
the South Island? What are they doing at this time? Amy Adams is a wise and capable<br />
member—she is even a lawyer, I believe—so why does she not rise to her feet in<br />
defence of the women of Auckland’s regional government and tell them that their paid<br />
parental leave will be guaranteed because this good, great, new, caring, conservative,<br />
and centrist John Key Government will protect them? No, I guess she will not.<br />
Why is the Government rushing this bill through the House when it does not come<br />
into force until November? Why does the bill have more holes in it than a Swiss<br />
cheese? Why does the bill have more air between its ears than the Leader of the House?<br />
Why does the bill need the Labour Opposition to comb through it to find all the little<br />
things that a select committee would find? The answer is that there is a hidden agenda.<br />
That is why we are here, unusually—in fact, historically—on a Saturday. We are here<br />
because we are the last line of defence for the democratic rights of Aucklanders. The<br />
Minister the Hon Rodney Hide, who is giggling, knows he has the sole authority under<br />
this bill to appoint a coterie of three henchmen to gut Auckland.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I move, That<br />
the question be now put.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I certainly want to speak on this important amendment,<br />
new Part 12. But before I do, I say how thrilled I am that people in Wellington have<br />
taken the time to come to <strong>Parliament</strong> to listen to this debate. That means that we in<br />
Wellington are well-prepared for when our turn comes, as it most certainly will once the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill has been foisted on the people of<br />
Auckland. The Government will then turn its attention to other parts of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>,<br />
and Wellington will be one of those parts. So it is great to see everyone here. We will be<br />
up with the play and aware of what is happening. Already there are calls from the<br />
Mayor of Wellington and others for a similar sort of forced amalgamation here in<br />
Wellington. So I thank those people very much for coming out today.<br />
The other thing I want to do is table ACT’s policy on local government. The<br />
National Party has asked us to give it proof that a privatisation agenda is lurking<br />
beneath this bill. Here is the proof positive. Everyone can read it for themselves: “Local
3690 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
government will be required to shed its commercial activity … Roads and piped water<br />
will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.”, etc. I would like to table that policy so<br />
everyone can be quite clear as to why we have the suspicion that the ACT agenda is to<br />
privatise the $28 billion of assets in Auckland. People can read it for themselves.<br />
The other thing I take issue with is some of Gerry Brownlee’s comments. He said<br />
that nothing in this bill can override any other bill. In fact, the reason we are here today<br />
is that the bill overrides the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 that stipulate<br />
that there should be a formal consultation and a poll of electors in any part of <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> where a reorganisation takes place. This bill has overridden the right of<br />
Aucklanders to have a poll in order to make a decision about whether they want to see<br />
their eight councils obliterated and whether they want this new, highly centralised<br />
Auckland Council to be foisted upon them. This bill overrides the other bills. I do not<br />
know why Mr Gerry Brownlee suggested that it could not override other bills, because<br />
it does.<br />
Then he asked why we would assume that this bill would take away the right to<br />
parental leave of the women who are part of the 6,300 employees in the existing<br />
councils. Well, why would we not assume that the rights were going to be taken away,<br />
when the bill takes away virtually everything else in Auckland governance? The bill<br />
takes away the rights of eight existing local councils to be sovereign and to implement<br />
the wishes of their electors. It effectively ties the local councils’ hands behind their<br />
backs, and they will have to go cap in hand every time they want to spend more than<br />
about $5,000. So why would we not assume that this bill seeks to override the rights of<br />
women employees to have paid parental leave?<br />
It is incredible that we are debating the issue of paid parental leave. I have actually<br />
been doing some research, in between coming to the Chamber, on women’s liberation.<br />
Paid parental leave was one of the things that women were calling for in 1970. Here we<br />
are in 2009 and the National Government is seeking to take away paid parental leave. It<br />
is truly alarming, which is why this amendment is so critical. If the Government is not<br />
trying to take away the rights of women to paid parental leave in the transition, why<br />
would it not allow this amendment for the avoidance of doubt?<br />
The other thing that I would like to table today is a definition of “blitzkrieg”. That is<br />
what is being done here. One of the fundamental tactics of Rogernomics is speed—do<br />
not give people a minute to breathe, just keep moving, and give them no time for<br />
reflection. Blitzkrieg was developed in Nazi Germany. Major General Fuller defined<br />
blitzkrieg as “Speed, and still more speed, and always speed was the secret … and that<br />
demanded audacity, more audacity and always audacity.”<br />
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now<br />
put.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This is a very important matter and I find it very<br />
troubling that Mr Brownlee thinks that this is silly or trivial. We are not being silly or<br />
trivial.<br />
Hon Tau Henare: He said you’re silly and trivial.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my<br />
colleague. Mr Brownlee certainly did not say that you were silly or trivial, as Tau<br />
Henare has accused him of doing. If we are going to have those interjections, I think<br />
that he has to get them right.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. Members<br />
should make sure they are relevant when they are interjecting.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: This matter is not silly or trivial.<br />
I want to support the amendment that my colleague Steve Chadwick has put up. This<br />
bill affects assets of $28 billion, but, more important, it affects the working conditions
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3691<br />
of 6,300 workers. These workers are people—people with families, people with<br />
mortgages, and people who are our neighbours and families. Frankly, it is important that<br />
we get this right. We have raised a legitimate concern about whether the actions of the<br />
Government have put at risk people’s right to paid parental leave. This is something that<br />
is certainly seen as very important on this side of the Chamber, and something that a<br />
number of us on this side of the Chamber campaigned very hard for. That is why this<br />
bill should go to a select committee, so that we can make sure that important things like<br />
people’s right to paid parental leave are not at risk. I would be very glad if they were not<br />
at risk, but there seem to be at least two possible reasons why they may be.<br />
The first of those is the removal of clause 36(1), and the second one is that later in<br />
that same clause there is an explicit reference to continuity of employment for the<br />
purposes of KiwiSaver. There is a principle of statutory interpretation that if one<br />
explicitly refers to one thing, it means that if other things are not explicitly referred to,<br />
they are not covered. At least it has raised some very significant questions. As my friend<br />
and colleague Sue Moroney said, this could be a cock-up or it could be a conspiracy.<br />
Either way, potentially there are risks. A cock-up is highly probable, given the way that<br />
this bill is being rammed through the House. It is entirely possible that this is a cock-up,<br />
and that that is not the intention of the Government. That at least is a little reassuring.<br />
However, it could well be that this is yet another example of attacks on workers and<br />
attacks on women by this Government. As evidence of that, in the last few days this<br />
Government has got rid of the pay and employment equity unit at the Department of<br />
Labour. Why? Does it not matter to people that women are paid fairly for the work they<br />
do? On the conspiracy side of the equation, the fact that we have a Minister of Women’s<br />
Affairs who does not seem to have the slightest idea about anything in her portfolio<br />
area—<br />
Carmel Sepuloni: Who is the Minister?<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: —I think her name is Pansy Wong. She does not seem to<br />
have any idea of what is going on in her portfolio. We have a Minister of Labour who<br />
seems hell-bent on reducing workers’ rights. We have tried during this debate to make<br />
sure that workers’ rights are looked after. A new part was put up this morning about<br />
personnel provisions. We talked about getting some principles, like good-employer<br />
principles, into this legislation. I want to ask what is wrong with that. Why are members<br />
opposite opposed to good-employer principles? In other local government<br />
amalgamations that have taken place, it has been an absolute cornerstone of the<br />
legislation to make sure that employment rights are centre stage.<br />
Getting it right for the people who work for local authorities is important, not only to<br />
those workers but also to the people in that area in order to make sure that those workers<br />
are able to get on and do their job without worrying that they are going to either lose<br />
their job or have their wages and conditions of employment reduced. Queensland is a<br />
very good example of this. I am holding up now the code of practice, which was agreed<br />
by all parties, to ensure that people were not made redundant, that people’s jobs were<br />
actually guaranteed for 3 years, and that their wages and conditions were fully<br />
guaranteed, as was their right to be represented by unions. Queensland was able to<br />
conduct one of the smoothest local government amalgamations that has been seen. That<br />
is in direct contrast to what happened in South Australia, where a whole lot of people<br />
lost their jobs. There was a lot of nervousness and concern, and, in fact, there were very<br />
significant service provision problems for the people of South Australia, not to mention<br />
the effect that the amalgamation had on the workers and their families.<br />
Frankly, I think it is really important that Steve Chadwick has put up this<br />
amendment, and we should think very seriously about whether you are going to make<br />
sure that people are not disadvantaged.
3692 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Not me.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: Sorry, of course you would not be doing this. The members<br />
opposite need to be very, very confident that they are not making workers lose their<br />
entitlements. To go back to the matter at hand, this issue is important because—and I<br />
say this for the benefit of those who do not know—to get paid parental leave a worker<br />
has to have had 6 months’ continuous service with an employer. I will give a little<br />
example—a very current example—which involves the National Party and a staff<br />
member working for the Labour Party who came across from Ministerial Services. Her<br />
employment contract ended and she had to take a new contract with the <strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong><br />
Service. She was pregnant at the time of the election, which meant she missed out on<br />
getting paid parental leave by 1 month. We tried to deal with that matter with National,<br />
and I say for the record—and this perhaps goes back to the conspiracy side of the<br />
equation—that National was completely uninterested in trying to resolve that problem<br />
for that particular worker. Perhaps some of the women over on the other side of the<br />
Chamber should think about what that means. Paid parental leave is a very important<br />
employment right in the current economic environment where things are very tough for<br />
people.<br />
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I appreciate having the opportunity to<br />
continue the debate. At every step of this debate, while the Opposition members have<br />
demanded their say on bits and pieces of the Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, the Government, on the other hand, has moved closure motions to<br />
put an end to the debate. I say to the Government that Labour is determined to have its<br />
say and is determined to recognise that Aucklanders’ views are important. For that<br />
reason, I rise to speak on proposed new Part 12 about the paid parental leave<br />
entitlement—to ensure that the voices of our women throughout Auckland, and<br />
especially those in Manukau City, are recognised and heard. The proposed amendment<br />
has two purposes: to give confidence to the women in Manukau City and the other<br />
seven local and territorial authorities throughout Auckland that their paid parental leave<br />
will be protected, and to provide protection and confidence to the close to 7,000<br />
workers who are effected by the restructuring and reorganisation of Auckland councils.<br />
When I look across to the other side of the Chamber, I see the member Dr Jackie<br />
Blue. I notice that she has been angry and frustrated throughout this debate. No doubt,<br />
as a member from the Auckland region, she is reflecting the anger and frustration that<br />
the people of Auckland are feeling about this particular debate. She is sitting on her<br />
own, away from the rest of her colleagues. She is the member who should have been the<br />
Minister of Health. Her anger and frustration are a reflection of the way that people<br />
throughout the Auckland region are feeling; they are angry and frustrated that this<br />
Government is not prepared to allow public consultation on the bill by sending it to a<br />
select committee. That is all that the Government has to do. I invite Dr Jackie Blue to<br />
take a call. She should not worry about what the whips are telling her to do; she should<br />
take a call on this amendment and stand up for women in the Auckland region. Close to<br />
7,000 workers will be affected by the reorganised structure. It would not be so bad if<br />
just young, single people were involved, but probably 50 to 60 percent of the workforce<br />
is women—married, middle-aged women with children—and if they have mortgages,<br />
they have a real sense of fear about what will happen.<br />
It is also important that the Committee votes in support of the proposed new Part 12<br />
because earlier the Government voted down a motion moved by Charles Chauvel—one<br />
of my colleagues—that the Government put in place a code of practice that honours and<br />
delivers the principle of protecting the workers affected. I have a concern about the<br />
workers for the various council-controlled organisations such as Manukau Water. I have
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3693<br />
been given a secret document, which states: “It is worth noting that barely 24 hours<br />
after the Government announced its decision—which expressly didn’t mention<br />
Watercare as the provider—the Minister of Local Government sent out a media release<br />
which effectively reversed that position and said Watercare would be the provider …<br />
there is a secret transition plan [that] is beneficial to private sector companies supported<br />
by that Minister. This plan will see more than 500 people currently employed in the<br />
water industry lose their jobs in favour of private sector contractors.” Those workers are<br />
additional to the close to 7,000 workers I mentioned. It is an outrage that Aucklanders<br />
who are listening to this debate and who want their views on it to be heard are finding<br />
that it is being shut down by the closure motions that members of the Government keep<br />
moving. The Government needs to listen to Aucklanders and to allow their views on<br />
this debate and on this particular bill to be heard.<br />
The disturbing thing throughout the debate is that the Minister of Local Government,<br />
Rodney Hide, and Mr Key have been promoting the bill as simply a technical bill, but<br />
the reality is that the bill changes everything. The bill takes away the powers and rights<br />
of councillors and mayors elected in 2007, because with the setting up of the Auckland<br />
Transition Agency the powers are given to three or four people handpicked by Rodney<br />
Hide who are then given the power to decide what happens within the local councils. I<br />
say again that all that this Government needs to do is send this bill to a select<br />
committee.<br />
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 42<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve<br />
Chadwick be agreed to:<br />
to insert the following new part:<br />
Part 12<br />
Paid Parental Leave Entitlement<br />
250 Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any<br />
territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act<br />
1987.<br />
251 Notwithstanding anything in the Act, all current councils and any new council<br />
created under this legislation will be related employees for the purposes of the<br />
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 42<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 12 not agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to a series of transcript<br />
amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4. I will read them out.<br />
The first proposed new Part 4 is “Amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001”. The
3694 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
amendments seek to amend substantially another Act, and therefore could change the<br />
bill into an omnibus bill; the amendment is therefore out of order. I refer the member to<br />
Standing Orders 256 and 257. The next amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley is to<br />
insert a new Part 4, “Auckland Rail Transport Transition”. This amendment is outside<br />
the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and<br />
targets.<br />
Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to challenge<br />
your ruling, but—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Could I read them through first, and then I<br />
will give the member the opportunity to take a point of order. The next amendment is to<br />
insert a new Part 4, “Transport Funding Transition”. This amendment is also outside the<br />
scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets.<br />
The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Amendments to the Land Transport Act<br />
1998”. This amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with<br />
governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new<br />
Part 4, “Transition Cost Recovery Plastic Bag Levy”. This amendment is outside the<br />
scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets.<br />
The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Cruelty Free Auckland Ports”. This<br />
amendment is outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not<br />
operational aspects and targets. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 amending—<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you make<br />
clear whether these are still Sue Kedgley’s amendments?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, they are. The next amendment inserts<br />
a new Part 4 amending the Overseas Investment Act 2005. This amendment is out of<br />
order, as it proposes a substantive amendment to another Act. The next amendment<br />
inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transition to Sustainable Investment”. Part 3 of the bill<br />
sets up a transitional agency, and all provisions relating to it are logically found there.<br />
The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt<br />
with by the Committee, so the amendment is therefore out of order. The next<br />
amendment inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transitional Agency Civil and Political<br />
Rights”. Part 3 of the bill sets up a transitional agency, and all provisions relating to it<br />
are logically found there. The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with<br />
clause 13, in Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt with by the Committee, so the amendment is<br />
therefore out of order.<br />
Those are the amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley that I have ruled out of order.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot<br />
understand how you can rule that this bill deals only with substantive amendments and<br />
does not deal with operational amendments, when the bill deals with incredibly detailed<br />
operational matters. You need only to look at clause 31, which says the councils are not<br />
allowed even to enter into a contract of more than $5,000 without the approval of the<br />
Auckland Transition Agency. Very, very detailed operational matters are outlined in<br />
other parts of the bill. I cannot understand how it can be argued that the bill does not<br />
deal with operational matters, when, in fact, the whole bill is full of them.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My interpretation in my ruling relates to<br />
the preliminary provisions of the bill. They set out very clearly that the bill is about<br />
structure and governance, and not about operational matters. My ruling is based on the<br />
preliminary provisions of the bill before us—the clauses associated with those. That is<br />
my ruling.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I really am<br />
struggling to understand this. I think this is a pretty important point. The bill is riddled<br />
with operational matters. In fact, you could argue that much of the bill is about not
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3695<br />
structural issues but, indeed, very detailed operational matters, such as whether<br />
someone may borrow money, whether a council may contract for something worth more<br />
than $5,000, or whether a council can appoint a director of a council-controlled<br />
organisation. They are very, very detailed provisions. I wonder whether it would be<br />
possible to recall the Speaker to get his ruling on the matter; otherwise, a lot of our very<br />
sensible amendments, which we have put a lot of effort, work, and time into, and which<br />
we feel cover important strategic issues, are going to be ruled out.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments.<br />
[Interruption] Could that cellphone please be turned off. I thank the member for stating<br />
her position. As I have said, I have ruled the amendments out of order because they deal<br />
with operational matters. They are not debatable. Are you seeking to recall the Speaker?<br />
I invite you to do so.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I would like to move that we ask the Speaker to come<br />
here and give his opinion on this significant issue.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. Can I have a go, Mr Chairperson? I do not think we have a proper motion<br />
before us. I am prepared to move it.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think it is important that the person who<br />
is sponsoring the amendments recalls the Speaker.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I thought any member could move it—to get it right.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for his<br />
help, but I think it is appropriate that the person sponsoring the amendments have the<br />
opportunity to recall the Speaker.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I move, That the Speaker be recalled to consider this<br />
important issue.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
House resumed.<br />
Speaker Recalled<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled out of order a number of<br />
amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley. In my opinion they are operational matters.<br />
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is about structure and<br />
governance, and the amendments proposed by Sue Kedgley are operational matters. I<br />
ruled that the amendments are outside the scope of the bill. There are a number of them,<br />
and I will not go through them in detail. It is my view that they fall outside the scope of<br />
the bill because they are operational. Some of them look to amend other Acts, and that<br />
is inappropriate. I have ruled accordingly.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for coming back to<br />
the Chamber. I did not call you back lightly; I think an important precedent has just<br />
been set. There is a worry that the interpretation given by the Chairperson could be used<br />
as a way to prevent consideration of many of the Greens’ amendments, which we spent<br />
considerable time and effort working on and which we felt were well within the scope<br />
of the bill.<br />
I am particularly concerned about the ruling that the Committee cannot consider<br />
those amendments because this bill deals only with matters of structure and not with<br />
operational matters. In fact, clauses 30 and 31, for example, deal entirely with<br />
operational matters. I do not think there is anything more operational than, in clause<br />
31(3)(i), whether a council can enter into a contract “the consideration for which is …<br />
$5,000 or more:”. I do not think there is anything more operational than, in clause<br />
31(3)(m), whether a council is allowed to appoint “a director of a council-controlled
3696 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
organisation:”. I will not keep reading. Very, very detailed operational matters are<br />
enshrined in the bill, and therefore I do not think that it is adequate to dismiss any<br />
amendment on the grounds that it deals with operational matters. Although the<br />
Chairperson said this bill deals only with governance matters, quite manifestly it deals<br />
with operational matters as well.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): In order to be helpful,<br />
Mr Tisch was diligent in giving a very detailed series of justifications in the report back,<br />
as it were, to the member. Quite a number of technical and individual issues were<br />
contained within that description. It is, of course, your call, Mr Speaker, but I mean this<br />
in all seriousness. I say that it may be helpful, given the nature of this matter, if Mr<br />
Tisch could outline in detail those matters for you in order for you to make an informed<br />
ruling, because they were very, very individualised and were quite technical. As I say,<br />
he was very diligent in his description in order to give the justification for the member. I<br />
think it would be difficult for you to give an informed ruling without that information.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think that what was<br />
suggested by the previous speaker is unnecessary. Mr Tisch has very generously taken<br />
Sue Kedgley through his reasons for ruling out her amendments. He could have invoked<br />
the provision of Standing Order 294, which is that he simply has to read some numbers<br />
out, in order to satisfy the requirements of the House. The issues that deal with each<br />
individual amendment have been adequately covered by the principle that Mr Tisch has<br />
decided to adopt in approaching this matter.<br />
I do not want to speak further, other than to say that the Government endorses the<br />
approach that the Chair has taken. There must be a separation between governance and<br />
operational matters. The specifics of this ruling were well elucidated to the member by<br />
Mr Tisch. Naturally, members will appeal and appeal. It is a little like question time:<br />
one keeps asking the question but may not like the answer. Mr Tisch has been generous<br />
in giving a series of reasons; I do not think you should require him to go through all that<br />
again.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Mr Speaker—<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Please be as brief as possible.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will try to be brief, but I think there are two points.<br />
The first concerns process, and I refer you back to your earlier ruling as to the role of<br />
the Chair. I make it clear that we are not challenging that ruling about the Chair’s role<br />
and his or her ability to make these decisions. I am not asking you to reverse those<br />
decisions but more to act as a Privy Counsellor of a Court of Appeal, and refer back to<br />
the rulings of the Chairperson for further consideration. I do not mean all of the rulings<br />
he made, because some of them were very clear and correct. For example, there were<br />
substantive amendments to Acts other than Acts that were already being considered in<br />
the bill. I do not want to disagree with my colleague, but it is pretty hard to argue with<br />
those rulings.<br />
Secondly, a number of amendments were ruled out effectively because they were<br />
operational matters, not governance matters. I reinforce the comments that Sue Kedgley<br />
made: this bill is riddled with operational matters, such as lines being drawn as to what<br />
the transition authority can do and what it cannot do. Sue Kedgley’s amendments were<br />
absolutely consistent with the substance of the bill, and therefore, in my opinion, it<br />
would be proper for you to invite the Chairperson to reconsider his position on that<br />
point.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: I will deal with the matter in maybe two steps. First, I reiterate what<br />
the Chair has said to the Committee of the whole House—that is, that the scope of this<br />
bill is quite narrow and deals with structure and governance issues. It would be my
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3697<br />
assessment that the Chair was on very good ground in making his rulings. But, more<br />
important, I make it very clear that on matters of relevance the Chair is the sole judge. I<br />
refer members to Speakers’ rulings 78/1-3. Those Speakers’ rulings go back 100 years.<br />
They are some of the few Speakers’ rulings in our Speakers’ Rulings that go back that<br />
far, and they have been reiterated every few years many times. Speaker’s ruling 78/3<br />
states: “It is bordering on an inappropriate use of the undoubted right to recall the<br />
Speaker to do so on the ground of relevance,”. So where the Chair has made a judgment<br />
on the issue of relevance and scope, the Speaker cannot overturn that judgment. I have<br />
taken the first step of saying that I believe that the Chair has acted on very sound<br />
ground, but 100 years of Speakers’ rulings make it very, very clear that the Speaker<br />
cannot overturn the judgment of the Chair on those matters.<br />
Debate resumed.<br />
In Committee<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a further series of transcript<br />
amendments in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert a new Part 4. The first of those<br />
proposes to insert new Part 4, “Transition Towards Greater Climate Protection:<br />
Amendment to the Resource Management Act 1991”. That amendment is outside the<br />
scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets.<br />
The next amendment inserts a new Part 4, “Transition to Simplified and Streamlined<br />
Dog Control: Amendment to the Dog Control Act 1996”. That amendment is also<br />
outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects.<br />
There is a further amendment in the name of Keith Locke to insert new Part 4,<br />
“Transition Agency Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio)”. That amendment is<br />
also outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational<br />
aspects.<br />
There is a further amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a<br />
new Part 8, “Local Councils”, which would establish local councils. That amendment is<br />
out of order as being inconsistent with the decision made by the Committee last night.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: What?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will have an opportunity to<br />
contribute by way of a point of order when I finish.<br />
There is a further amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to insert a new part 63,<br />
“Special Provisions relating to the continuation of obligations in Part 7 of the Local<br />
Government Act 2002”. But Subpart 2 of Part 3 of the bill dealt with that issue. Part 3<br />
was dealt with by the Committee. That amendment is therefore out of order.<br />
There is a further amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to insert a new Part<br />
163, “Special Provisions relating to the Electoral Act 2001 to apply while this Act is in<br />
force”, which relates to the Electoral Act and its application to this legislation. Clause 6,<br />
in Part 1 of the bill, dealt with that issue. Part 1 has been dealt with by the Committee.<br />
That amendment is therefore out of order.<br />
A further amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert a new Part 32,<br />
“Establishment of transitional consultative councils” is out of order as it sets up another<br />
body. The bill sets up one body.<br />
There are further amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a<br />
new Part 23, “Special Provisions relating to the Papakura District Council”, and a new<br />
Part 24 “Special Provisions relating to the Franklin District Council”. Those<br />
amendments are out of order as the bill deals with a specific Government structure<br />
across all of Auckland.
3698 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4,<br />
“Transition Agency and Environmental Rights”. That amendment has been ruled out of<br />
order as it is outside the scope of the bill. The bill deals with governance, and not<br />
operational matters. There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a<br />
new Part 4, “Transition Agency Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. This is ruled<br />
out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, and<br />
not operational matters. I have ruled that those amendments are out of order as they are<br />
outside the scope of the bill.<br />
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ka mōtinihia<br />
ahau kia whai rīpoata mō tō tātou kōkiri whakamua.<br />
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]<br />
[I move that we report progress.]<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Progress cannot be reported on a point of<br />
order.<br />
Schedules<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the schedules stand<br />
part. [Interruption] There is no debate on schedules. The schedules are not debatable.<br />
We will go to the vote.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. Because we are now moving to consideration of the schedules, I take it<br />
that all the additional parts that have been submitted by way of amendment have been<br />
ruled out of order by you—that the series that you have just ruled out were all the<br />
remaining parts that there were to be amendments.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is correct.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I also seek a second assurance. It was not while you<br />
were in the Chair, but there was an outburst from the Leader of the House directed at the<br />
Clerk’s Office. I just want an assurance that that outburst is not linked to the fact that,<br />
all of a sudden, every single amendment that created a new part has been ruled out. The<br />
convenience of that for the Government is not lost on the Opposition.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I am the sole judge of that. I<br />
can assure the member of the integrity of the Clerk’s Office and the hard work it has<br />
done over the last few days. I will be here to protect the Clerk’s Office at every<br />
opportunity, and I am the sole judge of such things. I heard that comment. I was not<br />
here, but I did hear that comment. Any criticism of the Clerk’s Office goes through the<br />
Chair, but I want to give you the assurance that I have full faith in the integrity of the<br />
way that the Clerk’s Office has been operating.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I want to absolutely endorse<br />
those remarks. I think you would find that absolutely everyone in the Chamber shares<br />
those views. The Clerk’s Office has worked remarkably hard, and it has people of<br />
integrity and professionalism. That is why the Opposition objected so strongly to the<br />
way it was addressed by National’s Gerry Brownlee.<br />
My next point of order relates to the suspended amendment to insert a new Part 5,<br />
“Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the<br />
reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, which also deals with Asian representation in<br />
the Auckland super-city. That part was suspended by the Minister in charge of the bill,<br />
the Hon Rodney Hide. We have to take that before the preliminary clauses. I am just<br />
checking that you will do that after the schedules have been voted on. Is that your<br />
intention?
