Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

First Session, Forty-ninth Parliament, 2008-2009 

Parliamentary Debates 

(HANSARD) 

Wednesday, 13 May 2009 

(continued on Saturday, 16 May 2009 

(Week 12, Volume 654) 

WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND 

Published under the authority of the House of Representatives—2009

WEDNESDAY, 13 MAY 2009 

(continued on Saturday, 16 May 2009) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND REORGANISATION) BILL— 

In Committee— 

New Part 11 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission................3621 

New Part 10 Provisional Personnel Provisions of Auckland Council and 

Auckland Transition Agency ........................................................................3633 

New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets .......................................................3652 

Speaker Recalled................................................................................................3664 


New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets .......................................................3666 

New Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic 

groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council .................................3669 

New Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement .............................................3682 

Speaker Recalled................................................................................................3695 


Schedules ......................................................................................................3698 


groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council .................................3700 

Clauses 1 and 2 .............................................................................................3704 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TAMAKI MAKAURAU REORGANISATION) 

BILL— 

Third Reading ....................................................................................................3718 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND COUNCIL) BILL— 

First Reading......................................................................................................3733

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3621 

WEDNESDAY, 13 MAY 2009 

(continued on Saturday, 16 May 2009) 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND REORGANISATION) BILL 

In Committee 

Debate resumed. 

New Part 11 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members, the Committee is resumed. 

Last night the Committee completed consideration of Part 3 of the Local Government 

(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 May, and we now have a 

series of new proposals in front of us to insert new parts. Although they have come to us 

in arithmetical order to make sure they are checked and everything is OK, we will not 

be dealing with them in exactly the same order, so I ask members to bear with us and 

with the Clerks. We also have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of the 

Hon George Hawkins to insert a new part establishing the Auckland Transitional 

Agency Review Commission. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That we report 

progress in order to send this bill to a select committee for a period of 4 weeks. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Committee report progress. 

Ayes 51 

New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Māori Party 3. 

Noes 64 

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 

Motion not agreed to. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): These amendments are not 

strictly in the right order, but this proposed new part deals with the establishment of the 

Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. This part would not be necessary if 

there had been a wee bit of goodwill by the Government and if it had faith in 

Aucklanders by giving them a say on this bill. The amendment would not have been 

necessary, but now we are here on Saturday, 16 May, which is still the sitting day of 13 

May here in Parliament. 

Much could be achieved by establishing a commission. The commission would be 

headed by a person who is eligible to hold the office of commissioner “if he or she is, or 

is eligible to be, a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a District Court Judge at 

the time of appointment as a Commissioner, he or she shall be appointed as a District 

Court Judge at that time.” That shows the seriousness and importance we place on the 

appointment. We cannot just appoint our mates, as some parts of the bill allow. This 

appointment is very important. 

The proposed amendment goes on to state: “When considering whether a person is 

suitable to be appointed as a Commissioner the Attorney-General should have regard to 

the need to ensure that the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in 

matters coming before the Court, including knowledge and experience in economic, 

commercial, and business affairs, local government and community affairs:” That is 

really important. 

The amendment mentions local government and community affairs. It is interesting. 

We have drafted this amendment so that these now come together. Local government in

3622 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 

Auckland is being ridden roughshod over, and, worse then that, so is the community. 

The community has been left out in the cold by this Government. 

It is interesting. We will have a series of meetings all over the place that will be run 

and paid for by the National Party. In my area, Mr Bakshi will have one—if he is still 

around. He might be able to tell people how many houses they can turn into brothels 

and things like that. I understand he is a bit of an expert in that area. 

The appointment of commissioners is important because planning, resource 

management, and heritage protection are very important. They need to be up to speed 

with that. 

Dr Paul Hutchison: You’re right, George. Get on with it. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It is good to see my friend the member for Hunua up 

here bright and early. It is good to see that he is awake; sometimes it is hard to tell 

whether he is talking in his sleep or whether he is awake. Other important areas that 

commissioners should have knowledge and experience in are environmental science, 

including the physical and social sciences; architecture; engineering; surveying; mineral 

technology; and building and construction. Knowledge and experience of matters 

relating to the Treaty of Waitangi are also very important. 

Hon Tau Henare: It’s never concerned you before, George! 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is Mr Henare. He obviously did not get home 

last night, considering the condition he is in. He probably went straight to the clubs. He 

has come well fuelled for today. When we have Tau Henare well fuelled, it makes life 

interesting. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You 

told us that these additional parts will not be considered in numerical order—and I 

understand the reason for that—but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to 

know which part is to be debated after this part, so that we can read it and be well 

informed before we debate it. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member makes a good point. The 

next part we will consider will be Part 10. If the member wants to look further into the 

future, we will then consider Part 9. After that, we will go on to Part 5. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): New Part 11 is a serious response 

to a serious problem. The problem is a lack of independent oversight, which has been 

made worse by this bill’s being rammed through the House in the dead of the morning 

and the dead of the week. This bill will still be here next week. The bill is being 

rammed through without a select committee process, and we have to ask why. I say to 

all those sleepy-looking members opposite that it would have been quicker for this bill 

to go to select committee than to debate new Part 27. Bill English will not be happy, 

because we will still be here on Budget day. What about the pre-Budget announcement 

schedule? What about all of those nasty little things that those members want to hide on 

the day? The whole shambles will be disrupted by the fact that Paul Hutchison— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are dealing with 

a new part and new material. There has been no speech from this side, so there can be 

no need for any rebuttal. Members should confine themselves very tightly to the content 

of the part now being debated. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is very, very important that we have consistency through 

this debate. We have had over the last couple of days—or the earlier part of this day, 

depending on whether one looks at this in temporal or parliamentary time—a broadranging 

debate on various parts. The Government cannot change the rules now just 

because it wants to run away and go home. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. I say to the 

member that one of the finest parliamentarians this place has ever seen, the Rt Hon


David Lange, once said that consistency is the last refuge of a fool. The point being 

made here is that members should focus to some degree on the part. Although the Hon 

Trevor Mallard is correct and we have had a wide-ranging debate, this is new material 

and it is quite tightly focused. We will have a little bit of latitude, but I want the 

member to talk to new Part 11, “Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission”, 

though he may introduce some other material. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: New Part 11 establishes the Auckland Transition Agency 

Review Commission. The commission will consist of a chair and five commissioners. 

The eligibility requirements for the chair will include being a District Court judge, and 

for commissioners will include having juridical experience. 

This part is important for several reasons. The appointment of the commission is an 

independent process. We all know that processes that are simply governed by politicians 

and delegated to officials can often run into trouble. It is noteworthy that the New 

Zealand National Party at this point has significant experience with independent judicial 

processes. For example, I understand that Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is experiencing— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member is 

trifling with your request to stay tightly within the bounds of this new part. He is 

introducing material totally extraneous to this particular debate and I ask you, given the 

expense that the taxpayer is being put to for the Labour members to exercise their brawn 

and filibustering skills—or whatever we want to call them—to keep the bounds very, 

very tight. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: Unlike the member who just raised the point of order, I 

listened carefully to your ruling. It was a ruling down the middle. You asked people to 

be narrower than they had been, but you also indicated that you would be reasonable. 

That member is inviting you to be unreasonable. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I reinforce one other point Mr Mallard made, which you 

neglected to touch on. You are the sole judge of relevancy under Standing Order 107, 

and for Mr Brownlee or another member to get up and continually bring to your 

attention his or her interpretation of Standing Orders on this matter is not correct. He 

should not challenge your ruling; you have already ruled on this. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have a couple of points. Yes, I want 

the debate to be a bit tighter, given the nature of the amendments. I think the member 

was addressing the material before him. I said that people could draw on other things 

and explanations as they went through; I will not be unreasonable about that. Mr 

Cosgrove is right: I am the sole judge and I will remain the sole judge, and I thank him 

but I do not need to be reminded of that. As for Mr Brownlee’s point about the 

monetary cost, I would have thought some members of the public would think it is a 

good thing to see the Chamber being used a bit more often rather than sitting empty. But 

never mind, that is another story. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me turn to a particularly serious reason why the 

Auckland Transition Agency needs an independent juridical oversight. It is dealing with 

assets of $28 billion—close to one-quarter of the country’s GDP if it were all expensed 

in one year. That is a huge amount of assets. It spans a range of subsidiary 

organisations, including the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, Ports of 

Auckland—which I will come back to—Metro Water, Watercare Services, North Shore 

Holdings, Enterprise North Shore, and Waitakere City Properties. Each of these entities 

has its own well-constituted governance process, and in many cases, its own 

independent board. But under the bill before this Committee they are simply placed 

under the jurisdiction of this transition agency. It is like some form of bizarre 

renationalisation of something that is already publicly owned.


Here is where the plot gets thicker. The agency will not report through an 

independent governance process to the Cabinet of the New Zealand Government, which 

would be, of course, the normal process for any State-owned enterprise or Crown entity. 

No—this agency reports to one Minister, the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide. Why 

on earth would that be? It is certainly not good governance practice, which is why in 

new Part 11 we are introducing the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 

with additional juridical oversight. 

Members opposite have obviously been lobbied hard by Ports of Auckland. Ports of 

Auckland says that this legislation will not do. It is a private company trading in open 

markets, it has its own board, and it wants to be a special case. Let us admit that there 

are grounds for that special case, but why for Ports of Auckland? Why not Watercare 

Services? If the National Business Review and Trans Tasman are to be believed, the 

Minister in charge of this bill is going to appoint the chief executive of the water 

company to be the chair of the transition agency. How will they deal with that conflict 

of interest? I would not want to be that person. I have great respect for Mark Ford, and I 

think he is a very able man, but I would not want to be in his shoes. I hope he gets firstclass 

legal advice about his liabilities and his risks, because I think he is exposed. 