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3699<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. Your assumption is correct. That is<br />
the process that we would go through.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 43<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Schedule agreed to.<br />
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We<br />
actually voted 32 opposed, but the interpreter said 42 opposed. I just want to correct<br />
that.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The new result for Labour is 32 opposed.<br />
Members the Ayes are 64, the Noes are 43. The motion is agreed to.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I raise a point<br />
of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wonder whether you can help on a point of procedure. I<br />
assume, now, that we have done the schedules. There are two points that I want to ask<br />
about. We have a postponed amendment to insert a part—I think it is Part 5,<br />
“Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the<br />
reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, in the name of Shane Jones. I understand that<br />
when that was postponed there was a motion from Darren Hughes before the Committee<br />
that was to be considered. From memory, I think it was a closure motion. I wonder<br />
whether that situation still stands or is that the next thing we go to. That is the first thing<br />
that I want to understand.<br />
The second thing that I wonder about is a matter of procedure. After the part that has<br />
been postponed is considered by the Committee and a decision is taken, we move to the<br />
preliminaries, as I think they are called. While we are still considering the postponed<br />
Part 5, is there an opportunity for anyone in the Committee to put another part to be<br />
considered, because we have not yet got to the preliminaries? I wonder whether that is a<br />
possibility.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Just further to that, I am a little confused<br />
myself, because Standing Order 293(1)(c) is not often used. If we go down to 293(4) we<br />
see that “Unless otherwise specified, consideration or further consideration of—(a) any<br />
postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with,<br />
other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. What I am not clear about,<br />
after all the amendments that have been tabled here today, is what your ruling is in<br />
respect of just what the preliminary clauses are. It would be helpful to the House if you<br />
could detail the preliminary clauses that are still there.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think I can advise on the last<br />
question first. I think clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses. But on the substantive<br />
matter that was raised by John Carter, which is what the position is with regard to<br />
further parts, when Mr Barker was in the Chair and he was contemplating accepting<br />
closure, he had not accepted the closure, and it is my understanding that further parts<br />
can be submitted until the time that closure is accepted.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the first point<br />
about the preliminary clauses is correct. Clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses of<br />
the bill. On the second point, no, the closure motion for Part 5 was postponed. We have<br />
before us a closure motion that was put forward by the Hon Darren Hughes. It is still<br />
appropriate.
3700 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. Can I just get absolute clarity here. My recollection—and I am absolutely<br />
clear on this—is that Mr Barker, when in the Chair, had not accepted the closure<br />
motion. He had not said he was going to put the question, and he had not started to put<br />
it. Many of us are of the view that it would have been better if he had put the question,<br />
but that is not the case. He was thinking about whether he was going to accept the<br />
motion. He had not accepted it in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.<br />
Therefore, the parts that are being lodged now are valid.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I do not think it would be too<br />
hard to go directly to <strong>Hansard</strong> to clear up this matter. My clear recollection is that Mr<br />
Barker said the words “The question is that the question be now put.” At that point, Mr<br />
Hide raised a point of order to suspend the proceedings. Once the suspension has been<br />
lifted, clearly we should go back to the point at which the Chair was about to proceed<br />
with the vote. I do not think there is a question about whether the Chair intended to take<br />
the motion. He, in fact, accepted the closure motion and was in the process of putting<br />
the question. <strong>Hansard</strong> will show that the words “The question is that the question be<br />
now put.” were uttered. Mr Hide’s postponement at that point means that, naturally, we<br />
would go back to that point once the suspension has been lifted.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I do not feel any need to go<br />
back to <strong>Hansard</strong> at this point. My recollection is different from that of Gerry Brownlee.<br />
I know that Gerry Brownlee is an honourable member, and I am prepared to accept his<br />
word. If that was what happened—I cannot remember it—then I accept his word that<br />
that was the case.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have been advised that the closure motion<br />
was still live. That was where the debate on new Part 5 was postponed. We now come<br />
back to the position where the Hon Darren Hughes moved the closure motion. We will<br />
continue from that point.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic<br />
groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council (continued)<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I put the closure motion on Part 5.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be<br />
agreed to:<br />
to omit clause 71.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 43<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There are a number of amendments in the<br />
name of the Hon Parekura Horomia. These are ruled out of order as they are<br />
inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I have obviously just got a copy of the Minister’s amendment, and I
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3701<br />
wanted to test with you whether in fact these are inconsistent or whether both could<br />
happen. Clearly, there is a review to be set up in the name of the Minister. That is<br />
correct; there is no doubt about that. But the question then is whether there can also be<br />
the reviews that are set up according to the amendments in the name of Parekura<br />
Horomia.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think you are looking at a further<br />
amendment, and not the one that I have—<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sorry. Which one have you put? The trouble is that we<br />
cannot tell which of the Minister’s amendments you are referring to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister’s amendment we just voted<br />
on is this one here.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: The short one.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): And that is tabled. So that is the<br />
amendment we have just voted on.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be<br />
agreed to:<br />
to omit clause 72.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment to the amendment be<br />
agreed to.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just for clarity,<br />
so that we are quite clear what we are voting on, could we have clarified as to what this<br />
clause 72 is. I cannot seem to find it.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Can I assist the member—and<br />
it might mean that we need another minute or two for the member to have a look at it. It<br />
is part of the Horomia amendment to add new Part 5. If one can find it amongst the<br />
papers, that is where it is.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that. This is the amendment<br />
that we are referring to. It is tabled.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 44<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 32; Green Party 8; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment to the amendment to the amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The following amendments in the names of<br />
Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis, the Hon Mita Ririnui, Jacinda Ardern, and Dr Ashraf<br />
Choudhary are out of order, as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the<br />
Committee.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be<br />
agreed to:<br />
to add the following new clause:<br />
72A Representation<br />
(1) Despite any other provision—
3702 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
(a) there will be a review of the ethnic make-up of the Transition Agency<br />
(including its governing body) on 30 May 2009; and<br />
(b) the review will include a review of the Māori, Pacific, Pakeha, Chinese, and<br />
Korean representation of the governing body.<br />
(2) Despite any other provision, community boards of existing local authorities will<br />
be consulted on any Māori, Pacific, or other ethnic representation of the Auckland<br />
Council.<br />
(3) Despite any other provision, representatives from all ethnic groups will be<br />
consulted on 30 May 2009 about the activities of the Transition Agency.<br />
(4) Despite any other provision, the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to<br />
appoint a board of Indian members, a board of Pacific members, and a board of<br />
Māori members to advise the Transition Agency.<br />
(5) Despite any other provisions the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to<br />
appoint a board of experts to advise the Auckland Council on matters of ethnic<br />
affairs.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment<br />
be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 39<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 28; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The following amendments are now out of<br />
order: amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern, amendments in the name of Dr<br />
Rajen Prasad, amendments in the name of Su’a William Sio, and amendments in the<br />
name of the Hon David Cunliffe.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. Because this is happening relatively rapidly, can we ask you to elaborate<br />
on why those amendments are out of order? The one I am particularly interested in at<br />
the moment is that of Mr Prasad, which refers in particular to Indian representation, and<br />
I am not sure that the fact that there are to be reviews on ethnic issues cuts out that<br />
amendment. I am sure there will be parallel arguments for some of my colleagues’ other<br />
amendments, but the fact that the Government has lined up an amendment to have a<br />
review generally does not cut out that specific review—<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for those comments.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): In support of my colleague, and<br />
as a member who has put forward a series of amendments here, I say that your rulings—<br />
which we are not seeking to question; I want to make that clear—have been on two<br />
grounds: either because of inconsistency with the previous decisions of the Chair or the<br />
Committee, or because they are matters related to operations rather than governance, in<br />
the case of a large quantity of amendments, including whole parts. So, in fact, two<br />
grounds of precedent are in play here. It is not clear to us from the way in which you<br />
have issued your latest ruling, Mr Chairperson, which of those decisions applies to the<br />
various amendments. It is a serious matter, because we are dealing here with whole new<br />
parts, which are debatable amendments, by precedent from the Chair—from all<br />
Chairpersons—and it is important for us, as we report back to our constituencies, to<br />
understand the reasons why these amendments are outside the Standing Orders.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. We have just passed an amendment<br />
in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide, which covers all the points you have just made.<br />
The other amendments are of the same substance. That is why the other amendments are
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3703<br />
now ruled out of order—because we have just passed that amendment in the name of<br />
the Hon Rodney Hide.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: Could you elaborate?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. It is written down here, and the<br />
member has a copy of this. We are not getting into discussion on this, because we have<br />
just passed it and it is not debatable. I refer the member to the amendment we have just<br />
passed, which now means that subsequent ones are out of order.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. This is a new point of order, and it goes to the wording of the Rodney<br />
Hide amendment—the longer one—where throughout it there is mention of<br />
“provisions”. Probably unfortunately for Mr Hide, within at least one of the new part’s<br />
amendments “provisions” are not mentioned but there are “sections”. So although<br />
“provisions” is widely used within a number of the amendments, one particular set of<br />
amendments has “sections”, and it is my submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that that<br />
set of amendments is not ruled out by the Hide amendment.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The substance of the amendments and the<br />
substance of the Minister’s amendment are the same. That is why the others have been<br />
ruled out.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. You advised that the Minister’s amendment ruled other amendments out<br />
of order. Are you able to tell us what the other amendments were?<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I say to the member that the other<br />
amendments are tabled. They are available for the member to peruse; they have been on<br />
the Table for some time. They are there for him if he wishes to have a look at them.<br />
The same amendment that we have just passed means that other amendments have<br />
been ruled out. They are in the name of Jacinda Ardern, Dr Ashraf Choudhary, and<br />
Raymond Huo.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura<br />
Horomia be agreed to:<br />
to insert the following new part:<br />
Part 5<br />
Mechanisms to ensure representation of Māori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the<br />
reorganisation of the Auckland Council<br />
Subpart 1<br />
Guarantees Māori representation on the Auckland Council by directing the Auckland<br />
Transition Agency to establish Māori seats<br />
71<br />
(1) Two Māori members are to be elected to the Auckland Council by voters who are<br />
on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll<br />
(a) The 2 Māori seats shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless—<br />
(i) a referendum of Māori voters on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll<br />
is held; and<br />
(ii) 75% of those voters vote in favour of removing the seats.<br />
(2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Mana Whenua Forum, the<br />
members of which will be appointed by mana whenua from the district of the<br />
Auckland Council<br />
(a) The Mana Whenua Forum should—<br />
(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council:<br />
(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the<br />
Auckland Council on issues of relevance to mana whenua:<br />
(b) The Mana Whenua seat shall not be removed from the Auckland<br />
Council unless 75% of Mana Whenua Forum members vote in favour<br />
of removing the seat.
3704 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Subpart 2—Pacific and Minority Representation<br />
Guarantees representation and participation by Pacific and Minority groups by<br />
directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum<br />
and an Ethnic Advisory Forum and allows the members of those forums to<br />
appoint one member each to hold a seat on the Auckland Council<br />
72<br />
(1) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum,<br />
the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in<br />
consultation with Pacific communities and pacific leaders based in the Auckland<br />
district<br />
(a) The Pacific Advisory Forum should—<br />
(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council:<br />
(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the<br />
Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Pacific Communities:<br />
(b) The Pacific Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council<br />
unless—<br />
(i) 75% of members of the Pacific Advisory Forum vote in favour of<br />
removing the seat.<br />
(2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish an Ethnic Advisory Forum,<br />
the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in<br />
consultation with Ethnic communities and Ethnic leaders based in the Auckland<br />
district<br />
(a) The Ethnic Advisory Forum should—<br />
(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council:<br />
(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the<br />
Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Ethnic communities:<br />
(b) The Ethnic Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council<br />
unless—<br />
(i) 75% of members of the Ethnic Advisory Forum vote in favour of<br />
removing the seat.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment as amended be<br />
agreed to.<br />
Ayes 36<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Noes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
<strong>New</strong> Part 5 as amended not agreed to.<br />
Clauses 1 and 2<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): We are now making rapid<br />
progress on this bill, and we are up to the title clause and the commencement clause. I<br />
am sure that Opposition members will have some further suggestions on what the title<br />
might be, but the title, as it stands, and as recommended by the Government, is the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which actually captures what the<br />
bill is about.<br />
I know that the commencement date has been contentious, because all the way<br />
through yesterday and today we heard no less a person than the deputy Leader of the<br />
Opposition, Annette King, tell us that the bill does not come into force until November<br />
next year. I am afraid that the Labour Opposition is wrong about that. This bill comes<br />
into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, and I know<br />
there has been a bit of confusion about that.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3705<br />
However, Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010, because that concerns the<br />
Auckland Council. Clauses 27 and 28 in Subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the<br />
close of 31 October 2010. I commend the title and commencement of this bill to the<br />
Committee.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Minister has pointed to a very important<br />
issue. He is quite right that, except for Part 2, which comes into force on 1 November<br />
2010, this legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the<br />
Royal assent. Of course, therein lies the problem, because by the date that this bill<br />
receives its Royal assent there will have been no proper consultation with the people of<br />
Auckland as to its effect.<br />
One of the amendments that will be put forward by members on this side of the<br />
Chamber is to delay the date of that Royal assent to a date that is substantially later, so<br />
that the normal processes that precede legislation coming into force can, in some other<br />
process outside this <strong>Parliament</strong>, take place in order to protect the citizens of Auckland<br />
and to give the fourth estate the time to properly identify the effects of the provisions<br />
contained in this bill.<br />
Let us consider that issue. The provisions of this bill were not available to the media<br />
or to the Opposition until shortly before this debate began. We have not had much time<br />
to properly get into the implications of this bill. It is true that <strong>Parliament</strong> has been sitting<br />
very long hours. We have been embroiled in the detail of each provision as it has come<br />
before us, but we have had to do that under the pressure of urgency, sequentially one<br />
issue after another, and we have not had the time to consider other issues that may be<br />
there but which we have not thought of in the limited time we have had to deal with this<br />
bill.<br />
But that does not apply just to <strong>Parliament</strong>. It applies to everyone in Auckland. They<br />
have been prevented from having the time they would normally have to look at these<br />
things. These are very technical matters. They involve the interrelationship of the Local<br />
Government Act 2002, the various Acts of <strong>Parliament</strong> that cover Watercare Services<br />
and the like, and the various Acts of <strong>Parliament</strong> that control local assets and the<br />
environment, such as the volcanic cones and the lovely marine environment around<br />
Auckland. In order to get our heads around the complexities of all of those<br />
interrelationships, it is very important that we give ourselves the time to reflect on these<br />
issues, and the time to take the appropriate advice.<br />
Some of these issues are so technical that a lot of laypeople are not able to get their<br />
heads around them in a short period of time. They need time to be able to talk to nongovernmental<br />
organisations that have expertise in these areas, to their lawyers, and to<br />
their local body politicians. Those local body politicians themselves have not had the<br />
time to get their heads around these issues, so they are not yet in a position to inform<br />
their ratepayers and citizens as to where the hooks in this lie. Some of those hooks have<br />
been well identified by the Opposition, including Labour and the Greens, but a lot of<br />
them still lie untested because the process has been rushed. So one of the important and<br />
necessary changes to the bill would reverse the provision that currently states that the<br />
bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent—<br />
which could be next week—and puts it out to some later date.<br />
Labour members are open as to the range of dates. The date has to be substantially<br />
later than now, but I do not have an unreasonable view as to what that date might be. If<br />
we could have a date that was similar to the date that would have been achieved after a<br />
full select committee process, followed by a second and a third reading debate in this<br />
House, then that would be an appropriate period of time to consider the date by which<br />
this bill ought to come into effect. Although the process by which we could have some<br />
decent scrutiny would not have the advantage of the officials’ advice, would not have
3706 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
the advice of parliamentary services to the select committee, and would not have the<br />
input of many politicians, at least we would have something. Members of the fourth<br />
estate, non-governmental organisations, councils, their lawyers, and all the people who<br />
have a very strong interest in this issue would have the time to consider the implications<br />
of this, and they would then have the time to take the other political steps that one can<br />
take when one does not like legislation.<br />
A case in point of recent occurrence is the foreshore and seabed legislation, which<br />
was highly controversial and incendiary. There are people who say that we did not get<br />
that right. What we did not do was rush it through in such a short process as is being<br />
done to the 1.4 million people in Auckland, and stop people from having their say.<br />
Indeed, we allowed sufficient time for people to—<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): The debate on the title clause of<br />
a bill is an opportunity to take stock of the various arguments that have been made<br />
during the Committee stage and to reflect those through the title. So it is absolutely<br />
appropriate that we reflect on the key arguments that have been made throughout the<br />
debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill.<br />
I said at the start of this debate some days ago that I do not often get angry about<br />
matters before this Committee, but that I am deeply, deeply angry about this bill. Let me<br />
remind the Committee why. The first more appropriate title for this bill is the “They<br />
Stole Our City (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill”. I speak here as a passionate<br />
representative of Waitakere City. It is a city of which I, like the 200,000 people of west<br />
Auckland, am proud. I am proud because we have built a city that treasures its<br />
environment. It is a city that treasures the arts and promotes smart business. The role of<br />
the territorial authority, the Waitakere City Council, has been crucial in achieving that.<br />
The member Sam Lotu-Iiga is a councillor as well as an MP and he should not trash his<br />
other employer. The same is true of Manukau, the North Shore, central Auckland, and<br />
east Auckland. We are made stronger by our diversity. We do not need to be<br />
homogenised by some top-down, business baron - driven council for the few in a<br />
smoke-filled room. That is what we are arguing about today.<br />
The second reason we are arguing is that this bill should be called the “They Stacked<br />
the Deck to Keep Auckland Bluer Bill”. It is not about making Auckland greater; we do<br />
not need eight at-large councillors to do that. There will be eight at-large councillors<br />
because someone wants the right wing to be in control. That is because if people want to<br />
run an at-large campaign across Auckland, they need $250,000 to send one letter to<br />
every household. The poor need not run. If people are not rich or famous, they can<br />
forget it; they cannot be an at-large councillor. They cannot get their name recognition<br />
up, so they should forget it. That is why historically 19 out of 20 at-large councillors in<br />
Auckland used to come from east Auckland. That was no surprise, as that is where the<br />
money and power was. That is why we had a ward system in the first place. The royal<br />
commission got that one wrong, and the Government has got it way wrong.<br />
Thirdly, the bill could be called the “Complete and Dishonest Waste of Money Bill”.<br />
The transition costs of this legislation have been calculated by independent analysis at<br />
Auckland University at $750 per ratepayer—not per household; per ratepayer. There are<br />
four people in my household; that is $3,000 of transition costs, and for what? To take<br />
away the city I am proud of, and to homogenise us and bring us under the control of the<br />
barons of Remuera.<br />
What about the “No Proper Consultation Bill”? It is bad enough to do all that, but<br />
provided the Government goes through a proper parliamentary process, <strong>Parliament</strong> is<br />
sovereign. We accept that, but listen to the lies that have been told about this bill. The<br />
Government said it would consult once it got the royal commission report. Then it said<br />
that, no, it would consult when it had made policy decisions. <strong>Parliament</strong> has a select
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3707<br />
committee process, but the Government said it was sorry, but there would be no select<br />
committee, because it is ramming the bill through. We are here on a Saturday because<br />
the Committee of the whole House is the last line of defence. We are the last line of<br />
defence against something fundamentally wrong happening to democracy in <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>.<br />
I tell those members to be careful what they wish for, because sometimes the<br />
previous Government got that a bit wrong. Others have said the Foreshore and Seabed<br />
Act, the Electoral Finance Act, or even the child discipline bill were examples of<br />
something that was maybe not as bad as this, but was sort of similar because we did not<br />
carry public opinion. This legislation is the worst constitutional outrage I have seen in<br />
10 years in this Chamber, and I am ashamed that the Minister of Local Government, Mr<br />
Hide, is so afraid of public opinion.<br />
If that is not bad enough, how is this for gall? He has put fully paid ads in the<br />
newspapers and will have a sham consultation after this bill is already passed.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I have an amendment to the title, and I would initially<br />
like to speak to that amendment. My amendment states “to omit the words (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) and replace them with (Gutting of Auckland Local Democracy)”. I<br />
think that sums up what this bill is about. Another possible suggestion would be to call<br />
it “Rogernomics Part 2”, because that would also encapsulate what the bill is about. It is<br />
almost breathtaking that we could expunge eight democratically elected city councils<br />
overnight with the passage of this bill, without ever asking one of the almost 1.5 million<br />
Aucklanders whom the councils represent whether they wish their councils to be<br />
obliterated off the face of the earth, as they will be on 1 November next year.<br />
It is also extraordinary that there is absolutely no mandate for this bill, because<br />
neither National nor ACT said in its manifesto that it was intending to eliminate the<br />
eight city councils of Auckland. Those parties did not tell Aucklanders that, and they<br />
did not put it in their manifestos. This is shades of Rogernomics, 1984. There is no<br />
mandate from the royal commission, which wanted to retain the eight city councils. The<br />
people of Auckland have not been consulted. They are not even allowed consultation on<br />
this bill. It is extraordinary. I think it will take a while for Aucklanders to fully<br />
understand the implications of what has happened over the last few days—namely, that<br />
democracy in Auckland has been drastically shrunk. Democracy has been shrunk and<br />
eight councils have been obliterated.<br />
But, even worse than that, the Government has come up with a completely new type<br />
of local democracy in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. That is why I am glad that people from Wellington<br />
have been sitting here watching; they understand what is going on. Everyone else in<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> needs to wake up to what is going on, because it is going to happen all<br />
over <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> once this reform has been rammed though. The Government has<br />
come up with a new model of local democracy that gives unprecedented powers to the<br />
mayor—the so-called strong mayor model. Members opposite are hoping that John<br />
Banks will be the mayor. Someone like John Banks could be voted in by a minority—<br />
by, arguably, 30 percent of Aucklanders—take control of the Auckland Council, pick<br />
his cohorts, his inner cabal, control the council agenda, and ram through his agenda for<br />
Auckland. I think some Aucklanders do not realise that that is what will happen. We are<br />
trying to warn people about it now.<br />
The only things to counterbalance the new, unprecedented executive powers of the<br />
mayor are these pitiful little local boards. The Government is setting up this funny little<br />
committee for Auckland, but what will it consult on? Everything has been set in motion;<br />
everything is done. The only thing that I have heard anyone say we can consult on is the<br />
powers of the local boards, which are not even set in statute. We are going to have huge<br />
consultation, but what about? The powers of the local boards.
3708 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
In response to my question in the House, the Prime Minister assured Aucklanders<br />
that every single Aucklander would be able to be heard by the committee that is being<br />
set up. I am sure Aucklanders will want to be heard, if only to protest at the atrocious<br />
way in which this measure is being rammed through <strong>Parliament</strong> using shock tactics, as<br />
Naomi Klein called them; the Government is using the blitzkrieg tactics of<br />
Rogernomics, which are not to give people a minute to breathe but just to keep ramming<br />
it through.<br />
The other thing I want to say is that I am disappointed that the media ignored a very<br />
significant clause in this bill that will help to expunge local democracy from Auckland.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Committee<br />
report progress.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That progress be reported.<br />
Ayes 25<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25.<br />
Noes 75<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; Green Party 7; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; Māori Party 4;<br />
United Future 1.<br />
Motion not agreed to.<br />
MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is unbelievable. The Opposition is attempting to<br />
assist Government members who have been complaining and complaining that we have<br />
been dragging it out, and when we say “OK, why don’t we move on?”, they vote against<br />
it. It is absolutely unbelievable. Maybe we could call this the “Absolute Shambles and<br />
What the Hell is the Leader of the House Doing Bill”, because Government members do<br />
not know whether they are Arthur or Martha.<br />
I have a lot of suggestions for alternative titles for this legislation. The first would be<br />
the “Why Should Aucklanders Get a Say When Tories Know Best Bill”. I think that<br />
really sums up this legislation, being rammed through all stages under urgency with no<br />
select committee, which obliterates eight democratically elected councils overnight. It is<br />
unbelievable; maybe we could just call it the “Democracy is So Tiring Bill” because I<br />
think that is how National members feel about it. For them it is tiring having to stay<br />
here at <strong>Parliament</strong> to vote on things, even though that is what we are paid to do. It is<br />
tiring to go out and talk to people. Democracy makes us really, really quite tired and we<br />
can see the bags under Mr Brownlee’s eyes.<br />
My next name is a very important one, because it relates to the amendment Labour<br />
tried to put up to secure paid parental leave for the employees of local authorities. We<br />
could probably call it the “Gerry Brownlee Does Not Understand How Paid Parental<br />
Leave Works Bill”. We tried to explain to him that when we move to this transition<br />
agency the women working there will effectively have a new employer, which means<br />
that their paid parental leave entitlement does not carry over. Mr Brownlee said that we<br />
should not put a provision about that in the bill, because we do not need to put in a<br />
provision to say that the residential speed limit is 50 kilometres an hour. I not sure<br />
whether Mr Brownlee knows that the residential speed limit does not change when<br />
someone changes employer. That is a crucial difference between the speed limit and<br />
paid parental leave. He might want to go and talk to the Minister of Transport about<br />
that, get a briefing, and have it explained to him.<br />
The bill could be called the “Gerry Brownlee (Trust Me I Know What I Am Doing)<br />
Bill”. He said the paid parental leave provisions were going to go to a select committee.<br />
But the fact is we are passing this legislation now. It will come into force whenever this
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3709<br />
sitting of <strong>Parliament</strong> lifts. We were asking him why he did not put in a really simple<br />
clause that clarifies what, apparently, the Government members claim—that they do not<br />
expect the entitlement to go. Let us just put that in the bill to clarify it. Mr Brownlee<br />
says that that part does not come in until November 2010 anyway, and by then we will<br />
have passed the other legislation. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House,<br />
given his control of the House this week I am not entirely convinced that those other<br />
pieces of legislation can be expected to be passed by November 2010. I think it is a<br />
great leap of faith for the women who work for the Auckland City Council to say:<br />
“That’s all right. Mr Brownlee is so much in control of the House that this will not be a<br />
problem and the legislation fixing it up will be passed.”<br />
The next very important amendment Labour put up was to ensure Māori<br />
representation on the transition agency. Maybe, since the Māori Party opposed it, we<br />
could call this bill the “Iwi Versus Kiwi Bill” because we are seeing the same old<br />
National Party. I just want to point out to my colleagues in the Māori Party and the<br />
Green Party that Labour did try to make that part stand alone. We tried to make that part<br />
for Māori representation stand on its own without the other representation for Pacific<br />
and Asian people, but the Clerk told us we could not do it and that the only way we<br />
could get it up was to combine it. I want to say, because we are criticised by Māori<br />
Party colleagues for putting the others in with Māori, that we tried.<br />
At least Labour did try, because I did not see other amendments on the Table from<br />
parties that were accusing us of not doing enough for Māori representation; only Labour<br />
put up amendments on the Table to ensure Māori representation. I think it is important<br />
that that goes on the record.<br />
Labour also put up an amendment to make sure that public assets could not be sold<br />
by this transition agency. National opposed that, so let us call the bill the “Sell the<br />
Family Silver Bill”. One of the assets we are talking about is Auckland Airport. Do<br />
members remember what the National Party said about Auckland Airport when Labour<br />
stepped in to ensure that it stayed in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> hands? National members were up in<br />
arms, and then they sit here in this Chamber and expect us to believe that they care<br />
about the public retention of assets. The situation we find ourselves in is absolutely<br />
incredible. It is rotten, rotten legislation by a rotten-to-the-core Government that is<br />
showing its true colours.<br />
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now<br />
put.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): We are 5 minutes into the debate—<br />
maybe 10—and National members are already trying to shut it down. We should call<br />
this bill the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill” because this bill gives<br />
Rodney Hide ultimate and total control of Auckland. It establishes a transition agency<br />
whose members he can hand-pick. The bill says that that transition agency has to have<br />
all of its expenditure approved by the Minister, and it gives that transition agency the<br />
ultimate control over all the decision making of all the democratically elected existing<br />
authorities in Auckland. It hands ultimate and total control to the ACT Party and to<br />
people like Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas. Rodney Hide can now appoint whomever<br />
he likes to this transition agency. That is why we should call this the “Rodney Hide<br />
(Total Control of Auckland) Bill”. He could appoint, if he so chose, Roger Douglas and<br />
Richard Prebble to this agency, because even though Roger Douglas is a member of the<br />
House, we know that National members do not have any problem with double-dipping.<br />
They do not have any problem with double-dipping; they do not have any problem with<br />
anyone being involved in local government politics at the same time as being in this<br />
House.
3710 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
We should call this the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”, because we<br />
know this is the first step in the plans of National and the ACT Party to merge all local<br />
authorities into super-councils up and down the country. I took an interest in this<br />
particular issue because I know that Paul Quinn and his mate John Terris have been<br />
going around the Hutt Valley saying they are in favour of merging Wellington local<br />
authorities.<br />
Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I put to you that we are getting<br />
repetition.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Chris Hipkins to continue.<br />
CHRIS HIPKINS: I asked Rodney Hide whether he had received any advice on the<br />
merging of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils, and he has. He has already<br />
received advice on the potential merger of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils.<br />
He answered that in parliamentary written question No. 05571, where he confirmed that<br />
he had received advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils<br />
on 24 April 2009.<br />
I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call and give the people of the Hutt Valley<br />
an absolute reassurance that they are not going to lose their local governance as well, as<br />
part 2 of this reorganisation that National and the ACT Party are pushing. We know that<br />
Hutt Valley people cannot be certain that they would even get a say in that<br />
reorganisation, because National and the ACT Party would ram through more<br />
legislation in this House. That is why we should call this bill the “Local Government<br />
Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”—because we know that there is more to come.<br />
We should call this the “National Party Knows Best Bill” because we heard from<br />
members opposite that the people had their say on 8 November last year. It is all over<br />
from then on in; National has 3 years when it can do whatever it likes under<br />
parliamentary urgency, and it does not have to go back and consult the people. It does<br />
not even have to send legislation to a select committee. It can do just whatever it likes.<br />
That is why we should call this bill the “National Party Knows Best Bill”.<br />
We should call it the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill”<br />
because after 3 days of debating amendments Gerry Brownlee finally worked out how<br />
to get them ruled out of order—not on his own; in fact he probably had quite a bit of<br />
help from Rodney Hide to do that. Gerry Brownlee sat through 3 days of voting on<br />
amendments before he thought it might be a good idea to pick up the Standing Orders<br />
and maybe have a bit of a read. The Leader of the House has finally read the Standing<br />
Orders! That is a cause for celebration. So we should call this bill the “Gerry Brownlee<br />
Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill”.<br />
We could call it the “Where is Melissa Lee Bill”, because, despite wanting to be the<br />
next MP for Mt Albert, she has not taken one single call on this debate. She wants to be<br />
the next member of <strong>Parliament</strong> for a seat in the centre of Auckland, yet she has<br />
absolutely nothing to say on the reorganisation of Auckland’s local governance.<br />
We could call this the “Privatisation is Back on the Agenda Bill”. National members<br />
may have gone around the country saying they would not sell State-owned enterprises<br />
like Kiwibank, but they have suddenly discovered there are a whole lot of State assets in<br />
local government that they can get their hands on and hock off. They voted against the<br />
amendment put forward by Labour that would have saved that.<br />
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This bill is being rammed through with no select<br />
committee consideration. Two parts of the bill will be in effect very shortly. Part 3 has<br />
some of the most significant implications for Aucklanders that one could imagine.<br />
Around $28 billion worth of assets, 6,300 workers, and local government representation<br />
and services for over a million people will all be affected by the work of the transitional
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3711<br />
agency that is being established, and that agency is under no obligation to consult<br />
anybody, other than the Minister Rodney Hide.<br />
Some of my colleagues have already suggested that we should be calling this bill<br />
after Rodney Hide. That seems very appropriate, given how much power he has to<br />
control this agency. This agency is made up of somewhere between three and five<br />
people. There are no requirements here to determine any criteria for selecting them.<br />
There is no need for that agency or its board to be representative of anybody. In fact, it<br />
could be made up of five of Rodney’s best friends or, as somebody said, five members<br />
of the ACT Party, for example. This is entirely possible under this bill. Let us call it the<br />
“Centralised Power in the Hands of a Rich Few Bill”, shall we? Let us do that. Let us<br />
call it the “Centralised in the Hands of the ACT Party Bill” or indeed the “Centralise it<br />
in the Hands of Rodney Hide Bill”.<br />
Will Rodney Hide bother to talk to anybody about any of the important matters that<br />
the transitional agency will be dealing with? I think it is highly unlikely, given there<br />
was no consultation on the recommendations of the royal commission, given that<br />
developing the Government’s proposal after the royal commission did not seem to<br />
involve consultation with anyone other than the Government, and given that no effort<br />
was made to cost it or to take a regulatory impact analysis before pushing this bill<br />
through <strong>Parliament</strong>. I think it is highly unlikely that he will consult people about the<br />
implications of some of the matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with.<br />
Despite our best efforts over the last few days to scrutinise this bill, in the absence of<br />
a select committee process there will undoubtedly be things that have not been able to<br />
be checked in this <strong>Parliament</strong>. We have done our very best. We have raised issues<br />
concerning representation and making sure that people are represented—that the diverse<br />
and large population of Auckland is represented appropriately. We have put in place<br />
amendments concerning assets in order to make sure not only that they are not<br />
privatised but also that our elected representatives do not lose control of them—that<br />
they have the right to control those assets. We have made a number of amendments<br />
concerning workers and the treatment of the 6,300 council workers. But none of that has<br />
been taken into account by the Government. Its members are far too arrogant to think<br />
that any of those things have merit.<br />
I think that Aucklanders, and in fact <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers, will be highly resentful of the<br />
fact that the Government has not bothered to pick up a number of very important<br />
matters that Labour has raised with it. Labour members know that those issues matter to<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers. The public control of public assets and the fair treatment of workers<br />
matter to <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers. We have raised our concerns about unintended<br />
consequences, such as the paid parental leave provisions, which Gerry Brownlee<br />
considers to be a silly matter. If we are right, then a lot of women will be very<br />
concerned—and a lot of families, in fact—about Mr Brownlee’s attitude to this<br />
important matter of paid parental leave.<br />
There are a number of matters that we have not even been able to consider. One of<br />
those matters concerns clause 33. This clause has not had any consideration by the<br />
Committee, but again we could call clause 33 the “Let Councillor Lotu-Iiga off the<br />
Hook” clause because that clause, which we have not considered yet, is all about filling<br />
extraordinary vacancies during the transition period. This now provides councillor Lotu-<br />
Iiga with the opportunity to resign—<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for<br />
interrupting the member, but I would like some advice. It is highly irregular and deeply<br />
offensive for a member, as he is wandering around the Chamber, to be screaming—not<br />
interjecting—at the speaker on her feet. He is not even bothering to sit in his seat. I ask<br />
you to enforce the relevant Standing Orders.
3712 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is unfortunate that the member has<br />
interrupted the speech being made by a member of his own party. This is how I recall it,<br />
as I heard it. The member speaking was making reference to the member who was<br />
moving across the Chamber. The member who was moving across the Chamber heard<br />
his name mentioned and felt that it had been mispronounced. The member decided to<br />
try to correct the pronunciation of the member’s name. That is how I heard the<br />
exchange. We could get picky about it and interrupt all members’ speeches, but I would<br />
prefer not to. I thought that was the matter. The member is still speaking and making<br />
her points, but I invite members when they are speaking to do their best to pronounce<br />
people’s names properly.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: Councillor Lotu-Iiga is missing in action, according to The<br />
Aucklander in two articles now. We have not even had a chance to consider the fact that<br />
this clause enables him to deal with the heat that he is under.<br />
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
KEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise to support the amendment of my colleague Sue<br />
Kedgley that states this bill should more appropriately be called the “Gutting of Local<br />
Democracy Bill”. We have heard from Rodney Hide that the bill will take effect, for the<br />
most part, on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I think many Aucklanders will<br />
be very concerned that that will be the beginning of the stripping away of their local<br />
democracy and their ability to participate properly in civic affairs. I think they will be<br />
looking to another commencement date—the commencement date of the hīkoi in<br />
Auckland. The hīkoi has been initiated by Māori and will be led by them, but no doubt<br />
it will bring in a lot of Aucklanders who want to protest. People will be coming from<br />
the south, the north, and the west, and from the Ōrākei Marae, into the centre of town<br />
for a big march up Queen Street to Aotea Square. I think that will be a very important<br />
commencement date.<br />
One thing that worries me is that when this bill takes effect and the Minister appoints<br />
the members of the transitional agency—<br />
Sue Kedgley: The gang of four.<br />
KEITH LOCKE: It is called the gang of four by my colleague. It is the gang of four<br />
if we include Rodney Hide. The agency needs to have only three members—a chair and<br />
two others. If we look at the schedules, which unfortunately we did not get time to<br />
debate in some detail, we see they state that the quorum can be two members. If there<br />
are three members—the chair and two others—and the chair is empowered under the<br />
provision in the schedules to call meetings at times and in places that its chairman<br />
appoints, he can call a meeting of just himself and one of the other members who turns<br />
up. They can have a vote but if it is divided, then the chair has the casting vote, so we<br />
have one person who can effectively direct everything in Auckland for that whole<br />
transitional period. When we think that there are all those other provisions that any<br />
agenda items can be interfered with and anything can be changed, basically that puts<br />
huge power particularly in the hands of the chair of the board.<br />
We can contrast that with the powers under the associated bill, where the local<br />
community boards—20 or 30 of them—do not have any powers at all, other than what<br />
is delegated by the larger Auckland Council. The larger Auckland Council might say<br />
“We’re not going to delegate anything. Get stuffed.”, and that would be it, under this<br />
legislation.<br />
So members can see how the name “Gutting of Local Democracy Bill” is very<br />
appropriate. Why could it not have gone to a select committee? I was on the Foreign<br />
Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the ASEAN-Australia-<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Free<br />
Trade Area Bill. We had less than a month to consider that bill. Perhaps we should have
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3713<br />
had longer, but it shows that we can have short periods, medium periods, or long<br />
periods of select committee consideration.<br />
What was the Government scared about when it said that this transition bill could not<br />
go through a select committee process? It is outrageous, but it sort of fits in with what<br />
the Government did not long after it came to power, which was to rush a whole lot of<br />
important bills through <strong>Parliament</strong> under urgency so that there was no proper<br />
consideration. It is becoming a pattern—a very bad pattern.<br />
As Chris Hipkins said, this process could be a blueprint for what will happen across<br />
the country, including to the Wellington region. It is something that every <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>er should shake in their boots about, and not just think it is something that<br />
concerns only Auckland. It concerns the very democracy of this country. We do not<br />
want democracy to be cut out at the local level and have democracy—even limited<br />
democracy, as we have seen over this urgency period—only in this <strong>Parliament</strong>. The<br />
limitations on the Government in our unicameral parliamentary system are bad<br />
enough—things can be rushed through very fast despite the resistance, in particular, of<br />
the Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour—without stripping away the powers of the<br />
people in terms of their local democracy. So the Greens are very supportive of Sue<br />
Kedgley’s amendment and very much against this bill as a whole.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I am sorry that this point of order is slightly late, but I have only just come<br />
back into the Chamber.<br />
Hon Member: So we suffer.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a new point<br />
of order.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think I know what the member is<br />
going to raise. I just say to members that it is helpful if we keep our comments down<br />
while a point of order is being raised. I do not mind small muttering, but that comment<br />
was a bit excessive.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES: My point of order is about the stage we are now at in<br />
Committee, which is the debate on the title and commencement clauses. As you are<br />
probably all too painfully aware, this bill has not been to a select committee; this is not<br />
the first time that has been said by the Opposition. There is a longstanding convention<br />
that, as a result, firstly, a slightly wider scope is given to members for their speeches,<br />
and, secondly, the debate goes for longer than a normal debate on the title and<br />
commencement clauses. I understand that the Government has repeatedly moved<br />
closure motions on these clauses, so I just wanted to formally raise with you whether<br />
you will be taking into account the fact that this bill has not had the select committee<br />
scrutiny that it would normally have had.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that the Chair will<br />
take all matters into account. It is a long and complex algorithm, parts of which will be<br />
relevancy, repetition, the quality of the debate, the fact that the bill has not gone to a<br />
select committee, and the fact that it is a wide-ranging debate. All those elements will<br />
be judiciously weighed up, and the balance of the argument will be sought. At that point<br />
the Chair will decide whether we are going to take closure. I thank the member for his<br />
effort.<br />
KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was listening<br />
very carefully to your criteria for judging the length of this particular part of the debate.<br />
In reference to the point you mentioned about the quality of the debate, I think this<br />
debate—particularly from Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party—has been of an<br />
extraordinarily high quality. I think that should be taken into consideration, because I<br />
am sure that that quality will continue.
3714 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I am sure that the quality of the<br />
debate has been such that the member will take the oral record and replay it on a<br />
continuous loop to himself when he is home at the weekends.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to<br />
take your ruling to mean, then, that you are reflecting Speaker’s ruling 110/7, which<br />
says: “members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks<br />
about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.”? Of<br />
course, this bill has been considered for 3 days, and although none of the Opposition’s<br />
amendments have been accepted, a very wide range of issues have been raised, many of<br />
which deserve to be touched on in this debate.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member can be assured that the<br />
Chair has that very point weightily in his mind, and will consider it very carefully.<br />
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I think the Local<br />
Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill could be quite properly named the<br />
“Rodney Hide - ACT Party Double-cross Their Constituents Bill”. If members recall,<br />
some time ago in an earlier debate Mr Hide said that he would come into this<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> and, if he was a Minister, he would listen to people. Mr Boscawen, of<br />
course, led marches all over the country—<br />
Hon Steve Chadwick: Only Mt Albert.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, in Mt Albert. He was calling for people to be<br />
listened to over various issues. Yet when those members get into Government, no one is<br />
listened to. The people of Epsom—Mr Hide’s electorate—apparently are not intelligent<br />
enough to be listened to. The people in Heather Roy’s part of the world that she<br />
purports to represent—she does not have any constituents—apparently are not<br />
intelligent enough to be listened to.<br />
Hon Steve Chadwick: Or to bother.<br />
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Or to bother. As other speakers have said, it is<br />
interesting that once the bill is passed, National will take out half-page ads in the paper<br />
and have public meetings in order to consult with folk—after the horse has bolted. I<br />
think that is pretty reprehensible. This is one of the biggest changes to the biggest city in<br />
our country, and it will have huge commercial, social, and logistical impacts for a whole<br />
host of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers. I believe that that is absolutely wrong, and I invite Mr Hide<br />
and others to reflect on their conduct and on that of the Government throughout this<br />
debate.<br />
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I move, That the question be now put.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.<br />
Ayes 68<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 32<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to clause 1 be agreed to:<br />
to omit “Auckland Reorganisation” and substitute “Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation”.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3715<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 36<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): As a consequence of that amendment to<br />
the Minister’s amendment, Sue Kedgley’s amendment is ruled out of order as it is<br />
inconsistent with the previous decision. Secondly, there are two amendments in the<br />
name of the Hon David Parker that are inconsistent with the previous decision, and,<br />
therefore, are ruled out of order.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to<br />
take it that my third amendment is within order, notwithstanding the prior vote, and that<br />
it could be put?<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I wonder whether the Hon<br />
David Parker could explain for us what his third amendment is. It is a bit confusing with<br />
so many amendments.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): My first amendment was to delete the word<br />
“reorganisation” and substitute the words “concentration of power”; my second was to<br />
delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “democratic deficiency”; and<br />
my third was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “facilitating<br />
the privatisation of council assets”.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have considered the three<br />
amendments, and I wish to change my ruling to say that not just two amendments are<br />
out of order, but all three are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous<br />
decision.<br />
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />
Hide to clause 2 be agreed to:<br />
to omit subclauses (1) to (3) and to substitute the following new subclauses:<br />
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) this Act comes into force 2 days after the date<br />
on which it receives the Royal assent.<br />
(2) Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010.<br />
(3) Sections 27 and 28 and subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31<br />
December 2010.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 36<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Amendment agreed to.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There are a number of amendments in<br />
the name of Jacinda Ardern. I have to confess that I have not personally read each of<br />
them, but I have been told by the Clerk’s Office, which has worked through each of the<br />
amendments, that they are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision<br />
of the Committee.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I seek your assurance that you have sought the assurance of the Clerk’s
3716 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Office that that is the case, and that all of the amendments have been read by the Clerk’s<br />
Office. My view is that it would be very hard for that assurance to be given considering<br />
the time that has been involved.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): It is not for me<br />
to speak, of course, but I know that the Clerk’s Office has done an outstanding job in<br />
regard to the whole issue of these bills. I have had the opportunity to notice that the staff<br />
peruse these things thoroughly. I would feel confident that they will have vetted the<br />
amendments submitted by the member, and if the staff say the amendments are out of<br />
order then I would accept that is so. At the end of the day, the important thing is that the<br />
Chairperson has sought advice from the Clerk’s Office, and it has provided advice.<br />
Finally, the decision comes down to you, Mr Chairperson. If you rule that the<br />
amendments are out of order, then we have to accept your ruling and that they are out of<br />
order. We have already had rulings from the Speaker, who has been called back on that<br />
very point.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to<br />
advise the Committee, because, obviously, a lot of amendments are involved. We<br />
acknowledge that the Committee has passed two amendments in the Minister’s name—<br />
the second one being to clause 2 to omit the words “on the day” and to substitute the<br />
words “2 days”. A number of the amendments in front of you refer not only to the date<br />
on which the bill comes into effect, but also to what has to happen before the Royal<br />
assent can be given, and particularly to some consultation with specified individuals. I<br />
think that even though we can accept that the actual day the bill becomes an Act has<br />
changed because of Mr Hide’s amendments, there are a number of amendments for the<br />
period leading up to that point. I think that some advice from you to the Committee<br />
would be quite helpful.<br />
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): You, Mr Chairperson, have given a<br />
clear ruling to the Committee that these amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern<br />
have been ruled out of order. I think it is unfair of the Opposition to directly attack the<br />
Clerk’s Office. I think the staff have done a fantastic job. You have ruled, and the<br />
Committee, therefore, should not challenge your ruling.<br />
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will start by saying that the Opposition also<br />
agrees that Office of the Clerk has done a wonderful job, and there is no criticism at all<br />
of the office. The staff have worked under considerable pressure. There has been an<br />
enormous number of amendments brought about by the process that the Government is<br />
running. The point that Mr Hughes makes is quite a valid one, and one on which we<br />
seek a ruling. His point is that the effect of some of the Opposition amendments is not<br />
covered by the amendments that have been put by the Minister, because they relate not<br />
to the date on which the Act comes into force following the Royal assent, but to what<br />
must happen prior to the bill going for the Royal assent. That is a different question.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to members that I am happy to<br />
rule. I have now personally perused for myself half of the amendments—they are all in<br />
the same form—and I find the amendments are out of order on two counts: firstly, the<br />
date issue is well taken care of in Rodney Hide’s amendment; and, secondly, I would<br />
rule them out on the basis that they are not serious amendments. I intend no disrespect<br />
to the very important office of the chief Opposition whip, but I do not think that it is a<br />
serious amendment to say that things cannot happen until the chief Opposition whip has<br />
signed them off. The member may disagree, and I must tell members that there are lots<br />
of things for which the chief Opposition whip’s sign-off is very important—one of them<br />
being leave, amongst other things—and we all hang on his word. However, in this<br />
particular circumstance, I do not believe that is a serious amendment. The second role<br />
whose sign-off is required is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It then goes on to the
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3717<br />
president of the Law Commission, the Chief Ombudsman—I could go on—there is the<br />
Mayor of North Shore City, etc.<br />
Hon Member: A good fellow.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Yes, as the member interjects, I have no<br />
doubt that the mayor is a very good person, but it would be inappropriate for the Chief<br />
Ombudsman, for example, to be involved in signing off anything to do with statutes.<br />
That is not the role that the person has. So the first reason I think the amendments are<br />
out of order is that they are inconsistent with the amendment put forward by Rodney<br />
Hide, and the second reason is that I do not think they are particularly serious.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Chairperson. I think two points need to be made. They probably both go to questions of<br />
substance. I take very serious issue with your ruling on frivolity. I do not accept the idea<br />
that reorganisation cannot be done with a sense of unanimity and a sense of <strong>Parliament</strong>,<br />
the country, and the local authorities coming together. I think it is appropriate for the<br />
Committee to make that decision. A process that involves other people who guard the<br />
country’s processes, such as the president of the Law Commission and the Chief<br />
Ombudsman, might raise argument as to their roles, but I think an argument can be<br />
made that it is appropriate for those people to be involved. On the question of dates, it is<br />
certainly my view that the date issue, notwithstanding Rodney Hide’s amendment, when<br />
put together with the other substance could rule out some of the amendments, but not all<br />
of them.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the date issue, I say that the<br />
Committee, having made an amendment on the issue, has set the date that the bill comes<br />
into force. The Committee has determined what the date is, and any other date is then<br />
inconsistent with that decision. The date amendments have gone.<br />
On the substance issue, Mr Mallard makes a very good point, but I have heard no<br />
justification as to what role the Mayor of Carterton could possibly have in this<br />
legislation.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I can give you that one.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I ask the member to let me finish.<br />
Carterton is a long way from Auckland, I grant you. I have ruled the amendments out.<br />
The member might like to make some closing comments, but I do not think I am<br />
persuadable.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): On the question of the Mayor<br />
of Carterton, I think that it has already been made clear from the evidence in the<br />
Committee this afternoon—although you might not have been in the Chair—from Mr<br />
Hipkins that the Minister of Local Government has called for, and received, a report on<br />
reorganisation in the Wellington region. Carterton is part of that region. The concern of<br />
the Opposition is that this process not only is being set up for Auckland but will be<br />
carried throughout the country. It is undemocratic reform: there is a lack of referenda, as<br />
required under the Local Government Act; and there is the lack of a select committee<br />
process, which should apply to this area. Although not all of us think that the Mayor of<br />
Carterton at the present time is the best character in the world, and that Ron Mark could<br />
well do a better job, the mayors of the Wellington region could well have a view as to<br />
processes for the country generally.<br />
Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I think that we have had enough. I<br />
say to Trevor Mallard that I listened to Chris Hipkins. He talked about Upper Hutt and<br />
Lower Hutt, but he did not mention Carterton. The last point that I make to the member<br />
is that the title of the bill is a give-away. It was Local Government (Auckland
3718 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Reorganisation) Bill; we now have the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill. Tāmaki-makau-rau is a long way from the Wairarapa.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 as amended be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 36<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Clause 1 as amended agreed to.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 36<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.<br />
House resumed.<br />
Bill reported with amendment.<br />
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I move, That the report be adopted.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 36<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />
Report adopted.<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TAMAKI MAKAURAU REORGANISATION) BILL<br />
Third Reading<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Local Government<br />
(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of the<br />
bill is to provide the legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland<br />
governance arrangements, which are required to be in place as early as possible. We<br />
need to act decisively if the new structure is to be established before October next year.<br />
This measure will allow members of the new Auckland Council and local boards to be<br />
elected at the October 2010 local government elections. The short transition period will<br />
minimise uncertainty and disruption for council staff and the public.<br />
The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities<br />
and services to cater for its people. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance<br />
found that many of the things holding back Auckland related to the way that the region<br />
is run. It found that the Auckland Regional Council and the seven territorial authorities<br />
lacked a collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and the momentum to<br />
address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. The Government agreed<br />
with many of the royal commission’s recommendations, has gone further on a few, and<br />
has provided some alternative solutions, such as the social issues forum. The<br />
Government has made a fast and decisive response to the royal commission’s report.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3719<br />
I would like to thank the royal commissioners for their work, and to congratulate all<br />
those involved in coordinating the Government’s response. I also want to thank the<br />
people of Auckland who contributed through their submissions to the royal commission<br />
report, and who have continued to express their views. The level of interest and<br />
continued debate gives me great confidence that the new Auckland mayor and council<br />
will lead a vigorous and critical local democracy. I also thank my Associate Minister of<br />
Local Government, Mr John Carter, with whom I have built up a great sense of<br />
teamwork and friendship. He has done an outstanding job over the period in, first of all,<br />
developing the policy, producing the legislation, and, indeed, making sure the<br />
legislation has a speedy process through <strong>Parliament</strong>. I also thank Mr Brendan Boyle<br />
from the Department of Internal Affairs and his team, who have done an outstanding job<br />
for the people of Auckland, <strong>Parliament</strong>, and <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. We should all be proud of<br />
the calibre of the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs.<br />
The Auckland Council, as a single unitary authority governing the region, will<br />
provide leadership and deliver core services efficiently and effectively. The second tier<br />
of governance, made up of 20 to 30 local boards, will ensure that Aucklanders are heard<br />
on issues and make local decisions on local matters. The new system for Auckland<br />
governance will be much simpler, be more coordinated, and provide for community<br />
representation at the grassroots level. This bill is the foundation stone upon which we<br />
will make Auckland a great place to live that drives <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s economic growth.<br />
The new mayor and councillors will be the first leaders in Auckland’s history to be in a<br />
position to balance local and regional issues. They will be able to speak with one voice<br />
to central government, and this Government intends to listen. This bill provides for the<br />
establishment of the Auckland Council on and from 1 November 2010, the<br />
establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency to manage and facilitate the transition<br />
to the new local governance arrangements, and requirements for the existing local<br />
authorities and certain other entities to participate in the reorganisation, both by doing<br />
specified things and by refraining from doing specified things.<br />
This Government was elected to govern. There are those who believe that they have<br />
more to say in addition to the decades of debate and the royal commission submissions<br />
and report. There are those who believe that the Government should somehow make the<br />
complex process simple, and put a single simple question to a referendum, which would<br />
delay or possibly stop the renewal of Auckland governance. There are those who say<br />
that we have waited 50 years and that we can wait longer. We cannot wait longer. The<br />
royal commission considered the possibility of waiting and said no. It said we should<br />
act now. It said it is essential that the transition work is under way quickly. It said that<br />
the 18-month time frame for the establishment of the Auckland Council is ambitious but<br />
achievable, and it said that it is most important that the deadline is met. It said that the<br />
consultation by the royal commission had been extensive, and that there was “no need<br />
to rehearse old arguments”.<br />
The bill will enable work to get under way to make Auckland an internationally<br />
competitive city and a place that encourages our children and grandchildren to build<br />
their futures in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. This is a bill that Auckland needs, and a bill that <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> needs. It is well-thought-out and, with the later bills, balances the need for<br />
urgency with the need for democratic input. I commend this bill to the House.<br />
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I begin by acknowledging the sterling service<br />
provided by the Clerk’s Office—those officers of this esteemed institution who have<br />
helped guide the parliamentarians through this tumultuous single day of sitting. I would<br />
not like it to go unnoticed that they have shown a great deal of diligence and patience,<br />
and they have had to sustain some attacks from the other side of the House, and, indeed,<br />
the Leader of the House, who drove a stake driven by desperation, pettiness, and
3720 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
sleepiness into the heart of this very key part of our legislature. I want it noted that we<br />
appreciate the services of those in the Clerk’s Office.<br />
It is necessary for us to rehearse ever so briefly why we have taken umbrage with the<br />
style and agenda shown by the Prime Minister and Mr Hide. This is what the jurist, the<br />
Hon Peter Salmon and his assistants, came back with—it deserves more than 1 day of<br />
sitting time of this House. We did not actually imagine that weeks and months would be<br />
tied up as the House debated and sent the bill to a select committee, because the royal<br />
commission settled upon a model that a huge number of parliamentarians saw some<br />
merit in. We took a great deal of exception to the undemocratic, unconstitutional,<br />
reckless, and dangerous style with which the rights of Aucklanders, families, workers,<br />
and community members have been trampled on, as a consequence of there being no<br />
opportunity for the public to comment on this reorganisation bill.<br />
The bill posits inordinate power with a small, shadowy group of people. We have no<br />
idea what they will cost us, broadly imagining that the ratepayers of Auckland will be<br />
left with the bill. They are a small group of people whom we fear will rack up inordinate<br />
expenses and then provide an opportunity for others not far away from them to use that<br />
as a chance to drive ahead with a privatisation agenda. We have been concerned that,<br />
and we have recited reasons why, this reorganisation bill will actually weaken the<br />
ability of Auckland to achieve mega-city status.<br />
There have been ill-informed remarks from members on the other side of the House,<br />
because, I understand, they believe that entertainment opportunities have been<br />
squandered as a consequence of the Pasifika, Māori, and Asians—who deserved an<br />
opportunity to come forward and simply tell their story. So it fell to Labour to ensure<br />
that the cloak of democracy sits easily on this House—not ruffled, wrapped up, and<br />
thrown aside like unwanted chip paper; that is not for us. That is why we have taken the<br />
time to try to explore every opportunity to ensure that the ratepayers of Auckland<br />
remember that it was the National Government that showed arrogant, uncaring, profitdriven,<br />
narrow, and divisive zealotry. That was what we sought to show the entirety of<br />
Auckland.<br />
I must continue on this rather baneful subject of the costs. The royal commission did<br />
not come up with exclusive costings. Rodney Hide stood in this House and said he did<br />
not know how much it will cost. John Key is not interested in how much it will cost.<br />
Bill English is already busily working out how he can claw it back after Treasury has<br />
had to fund it. It will fall on a whole bunch of people in Auckland who can hardly cope<br />
with the cost structure they are living with at the moment.<br />
There is a small reliance on the Māori language, as this bill gets to its fateful, fitful<br />
end. You know, the name Tāmaki-makau-rau is emblematic of what we have been<br />
through here. “Tāmaki” means either “ancestor” or “object of desire”; “makau” means<br />
“sweetheart”, and it also means “low tide”. This is definitely where the tide has begun<br />
to ebb for this uncaring, reckless, agenda-driven, and ideologically driven Government.<br />
The people of Auckland can see when the tide starts to go out, and it is definitely going<br />
out in particular on those Auckland MPs in the Government. Let them go out and<br />
explain to the Auckland communities why, from now on, every council decision will<br />
have to be reinforced or mandated by a small shadowy cabal of tsars. That is very, very<br />
dangerous. Let those MPs go out and tell them.<br />
Let them tell them in Onehunga. Of course, “hunga” means “people”, and “one”<br />
means “soil”. That is where the people who supported this madness of the National<br />
Government will be buried. Māngere in South Auckland—well it is unfortunate that<br />
those members’ colleague, who could not be here, has decided that the entirety of South<br />
Auckland should be written off with a glib remark about criminality. Of course we<br />
know that in Māngere they will remember that, because “māngere” means “lazy”,
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3721<br />
“māngere” means “idle”, and if there has ever been an example of a lazy approach to<br />
good governance, this Government has given it.<br />
Paul Quinn: You’d know! You’re the laziest of everyone!<br />
Hon SHANE JONES: Then there is Waitakere, as members will remember. It is<br />
important that I educate Mr Quinn. He has so much time on his hands as a consequence<br />
of Wayne Peters showing how Māori rugby ought to be run—showing how Māori<br />
rugby in Auckland, covered by the transitional authority, will be in better shape for the<br />
Rugby World Cup. In fact, I fear that the preparations for the Rugby World Cup may<br />
begin to rumble and shake in Auckland. But let us come back to Waitakere.<br />
“Waitakere” means “the bottom of the waka has been holed”. It means that the bottom<br />
of the waka is taking on water, not only because of the Waterview Connection, not only<br />
because they have criminalised every South Aucklander. They have criminalised them<br />
all, and then they want Christine Rankin to offer them counselling.<br />
There are some people who come to the House boasting how clever they are. Simon<br />
Bridges was one of them, but time will sort out why he never offered one constructive<br />
remark. But let us be positive, because our side has provided commentary and ideas that<br />
have been a wellspring of positive contributions. We want democratic standards and<br />
accountability to reign. I shall now, for the benefit of Mr Quinn, make a 2-minute<br />
speech in te reo Māori that will require a very careful translation.<br />
Nā reira, ko tāku ki a tātou mō Tāmaki-makau-rau, nui ngā rōimata mō te mahi<br />
koretake o te Kāwanatanga. Ka takahia ki raro te mana o te iwi Māori. Ka takahia te<br />
mana o tātou whanaunga, huānga, manuhiri mai i Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Ka<br />
whakatahangia te hunga mai i Āhia. Nā rātou i mahi, nā te Kāwanatanga me wāna hoa i<br />
tītaritari tēnei taonga te tuku pōti kia mana ai ngā whakatau i roto i te tāone me te<br />
kaunihera hou o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Me tētahi atu take, kei hea ngā whenua, kei hea<br />
ngā taonga hei hokohoko i te tuatahi hei muru i ngā nama o tēnei mahi ka oti i a rātou i<br />
tēnei wā. Ka ahu mai wēnā moni, tēnā pūtea, i hea? Ka ahu mai mā te tauhokohoko, mā<br />
te hoko ki rāwāhi ki wā rātou hoa.<br />
Me tētahi atu take e te Speaker. Nui ngā mihi ki ngā pononga a te Whare. Nui ngā<br />
mihi ki ngā āpiha, ki ngā pūkenga, ki ngā wāhine me ngā tāne i whakawerawera ai, i<br />
whakamomori ai kia oti pai ai ngā mahi. Ko tā mātou he āwhina atu i a rātou. Horekau ō<br />
mātou hiahia te whakataimaha i wā rātou mahi engari, he āwhina atu i a rātou.<br />
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]<br />
[And so my comment about Auckland to us is that many tears have been shed over<br />
work of no consequence by the Government. The authority of Māoridom has been<br />
trampled under. The authority of our relatives, kin, and visitors from the Great Ocean<br />
of Kiwa, from the Pacific, has been abused. Those from Asia are marginalised. They did<br />
it: the Government and its cronies distributed precious votes to ensure that decisions<br />
relating to Auckland City and the new council are passed. And besides, there is another<br />
matter. Where are the properties, the means to sell in the first instance, to wipe out<br />
costs that will be incurred currently for carrying out this task? Where will those<br />
moneys, the budget, come from? It will come through a trade-off by selling to their<br />
cronies offshore.<br />
There is another matter, Mr Speaker. There is much admiration for those who serve<br />
the House—officials, experts, women and men who have sweated and toiled in their<br />
attempts to ensure that the tasks are completed well. Our part is merely to assist them.<br />
We do not wish to add to their workload.]<br />
So, Mr Speaker, as a final gesture, as a consequence of your coming back, and our<br />
having achieved a single day of sitting on Wednesday, democracy is much richer.<br />
To the translators, greetings—small room for improvement. Kia ora tātou.
3722 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I am pleased to<br />
follow my colleague from up in Northland. One of the things that happens when you<br />
work in this place is that you get to make friends. I count Shane Jones as one of the<br />
friends I have made. One of the interesting things I have found with Shane is that<br />
although he is an interesting and entertaining speaker, if members listen to what he<br />
says—with the exception of a couple of things—they will notice that he never actually<br />
says a lot. But he is entertaining nevertheless.<br />
I agree with him on a couple of points. The first point is that this House needs to<br />
thank the Clerks at the Table for all the work they have done. They have done a brilliant<br />
job. Secondly, we also need to thank the officials for all the support they have given us<br />
during this time. Leeanne O’Brien from the <strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong> Counsel Office has done an<br />
outstanding job, as well, and deserves to be recognised and thanked very much.<br />
Amongst all these acknowledgments of the people who have made this Local<br />
Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill happen we also need to<br />
acknowledge the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rodney Hide, who has also<br />
shown good leadership to all the people who have been working with him. He has taken<br />
great interest in this legislation and is certainly supportive of it.<br />
I guess the point I really want to make, and which is important for us all to<br />
understand, is that over the last 2 or 3 days we have set in place the ability for us to<br />
listen to the wishes and needs of Auckland, and to put in place a system that will allow<br />
all Aucklanders to have good local governance that will deal with the infrastructural<br />
issues that have been of concern to them. At the same time, the system will protect their<br />
rights to have their local government at a local level in order to make sure that the issues<br />
that concern them and that affect them on a daily basis are attended to and reflected.<br />
That is why I am proud to support this legislation. It is not as if we have finished; we<br />
have actually just started. We have started on a long journey. There will be lots of<br />
consultation. There will be lots of input. There will be lots of changes. I have said<br />
before that just about everything is on the table other than the decision the Government<br />
has taken that we will have one Auckland City. Other than that, we are an open book.<br />
We will be out there to listen.<br />
That is the nice thing with this Government and our Prime Minister, Mr John Key.<br />
He is a person who listens. He wants to hear what Aucklanders have to say. John Key;<br />
this Government; the Minister in charge of the bill, Rodney Hide; and all of us have set<br />
up a procedure that allows that situation to happen. I have to say, if ever there was an<br />
opportunity to see democracy in progress it is today. I am proud to support the bill.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): This has been a black day for<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, and the date on the calendar in this House is still showing 13 May. Of<br />
course, the only person who really likes that fact is the Leader of the House: he gets four<br />
breakfasts, four lots of morning teas, four snacks, four lunches, four afternoon teas, four<br />
dinners, and four suppers. He is the only person on the National side who has liked what<br />
has happened this week. I am surprised that it took National members so long to work<br />
out how to deal with amendments in the Committee stage. I was getting writer’s cramp,<br />
thinking they must catch on soon—they must work this out soon, but no. We saw John<br />
Carter running back and forth to the Chamber—<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He had the trots.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: —then running to the Clerk’s Office, backwards and<br />
forwards. As my friend Mr Clayton Cosgrove says, he must have had the trots. No, he<br />
was going flat stick to the Clerk’s Office, and in the end National members and their<br />
colleagues woke up to it.<br />
The trouble is that tomorrow most <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers will wake up to it, and they will<br />
know that they have not had the opportunity to have a say in this legislation. They have
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3723<br />
been betrayed—absolutely betrayed. John Key has run around the country saying that<br />
he has listened; he did not come to the Chamber to listen to a word of this debate, yet it<br />
has gone on for 4 days.<br />
Hon Shane Jones: He is busy at proselytising for South Auckland.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Ha, ha—yes! I have in my hand a newspaper<br />
advertisement by the National Party, and I am interested that it states: “Have your say<br />
on Auckland local government”. Who is paying for that? The National Party is not; the<br />
<strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong> Service is paying. Who will pay for the changes in local government in<br />
Auckland? The National Party will not pay; the ratepayers of Auckland will pay for<br />
that, of course. That will cost a huge amount of money, and 1.4 million Aucklanders<br />
will pay. And those who live in Manukau will not have much say, at all; the people in<br />
Manukau will not be able to get people elected to this council, because the intention in<br />
the legislation is to make sure that the blue-rinse brigade and their friends get elected to<br />
the council, instead of ordinary <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers. Members may say that that issue is<br />
covered in the next bill to be debated.<br />
The mayors have been really trying to get people to understand the seriousness of<br />
what is happening to them. On Monday a week ago there was a meeting in Papakura,<br />
and they put out a thousand seats and over a thousand people were there; John Carter<br />
fronted. Over recent weeks Judith Collins has had a few words to say, but members<br />
ought to hear what people say about her. She will not win Papakura next time—oh, no,<br />
she will not. The Mayor of Papakura is disgusted at what she has done—MPs cannot<br />
talk down to people. Even in Franklin they are disgusted. They are absolutely disgusted<br />
in the Hunua electorate. When people have a look around, they wonder what is in it for<br />
them. Yes, there may be a better form of local government for Auckland, but the<br />
Government should tell that to the people who have lost their jobs over the last few<br />
weeks, and to the people who have lost their overtime and cannot afford to pay their<br />
costs. This Government does not want to pay for this change, and I think that that is<br />
absolutely disgusting.<br />
We have a situation in Manurewa—and I am sure it is the same in Manukau East and<br />
it would be true of my friend’s seat of Māngere—where people have been shattered this<br />
week by this Government. It is not just because of the effects of this legislation but it is<br />
a whole feeling of what National is doing to them. National seems to be all about<br />
getting out there and selling a message. I can tell members opposite that not all the<br />
people of South Auckland will be rushing along the motorway to go and rob people in<br />
Mt Albert, but that is Melissa Lee’s contribution to all of this. Well, that is not good<br />
enough. She speaks for the National Party, for the hearts and souls of the National<br />
Party. She tells us what they really believe. They believe that people in South Auckland<br />
do not count for much. Well, I have to tell National members that they do. South<br />
Auckland people are the salt of the earth; they are the best people.<br />
But have those people had a chance to have their say? Not from the Government,<br />
they have not. My friend the member for Māngere, my other colleague the member for<br />
Manukau East, and I have put out referenda, and the responses have been pouring back<br />
in. People think the Government has not consulted on this issue—90 percent of them in<br />
my case. They think the Government has not talked to them or put them in the loop.<br />
Those sorts of people in South Auckland think that National members look down their<br />
noses at them and think they do not matter. Well, for me they do matter. But this bill is<br />
saying to people: “We have robbed you of your democracy. We haven’t given you the<br />
chance.” As Opposition members, we have had to use our time to make sure those<br />
people can be heard—to put up plenty of amendments to the bill, and to keep the debate<br />
going in the Chamber—because the Government cannot trample over the rights of this<br />
House. They may trample over the rights of people out there—
3724 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Louise Upston: How many, George—how many did you do?<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The lady from Taupō is screaming out.<br />
Hon Members: How many amendments? Tell us!<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Listen to them; they do not care. There is another one:<br />
the three-blonde trio! I have to say that the person in National, of all the backbenchers,<br />
who has spent the most time in the Chamber is Allan Peachey.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Allan Peachey. But what did he say? He stood up once<br />
or twice and said a few words, but it was not with any passion. But at least he stood up<br />
and had something to say. But when did the others have something to say? Well, people<br />
can go to Papatoetoe on 9 June at 7 p.m. and hear the member Mr Bakshi address<br />
people.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The silent one.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He sat in the Chamber, in the corner over there, for 3<br />
days and said nought.<br />
Amy Adams: He’s listening—he’s a good listener.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He is a fine listener, and he is a fine dealer, a wheelerdealer<br />
to be sure, but I do not know whether he will be able to wheel and deal Auckland<br />
some democracy.<br />
In the end, people have a right to know. The elderly are scared that they are losing<br />
something—they are losing their local council, and that is very important to them. But,<br />
more important, people feel they are losing their mayor as a figurehead in their<br />
community. They will lose their leaders. Auckland does not have so many leaders that it<br />
can afford to put that number on the scrap heap. I think that that is one of the things<br />
people must think about. And the bill does not really look after the workers who are<br />
affected. What will happen to those 6,000 workers? My bet is that once the new council<br />
is up and running, they will be joining the dole queues. They will be coming into our<br />
offices and saying: “We’ve lost our jobs. The Government didn’t keep its word.” I think<br />
that that is something that will hang around for the National Party until the next<br />
election.<br />
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party rises more in sorrow than in anger at<br />
the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill. Once upon a time<br />
we in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> took democracy very seriously. Our ancestors fought for<br />
democracy, and women fought for the right to participate in the democratic process, but<br />
now the Government can get rid of eight democratically elected city councils without<br />
consulting one single Aucklander about whether he or she wishes to get rid of the eight<br />
democratically elected councils in Auckland, which represent 1.5 million people.<br />
The Greens would not have a problem if there had been a vote and Aucklanders had<br />
agreed to get rid of their eight democratically elected councils. But it is being done by<br />
this bill, with the stroke of a pen, and without a single Aucklander ever having been<br />
consulted, without a mandate from the people of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> ever having been sought,<br />
and without voters having been warned in the election manifestos of National and the<br />
Act Party that that was their plan. There was no mandate from the Royal Commission<br />
on Auckland Governance to get rid of the eight councils and to impose a new model of<br />
local governance—a model in which the Mayor of Auckland will have powers that no<br />
other mayor in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> has. Why should we suddenly come up with a new model<br />
in which the mayor has unprecedented powers unavailable to any other mayor anywhere<br />
in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, and all of this without the people of Auckland ever having been<br />
consulted and without anyone having been alerted about it in the manifestos?
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3725<br />
One of the things that has concerned the Green Party is the role of the media in the<br />
whole debate. The media have been moaning about the fact that it costs $10,000 a<br />
minute or something for <strong>Parliament</strong> to meet, but no one in the media that I am aware of<br />
has raised questions as to why we should not be told what the transition will cost.<br />
Nobody in the media has asked that question. The other thing is that nobody in the<br />
media has questioned the censorship provisions contained in the bill. There are<br />
provisions in the bill that amount to censorship. They say that the handpicked cabal,<br />
Rodney Hide’s two or three men who will be running the Auckland Transition Agency,<br />
will have the power to censor, to override, to prevent any agenda item from being<br />
debated over the next 18 months. Has anyone in the media expressed any concern about<br />
those censorship provisions? We are up in arms about what is happening in Fiji, where<br />
the Government there is censoring the media, but no one seems to be concerned about<br />
the fact that the bill includes provisions to allow the transition agency to censor all the<br />
councils of Auckland in the next 18 months.<br />
Nobody in the media seems to be the slightest bit concerned about the four little<br />
words “as it sees fit” that have sneaked into the legislation. These words create a new<br />
precedent in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, because they say that the transition agency is to let people<br />
know what it is up to only if it sees fit. As MPs we have a Register of Pecuniary<br />
Interests—and the latest is about to come out. Imagine if we put an amendment that we<br />
would declare our pecuniary interests only as we see fit. The media would be absolutely<br />
up in arms. It would be a scandal. It would be on the front pages of the newspapers that<br />
politicians were trying to withhold information about their pecuniary interests. But not<br />
one single media outlet has expressed any concern about this new precedent. The<br />
Government having slipped it into this bill, will it now be slipped into all the other bills<br />
that come before the House—that information is to be divulged only as people see fit? I<br />
am deeply disappointed that the media have been so cynical about this process and have<br />
not picked up on those provisions, which amount to censorship, to the ability to<br />
withhold information, and to the ability to control the agenda items of the councils over<br />
the next 18 months. Nor do the media seem to be the slightest bit concerned about the<br />
wiping out of a whole layer of democracy and the imposing of a new model of<br />
democracy—the “strong mayor” model, which really amounts to giving the Mayor of<br />
Auckland the powers of a tsar.<br />
They do not seem to be the slightest bit concerned about that, or the fact that it is<br />
being done through the passage of legislation in haste without any consultation with one<br />
single Aucklander. It is an absolutely basic principle of governance that if we are to<br />
change the system of governance, we need to have a majority of the governed assent to<br />
it. That is why we have referendums when we seek to change the system of<br />
governance—for example, with the introduction of MMP. The Government is changing<br />
the whole model of governance in Auckland without any referenda, without any<br />
consultation, and without any mandate. The media seem to think that it is a joke.<br />
Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas must be rubbing their hands with glee. There will<br />
be, I am sure, a considerable celebration—maybe not tonight; they might be too tired.<br />
Later on, the champagne will be popping, and they will say “We’ve done it again.<br />
We’ve completely conned Aucklanders.” Actually, it is not just Aucklanders, because<br />
once this measure has been foisted upon Aucklanders we know that it will be rolled out<br />
over the rest of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. They have managed to con <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers and<br />
Aucklanders. Those two members will be rubbing their hands. They have used<br />
blitzkrieg tactics, ramming things through—tactics that were perfected in the<br />
Rogernomics era. All of those tactics have been brought out to whip this bill through the<br />
House. Roger Douglas will think it was worthwhile his coming out of retirement to<br />
return to the House. He has rammed his agenda through. He has come up with the
3726 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
techniques. He has been giving advice as to how to sneak the measure through, how to<br />
slip in the little words “as it sees fit” so that people do not understand their implication.<br />
Rodney Hide will think it was well worth while his choosing the portfolio of Minister of<br />
Local Government, because he has pulled off what amounts to a coup d’état. He is<br />
setting up Auckland in such a way that at the next election not only will the eight<br />
democratically elected Auckland councils be expunged but we will have an Auckland<br />
Council with a mayor with the powers of a tsar. John Banks is the next likely mayor.<br />
Once he is in complete control of the Auckland Council, he will unleash stage two,<br />
which is to sell off the $28 billion of assets of the combined local councils.<br />
I sought to table a cartoon before, but I did not actually table it. I would like to table<br />
it now, because to me it is the only item in the media that has encapsulated what has<br />
happened over the last 3 days. Here is the maniacal, demonic vision of Rodney Hide in<br />
his yellow jacket with his proud little ACT motif, trampling on the councils of<br />
Waitakere, of Papakura, of Rodney, of North Shore, of Manukau, and of Franklin. It<br />
shows him stomping on them triumphantly. It is extraordinary that he has managed to<br />
do that in such a way that he has conned <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers and, it seems, the media, too.<br />
He has got away with a coup d’état in a quite extraordinary and stunning way. I take my<br />
hat off to Rodney Hide. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. He has done it with devastating<br />
audacity and devastating speed, and, seemingly, he has conned the media of <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>.<br />
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia<br />
ora rā. Thank you very much.<br />
Over the last 3 days of debate it has been hard to remember what the Local<br />
Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill is all about. It is not about the “Cousins and Aunts<br />
and Uncles of Maui Council”, the “Melissa Lee Memorial Council”, or the “Auckland<br />
Funsized Council”. The bill is the next step on from the Government’s decision on<br />
Auckland governance. Making Auckland Greater is said to be about greater<br />
communities, greater connections, and greater value. Perhaps it would have been more<br />
appropriately called Making Auckland Divided; it is about great shame, great waste, and<br />
great failure. The great shame is that after a robust consultation process and a<br />
comprehensive report from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, the<br />
Government has hastily rejected any suggestion to provide for specific Māori<br />
representation. The great waste is the Government’s apparent disregard for mana<br />
whenua interests in establishing the Auckland Transition Agency. The great failure is<br />
the almost certain probability, based on the current performance, that in a region that<br />
has, by far, the highest Māori population in the world, there will be limited<br />
representation of Māori—if any.<br />
The caption that Māori Television has applied to this key news item is the Superman<br />
shield. It is most appropriate to use this graphic to demonstrate the bill. The bill purports<br />
to be more powerful than any legislation seen before it. It is able to leap 50 years of<br />
controversy in a single bound. Based on a legislative process that will be faster than a<br />
speeding bullet, this bill will, indeed, set up “Supermayor”—a mayor of steel, who<br />
controls one super, overarching local authority for Auckland, sweeping out of its way<br />
three district councils, four city councils, seven mayors elected at large, and 96<br />
territorial authority councillors. But as any comic book fan will tell you, the blue, red,<br />
and yellow cape of the superhero is eventually hung up, as Clark Kent resumes his real<br />
persona as the mild-mannered low-level employee of The Daily Planet.<br />
The real issue behind the widespread opposition to the super-city proposal is that<br />
Aucklanders want to be heard and they want their issues to be respected. They want the<br />
views they put forward in over 3,500 submissions to carry some weight. They do not<br />
want a sham deal or the façade of making Auckland greater, while all they can see
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3727<br />
around them is the dismantling of arrangements to encourage participation in local<br />
authority decision-making.<br />
Our focus throughout this bill has honed in on the significant level of concern<br />
expressed throughout Tāmaki about the issue of Māori representation. In case there is<br />
confusion in this Committee, Māori living in Tāmaki-makau-rau do not need a supermayor,<br />
a super-council, or anything else to tell them how they could be represented;<br />
they know for themselves.<br />
On 29 October last year the Tāmaki Regional Mana Whenua Forum was established.<br />
It derived its mandate from the 13 mana whenua authorities within the Tāmaki region.<br />
When talk has been bandied about the traps about one or two seats for mana whenua, I<br />
think it is only fitting to remind the Committee of the iwi and the hapū who affiliate to<br />
the local authorities across this region. The mana whenua groups are Ngāi Tai, Ngāti<br />
Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Te Ata - Wai o Hua, Ngāti<br />
Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua, Te Ahiwaru, Te Akitai,<br />
and Te Kawerau-a-Maki.<br />
One of the many names for the Tāmaki area is Tāmaki Herenga Waka—Tāmaki, the<br />
resting place of many canoes. This is part of the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau.<br />
Ancestors arriving from Hawaiki either berthed at Tāmaki and made it their home, or<br />
used it as a resting place before continuing on with their journey, as Tainui did at<br />
Kāwhia, and as my waka, Te Arawa, did before heading down the coast to the Maketū<br />
region in the Bay of Plenty. So in the tribal histories of many people—including Ngāti<br />
Awa, Haurakai-Waikato, and Ngāti Whātua—our tūpuna lived in Tāmaki at one time or<br />
another. Māori representation must take into account the rangatiratanga of the iwi and<br />
hapū who whakapapa back to this land.<br />
It was pleasing to hear earlier in the debate the Minister for Local Government,<br />
Rodney Hide, state categorically that it is clear that proper engagement with local iwi<br />
and the new Auckland Council will be crucial for the new council to succeed. Our<br />
contribution throughout the debate on this local government bill has been to spell out<br />
exactly what proper engagement might involve. My colleague Hone Harawira, himself<br />
of Ngāti Whātua, talked about partnership protection, participation, and pragmatism.<br />
Proper engagement will be seen in the maintenance of an organisational structure,<br />
environment, and leadership that promotes and enhances the recognition of Māori<br />
values. Proper engagement is about the protection of mana whenua, of wāhi tapu, and of<br />
taonga Māori. Proper engagement is demonstrated by meaningful and mutually<br />
beneficial participation of Māori in the council. Proper engagement will be seen in the<br />
practical means of maintaining and resourcing a consultative mechanism, and a<br />
mechanism for tangata whenua and the council to contribute to a decision-making<br />
process. Partnership protection, participation, and pragmatism do not have to be too<br />
hard.<br />
During the second reading the Associate Minister of Local Government, John Carter,<br />
rose to his feet and said: “this Government is about consulting.” We ask the Minister<br />
and his associate how rushing this bill through under urgency enables a robust<br />
consultation process to occur. I want to read a letter from Michelle Wilson of the<br />
Tāmaki Regional Mana Whenua Forum. She said: “The forum strongly disagrees with<br />
the Government’s failure to appropriately act upon the recommendations of the royal<br />
commission and the lack of consultation with mana whenua in order to provide for<br />
appropriate Māori representation. As a result, there is a lack of provision from the<br />
Crown’s agent, the Government, to their Treaty partner. This is a clear breach of the<br />
intent and principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”<br />
This sort of statement was reiterated in the strongest terms by the Ngāti Whātua o<br />
Ōrākei chairperson, Grant Hawke, on the day the Government’s announcement for
3728 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Greater Auckland was made. Mr Hawke’s views were that the move was a breach of the<br />
Treaty of Waitangi and that Māori would continue to be under-represented at the local<br />
level. It was at this point that plans started to unfold about a hīkoi proposed across<br />
Greater Auckland on 25 May of this year. It appears that that hīkoi has mobilised<br />
Pasifika communities, ethnic communities, and other <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers, who are uniting<br />
to stand up for the right to quality and equitable Māori representation.<br />
We have all received an enormous amount of correspondence from Aucklanders<br />
concerned about this issue, and I conclude my speech with one of those letters from<br />
Mona-Lynn from North Shore City. She said: “As an immigrant to this country I believe<br />
that if Māori have special status, they need to be treated specially, and Māori seats on<br />
the Auckland Council is one of the ways that this needs to happen. I do not feel<br />
threatened by these seats and do not feel that the way I will be served as a citizen of<br />
Auckland will be any worse off if these seats exist.” Mona-Lynn has the generosity of<br />
spirit and breadth of vision to know that for this super-city to succeed, proper<br />
engagement with Māori must occur.<br />
The opportunity to provide for quality Māori representation is all that we are asking<br />
for and have been asking for, yet in this bill Māori barely rate a mention. I say that no<br />
change of name to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill will ever really cut it<br />
by itself. If it is good enough for the Government to claim the name Tāmaki-makau-rau<br />
and add it into this bill as the title, surely it is good enough for the Government to listen<br />
to the claim of Māori in the area and give something back. Let them have seats as of<br />
right. This is not the planet Krypton. We are not debating an entirely different galaxy;<br />
we are talking about Aotearoa and Tāmaki-makau-rau, and therefore we should be<br />
talking about tangata whenua. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill—as we are<br />
opposing all elements of this suite of super-city proposals.<br />
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): This Local Government (Tamaki<br />
Makaurau) Bill is the first of three bills to deal with Auckland governance. People have<br />
been concerned by Labour’s claims that Aucklanders are being shut out of the debate.<br />
The other two bills will have full select committee involvement, and people will have a<br />
huge amount of opportunity to submit. I commend this bill to the House.<br />
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): Even after such a brief speech, it is great to be<br />
following Judith Collins, because that member knows something about crushing. She<br />
knows about crushing the spirit of the people of Auckland.<br />
Hon Judith Collins: No, I just crush your spirit, hon!<br />
PHIL TWYFORD: Ha, ha! So much promise, so much good work, and so much<br />
wisdom was invested by the royal commission—by Dame Margaret Bazley, the Hon<br />
Peter Salmon, and David Shand—over 18 months. They worked, they analysed, and<br />
they consulted; they talked to the people of Auckland. There were about 3,500 thousand<br />
submissions, we have heard. They travelled the world, looking at some of the most<br />
interesting and progressive examples of local and city government. They produced a<br />
report that has met the expectations they raised. They generated a blueprint for the<br />
government of Auckland—strong government—for the next 50 years. But what has this<br />
National Government done? What has it done with the aid of the “little emperor” from<br />
Epsom? It has picked the eyes out of that report. It has ignored all the good stuff, and<br />
picked out the bits, just the little bits, that its members understand.<br />
What are those bits? They are the bits about the centralising of power. That is all that<br />
National members care about and understand. They want to centralise power, hand it<br />
over to their mates, their cronies, and lock up Auckland government for the next<br />
generation. On top of that, they have driven the legislation through like a bulldozer,<br />
with no consultation and no regard for basic democratic standards. And that is what we<br />
have seen this weekend, from the comments of National members. We are beginning to
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3729<br />
see a very familiar pattern. We saw it with Stephen Joyce and the announcement on the<br />
Waterview Connection, and we saw it with Murray McCully in the way he dealt to<br />
NZAID, against the advice of his own officials, and against the advice of the aid<br />
community.<br />
We are seeing a pattern of work that we have seen over the royal commission’s<br />
report on Auckland. It is straight out of the play book of Crosby/Textor. What is done?<br />
The announcement is made, critics are allowed to complain and grizzle, a bit of time is<br />
given, and then the bulldozer is driven on through and finishes the job. Whoever would<br />
have thought that the National Party of the last 3 years in Opposition would get into<br />
Government and ride roughshod over its own manifesto promises? There was a promise<br />
in black and white that it would consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the<br />
royal commission. But has it consulted? No—not one iota! There have been no changes<br />
since 7 April, when Rodney Hide announced what the Government was going to do.<br />
Yet Rodney Hide and John Key have gone around Auckland, talking to mayors and<br />
community groups, and “making nice”—“We’re listening. We’re listening, yeah.<br />
Nothing is set in stone. You know, we really want to hear your views.” But nothing has<br />
changed in the last 5 weeks, and nothing has changed in the last 3 days in this House.<br />
What have we seen in the last 3 days? We have seen an abuse of this House, we have<br />
seen an abuse of the principles of urgency in this House, and on top of that, this<br />
Government has legislated away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum—to have a say, to<br />
have a voice. But do you know what? That is entirely appropriate when we look at the<br />
substance of this legislation, because it is the antithesis of democracy. The bill for<br />
which we are having the third reading sets out the Auckland Transition Agency. But<br />
what is that transition agency but a power grab? It is the abrogation of the democratic<br />
rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders, who 18 months ago voted in their mayors, their<br />
councillors, seven councils, and a regional council. But what is the effect of this<br />
legislation? It takes away their powers. Those councils can do no more than have an<br />
item on the agenda of their meetings for it to be checked and abrogated by the transition<br />
agency. Five hand-picked cronies of Rodney Hide, the “little emperor”, have the power<br />
of Auckland—6,500 employees, $28 billion in assets—sitting in their hands. Who is<br />
“Mr 3 percent” accountable to? Is it to the people of Auckland? I do not think so.<br />
John Carter and Rodney Hide have talked a lot about consultation, in the last few<br />
days—a lot about consultation. Well, let us talk about promises of consultation. Last<br />
night, Nikki Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central, savaged me—it was like being mauled<br />
by a chihuahua as she barked across the Chamber at me—when asking what my policy<br />
was on community boards. I will tell the House what our policy is on community<br />
boards. We believe in real local democracy—real local democracy. We want a second<br />
tier of local government that is actually capable of making a difference to the lives and<br />
communities of Aucklanders—not those ridiculous, pathetic talk shops that the National<br />
Government is foisting on Aucklanders.<br />
Clause 15 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill says that “The Council<br />
may delegate to a local board any of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, except the<br />
ones listed in clause 32(1)(a) to (f) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.”<br />
Let us have a look at that clause. It states that local authorities are not allowed to<br />
delegate setting a rate, making a by-law, borrowing money, purchasing or disposing of<br />
assets, adopting a plan, appointing a chief executive, or adopting or consulting on a<br />
long-term plan or governance statement. Quite frankly, there is actually very little in<br />
this legislation that a local board or community council will be able to do. It is a con<br />
job; the Government says that it wants to consult on it, but if it is serious about that,<br />
why is it legislating away those rights and powers?
3730 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
The size of local boards is also an issue. If there are 20 local boards, as the<br />
Government says may happen at the lower end, each of them will be representing<br />
70,000 citizens. That is a population the size of <strong>New</strong> Plymouth’s.<br />
Jonathan Young: Great city!<br />
PHIL TWYFORD: Where is Jonathan Young? Is he here tonight? He is—OK. But<br />
can Mr Young imagine a city the size of <strong>New</strong> Plymouth, with 69,000 people, but with<br />
no power to rate, to own anything, to employ staff, or do any planning for its<br />
community? Is that the kind of local government that people want in <strong>New</strong> Plymouth, I<br />
ask Jonathan Young? I suggest that it is not. If there were 30 local boards, as the<br />
Government says could happen, each would represent 47,000 citizens. Is Mr Nick Smith<br />
here tonight? Hopefully, he is out campaigning in Mount Albert. So National is<br />
legislating for local boards the size of Nelson, or <strong>New</strong> Plymouth, with no power, at all.<br />
What are Government members consulting on? They are consulting on nothing.<br />
We have asked in this House, time and time again over the last 3 weeks, for this<br />
Government to tell us the costs of the transition. How much will it cost Aucklanders to<br />
transition to the Government’s flawed undemocratic model of a super-city? Did we get<br />
an answer? We got nothing. Government members could not tell us, or they refused. So<br />
we have done the numbers, and it will cost Aucklanders up to $750 more on their rates<br />
bills, which is on top of $700 on their water bills. So this Government is stinging<br />
Aucklanders for almost $1,500 for its flawed super-city model. Aucklanders have had<br />
no say on it—there has been no consultation—all on a hope and a promise that money<br />
will be saved on the super-city. Well, we know that mergers of this size often do not<br />
generate those cost savings.<br />
The people of Auckland want a super-city. They want good world-class public<br />
transport. They want clean beaches. They want sustainable communities, good jobs, and<br />
public transport to take them to those jobs. They want a decent waterfront. They want a<br />
central business district that works. If a super-city can deliver some of those things—<br />
good infrastructure, quality of life, and democracy—Aucklanders will vote for a supercity.<br />
But they do not want to be shafted, they do not want to be dorked around, and they<br />
do not want to be tricked out of their birthright by this National Government and its<br />
ACT allies.<br />
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): It is a privilege to speak on the third<br />
reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill. This very fine bill will<br />
enhance the growth and prosperity of the Auckland region and, therefore, of <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>. I commend this legislation to the House.<br />
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): In December 2006, John Key told the people of<br />
Auckland he was proposing a bill that would provide for an independent review of<br />
Auckland governance and allow for a referendum on reform choices.<br />
Grant Robertson: Who said that?<br />
DARIEN FENTON: It was John Key, the now Prime Minister. Dr Wayne Mapp,<br />
who has joined us tonight, said in his online report of 30 December that it is necessary<br />
to have a more independent review that will also give the people of Auckland an<br />
opportunity to choose their preferred system of local government. As we know, the<br />
National Party also made a promise in its manifesto. Tonight, with the passing of this<br />
bill, those promises are dead and buried. We know that they are hollow words, but are<br />
we surprised? No, I do not think we are. The people of Auckland have been silenced,<br />
and it is a shameful day.<br />
I am proud that the Labour members have put up such a fierce fight. Labour<br />
members and the broader Opposition have been the last line of defence against the<br />
determination of an arrogant Government to ram through this legislation, to get its way,<br />
and to set a new path for Auckland that is divisive, unfair, and unjust.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3731<br />
Throughout this debate over the last 3½ days every Labour MP has received texts<br />
and emails from Aucklanders who have been following this debate. I thought I would<br />
give some examples from my in-box. The first one says: “Thanks for your team’s great<br />
effort. At least if this Government gets it wrong Aucklanders will toss them out at the<br />
next election.” And I received this one from a National Party supporter: “We’re hacked<br />
off with National. Keep it up because this is about democracy for Aucklanders.” This<br />
one is from a Helensville resident: “I notice that National MPs are meeting but not in<br />
the Helensville electorate. Why does our MP not wish to meet the public in his own<br />
electorate?”. Who is the MP for Helensville? Oh, it is Prime Minister, John Key. This<br />
one is from a Chinese resident on the North Shore: “I put in a submission to the royal<br />
commission and presented it at a North Shore meeting. It asked that ethnic communities<br />
have a voice in the new plan. John Key is running the Government the way that he<br />
wants—i.e. big money and ignore the people.” Another really nice one says: “Sorry you<br />
have to work today but what you guys are doing is vitally important as far as democratic<br />
principles are concerned.” There are many, many more.<br />
This debate has been very enlightening, and I am looking forward to telling the<br />
people of North Shore City, of Rodney, of Waitakere, of Auckland City, of Manukau, of<br />
Papakura, and of Franklin all about how little National thinks of them. We now know<br />
with certainty from the debate over the last 3½ days what National thinks, because of<br />
the raft of amendments from Labour and the Greens that have just been tossed out<br />
without genuine consideration. Not even one amendment got through. The National<br />
Government dumped many amendments that would have improved this bill and may<br />
have restored some certainty and confidence for Aucklanders.<br />
Hon Christopher Finlayson: Name one.<br />
DARIEN FENTON: I am about to, I say to Mr Finlayson. Amendments in proposed<br />
new Part 10, for example, related to good-employer provisions for the Auckland<br />
Transition Authority and the Auckland Council. The other amendments proposed to the<br />
transitional provisions in Part 3 would have given certainty and protection to the 6,300<br />
workers in local government in Auckland, but those amendments were dumped. Those<br />
workers have been given their cards. They have been given the sack, and they have been<br />
given their dismissal notices. National’s message to existing council workers is: “Do not<br />
apply. Don’t bother.” If the face does not fit, people should not bother to apply, because<br />
with this set-up—the jack-up that this Government has engineered—the chances of<br />
getting a job with fairness, let alone getting any respect at work, are gone.<br />
Then there were the very, very important amendments, put up by my colleague<br />
Charles Chauvel, that would have stopped the transitional authority from privatising the<br />
$28 billion worth of ratepayers’ assets that it will have charge off. Let me talk about<br />
those—[Interruption] The member looks a bit lost. Rodney’s $1.5 billion of assets will<br />
be down the tubes. North Shore’s $4 billion worth of assets will be down the tubes.<br />
Waitakere’s $2.5 billion worth will be down the tubes, as will Auckland City’s $8.7<br />
billion, Manukau’s hard-earned $6 billion, Papakura’s $457 million, Franklin’s $1<br />
billion, and the Auckland Regional Council’s $1.4 million. That is $28 billion worth of<br />
assets, built up over generations, that will go from communities into the hands of the<br />
“Rodney Hide Transition Authority”, ready to be handed over to a mayor with extreme<br />
powers. Also, the voice of local people will be seriously diluted.<br />
We had the extraordinary sight of National and ACT voting down a further<br />
amendment that would have made sure that the paid parental leave entitlements of 6,300<br />
workers were not affected by the legislation. What a shocking message to workers that<br />
was! We on this side of the Chamber heard loud and clear National’s views about Māori<br />
representation. They showed their contempt for the tangata whenua and for the Pasifika<br />
people in the largest Pacific city in the world. [Interruption] I am proud to be speaking.
3732 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
I was particularly interested in the amendments moved by my colleague Carol<br />
Beaumont, which were blocked by National and ACT.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: By that nasty man.<br />
DARIEN FENTON: Yes; he is a nasty, nasty little man. He is a nasty piece of work.<br />
He is spiteful.<br />
The amendments moved by Carol Beaumont sought to cap the salary of the chief<br />
executive of the transition agency. These are very interesting amendments. I thought it<br />
was interesting that they were all voted down. I think that sends a great message to<br />
people who are at the moment dealing with the impact of the economic downturn.<br />
While ordinary <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers are being told to pull in their belts, this Government is<br />
not prepared to exercise fiscal restraint and rein in the power grab that this bill will<br />
allow.<br />
I saw Bill English come into the House last night and pretend to be the friend of<br />
workers. He pretended to be concerned about the Lane Walker Rudkin workers and the<br />
Bright Wood workers. I look forward to passing on to those workers the message that<br />
National does not think that a chief executive in these economic hard times should have<br />
to have a salary cap. Why not? What is wrong with that? While the Bright Wood<br />
workers are being dumped with no redundancy entitlements, and while the Minister of<br />
Labour sits on her hands and does nothing about redundancy pay and redundancy<br />
notices, this Government thinks it is OK for chief executives to have extraordinary pay<br />
and not have any restraint on it.<br />
I want to honour my colleagues tonight. I think they are a fantastic team. This has not<br />
been a game for any of us. We have been doing our job. Each of us who has put forward<br />
amendments has done so with care and thoughtfulness. We have debated passionately,<br />
and we have done so with one thing on our minds—and that is to have the voice of<br />
Aucklanders heard loud and clear, because there is simply no other way for them to be<br />
heard. This Government has excluded Aucklanders from having a say and a voice on<br />
how the restructuring of their local government will affect them.<br />
It is clear that National is in a bit of a panic. There has been a direction that National<br />
MPs should get out in their electorates and hold some public meetings. But it is a bit<br />
late for that. I do not think it will fix anything for them now, because this bill makes it<br />
too late. I know that those National MPs are in for a really hard time when they front up<br />
to their electorates, because Auckland people are mad. They are really angry. They<br />
remember the promises those members made, like John Key’s promise for a<br />
referendum, and the manifesto promise. The last 3 days of putting a stake in the heart of<br />
local communities, and of rights and democracy, will not go without a response.<br />
I say to National members that when they get out there, they should take their tin<br />
helmets and put them on. This is the biggest merger in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s history, and I<br />
would have expected the Government to be much more careful. There was no need to<br />
rush and there was no need for urgency. I tell the National-ACT Government that<br />
Aucklanders are watching and Aucklanders are mobilising.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re watching and they’re saying: “What on earth are<br />
those guys up to?”.<br />
DARIEN FENTON: Why does that member not listen for a moment? Finally, I<br />
want to acknowledge the workers in Auckland City tonight who, because of this bill,<br />
face an uncertain future. I say to them that the Labour Party is with them. We stand<br />
beside them and we will continue to fight alongside them. In closing, I want to<br />
acknowledge the workers in this place: the food service workers who feed us, the<br />
cleaners who cleaned our offices, the messengers, and the staff from the Clerk’s Office.<br />
Thank you for supporting the important work of this House in these extraordinary times.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3733<br />
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is with great pleasure that I speak<br />
in the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill, a timely and<br />
important bill. There is one thing I would like to remind this House about. Paragraph 89<br />
of the executive summary of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland<br />
Governance states: “The Commission respectfully urges the Government to view its<br />
recommendations … which needs to be adopted with urgency so that changes can be<br />
implemented in readiness for the October 2010 local body elections. The Commission<br />
has consulted widely and believes that, overwhelmingly, Auckland is ready now for<br />
positive change.” That is exactly what this excellent National Government is doing. I<br />
commend this bill to the House.<br />
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Methinks they do protest too<br />
much. When we look over at that side of the House, those members all know it. We<br />
have had not just a disappointing Opposition, but also a disgraceful performance for 3<br />
days as Opposition members have trivialised and hijacked one of the most important<br />
and widely supported measures affecting the greater Auckland region for many, many<br />
years. Let us not delay it a moment longer. I commend this bill to the House.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Tamaki<br />
Makaurau) Reorganisation Bill be read a third time.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 52<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4.<br />
Bill read a third time.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. It is not normal for us to sit on a Saturday, and I want to be assured and make<br />
sure the House is assured that the National whip is in a position to cast 58 votes. There<br />
were number of National MPs seen leaving from the rear of <strong>Parliament</strong> House over the<br />
dinner break, and I do not think they have had the chance to return. I am not calling for<br />
a personal vote, but I want the assurance so I can take consideration of what we have<br />
been told.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: There are no provisions in the Standing Orders to seek such an<br />
assurance. The votes voted by the parties are the votes that are counted.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. I just wanted to confirm that technically we are still on Wednesday, 13 May.<br />
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, we are.<br />
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you. I knew I would get this done before<br />
Thursday.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): It is true that it is the 13 th . .<br />
That is a number that is pretty fitting for Gerry Brownlee.<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND COUNCIL) BILL<br />
First Reading<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local<br />
Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I<br />
intend to move that this bill be referred to the Auckland Governance Legislation<br />
Committee, as per the notice of motion agreed to on Wednesday to consider legislation<br />
concerning the governance of Auckland, that the committee report finally to the House<br />
on or before 4 September 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any
3734 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a<br />
day on which there has been a sitting of the House, or on a Friday in a week in which<br />
there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during<br />
the sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190(1)(b) and (c).<br />
Auckland is <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s only city of scale, and it is the country’s main gateway<br />
to the world. Because of Auckland’s scale, Auckland’s and <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s success go<br />
hand in hand. As a large and outward-looking city, Auckland can, and should,<br />
contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now.<br />
Governance arrangements for the Auckland region have been a cause of concern for<br />
at least the last 50 years. There have been some efforts by successive Governments to<br />
address the problems, but those efforts have clearly been insufficient. How local<br />
government is structured is important in determining what gets done, and, indeed, what<br />
does not get done in Auckland. Governance arrangements affect the capacity to plan on<br />
an integrated, region-wide basis, and the ability to solve large and longer-term<br />
challenges effectively. Governance arrangements affect citizens’ ability to have a say<br />
about what services and initiatives they value.<br />
The previous Government commissioned the Royal Commission on Auckland<br />
Governance to inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government<br />
arrangements that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future. After<br />
wide consultation with Aucklanders, and consideration of over 3,500 submissions, the<br />
royal commission reported to the Government on 25 March 2009. The royal<br />
commission has done an admirable job of consulting with Aucklanders and formulating<br />
their recommendations. I take this opportunity to thank the commissioners for their<br />
work.<br />
The royal commission’s report identified two broad, systemic problems evident in<br />
current Auckland local government arrangements. Regional governance is weak and<br />
fragmented, and community engagement is poor. The commission’s report addressed<br />
the issues and identified solutions. In particular, it exhaustively described the range of<br />
opinions in Auckland’s many communities. We accepted the key points of the<br />
recommendations: one council for Auckland, one mayor with governance powers, one<br />
long-term plan, and one rates bill.<br />
We did not agree with the recommendations about Māori representation. That will<br />
not come as a surprise. If the people of Auckland or the council want specific Māori<br />
seats on the council, they already have the ability to enable that. The Government will<br />
not impose the seats. We did not agree with the proposal to have six sub-councils. We<br />
want more local representation, not less. We want communities to know they have their<br />
own local representatives, so we have opted to have 20 to 30 local boards. I am proud<br />
that places like Waiheke, which Nikki Kaye represents so well, for the first time will<br />
have their proper local representation recognised in statute.<br />
This Government has resolved to act. The Government aims to put the new structures<br />
in place in time for the October 2010 local government elections. This short transition<br />
period will minimise uncertainty and disruption for council staff and the public.<br />
Legislation required to give effect to these decisions has been introduced as three<br />
separate bills. We have tried to balance the need for action with the need for continued<br />
democratic input. That is why we have split the legislation to effect reform into three<br />
bills, of which this bill is the second.<br />
The first urgent bill—the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation)<br />
Bill—provides the necessary legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland<br />
governance arrangements, which needs to occur as soon as possible in order to establish<br />
the Auckland Council by 2010. That bill has proceeded through all stages under<br />
urgency and without select committee consideration.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3735<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: Start at the top of the page, Pinocchio.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE: I thank Mr David Cunliffe for his assistance. A third bill,<br />
expected to be introduced later this year, will provide for the ongoing governance<br />
structure and detailed legislative framework for the governance arrangements.<br />
This second bill—the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—provides for the<br />
governance structure of the Auckland Council, including the high-level framework for<br />
the structure of the Auckland Council, with eight members elected at large and 12<br />
members from wards; in the order of 20 to 30 local boards, including their high-level<br />
functions; and the direction and provision of powers for the Local Government<br />
Commission to determine the boundaries of the wards of the Auckland Council and the<br />
local boards, and the number of local boards and their membership.<br />
I intend for this bill to proceed through a compressed select committee process, with<br />
the committee reporting finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. We need<br />
to balance the need for action with the need to ensure democratic input. That is what the<br />
select committee process is about. I urge all Aucklanders to take advantage of it.<br />
It is imperative that this bill be enacted by late September 2009 to enable the Local<br />
Government Commission to set the region’s boundaries in time for the 2010 local<br />
government elections. This bill implements the royal commission’s fundamental<br />
recommendations of a mayor for Auckland, to be elected at large with specific<br />
governance powers, and a single unitary Auckland Council, as the first tier of<br />
governance. As I mentioned earlier, the royal commission formulated these<br />
recommendations after wide consultation with Aucklanders and after considering over<br />
3,500 submissions. This bill is essential to allowing work to get under way to put the<br />
Government’s plan into action and to build a world-class city for the good of all <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>. Thank you, Mr Speaker.<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): That was a very interesting<br />
speech by the member Rodney Hide. When he mentioned Waiheke, it made me think<br />
“Oh, there’s the expert on public toilets in Waiheke speaking.”, and some members will<br />
remember that.<br />
Nikki Kaye: That’s offensive!<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Ah—diddums. However, this is a very important bill.<br />
Being here this week is like being on the set of Blackadder, where Blackadder and<br />
Baldrick—the two local government Ministers—are hatching up a cunning plan for<br />
Auckland. But what have they delivered? A giant turnip for Auckland. That is what has<br />
happened. You see, this bill is dealing with the rats and mice for Auckland; the big<br />
decision has already been made. I think people on the Opposition side of the House<br />
agree that one council for Auckland is the right idea, but we do not like the Government<br />
trampling over Aucklanders without giving them a say on the really important part—the<br />
really big change.<br />
Hon John Carter: Which is what?<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Associate Minister of Local Government is asking<br />
what that is. No wonder we are in trouble! Let me tell members that the honeymoon for<br />
National is over, and the brides sitting opposite are going home to their mothers and<br />
saying: “Well, it wasn’t that exciting.” They are disappointed, and they will feel from<br />
now on that Aucklanders really are upset with them—really annoyed.<br />
You see, we will be given the opportunity to talk about local boards. Those are what<br />
we are going to have, but they are not going to have very much power, at all. I suppose<br />
the most important power they will have is to decide who gets the key to the local hall.<br />
Perhaps they might be in charge of dogs, and in making decisions about brothels. I dare<br />
say my colleague on the other side of the House, Mr Bakshi, a list member for National,<br />
would know all about that, so he might be able to help there. The boards will talk about
3736 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
parking. They might be able to talk about liquor bans, although maybe the big council<br />
will not let them do that. It is really quite worrying.<br />
Hon Members: George, George!<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Hello!<br />
Hon Member: Where’s Mr Prasad? I haven’t seen him for 3 days!<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Well! I want to talk about the Government’s use of<br />
parliamentary funds to advertise in the newspaper I have here. I have been looking<br />
through it to see who is having meetings. Well, the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith is going to<br />
have a meeting. Yes, the Hon Paula Bennett is. She went weak at the knees the last time<br />
she had a meeting about this. Who is having the most meetings? It is Nikki Kaye; that is<br />
fine. One person I have a bit of admiration for, because she did not jump up in the<br />
earlier debates, is Jackie Blue, and I would be interested to hear what she actually<br />
thinks. And we have the member for Maungakiekie, who is going to be very busy<br />
because he feels a cold draught up his majority. Who is next? It is my friend Mr Bakshi<br />
again. He has a meeting, and I want to advertise this meeting. It is in Papatoetoe on 9<br />
June at 7 p.m.; he is asking everyone to come along, and to bring a job offer as well.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will he say anything?<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He has said nothing in 4 days. Then we have Paul<br />
Hutchison, who made a brilliant third reading speech. Someone else wrote it for him—<br />
probably the whips or the research unit.<br />
But what is actually happening here is that the Government is trying to con<br />
Aucklanders that they are going to have a say. Well, that will not happen at all, because<br />
the major part of this legislation—of these three bills—has already been passed. We<br />
have a situation where National members are going around trying to con people.<br />
Mr Peachey is not doing it. He is not having a meeting, because he knows that the<br />
people where he lives are not going to waste their time on going out to one. They know<br />
he is not worth listening to, so they are not going to go, and that is quite a worry.<br />
The other name I was looking for was Melissa Lee. They kept her in the dark last<br />
time, and it is not a good idea to keep her in the dark; it leads to trouble.<br />
In the end, we want to find out why National members are having these meetings.<br />
Why did they not have the meetings before and tell people about the big plan? They did<br />
not do it; they did not want to do it.<br />
Of course, Richard Worth is not having any meetings, and I thought he knew the<br />
Mayor of Auckland pretty well—but, obviously, not as well as the Mayor of <strong>New</strong><br />
Delhi—so that is really quite a surprise to us all. Wayne Mapp is not having a<br />
meeting—and why not?<br />
Wayne Mapp is out on manoeuvres. But he gets there, and what a great MP and<br />
Minister of Defence he is. He does not get seasick; yes, he is a person without any<br />
feelings, at all. He does not feel for the people on the North Shore.<br />
What will happen is that people will go along and make submissions, but will they<br />
have a chance to make real submissions? No. The National Government does not have<br />
confidence in its membership on the Local Government and Environment Committee.<br />
The chairman is from West Coast - Tasman, and of course he has had a terrible job. He<br />
has had to cut people off when they have wanted to say something. He has been giving<br />
people 5 minutes—5 minutes—to talk about such important things, but National wants<br />
someone a bit stronger, who will give Aucklanders only 2 minutes. In the end, the<br />
Government is not really listening, at all.<br />
When it comes to deciding whether there will be 20 or 30 community boards, the<br />
Local Government Commission will be doing that.<br />
Hon Member: This is the most exciting night George has had in 50 years.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3737<br />
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is “Baldrick” going on again, over there; I wish<br />
he would keep quiet.<br />
The people of Manukau will want to talk about their airport shares, and how the<br />
National Government stole their shares in the airport. At least I had the decency to sell<br />
the shares back to the Government when I was mayor.<br />
Let us have a look at the cost. How much will it cost? The Government is not<br />
worried about the cost, because it will not cost the Government; it will cost<br />
Aucklanders. It will cost the people who are losing their jobs, the people who are losing<br />
overtime. They are the ones who will pay for it. Do members think that the National<br />
Government cares?<br />
We have local mayors like Len Brown, who goes around schools and talks to kids,<br />
sings to kids, and provides leadership, but there will not be any of that from local<br />
boards. They will be chasing dogs, licensing brothels, etc. Calum Penrose is an<br />
excellent person, and he is the Mayor of Papakura. What is happening there? In<br />
Papakura, where there are some difficulties, the kids are asking “Aren’t we going to<br />
have a mayor?”. The kids realise it; the kids realise that leadership is important. They<br />
need someone to look up to. They do not need as their figurehead the janitor who looks<br />
after the local hall.<br />
In the end, I think that this Government has made a big mistake. The process of<br />
getting out and talking to people should have happened with the first bill and not the<br />
second, if the Government is sending only one to the select committee. The process<br />
should have happened with both of them, actually. But of course the rush is on. And the<br />
rush will be on to the polling booths to get rid of the Government that has stolen<br />
Auckland this May. The people will remember this time as the turn-round time.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): It is quite<br />
funny, is it not—I say this in response to what the Hon George Hawkins just said—but<br />
the last time I looked, Auckland was still there. So I do not know who stole it.<br />
It is ironic—and we often get some irony in this House—that for the last 3 days or<br />
more Opposition members have been saying to us that they actually support having one<br />
city in Auckland, but the reason they do not support the first bill is that we have not sent<br />
it to the select committee. Here we are now, with a bill that will go to the select<br />
committee, and Opposition members do not like it. They do not want people to have a<br />
say.<br />
I am pleased to support the Government and to support the Minister of Local<br />
Government, Rodney Hide, in the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland<br />
Council) Bill. It starts the process of consultation that we said we would give the people<br />
of Auckland. Most important, it allows the people of Auckland to tell us what they<br />
want. I know that it is unusual for the Labour Party to do this, but rather than our<br />
prescribing things and telling people about them afterwards or letting them have their<br />
say afterwards, we are going out there with an open book. We are saying: “Just inform<br />
us, and then we will see how we can accommodate that.” That is the very point.<br />
We hear rhetoric from those members all the time saying that we are doing it wrong,<br />
but I did not hear one speech that said: “Here is the alternative.”—not one speech.<br />
Opposition members did not tell us what they would have done if they had had the<br />
opportunity. It is a good thing that those members did not have the opportunity, because<br />
we would have got some more old granny State stuff instead of actually genuinely<br />
getting out there and listening to the people.<br />
That is what this bill will do. That is what this Government is about, what this Prime<br />
Minister is about, and what this Minister of Local Government is about. I am proud to<br />
support a Government that is doing those things. This is a great day for <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. It
3738 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
is a great day for Auckland. It is a great day for the country. It is a great day for<br />
democracy. I support all those things.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—<strong>New</strong> Lynn): I begin tonight by thanking the<br />
parliamentary staff who have stayed with us right through the proceedings of the last<br />
week. I would like to recognise the messengers, our security staff, those who have<br />
looked after us, and those who have fed us. We have had a few long hours, because this<br />
is an issue we all care about. [Interruption] Members opposite may laugh.<br />
I will give a little geography lesson about Auckland. There is a road called Dominion<br />
Road—Crowded House wrote a song about it—and it runs pretty much right down the<br />
middle of the isthmus, south of Queen Street. To the east of that road, as the eye turns to<br />
the east—past the bronze statue on Manukau Road of Rodney Hide on his charger—<br />
and out to the valleys and dales of Remuera and Glendowie, where Don Brash used to<br />
live, it votes blue. It votes blue out in those hills. That is where the old money lives, but<br />
I say to Gerry Brownlee that he would not know about that. We turn our eyes to the<br />
west, and that is where the real people live. They vote Labour, more often than not.<br />
Those people are pretty damn angry at the moment.<br />
This bill is not about us—it is not about members in this House. It is not about the<br />
tag wrestle, it is not about the pet names—[Interruption]—and it is not about the<br />
members who have come back to the House tired and emotional, I say to Mr Quinn. It is<br />
about the thousands of Aucklanders who are watching tonight and wondering why this<br />
is happening. The people have in their gut a strong feeling that something has been<br />
taken away from them this week—some sense of history, some sense of identity, be it as<br />
residents of Waitakere, or of the proud North Shore, like its mayor, or of Manukau City.<br />
We might laugh and call each other names, but at the end of the day we know that the<br />
people will have the last say.<br />
It is true that the Government has stolen the cities of Auckland. It did not need to do<br />
it. We needed an integrated regional body, and the royal commission delivered it. But<br />
the royal commission did not ask us to steal the cities. It said we should preserve the<br />
cities but make them work leaner and better. The Government could have done that, but<br />
it chose not to. What it did say was that it would consult Aucklanders, but it did not.<br />
The Government did not consult Aucklanders on the royal commission, it did not<br />
consult them on the bill, and it has not been back to Auckland.<br />
The Government says that this bill is going to a select committee. That would make a<br />
change! I wonder whether the Government will give the submissioners more time than<br />
they gave the submissioners on the changes to the Resource Management Act. There is<br />
a lot of quiet anger out in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> about that process, too.<br />
The Government has stacked the deck to keep its mates in power. That is the part I<br />
cannot get over. There are eight at-large councillors. If people do not have quarter of a<br />
million dollars for a mail drop, they should not apply. It is only for the rich and famous.<br />
Nineteen out of 20 councillors, historically, have been white men from Remuera with a<br />
lot of money to spend. That will go down in west Auckland like the proverbial bucket of<br />
sick, because westies will not stand for it. Sam Lotu-Iiga, and I am using his proper<br />
name, thinks it is funny for now, but there is a little clause in the other bill that<br />
guarantees he can have a quiet retirement from Auckland City without calling a byelection.<br />
That is an outrage—while we are on the subject.<br />
There will be eight at-large councillors, and by my reckoning that means Waitakere<br />
City will get two. So 200,000 people will be represented by two councillors. That area<br />
is twice the size of a general electorate in a general election. That is not democracy as<br />
Aucklanders know it, it is not democracy as they care about it, and it is not democracy<br />
as they will vote to exercise it.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3739<br />
The next issue is the cost. If the Minister of Local Government is so confident that<br />
this is in the interests of Aucklanders, why does he not come clean and tell ratepayers<br />
how much it will cost them? We had to go to Auckland University for independent<br />
analysis, and the cost—I say to the ladies and gentlemen out there—is $750 extra per<br />
ratepayer, on average. That is what it will cost to fund the transition to make Rodney<br />
Hide the “Emperor of Auckland” with his mate John Banks. At $750 each, and with<br />
four people in most households, the cost to each household will be $3,000 extra.<br />
Ratepayers might get it back over 20 years, but right now they are paying for the<br />
political escapades of Rodney Hide and John Banks. We are not enjoying it; nor will<br />
they.<br />
Here we are, after a week of pretty heavy going in the House. We have had some fun<br />
too, and members may have noticed that our team has enjoyed itself. We are seeing<br />
National at its bulldozing worst. it is bulldozing the democratic institutions of<br />
Auckland.<br />
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know the song about interjections<br />
being rare, reasonable, and, hopefully, even witty. I observe that the former Leader of<br />
the House is none of those three, and it would be good if I could carry on with the<br />
speech.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a good point.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Michael Cullen is not actually here. He is the former Leader<br />
of the House.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I will rule on this. We are getting near the end of a<br />
very hectic 3 days, and it has become quite raucous. We have had a very robust debate<br />
over the 3 days. But I ask members to give respect to the member on his feet. Crossinterjections<br />
should be rare and reasonable.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Look, it is not about me or us; it is about the people of<br />
Auckland, and they care about this bill. I ask members to think about them as they do<br />
this to them.<br />
We are saying that the arrogance of top-down government does not sit well with<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>ers. Kiwis are fair and decent people, but they are independent people.<br />
They got away from being the servants of the British Empire or some foreign<br />
Government, and they came here for a new life. They came here because they wanted to<br />
be able to decide for themselves how to live that new life. They will not appreciate<br />
Rodney Hide taking away democracy in Auckland. Although, of course, the<br />
Government can pass this bill just as it passed the other one, the people will have the<br />
final say. The many people who are watching tonight will remember this.<br />
Out west we had a little community meeting on a cold, wet Monday night, and 250<br />
people turned up. That was not by accident.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where were you? Back in front of the heater in Herne Bay?<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I say to Mr Brownlee that I was there. Two days’ notice<br />
was given of a march in Henderson, and 1,000 people turned up. They do not do that for<br />
no reason. A hīkoi will bring the kaumātua of the north and the south together in<br />
Auckland, and I think we need to take notice of that.<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: The patronising member from Herne Bay.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I say to Mr Brownlee that there are some political<br />
lessons. One of those is not to leave House procedure to the so-called Leader of the<br />
House. Forty-eight hours of debate and thousands of amendments after he had said we<br />
would be out of here, we finally concluded the other bill. The second lesson—<br />
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know why that<br />
lazy Opposition could not take us right through to Budget day, as David Cunliffe<br />
promised.
3740 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am getting to that.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK.<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will carry on with my speech, because that, in fact, was<br />
my next point. When Gerry Brownlee is in trouble, he turns to the cavalry from the<br />
north. “Hone Carter” might not look flash, but he trotted over the hill just in time to<br />
save Gerry’s bacon from a humiliating defeat. Let us hear it for John Carter tonight! He<br />
should have been the Leader of the House.<br />
Of course, the most important lesson of the week is the lesson for John Key—<br />
amongst others he has probably learnt—and that is not to delegate something as<br />
sensitive as this to Rodney Hide and expect that everything will be OK. It is one thing<br />
to treat a minor party as expendable, and it is one thing to come to politics as though it<br />
is a corporation where one can just delegate to someone, and if it does not work out, one<br />
can sack that person, but politics does not work like that, because Kiwis remember.<br />
The analysts out there in media-land are saying that John Key has over-delegated this<br />
one. He has let Mr Hide run it, and Mr Hide has run into a buzz saw of public anger,<br />
and a buzz saw of opposition in the House, which was good-spirited but none the less<br />
determined. One hopes that Mr Key has learnt some other lessons this week, such as the<br />
fact that there is no way he can stop Melissa Lee from putting both feet in her mouth,<br />
even if he Velcros her to Jonathan Coleman. There are other lessons, too. He should not<br />
rub his finance Minister’s face in it, and still think they can look unified at Budget time,<br />
and he should not count out an energised Labour - Green - Māori Party coalition,<br />
because members might be seeing another one in the future, and it might be sitting on<br />
that side of the House.<br />
If Mr Hide thinks people are angry, he should keep his stumpy little bling-encrusted<br />
fingers off our city, because we care about Aucklanders, and Aucklanders care about<br />
Greater Auckland and the cities that make it up. I also advise him not to count his<br />
chickens.<br />
Paul Quinn: Hallelujah!<br />
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There is also a lesson for the member from<br />
Wainuiōmata, Paul Quinn. When he has had a good time it is best to stay out of the<br />
House after tea. That is the lesson for the member from Wainuiōmata.<br />
Here is the final lesson for the future. If members have rammed through governance<br />
reform like this to make the way clear for Mr Lotu-Iiga to finally have one job when<br />
other people are looking for them, and if members think they have paved the way for<br />
John Banks to ride into the Auckland Council, they should remember that Aucklanders<br />
make up their own minds. Every Aucklander, at that city’s next election poll, will<br />
identify John Banks with the bill that stole their cities, and they will say: “If there is one<br />
way we can protest against this bulldozing National Government, it is to make sure that<br />
‘Banksie’ is not the mega-mayor.” So this debate does not finish tonight, and it does not<br />
finish this year. The fight-back starts now.<br />
SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I also start by expressing the gratitude of the Green Party<br />
to all the staff in <strong>Parliament</strong> who have kept the place going over the last few days. I<br />
hope they understand that it was a protest. It was a protest against the slashing and<br />
gutting of democracy in Auckland, and against the profoundly undemocratic way in<br />
which this far-reaching bill—which will obliterate layers of democracy in Auckland—<br />
was whacked through this House without any ability for the people of Auckland to have<br />
select committee hearings or to be consulted in any way. I hope the staff of <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
and the people of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> understand that that is what it was about: it was a<br />
protest. What did the Government expect us to do? Did it expect us just to stand by<br />
while this Draconian legislation was being rammed through the House?
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3741<br />
Rodney Hide has been very chipper since the dinner break. He has been very, very<br />
chipper, bouncing up and interjecting and looking incredibly pleased with himself—and<br />
why would he not? He has pulled off a coup—in fact, it is a coup d’état. He has justified<br />
his being the Minister of Local Government. No doubt, the ACT Party will have<br />
contributions rolling into its coffers from people who will be deeply grateful for what he<br />
has done, and who will be rubbing their hands together as they envisage the $28 billion<br />
worth of assets that will eventually be privatised in a year or two, and that they will be<br />
able to get their hands on. Of course, the people of the Auckland Citizens and<br />
Ratepayers Association are gearing themselves up all over Auckland even as we speak,<br />
and are looking forward to the day next November when they hope they can take over<br />
the council of the super-city of Auckland and unleash their agenda on the people of<br />
Auckland. So a lot of people are very grateful to Rodney Hide—or, at least, a lot of<br />
business people are. But I think that, once what has happened here sinks in,<br />
Aucklanders will not be grateful at all. I think there will be a major backlash when they<br />
realise what a coup d’état Rodney Hide has pulled off using the classic techniques of<br />
Rogernomics.<br />
National is now pretending that it will go out and consult, after pulling off the coup<br />
d’état, after setting up the super-city, and after wiping out eight democratically elected<br />
councils. The Government is now telling Aucklanders not to worry, because it will go<br />
out and consult, it will set up a committee, and it will listen to the people of Auckland.<br />
The only trouble is what is the Government going to listen to them talk about. What is<br />
there left to consult about? The whole thing has been set in place. There is one aspect<br />
left to consult about—the power of the local boards. The super-city is in place; it is<br />
ready to be taken over by John Banks, who will be the next tsar of Auckland. We hope<br />
he will not be, as David Cunliffe said, but that is the possibility that we need to face up<br />
to. He will have unlimited mayoral powers that no other mayor in Auckland will have.<br />
The only counterbalance to the power of the mayor, who will completely control the<br />
super-city, will be the local boards.<br />
Let us look at the legislation to see what the local boards are. The first thing that one<br />
notices in the legislation is that it states that a local board is not a local authority. I will<br />
repeat that: “A local board is not a local authority”. What is it, then? It is an<br />
“unincorporated body”. That is what those local boards are, and they have no powers at<br />
all in the legislation. The only powers they will have will be delegated by the supercouncil.<br />
So the super-council may decide to delegate some piffling little powers, or it<br />
may decide not to delegate anything. The bill then says that there will be four to nine<br />
members on each of the boards. We were told in a briefing that the board members will<br />
be paid $10,000 each. Those people will represent about 70,000 people. The people of<br />
Manukau are going to find themselves with, instead of their city council—which, as far<br />
as I know, most of the residents of Manukau are very, very satisfied with—two<br />
councillors on the Auckland super-city council, and a piffling little board with four<br />
members, which is an unincorporated body. They will not have even a local authority.<br />
And what will these local boards do? They will have absolutely no resources and no<br />
power. The local boards will not be able to hire staff. They will not be able to own<br />
anything. They will not be able to levy rates, borrow money, make by-laws, or develop<br />
plans. What will these boards do? They will do absolutely nothing. I say to Mr Hide that<br />
this is not local democracy; this is a pathetic joke. The Government has also got rid of<br />
the Māori seats, which were one of the best recommendations of the Royal Commission<br />
on Auckland Governance. What an outrage that the Government would simply<br />
obliterate the Māori seats.<br />
I warn Aucklanders that the consultation that we are now going to embark on, having<br />
set the whole thing up, will be—I am afraid to say—a completely pointless exercise. As
3742 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
everyone knows, a select committee is completely pointless if the Government has<br />
already made up its mind. Let us make no mistake: the Government has made up its<br />
mind. I say to Aucklanders: “Do not be conned.” Nevertheless, I still urge all<br />
Aucklanders who understand what is going on here to make their voices heard and to<br />
protest at the select committee, because there will not be anything else to do at the<br />
committee hearings, apart from perhaps talking about the powers of the pitiful,<br />
toothless, impotent local boards. I encourage those people to turn up nevertheless,<br />
because, as the Prime Minister said in this House, every Aucklander who wishes to be<br />
heard by this select committee will be heard. I urge people, even though it is too late, to<br />
get out there and make their voices heard.<br />
I predict that this super-city is not going to bring about any savings at all, and I am<br />
really worried about that. The international research that has been done shows that none<br />
of these forced amalgamations—because that is what this is—none of these super-cities,<br />
has ever delivered any savings. Most of them have come out and estimated savings; of<br />
course, Rodney Hide has refused to tell this House whether there will be any savings at<br />
all. Some super-cities promised 18 percent savings, and they eventually saved maybe 1<br />
or 2 percent.<br />
The super-city will disenfranchise whole Auckland communities. There will be a<br />
backlash against it, and it will not solve any of the so-called problems of Auckland. The<br />
problems of Auckland do not relate to its structure. This whole debate has been about<br />
structure. The problems people have with local government are things like the phoney<br />
consultation, and the lack of accountability and transparency. None of those problems<br />
will be solved by this super-city.<br />
The people of Auckland are going to wake up and find that they have this huge,<br />
bloated, remote, inaccessible super-city, which will be a bit like a supertanker, and they<br />
will not be able to access it or influence it. The super-city will have $28 billion of<br />
assets, and it will be a huge mega-city—one of the biggest in the Western World. The<br />
irony is that most places—for example, the United Kingdom—are going in exactly the<br />
opposite direction. These places have worked out that big super-cities do not work.<br />
They are not flexible. They are not able to deal with the problems of local democracy.<br />
So they are going in exactly the opposite direction. They are setting up local councils<br />
that are smaller and are genuinely close to the people.<br />
I predict that <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> will have a big, bloated super-city for a few years, and<br />
then we will work out that it has been a complete disaster and a huge waste of money,<br />
and that, far from solving the problems and the alleged parochialism of Auckland, the<br />
super-city has only unleashed resentment and disempowerment. In a few years’ time,<br />
we will go back to what we had before.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.<br />
Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: It is all Labour’s fault.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: Not quite. The original submissions to the Royal Commission<br />
on Auckland Governance included a plea for recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in<br />
local government, and recognition of rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and the rights and<br />
responsibilities of mana whenua. Sure, they acknowledged the limitations of<br />
arrangements being implemented by councils around the Auckland region, but they<br />
recognised at least the possibility of positive relationships under section 4 of Part 1 of<br />
the Local Government Act 2002, which states: “In order to recognise and respect the<br />
Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of<br />
Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local<br />
government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3743<br />
requirements for local authorities … to facilitate participation by Maori in local<br />
authority decision-making processes.”<br />
But this Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will throw out that promise.<br />
This bill will close off for ever any possible avenue for Māori participation in local<br />
government. It will slam the door on a rich resource of strategies and solutions to invest<br />
in full participation of Māori in local government in Auckland, and will deny the<br />
possibilities of partnership in favour of privatisation, user-pays, and the denial of<br />
participation by the citizens of Auckland. This bill may be about the organisation of<br />
cost-effective services and the restructuring of representation, but there can be no<br />
argument whatsoever for the denial of basic democracy to a third of the population of<br />
this country, and the refusal to honour the world’s greatest Polynesian city by giving<br />
three seats to people who have been giving land to the settlement of Auckland for more<br />
than 200 years.<br />
Although I do not like having to stand alongside the Labour Party, which in<br />
Government stole our foreshore and seabed, cancelled grants for Māori students, gave<br />
money back to the Government every year as if we did not need it, and refused to sign<br />
the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I recognise an even older maxim,<br />
which says that the enemy of my enemy is my friend—at least, for now. Just a few<br />
hours ago, I was stinging in my attack on Labour, saying that if its proposal for Pacific<br />
and Asian seats on the Auckland Council were genuinely about representation, then<br />
where were the seats for the Somali, the Kenyan, the Dalmatian, the South African, or<br />
the Scot. I said that although I respected much of what Labour had to say, I felt that its<br />
Pacific-Asian representation proposal was nothing but a naked grab for the votes of the<br />
large Pacific and Asian populations in Auckland. And I added that although I had the<br />
greatest respect for my Pacific cousins, and although I respected the right of Asians to<br />
be heard, I could never accept the betrayal by Labour’s Māori MPs of the primary right<br />
of Māori to be on the Auckland Council as mana whenua, as tangata whenua, and as<br />
Māori.<br />
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is well<br />
aware, because I briefed him on it, that the Labour Party put down amendments to do<br />
exactly what he is now saying, and they were ruled out of order—<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a debating point; that is not a point of order.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell me whether<br />
a member is allowed to deliberately mislead the House, after being warned like that?<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have just had a number of hours of debate, and the<br />
member should know what has actually been voted on and passed. I ask the member to<br />
take consideration of the comments he is making.<br />
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not for you to tell a<br />
member what he may or may not say in a third reading speech. It is also not for<br />
someone who is feeling sensitive to stand up and accuse a member of deliberating<br />
misleading the House, and to have your support in that. You should be telling Mr<br />
Mallard that he cannot make that accusation—<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are nearing the end of the debate. We cannot say that<br />
a member is lying. Those are debating points. We know that very well.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We know it’s fact, though.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Members cannot say that someone is<br />
lying. So let us continue, and I would ask Hone Harawira to complete his speech. The<br />
member has 5 minutes.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: I said at that time that I was outraged by the position taken by<br />
Labour’s Māori MPs in allowing the status of Māori to be downgraded to that of other<br />
ethnic groups, for we are, and always will be, the first people of this great land of
3744 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Aotearoa. I called at that time on all those Labour Māori MPs to speak up for Māori, to<br />
fight for Māori, and to be Māori—<br />
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member knows<br />
that is not true. He continues a litany of mistruths, and he knows exactly what he is<br />
doing.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already ruled on this, and I ask the member to<br />
continue. These are debating points.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: I called on the Labour Māori MPs to fight for seats on the<br />
Auckland Council for mana whenua first, for Māori second, and for anybody else after<br />
that, or to admit their failings, to recognise their duplicity, to confess their complicity,<br />
and to resign their seats forthwith. And I said that their mana, for what it was worth, the<br />
mana of their people, and, indeed, the mana of their tupuna deserve nothing less.<br />
But tonight, for all my criticism of the Labour Party for its watering down of the<br />
stand on Māori representation, let me say that I am grateful for the sterling efforts of<br />
those from the Labour Party and the Green Party in helping to highlight the naked and<br />
rapacious grab for power by those who would seek to commercialise services that<br />
people in places like South Auckland have taken for granted. Services such as free<br />
libraries and free swimming pools will be turned into user-pays environments, which<br />
will deny tens of thousands of Māori and Pacific people access to educational and<br />
recreational services, and further consign them to an underclass that grows daily as we<br />
speak, as we plunge deeper and deeper into the greatest recession any of us have ever<br />
known.<br />
And I am grateful to those in Labour and the Greens—<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: In no way do I take offence at the member’s comments, even<br />
though he is not, in fact, representing our position correctly, but I seek the leave of the<br />
House to table a press statement by my colleague Parekura Horomia that clearly sets out<br />
the fact that Labour’s policy is—<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are not points of order. They are debating points.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: I sought leave.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table—what is it?<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: I sought leave to table a press release by our Māori affairs<br />
spokesperson.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press release. Is there any<br />
objection to that course of action? There is objection.<br />
HONE HARAWIRA: And I am grateful to those in Labour and the Greens for<br />
standing alongside the Māori Party in challenging the insidious proposal to deny every<br />
Aucklander the right to equitably participate in the wider council elections by ensuring<br />
that only those with the resources, the profile, the money, and the capacity to pay for a<br />
million-dollar campaign need even contemplate applying, once again consigning the<br />
powerless, the dispossessed, and the under-resourced to respond in the time-honoured<br />
fashion of rejection of a leadership that bears no relationship whatsoever to their own<br />
lives of struggle, and to react in ways that none of us really want to see.<br />
I remind all those in National to beware of bills that will still be alive when the next<br />
election comes around. Just like the Electoral Finance Act came back to haunt the<br />
Labour Government right through the election campaign and eventually materialised to<br />
bite Labour on the backside in the election of 2008, so too will the “Waterview<br />
Criminal Bypass Bill” and this “Auckland Denial of Democracy Bill” still be open and<br />
festering sores in the run-up to the election campaign of 2011, and National will be<br />
rightfully blamed and held accountable for them.<br />
In less than 10 days’ time, Māori people from all over Auckland will be marching for<br />
the right of Māori representation—mana whenua and taura here. Māori from their many
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3745<br />
tribal homelands outside of Tāmaki-makau-rau will also be on that march, and I have no<br />
doubt that there will be people of many other races there—Asian, Somali, Dalmatian,<br />
Kenyan, Scottish, and South African. I sincerely hope and pray that we will also be<br />
joined by our cousins of the Pacific, the people whom I call the children of Maui,<br />
because we are all related through a common history, a common heritage, and a<br />
common love for the waters of the Pacific that are our backyard.<br />
In the same way that I welcome those from the Labour Party who have been<br />
speaking boldly and positively about a hīkoi that they have come to late in the day and<br />
now speak of in passionate terms of ownership, let me remind them that it will not be a<br />
march for the Labour Party, in the same way that it will not be a march for the Greens or<br />
the Māori Party. Although it has been the Māori Party that has championed the kaupapa<br />
of Māori seats at the table in the debates within this House, we have also acknowledged<br />
from day one that our role is to support the efforts, the plans, the hopes, and the dreams<br />
of the tangata whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau for genuine recognition of all that they are,<br />
all that they have given, and all that they desire for their children in the beautiful city of<br />
Auckland.<br />
We will march for the rights of those whose land we gave our freedom for, and we<br />
will march on 25 May 2009 not for our political parties, not for union beliefs, and not<br />
for our ethnic differences, but because we truly believe in the Treaty of Waitangi and<br />
the principle of partnership, which challenges us all to accept that Māori are not just<br />
another ethnic group, that Māori are not just another minority, that Māori are not simply<br />
citizens of Aotearoa, but that, in fact, Māori are tangata whenua—people of the land—<br />
that Māori are the first nation people of this land, and that the many hapū of Ngāti<br />
Whātua and Tainui have given lands for the development of Auckand, often to the<br />
detriment of their own future.<br />
I politely remind the House that 31 years ago the State moved in and arrested the<br />
children of Ngāti Whātua on the last remaining land that they could rightfully call their<br />
own. Who on earth would have thought that, in the wash-up, Ngāti Whātua would<br />
choose not recrimination, accusation, and blame, but would actually invite the Auckland<br />
City Council itself to share in the management of Takaparawhau, which remains to this<br />
day a jewel in the crown of the city of Auckland? Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa. Yee<br />
ha!<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I raise a point of order,<br />
Mr Speaker. The deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Hon David Cunliffe, indicated<br />
earlier when seeking leave—[Interruption]<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear what the member—<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: No, you can’t let him do that!<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not heard what he is going to say. [Interruption]<br />
Sit down! I am standing—<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: He just stood before—<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am standing. The Hon Rodney Hide has a point of<br />
order. What is the point of order?<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE: I am inviting the Hon David Cunliffe to seek leave again,<br />
because if Parekura Horomia—<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. Sit down.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. I now understand that you did not hear the first phrase of the leader of the<br />
ACT Party. He did not describe a member accurately; he did it provocatively and<br />
deliberately. He was in breach of the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings of this<br />
House, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.
3746 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry; I did not hear that. If that is the case, I ask the<br />
member to withdraw that comment.<br />
Hon Rodney Hide: I withdraw.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I raise a point<br />
of order, Speaker. I know that—[Interruption]<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are on a point of order, and points of order are heard<br />
in silence.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is actually the point I<br />
was about to make. I know that it is getting later in the evening on Saturday night and<br />
we have been here for a long time, and I know that the debate at times has been<br />
robust—and so it should be. However, I was sitting here not far from my colleague from<br />
the far north, and I had difficulty in hearing him. I actually did want to hear what he had<br />
to say. Unfortunately, it was rather difficult because there were a lot of interjections<br />
from that side of the House. I am not saying we have not also interjected, but I suggest<br />
that the House let the last three or four speeches be heard.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. I concur with the comments of the Associate Minister of Local Government,<br />
but when a member uses words like “betrayal” in his speech about a political party, that<br />
is provocation.<br />
Following on from that, I seek leave to table the draft amendments prepared by the<br />
Labour Party for stand-alone, dedicated Māori seats. I advised the member for Te Tai<br />
Tokerau that we had done that earlier in the day but they were ruled to be not in order.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?<br />
There is objection.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I also seek leave to table a<br />
comprehensive list of all the amendments prepared by the Māori Party in order to<br />
ensure Māori representation. It is a blank piece of paper. That party moved none.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?<br />
There is objection.<br />
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): It is a privilege to once again stand up<br />
in this House, to speak in support of this very fine Local Government (Auckland<br />
Council) Bill.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. We have just had<br />
points of order from members who said they would actually like to hear what the<br />
speakers are saying. Can members keep their interjections focused. They should be rare<br />
and reasonable, not interchanges with people across the House.<br />
Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your comments, is it is<br />
appropriate for me to ask whether I could give my speech again, so that people could<br />
actually hear it?<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the voting record of Tariana Turia,<br />
which shows that she voted many times with the Government over the Auckland<br />
reorganisation.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?<br />
There is objection.<br />
ALLAN PEACHEY: It is a privilege to support this bill. The bill is one of a<br />
package of measures that will unleash the great potential of Auckland, and of the<br />
Auckland region, to contribute to the growth and prosperity of all of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>.<br />
Nearly one-third of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s people live in the Auckland region. Auckland is the<br />
base of some of the most significant business, commercial, and educational functions in
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3747<br />
this country. It is the key to the growth and prosperity of <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. I commend this<br />
bill to the House.<br />
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for<br />
the opportunity to speak tonight. If I sound emotional tonight, I make no apology for it.<br />
In fact, for the past few days quite a lot of emotion has been released by all sides of the<br />
House on this matter. It is a very significant matter, in terms of the people whom I<br />
represent and the communities I represent in Māngere and Manukau City. I have been to<br />
many funerals of friends and relatives—people whom I cherish and are dear to me. I am<br />
using this point as a preface before I get on to the bill. Those funerals have all been very<br />
sad occasions, but our debate over the establishment by this Government of a super-city<br />
without it asking Aucklanders about it has deeply hurt me. I say to this House that that<br />
hurt is a reflection of how the communities throughout Manukau City and Waitakere<br />
feel about the actions of this Government. In fact, they feel that it is an outrage that they<br />
have not been given the opportunity to have a say. It may be that they would agree to<br />
the proposal.<br />
That is the reason why I stand tonight to acknowledge and thank all of my Labour<br />
colleagues and the other parties—the Greens and, to some extent, the Māori Party—for<br />
holding this Government to account. That is what we have asked for—that it gives<br />
Aucklanders the opportunity to have a say. Often in this debate there has been outrage<br />
from the other side of the House, but the outrage that I feel, and that I suspect is felt by<br />
many throughout Auckland, is that the action of this Government can be described as<br />
criminal in many senses. We have had two senior members of the Government—Mr<br />
Key, the honourable Prime Minister, and the honourable Minister of Local<br />
Government—holding a gun to the head of the mayors and councillors and saying<br />
“Click! Bang! We’ve got the numbers. That’s why we’re doing this.” That is a sign of<br />
the sheer arrogance of this Government after only 6 months of being in power.<br />
For those who are listening, I say that Labour has fought tooth and nail to hold this<br />
Government to account. Labour has fought hard to ensure that the bills that this<br />
Government is introducing in urgency are examined, because the National and ACT<br />
Government’s undemocratic plans deserve to be given back to the people.<br />
So we come to the bill. There are four parts and 24 clauses. The member for<br />
Manurewa, George Hawkins, held up an advertisement earlier that had been paid for by<br />
the <strong><strong>Parliament</strong>ary</strong> Service—by taxpayers. It is advertising a series of meetings.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: No.<br />
SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Yes. It is an outrage. It is advertising a series of meetings<br />
that are to be held in the next few months by the Government in the Auckland region.<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: After it’s gone through.<br />
SU’A WILLIAM SIO: After it has been done, exactly—after the fact. Here is the<br />
advertisement. It states “Have Your Say …”. This advertisement is deceptive, because<br />
the main decision has already been made. But here is the other concern: eight meetings<br />
are being held in the area of the current Auckland City Council, and the fear and<br />
concern we have is that these meetings are campaign meetings for John Banks by this<br />
Government. In Manukau and Waitakere, there is only one meeting. There is one<br />
meeting for the 380,000 people living in Manukau, which is the third-largest city in<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>—one meeting. I have to ask whether that is a sign of things to come, as a<br />
result of this Government and the super-city.<br />
I lament the loss of my city and of four mayors: the late Hugh Lambie; the late Sir<br />
Lloyd Elsmore; Sir Barry Curtis, who served 24 years; and now Len Brown, the Mayor<br />
of Manukau City. I lament the loss of the three councillors who represent Māngere. I<br />
lament the loss of eight community boards, made up of local people who live in the<br />
area. With the stroke of Mr Hide’s pen, those local government bodies exist in name
3748 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
only. The power, rights, authority, and privilege are being given to three or four people<br />
picked specifically by that Minister.<br />
In Part 1, the purpose clause talks about defining Auckland. Clause 5 talks about the<br />
“Meaning of Auckland”. That clause does not define clearly what Auckland is about. It<br />
is about more than just an area; it is about the people who live there. It is about the<br />
diversity there, the languages that are spoken, the various events that are held regularly<br />
in Manukau, for example. Our concern now is about what will happen to our Polyfest,<br />
which started at the old school of Sir Edmund Hillary, now called Hillary College. What<br />
will happen to that? What will happen to our Asian and ethnic events that are currently<br />
being held in Manukau and funded by Manukau City? The Auckland Transition Agency<br />
now has control of all that, because it has the same powers as if there were a super-city.<br />
That is a deep concern.<br />
I say to this Government that if it had any sincerity—which I have yet to see—about<br />
consultation it would take the select committee consultation back to Auckland. It would<br />
take it to all seven different sectors of Auckland.<br />
Part 2 talks about the mayor and grants his or her executive powers. There is grave<br />
concern about the at-large election of the mayor and the substantial powers that are<br />
given to the mayor. The questions that we want answered are about how we will choose<br />
that mayor. Will it be by first past the post? Will it be by the single transferable vote<br />
system? Will it be by preferential voting? These are the questions our communities will<br />
be asking this Government. That is a decision that they have to make.<br />
The executive powers of this mayor are of deep concern to us. This mayor will<br />
appoint his buddies and friends to be deputy mayor and chairpersons of committees.<br />
Too much power in the hands of one person is not a good thing. We know what has<br />
happened in other situations like that. Power corrupts, and we do not think that is right. I<br />
liken the super-city to a canoe that will take us to the future. If that be the case, then all<br />
people need to be on board and everyone needs to be paddling in the same direction.<br />
There will be only 20 people on this council. Eight will be elected at large, and only<br />
the rich and wealthy will be able to stand for those positions. What about ordinary<br />
workers and families in our community? What about Māori? The Māori Party says that<br />
Labour has betrayed Māori. That is an outrage. We are the ones who have been<br />
demanding that this Government be held to account, to ensure that there are Māori seats,<br />
Pacific seats, and representation of Asian and other ethnic groups on this local council.<br />
What about the local boards’ powers? Local boards cannot simply go cap in hand to<br />
the council and ask for the resources and things that local government bodies need for<br />
local communities. It is not just about dogs, prostitutes, and gambling—although some<br />
members on the other side of the House might enjoy those things. It is not just about<br />
that.<br />
Finally, I will say three things. I say to Government members that if they are sincere,<br />
they need to give the people of Auckland time to consult on these bills. The<br />
Government needs to do that. It needs to give them time to develop quality submissions.<br />
Not everyone is familiar with the select committee process, and I do not want to see this<br />
Government go out there and select only its friends, the business elite, to come and<br />
debate this. We need to allow every single member of those communities of ours to<br />
debate this, in their own languages if need be.<br />
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I rise to take a short call on the first reading of the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. It follows on from the Local Government<br />
(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill, which was passed this evening. We need to<br />
look at the facts here. The facts are that the previous Labour Government set up the<br />
royal commission—[Interruption]
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3749<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. An interchange is<br />
going on between two members, and I cannot hear what the honourable member Dr<br />
Jackie Blue is saying. She has only just commenced her speech.<br />
Dr JACKIE BLUE: The facts are that the Royal Commission on Auckland<br />
Governance was set up under the previous Labour Government. It recommended that<br />
there be one unitary council. It recommended that it be implemented urgently, and that<br />
is what this Government has done. The bill that was passed earlier this evening did that.<br />
The bill that we are currently discussing sets up the framework for that council, and<br />
what is important is that it looks at second-tier representation. We were not happy with<br />
the royal commission’s recommendations on the second tier. We want to go to the<br />
community on that issue, and we will be having a select committee process. We will be<br />
having open forums and we will be listening to people. We are not paying lip-service to<br />
the community. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. This bill does three main things: it sets up<br />
the framework for the Auckland Council, it sets up local boards, and it describes the<br />
role of the Local Government Commission. I will talk about each of those elements,<br />
because we have concerns about all of them.<br />
First of all, the context in which this bill is being received into this House is<br />
absolutely critical. I do not think that members opposite understand the damage that has<br />
been done already. There has been—<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a mark of respect for<br />
my colleague that I ask through you that the Minister who had her back to the member<br />
and was wandering around the Chamber, and other members who were wandering<br />
around, do the member the courtesy of listening to her speech. It is important.<br />
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. It is important that we give speakers<br />
a fair go. As I have said on previous occasions, if members want to wander around and<br />
talk, they should do that outside in the lobbies. Only whips should be walking around.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: There has been an absolute litany of arrogance since<br />
March, when the royal commission report was received. I saw that arrogance just then<br />
when my colleague Su’a William Sio was speaking and describing accurately the view<br />
of the people of Manukau City. Honestly, the smirking, giggling, and carrying on over<br />
on the other side of the Chamber was unbelievable.<br />
Anyway, you took a report that the royal commission spent 18 months working on<br />
and you gutted it in a week—[Interruption] Sorry, not you, Mr Deputy Speaker.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: “They”.<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: They, the members opposite, took a report that had taken<br />
18 months of work and gutted it within just over a week. A number of really interesting<br />
and important ideas in that report seem to have sunk without trace. There were good<br />
ideas around economic development, a social board, and greater coordination between<br />
Auckland and central government. Many, many things are missing from the bill we are<br />
talking about now. The development agency is missing, as I said, as are the social issues<br />
board, the joint management structures between the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Transport Agency and<br />
the Railways Corporation, and many of the things the royal commission worked hard<br />
on. What has happened to those ideas?<br />
More important, the Government’s failure to listen to Aucklanders will mean that<br />
this bill and the legislation arising from it will be fundamentally damaged before they<br />
have even started. Thousands of people have been involved in marches and meetings,<br />
and many more marches and meetings are to come. Let us see what happens with the<br />
hīkoi, shall we? The media have also reflected people’s concerns—even the good old<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Herald, with headlines like “Let citizens have say on Super City”. What
3750 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
about the East and Bays Courier with “Call to keep local voice”? What about “Who<br />
stole our voice?”, “Democracy at stake”, or “Welcome to Greater Auckland”? The<br />
Government is so arrogant that it does not see that it has created a monster already; that<br />
concern is reflected in all of the polls that have been taken so far.<br />
This Government made a number of commitments to Aucklanders. I remind<br />
members opposite of what it said to Aucklanders. I am appalled that members opposite<br />
can sit there and fail to recognise the statement they made in their manifesto: “National<br />
will: Support the Royal Commission providing an opportunity for people within the<br />
Auckland region to express their views about the structures that will best achieve the<br />
goals set out above.” It also states that National would “Consult with Aucklanders once<br />
the findings of the Royal Commission are known.” Well, I do not know what has<br />
happened to those commitments, but over the last few days we have seen the Local<br />
Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill rammed through the House under<br />
urgency. There has been no opportunity for Aucklanders to be consulted on that,<br />
because the Government has passed the bill already. The Government has taken away<br />
the right of Aucklanders, under the Local Government Act, to have a poll on the issue.<br />
The Government has also established a small but very powerful transition agency—<br />
an agency that has no obligations to consult anybody, an agency that is made up of three<br />
to five people, picked at Rodney Hide’s discretion. Frankly, that is hardly reassuring.<br />
The agency has huge power—<br />
Paul Quinn: Have you got the right bill?<br />
CAROL BEAUMONT: I am talking about the Local Government (Tamaki<br />
Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill as part of the context for this bill, I tell Mr Quinn—if he<br />
were listening. The transition agency has huge power to control councils—huge power.<br />
It has more than $28 billion of assets, and there are no protections against the<br />
privatisation of those assets. It has huge power around developing change management<br />
plans for 6,300 workers who work in local government in Auckland.<br />
Over the last few days the Government has created a brand new select committee on<br />
the issue—a practice that National has been very strongly opposed to in the past. Why<br />
has that committee been created under urgency—why? We can only assume that the<br />
Government does not trust the existing Local Government and Environment Committee.<br />
Labour wonders what process that special select committee will follow. I can only hope<br />
that it will be a damn sight better than what has happened at the hearing on the<br />
amendment to the Resource Management Act. I had the opportunity to sit in on that<br />
hearing briefly and could not believe the way that people were being treated. It was<br />
absolutely appalling. Will the Government give a commitment on the bill we currently<br />
have before us that everybody who wants to be heard will be heard, and that it will give<br />
them adequate time to be heard? I do not think so. All of these sorts of actions have<br />
created an environment of mistrust, anger, and real fear among Aucklanders about the<br />
ACT and National Party agendas for local government, and members will continue to<br />
hear about that from Aucklanders.<br />
This is about a Government that is focused on centralising power—its power!<br />
Members on this side of the House do not question the need for change. Auckland faces<br />
many, many challenges. It is true that there has been significant discontent about local<br />
government, particularly about the inability to coordinate things regionally. There is no<br />
doubt about that. I might also say that there is a lot of discontent about the Auckland<br />
City Council in particular. Under the current mayor, the Citizens and Ratepayers -<br />
dominated council is arrogant, and it fails to address the needs of many of the citizens of<br />
Auckland. If people happen to live in Ōtāhuhu, they will know particularly what I am<br />
talking about. If the citizens of Ōtāhuhu are listening tonight, I tell them that I am
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3751<br />
making sure this Government hears about the appalling way in which money has not<br />
gone to those citizens and their needs, but has gone to the wealthy in Auckland City.<br />
The previous Labour Government set up the royal commission, because it recognised<br />
there was a need for change. Labour members broadly support a unitary authority,<br />
because do we need greater coordination on key regional issues, but we disagree with<br />
the way in which the Government has trampled across the rights of Aucklanders in this<br />
process. So far it has done nothing but be arrogant to Aucklanders, and it has not<br />
listened to them. Labour members strongly disagree with a number of the key<br />
provisions in this bill. We disagree with the at-large councillor provision, because we<br />
believe that only people with money or fame will be able to stand and represent the<br />
whole city. People may scoff at that concern, but that was the case with the Auckland<br />
City Council until very recently—up until the late 1980s. If people took the time to see<br />
what the council looked like back then, they would see that most of the people on that<br />
council were white, were male, and came from the eastern suburbs of Auckland City. So<br />
there are real problems about at-large councillors.<br />
The 20 to 30 local boards that are being proposed are completely powerless. Labour<br />
wants to see a second tier that actually has teeth and that can do things for local people.<br />
What about Māori representation? The provision is appalling; we support Māori<br />
representation on the Auckland Council. There are other many other provisions of this<br />
bill that we are very, very concerned about. Another provision, which again goes back<br />
to the issue of arrogance, concerns the powers of the Local Government Commission.<br />
Under this bill, the commission will have a number of very important responsibilities,<br />
but nowhere does the bill talk about that commission consulting anybody.<br />
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Today the fifth National<br />
Government, with the help of Rodney Hide, has finally achieved for Auckland what<br />
parliamentarians have been trying to do for generations. We simply do not believe that<br />
this is as good as it gets for the people of Auckland. Tonight we have delivered one<br />
council that will enable Aucklanders to have better public services. As Aucklanders<br />
wake up tomorrow, they will realise that this is a watershed moment in Auckland. It is a<br />
watershed moment not just for Auckland but also for <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>: the moment that the<br />
tide turned from endless talkfests, strategies, and action plans to real progress for<br />
Auckland.<br />
The people of the central business district and the people of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn,<br />
Herne Bay, St Marys Bay, Westmere, and Waiheke Island deserve to have better public<br />
transport. The people of Auckland deserve to have a transport system that enables them<br />
to spend less time in traffic and more time with their families. One council will enable<br />
that to be delivered. But, most of all, the people of Auckland deserve to have local<br />
democracy, and this bill will deliver that for Aucklanders. This bill is about giving local<br />
communities in Auckland, like those of Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island, back<br />
their voice. For too long, the people of Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island have<br />
been forced to constantly battle for people to understand their communities. The royal<br />
commission recognised that when it stated that community engagement was poor.<br />
We have tremendous respect for the commission, but we believe that the option it<br />
offered did not give all local communities across Auckland the voice that they deserve.<br />
That is why we have given local democracy a real kick forward by offering local<br />
boards. The irony for members opposite is that those members have not yet confirmed<br />
whether they support the establishment of local boards. That is right! If they do not<br />
support that, they will have to go around the communities of Auckland—like those of<br />
Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island—and be very clear about what they are doing<br />
to local democracy for Auckland. On this side of the House, our policy is very clear; the<br />
Opposition’s policy is not.
3752 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Where we agree with the commission, we are implementing its recommendations, as<br />
we have done with the provision for one council and one mayor. Where we do not agree<br />
with it, we are going back to the people. That is what we are doing. The royal<br />
commission went to the people of Auckland and consulted, in an 18-month process that<br />
Labour set up and that cost millions of dollars. We respect taxpayers, and we will not<br />
waste their money by, in the words of Gordon from Grey Lynn, having “stagnation by<br />
consultation” So where we differ from the royal commission, we are going back to the<br />
people of Auckland.<br />
I am proud that the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee will enable<br />
Aucklanders to have their say on how to run their communities. I am proud that I am<br />
holding at least four public meetings, and I am proud that we are giving Aucklanders<br />
local boards that will enable them to have a real voice. Today the fifth National<br />
Government has delivered a basic system of local democracy to Auckland. Now it is<br />
time for Aucklanders to have their say.<br />
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): This is the evening of a<br />
momentous day not just for Auckland but for <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, in that we are debating the<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, a bill that will lead <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> forward. I<br />
want to correct a few of the misconceptions that have come from across the aisle about<br />
consultation that has not yet occurred. Well, this is only the first reading of the bill, I<br />
remind some of our colleagues across the aisle, and there will be a level of consultation.<br />
We will have a number of public meetings where we will listen to Auckland. These<br />
meetings will be about members of <strong>Parliament</strong> listening to their constituents—not<br />
members of <strong>Parliament</strong> who live in other electorates trying to listen, but members of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> who live in their electorates.<br />
I also thank the clerks, and the staff of this institution—<br />
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is not<br />
really my role to defend the Prime Minister, but I think attacks on him in this way, by<br />
one of his backbenchers, when he is not in the House are just not fair.<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. I<br />
invite the honourable member to continue with his speech.<br />
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.<br />
Hon Member: You’re useless, Sam.<br />
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am not useless. Mr Assistant Speaker, I have thick<br />
skin, and I will continue to talk about the bill. We have heard about how sad that mob<br />
over there are about this bill. We have heard the Opposition’s hyperbole and<br />
exaggeration about the bill, and, in a week when one of our police officers has been<br />
killed, I say it is quite inappropriate for a member of <strong>Parliament</strong> to say that a gun is<br />
being levelled at people’s heads. To talk about deaths and funerals when one of our own<br />
members has lost her mother, and to compare that with this bill, is quite inappropriate.<br />
We had another member of <strong>Parliament</strong> from across the aisle—one who does not live in<br />
his electorate, of course—claim that the people are watching. Well, they are not<br />
watching. They are watching the Blues beat the Crusaders; they are up by 13 to 12, and<br />
I am quite happy about that.<br />
This bill is about establishing the Auckland Council and the governing board of that<br />
council.<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek some advice. If<br />
you could inform us—<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am not here for advice. The<br />
member is making a point of order. What is the point of order?<br />
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am seeking to find out whether the Auckland City Council<br />
ratepayer or the taxpayer is paying the bill for this member’s speech.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3753<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order; the<br />
member knows that. It was simply an attempt to break up the member’s speech.<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a two-part point of<br />
order. It is a longstanding convention in the House that members should be referred to<br />
by their proper names. The member has referred to members opposite by the descriptor<br />
“a member who does not live in his electorate”. The second part of the question is<br />
whether that descriptor could apply to the member’s leader, when he has filled in a<br />
primary place of residence form with an address in his electorate but does not actually<br />
live there.<br />
Hon Members: What is the point of order?<br />
Hon David Cunliffe: The point of order is that, first, I seek the Chair’s guidance to<br />
have an offensive remark removed; and, second, I seek clarification of whether an<br />
epithet like “a member who does not live in his electorate” could apply to the speaker’s<br />
own leader, who filled in a primary place of residence—<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Neither point is a point of order.<br />
The member will resume his seat.<br />
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr Assistant Speaker, it is clear that we have had a<br />
historic day today. It is 13 May, and I am glad to be part of a Government that is taking<br />
action. I am glad to be part of a Government that has people like Rodney Hide, John<br />
Carter, and the Hon John Key in it. I am proud to be part of a Government that does not<br />
talk and sit on its heels for 9 years but takes action. We are leading this country into the<br />
future. Whether or not members opposite like it, we will be leading this country for a<br />
very long time.<br />
I am in support of this bill. Thank you.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Auckland<br />
Council) Bill be now read a first time.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 51<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4.<br />
Bill read a first time.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I move that the Local<br />
Government (Auckland Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance<br />
Legislation Committee.<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The Clerk reminds me that there<br />
was to be a report-back date.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE: I can read the whole thing, if you like, Mr Assistant Speaker.<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I think it would be very<br />
important that you read the whole thing.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE: I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill<br />
be considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and that the<br />
committee report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. The member had moved the motion. I do not think it is within the discretion of<br />
the House to hear the second motion in any way other than as an amendment to the first<br />
motion that he had moved. He moved it and sat down; he was finished. I do not think<br />
that we can now give him a second chance to get it right. It is a matter that can be<br />
corrected by way of a motion in the House properly put down by the Government to
3754 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
foreshorten the time for the bill to be at the select committee, but that is something that<br />
will have to be done at the next sitting. The member very, very clearly moved<br />
something. It is something that the House should address. No other Minister gets a<br />
second chance to get a motion right, and there should not be an exception for this one.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I do apologise to the Hon<br />
Trevor Mallard. I did make a mistake, Mr Assistant Speaker. But I point out that the<br />
actual motion had not been put. You quite rightly corrected me, I moved the motion<br />
again, and that motion is now on the floor.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The point is, Mr Assistant<br />
Speaker, that you called the Minister, he moved the motion, he sat down, and his call<br />
was finished, just as Mr Mallard pointed out. Further, in support of what Mr Mallard<br />
has put to you, I say that there is a direct precedent for this. It happened in the last term<br />
of <strong>Parliament</strong> with a justice bill, when the Minister failed to move the correct referral<br />
motion at the end. On that occasion it was not pointed out by the Clerk. The Minister<br />
realised the motion was not correct moments after the question had been put and before<br />
the vote had been taken. The Hon Dr Nick Smith raised a point of order on it. That will<br />
be clear in the <strong>Hansard</strong> record. The Government paid the price for it, and had to come<br />
back subsequently with a procedural motion to clean matters up. There is nothing we<br />
can do about this. The motion was moved by the Minister, and he resumed his seat—it<br />
is over. You are now bound, Mr Assistant Speaker, to put that motion to the House to be<br />
voted on.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): The point that<br />
needs to be made is that there is a significant difference in this particular case. Although<br />
it was true that the Minister of Local Government had resumed his seat, nevertheless,<br />
you asked—and you are in sole charge of this House—the Minister to complete the<br />
motion, which he continued to do. Nothing intervened after the time that he made the<br />
comments, and, as a consequence, the House certainly can consider the motion as a<br />
whole. At the end of the day, you are the final judge, but given that you invited the<br />
Minister to continue the motion—which he did—and complete it, the House can<br />
consider it.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think it is a fairly simple<br />
point. Mr Assistant Speaker, you were acting on advice, and I accept that, but in this<br />
particular case I think you were not correctly advised. It is not often that I disagree with<br />
someone who sits in the Clerk’s chair, but when a member has completed his speech<br />
and resumed his seat it is all over, Rover. That is the case that occurred.<br />
It is not something that is irredeemable. The Government essentially has a choice: it<br />
can adjourn now and move the referral motion again as a Government order of business<br />
on the next sitting day, or it can put the original motion, and then, sometime over the<br />
next few months, pass a motion that returns the situation back to what the Government<br />
wants. Clearly, we will vote against it, but it is not something that we will obstruct, as<br />
long as it is done properly, within the procedures of the House.<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I think the situation is relatively<br />
straightforward. There is no doubt that the motion put initially by the Hon Rodney Hide<br />
was different from the motion that he had signalled to the House in his first reading<br />
speech. The first thing is that he had signalled clearly to the House that there would be a<br />
referral motion and that there would be a report-back date. He is therefore obligated,<br />
when he comes to move the motion, to move the same motion. I would draw a parallel<br />
with the situation when members put down questions for oral answer; members are<br />
required to ask the exact question that is on the Order Paper.<br />
The second point I would make in this regard is that the motion had not been carried<br />
by the House. Before I put the question, I invited the Minister—on the advice of the
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3755<br />
Clerk—to correct the motion. The Clerk had identified that Mr Hide had made a<br />
mistake. The Minister then corrected it. The next point is for me to put the resolution. If<br />
the motion had been moved and carried, it would have been, as Mr Mallard said, all<br />
over, Rover. It would then have been the decision of the House. At this stage, it is not<br />
the decision of the House.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />
Speaker. There are two points. The first relates to an indication at the beginning of a<br />
speech that there will be a motion to refer the bill to a select committee. You are<br />
absolutely correct in saying that members cannot move such a motion without their<br />
having signalled it at the beginning of the debate. Among the requirements is to signal<br />
which select committee the bill will go to, and any other restrictions. My submission to<br />
you is that those are the outside boundaries, and if a member later chooses to move<br />
something that is within those boundaries but does not take full advantage of them, then<br />
that is the right of the member.<br />
The other point I would like to refer you to is Speaker’s ruling 24/7—it goes back to<br />
1891, to Mr Speaker Steward—which indicates “A motion of which notice has been<br />
given cannot, when before the House, be altered by the mover without the unanimous<br />
consent of the House.” It is my submission to you that at the point that the Minister<br />
resumed his seat, that motion was before the House, and it cannot at that point be<br />
changed. I think it is pretty straightforward. The ruling is of very, very longstanding. A<br />
motion was moved that was within the boundaries of the notice that had been given, and<br />
the Minister then resumed his seat. At that point, the motion was before the House, and,<br />
notwithstanding your helpful advice—on the advice of the Clerk—to the Minister, it is<br />
my submission that at that point it was too late and you were obligated to put the motion<br />
in those terms.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I have two points. The<br />
first is that it was not a motion on notice. The second point is to note the number of<br />
times throughout the day when members have given votes, then sought to correct them.<br />
That practice has been accepted by the House. That is exactly what happened here, Mr<br />
Assistant Speaker. I admitted my mistake, and I thank you for pointing it out. The<br />
motion had not been put. It can now be put.<br />
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I want to add<br />
to the comments made by both the previous speakers, with regard to Speaker’s ruling<br />
24/7. Mr Assistant Speaker, I am sure you have noticed that the ruling refers to a motion<br />
of which notice has been given: “A motion of which notice has been given cannot,<br />
when before the House, be altered by the mover without the unanimous consent of the<br />
House.” However, in this case the motion was not a motion with notice; it was a verbal<br />
motion. So that Speaker’s ruling does not apply in this particular case. We all know that<br />
notices of motion are on the Order Paper. In this particular case, the motion was not on<br />
the Order Paper.<br />
Indeed, if we think about it, Mr Assistant Speaker—and I believe that you are<br />
absolutely right and I support your view—we will recall that the Minister had indicated<br />
that he would be moving a motion in the way that he finally did. There is a requirement<br />
to give such notice in the first reading speech, and for the previous member to suggest<br />
that the Minister could do something within the bounds of that notice is actually not<br />
true. The Minister is duty-bound, then, to put to the House the motion that he verbally<br />
gave notice he would put, and we need to now follow that. Mr Assistant Speaker, your<br />
ruling and indication to the House are, in my view, absolutely correct.<br />
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I shall pick up on the point<br />
made by the Mr John Carter. Speaker’s ruling 24/7 refers to notice. In a sense, the<br />
Minister foreshadowed in his first reading speech that he would be moving a motion.
3756 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
Mr Assistant Speaker, you said that the situation was similar to that of questions of the<br />
day. The difference is that when the question is read out, that is the question; when the<br />
Minister foreshadows that he will be moving a motion at the end of a debate, he is not<br />
moving a motion; he is simply signalling to the House that that is his intention.<br />
Mr Hide referred to changes to party votes. Our Standing Orders and Speakers’<br />
rulings specifically make the opportunity available for a party vote to be corrected<br />
before the result is announced by the presiding officer. That specific reference is in<br />
there.<br />
Mr Assistant Speaker, we have referred to the advice you have received. Really, it<br />
was not advice; it was a reminder. The Clerk at the Table prompted you about a mistake<br />
that the Minister had made. It was not proper advice that you received; it was a helpful<br />
reminder. It did not have the effect of making the original mistake by Mr Hide right, in<br />
any way, shape, of form.<br />
My final submission to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, is that the Minister moved his<br />
motion and sat down. That was the motion before us. The two precedents for this are,<br />
firstly, the one I have already referred to, where the previous Government faced such a<br />
situation. The point was raised by the National Party, and the Government of the day<br />
paid a procedural price for it. It had to come back and fix it up later, because the<br />
Opposition of the day had insisted that we were wrong—and it was correct—in that the<br />
motion had not been moved as had been foreshadowed by the Minister of Justice. An<br />
incorrect motion had been moved by the Minister on duty at the end of that debate.<br />
I would wrap the whole thing up by referring to the first day that this <strong>Parliament</strong> met,<br />
when the Leader of the House incorrectly moved a motion and sat down. Dr Cullen took<br />
a point of order to point out that the motion had not been put correctly, and it was only<br />
through the indulgence of the House on the very first day—the cooperation of the<br />
House—that that mistake was fixed. Such a level of cooperation, of course, is not<br />
present today.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I want to add to my point<br />
earlier. I have had a chance now to study the Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Trevor<br />
Mallard is referring to—24/7. The ruling comes under the heading “Motions (SOs 93-<br />
100)”. Clearly, the rulings under that heading concern motions that are before the House<br />
in writing. That is what Speaker’s ruling 24/7, in particular, refers to, and that is backed<br />
up by the reference to Standing Orders 93 to 100.<br />
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): Mr Hughes is incorrect in the way<br />
he has put it. He has surmised, under Standing Order 281, that there actually was a<br />
question to be put. In fact, there was not a question to be put, in the sense that it was not<br />
complete; it required the date to be added—as was indicated by you, Mr Assistant<br />
Speaker. It was only when that part was added on that the question itself was complete,<br />
and only at that point was there a question that could be decided by the House. There<br />
was the initial statement by Mr Hide; with your addition about the date, Mr Assistant<br />
Speaker, the question was completed, and it could then be put. So I believe that it is<br />
perfectly in order for this House to deal now with the totality of the question—both the<br />
referral and the report-back date.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am working my way back<br />
from McGee to the <strong>Hansard</strong> of 1996. I would like to refer you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to<br />
Volume 556, at page 13643, which I think apposite in this particular case. While that<br />
page is being found for your reference, I think it also important for you to look at<br />
McGee, at the third paragraph on page 175, which clearly states: “Once the member sits<br />
down after moving a motion, the member’s right to speak is ended.” That is very clear. I<br />
am looking at the third edition, which is the latest one. In 1996 the Speaker was Mr<br />
Speaker Tapsell. There were a number of rulings at that time, but he was the Speaker at
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3757<br />
the time referred to in footnote 22 on page 175 of McGee. He was the Speaker<br />
responsible. It is very, very clear that once a member sits down after moving a motion,<br />
the member’s right to speak has ended. Of course, once a member’s right to speak has<br />
ended, his or her right to move anything is forfeit, as well. Other than by way of leave<br />
of the House or a motion of the House, the member cannot recover the right to speak. If<br />
the member cannot speak, of course, the member cannot move a motion in the House.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I thank the Hon Trevor<br />
Mallard for drawing our attention to what is set out in McGee, but I draw his attention<br />
to the fact that if he reads the entire paragraph that he is referring to and the one<br />
preceding it, he will see that they are talking about making a speech rather than moving<br />
a motion. Trevor Mallard is saying that once a member has sat down after moving a<br />
motion, that member does not have a right to give a speech. That is not what we are<br />
dealing with here; it is something different. I was not asking to give another speech on<br />
the motion; I just wanted the motion to be put properly.<br />
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to make the point<br />
absolutely clear, Mr Assistant Speaker, just while you are finally looking at the matter. I<br />
remind members that it is a longstanding convention in this House that unless one can<br />
have the call, unless one has the right to speak, one cannot move a motion. There is no<br />
ability to move something in this House—or, in fact, as far as I am concerned, in any<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> of the Westminster system—unless one has the call to speak. People get the<br />
call in different ways in different debates, but it is very, very clear and it is something<br />
that I think is quite important; otherwise, democracy could be trampled on relatively<br />
easily. If a member cannot be on his or her feet to speak—and the Minister could not<br />
be—then that member cannot correctly move a motion of that sort.<br />
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I will make a final, quick<br />
statement. I clearly had a right to be on my feet, because I had the authority of the<br />
Speaker—Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. You specifically asked me and invited me to<br />
get to my feet. I actually did have the right to finish the motion, because you, Mr<br />
Assistant Speaker, had invited me to do so.<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have heard a considerable<br />
amount of discussion. Firstly, I think the issue about whether the member who was<br />
speaking had the right to speak is not particularly material to this point. What I think is<br />
material to this point is Standing Order 279, which states: “(1) The member moving the<br />
bill’s first reading must indicate in that member’s speech to which select committee it is<br />
proposed to refer the bill and whether it is proposed to move for any special powers or<br />
give an instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill. (2) Following<br />
the member’s speech, written notice of any special powers or instruction to be moved<br />
must be delivered to the Clerk at the Table.” This requirement is a protection for the<br />
House to ensure that at the time the Minister moves a motion and special directions, the<br />
House knows precisely what the Minister intends to do some time later, protecting<br />
members from ambush or unnecessary changes.<br />
I have in my possession the notice supplied by the Hon Rodney Hide to the Clerk of<br />
the House saying: “Consistent with the Standing Orders, I move that the Local<br />
Government (Auckland Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance<br />
Legislation Committee … and that the committee report finally to the House on or<br />
before 4 September 2009.” That is the notice that the Hon Rodney Hide gave to the<br />
House. Having made that statement to the House in the first reading, and having given<br />
this notice to the Clerk, the member is then obligated to ensure that that is the motion<br />
that is read. That is the requirement on the member. The Clerk identified that the<br />
member had changed his motion by omitting something, and there is an obligation on
3758 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 16 May 2009<br />
me to ensure that the Minister moves the motion correctly as signalled to the House and<br />
as advised to the Clerk.<br />
The matter now is where the motion was at the point that the member raised the point<br />
of order. It is argued by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the motion was in the possession<br />
of the House, and only the House could change it. I disagree. I think the motion is<br />
within the control of the presiding officer, in the same way as amendments that come<br />
before the House are: the presiding officer decides whether they are in order or out of<br />
order. That is not a matter for the House to decide itself. Deciding whether a motion is<br />
in order or out of order is the sole preserve of the presiding officer. When that motion<br />
was moved, I as the presiding officer decided that the motion was out of order. I then<br />
required the member to correct the motion to ensure it was consistent with what the<br />
member had said after he moved the first reading, and consistent with what the member<br />
had said to the Clerk.<br />
Had the mistake not been spotted and had the new motion gone through the House,<br />
been a motion of the House, and been decided, it would then have been the House’s<br />
decision. But it was not. The motion rested with me and it was within my realm to put<br />
it, or not, and to ensure it was correct. In my view it is for the presiding officer to ensure<br />
the motion is accurate. That has been done. The motion now before the House is as read<br />
out by the Hon Rodney Hide: that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be<br />
considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and that the committee<br />
report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. That is the motion, and it is<br />
the only motion that can be moved according to the Standing Orders. I so put the<br />
motion.<br />
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Auckland<br />
Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and<br />
that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009.<br />
Ayes 64<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />
Noes 51<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 42; Green Party 5; Māori Party 4.<br />
Motion agreed to.<br />
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I take this opportunity to wish<br />
members safe travel home. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Pō mārie.<br />
The House adjourned at 9.42 p.m. (Saturday)
Index to<br />
13 May 2009<br />
(continued on 16 May 2009)<br />
EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS<br />
1R—First Reading<br />
2R—Second Reading<br />
3R—Third Reading<br />
CWH—Committee of the whole House<br />
S.O.P.—Supplementary Order Paper<br />
BILLS<br />
Legislation is listed under BILLS. The name of an originating bill that has been divided into separate<br />
bills is shown in italics after the names of the new bills.<br />
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER<br />
Questions are listed under QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER by ministerial portfolio.<br />
BEAUMONT, CAROL—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3749<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3633,<br />
3690, 3710<br />
BILLS—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill,<br />
1R 3733<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3621; report<br />
progress to take Speaker’s ruling 3664;<br />
CWH 3666; report progress to take<br />
Speaker’s ruling 3695; CWH 3697;<br />
name changed to Local Government<br />
(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill<br />
3718<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, name changed<br />
from Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill 3718; 3R 3718<br />
BLUE, Dr JACKIE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3748<br />
______________________________________<br />
BROWNLEE, Hon GERRY—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, report progress<br />
to take Speaker’s ruling 3665; CWH<br />
3685, 3687; report progress to take<br />
Speaker’s ruling 3696<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Call—<br />
Allocation, 3648<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Length of Debate, 3675<br />
Postponement of Provision by<br />
Minister After Closure Motion<br />
Moved, 3700<br />
Serious or Vexatious Amendments,<br />
3660<br />
CARTER, Hon JOHN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3737, 3754<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3722<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Postponement of Provision by<br />
Minister After Closure Motion<br />
Moved, 3699<br />
Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s<br />
Office, 3716
ii<br />
CARTER, Hon JOHN—continued<br />
Points of Order—continued<br />
Motions—<br />
Incorrectly Moved, 3754<br />
CHADWICK, Hon STEVE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3639<br />
CHAUVEL, CHARLES—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3652<br />
COLLINS, Hon JUDITH—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3728<br />
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE<br />
HOUSE—<br />
Report Progress to Take Speaker’s<br />
Ruling—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3664, 3695<br />
COSGROVE, Hon CLAYTON—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3656;<br />
report progress to take Speaker’s<br />
ruling 3696; CWH 3714<br />
CUNLIFFE, Hon DAVID—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3738<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3622,<br />
3640, 3688, 3706<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Amendments to Add or Insert <strong>New</strong><br />
Parts, 3675<br />
Personal Reflections and<br />
Unparliamentary Language—<br />
“Gerry Mander”, 3688<br />
Speakers and Presiding Officers—<br />
Responsibility for Procedural Issues,<br />
3685<br />
DAVIS, KELVIN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3642,<br />
3698<br />
Māori Language / Te Reo, 3698<br />
DELAHUNTY, CATHERINE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3678<br />
13 MAY 2009 (continued on 16 May 2009)<br />
FENTON, DARIEN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3645<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3730<br />
FITZSIMONS, JEANETTE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3629<br />
FLAVELL, TE URUROA—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3726<br />
GUY, NATHAN—<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s<br />
Office, 3716<br />
HARAWIRA, HONE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3742<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3674<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Call—<br />
Closure Motion Moved, 3681<br />
HAWKINS, Hon GEORGE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3735<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3621<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3722<br />
HIDE, Hon RODNEY—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3733, 3753<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3640,<br />
3681, 3704<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3718<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Postponement of Provision by<br />
Minister After Closure Motion<br />
Moved, 3699<br />
Serious or Vexatious Amendments,<br />
3662<br />
Motions—<br />
Incorrectly Moved, 3754<br />
Personal Reflections and<br />
Unparliamentary Language—<br />
Inaccurately Describing Member as<br />
Deputy Leader, 3745
HIPKINS, CHRIS—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3625,<br />
3709<br />
HUGHES, Hon DARREN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3628,<br />
3668<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Call—<br />
Allocation, 3649<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Amendments to Add or Insert <strong>New</strong><br />
Parts, 3637<br />
Length of Debate, 3635<br />
Postponement of Provision by<br />
Minister After Closure Motion<br />
Moved, 3682<br />
Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s<br />
Office, 3716<br />
Motions—<br />
Incorrectly Moved, 3754<br />
Speakers and Presiding Officers—<br />
Assurance of Impartiality from<br />
Chair, 3646<br />
HUO, RAYMOND—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3677<br />
HUTCHISON, Dr PAUL—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3733<br />
INSTRUCTIONS—<br />
see COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE<br />
HOUSE and SELECT<br />
COMMITTEES—<br />
JONES, Hon SHANE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3643,<br />
3669<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3719<br />
Māori Language / Te Reo, 3669, 3721<br />
KAYE, NIKKI—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3751<br />
KEDGLEY, SUE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3740<br />
INDEX<br />
KEDGLEY, SUE—continued<br />
Bills—continued<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3657,<br />
3689; report progress to take<br />
Speaker’s ruling 3695; CWH 3707<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3724<br />
KING, COLIN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3679<br />
LABAN, Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3644<br />
LOCKE, KEITH—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3641,<br />
3712<br />
LOTU-IIGA, PESETA SAM—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3752<br />
MACINDOE, TIM—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3733<br />
MACKEY, MOANA—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3627,<br />
3684, 3708<br />
MALLARD, Hon TREVOR—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3621;<br />
report progress to take Speaker’s<br />
ruling 3664; CWH 3682, report<br />
progress to take Speaker’s ruling<br />
3696; CWH 3708<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Call—<br />
Allocation, 3648<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Amendments to Add or Insert <strong>New</strong><br />
Parts, 3635<br />
Postponement of Provision by<br />
Minister After Closure Motion<br />
Moved, 3682, 3699<br />
Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s<br />
Office, 3715<br />
Serious or Vexatious Amendments,<br />
3659<br />
Motions—<br />
Incorrectly Moved, 3753<br />
iii
iv<br />
MALLARD, Hon TREVOR—continued<br />
Points of Order—continued<br />
Personal Reflections and<br />
Unparliamentary Language—<br />
Impugning Chairperson’s Integrity,<br />
3646<br />
Speakers and Presiding Officers—<br />
Assurance of Impartiality from<br />
Chair, 3646<br />
MĀORI LANGUAGE / TE REO—<br />
Davis, Kelvin, 3698<br />
Jones, Hon Shane, 3669, 3721<br />
Ririnui, Hon Mita, 3672<br />
MAPP, Hon Dr WAYNE—<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Motions—<br />
Incorrectly Moved, 3756<br />
MORONEY, SUE—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3686<br />
PARKER, Hon DAVID—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, report progress<br />
to take Speaker’s ruling 3665; CWH<br />
3671, 3705<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Length of Debate, 3675<br />
Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s<br />
Office, 3716<br />
PEACHEY, ALLAN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3746<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3730<br />
POINTS OF ORDER—<br />
Call—<br />
Allocation, 3648<br />
Closure Motion Moved, 3681<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Amendments to Add or Insert <strong>New</strong><br />
Parts, 3635, 3675<br />
Length of Debate, 3635, 3675<br />
Postponement of Provision by Minister<br />
After Closure Motion Moved, 3682,<br />
3699<br />
Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s<br />
Office, 3715<br />
Serious or Vexatious Amendments,<br />
3659<br />
Motions—<br />
Incorrectly Moved, 3753<br />
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary<br />
Language—<br />
“Gerry Mander”, 3688<br />
13 MAY 2009 (continued on 16 May 2009)<br />
POINTS OF ORDER—continued<br />
Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary<br />
Language—continued<br />
Impugning Chairperson’s Integrity, 3646<br />
Inaccurately Describing Member as<br />
Deputy Leader, 3745<br />
Speakers and Presiding Officers—<br />
Assurance of Impartiality from Chair,<br />
3646<br />
Responsibility for Procedural Issues,<br />
3685<br />
POWER, Hon SIMON—<br />
Points of Order—<br />
Committee of the Whole House—<br />
Amendments to Add or Insert <strong>New</strong><br />
Parts, 3636<br />
Length of Debate, 3635<br />
RIRINUI, Hon MITA—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3672<br />
Māori Language / Te Reo, 3672<br />
ROBERTSON, GRANT—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3624,<br />
3653<br />
SIO, SU’A WILLIAM—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3747<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3692<br />
STREET, Hon MARYAN—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3638,<br />
3655<br />
TE REO—<br />
see MĀORI LANGUAGE / TE REO—<br />
TWYFORD, PHIL—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3658<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3728<br />
VOTING—<br />
Bills—<br />
Local Government (Auckland Council)<br />
Bill, 1R 3753, 3758<br />
Local Government (Auckland<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3621,<br />
3633, 3652, 3668, 3693, 3699, 3704,<br />
3708, 3718<br />
Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau<br />
Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3733