I think the Minister, in his rush to railroad this legislation through the House and to 

create a very clean reporting line that allows him to bulldoze his way through normal 

legal convention, is exposing one of the more able executives in the Auckland business 

community. I hope for Mr Mark Ford’s sake that he thinks very carefully not only about 

whether to accept that appointment but also about the conditions upon which he accepts 

it. I am sure that Mr Mark Ford would appreciate what the Opposition is doing to try to 

provide better independent cover, oversight, liability, and risk management through this 

important part that is being very seriously introduced this morning. I hope the 

Government members who are sitting here, and who will be getting used to sitting here, 

will give this new part their earnest consideration. 

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is a pleasure to take a 

call on new Part 11, which establishes the Auckland Transition Agency Review 

Commission. The Leader of the House, in relation to the first speech given on this part 

by the Hon George Hawkins, said it was bureaucracy gone mad. 

Hon Darren Hughes: He’d know! 

GRANT ROBERTSON: He would know about that, I say to Mr Hughes, because 

since being in office the National Government has established 36 review committees. 

Most of them have been set up by Mr Brownlee, who is trying to review what he knows 

about the energy sector. Unfortunately, he does not know a lot, so he has had to 

establish 36 review committees. 

This particular review commission has been established for a very, very good reason: 

National has pushed this bill through Parliament under urgency, denying Aucklanders 

the right to have a proper democratic process. In the light of that and of the fact that last 

night we sat in this Chamber and established, without a select committee process, an 

agency that would be responsible for $28 billion of assets and for 6,000 people’s jobs, 

we need a review commission. This is a serious amendment and a serious new part, 

because this Government has decided that Aucklanders should not have a say about the 

transition to a super-city. It has tried to push that through without any input at this 

important stage in the process. A review commission, as established under Part 11, 

would be able to let Aucklanders have a say. 

We see very clearly, when we look at this part, that the review commission will be 

established on a far fairer basis than that of the transition agency it will seek to review. 

If we note the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission, we 

realise it will consist of the chair of the commission and five commissioners. We noted


in the debate last night Part 3 that clause 11(1) states: “The Transition Agency must 

have a governing body consisting of a chairperson and no fewer than 2 but no more than 

4 other members appointed by the Minister.” There we go; we will finally have a 

sufficient number of people to look at this matter properly. 

I now turn to how those people will be appointed. For the review commission we 

have an appointment process that will involve a range of people. It will involve people 

such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Māori 

Affairs, and the Attorney-General; they will all be involved in the appointment of the 

commissioners. That is unlike the Auckland Transition Agency, where one person will 

appoint the members of the governing board, and that one person is the Hon Rodney 

Hide. 

The Hon Rodney Hide said that the Auckland Transition Agency will be responsible 

for a rationalisation of governance arrangements in the Auckland area. Members on this 

side of the Chamber know very well what Mr Hide and his ACT Party friends believe is 

a rationalisation of services. It is not about making them more efficient, and it is not 

about making them effective; it is about cutting and slashing them. That is the agenda. It 

is about privatising assets, taking them away from the people of Auckland, taking them 

away from the people of New Zealand, and returning them to Mr Hide’s mates. That is 

why, in this part, we are asking for a review commission to be appointed in a way that 

will reflect a wider set of interests than the narrow ideological interests of Rodney Hide. 

We are certain that when Auckland people see a review commission established in this 

way, they will know they are getting a proper review of arrangements for Auckland 

governance, rather than the sham of democracy that we have seen from members on the 

other side of the Chamber. 

I also want to refer to another reason why the review commission is vitally 

important. Clause 13(1)(b) of Part 3, which we passed last night, states that the 

transition agency will have the ability to look at and review every single item on the 

agenda of a meeting of an existing local government organisation during the transition 

period. If that is not the action of the nanny State, I do not know what is. Every single 

item, down to the toilet rolls and the stationery, of a local government organisation in 

Auckland will be reviewed by the transition agency. What kinds of decisions will we 

get in that environment? We need to be able to review those decisions and ensure that 

Aucklanders have a proper say about what is happening to their local government 

organisation. The transition agency is a sham from the Government. 

NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put. 

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on new 

Part 11, put forward by my colleagues, which introduces the Auckland Transition 

Agency Review Commission. Having sat through the debate on the bill, I have become 

more and more concerned about elements that give total and utter control to the Minister 

of Local Government. I think there should be some kind of independent judicial 

oversight and review of that. If members look, for example, at Part 3, which we passed 

last night, and the establishment of the governing body of the Transition Agency, we 

see that no more than two people are required on the Transition Agency. That is a 

concentration of a huge amount of power in the Transition Agency. We do not know 

who those people will be. They could be Richard Prebble and Christine Rankin for all 

we know. They could be Melissa Lee and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for all we know. 

Hon Member: A third job. 

CHRIS HIPKINS: They could give him a third job. The Transition Agency will 

have a huge amount of power, so there should be some oversight of what it is able to get 

up to. There is a very, very tight time frame for the implementation of these local 

governance reforms. Clause 13(1)(a) suggests that the Transition Agency has to have


everything in place and be ready to function from 1 November 2010. We know that it 

will be very, very tight. Mistakes could be made. There should be some oversight and 

some ability to review the decisions that are being made, because of the huge amount of 

power that the Transition Agency will have. 

I will go further, and look further through the bill at some of the things the agency 

will do. It is also worth noting that under clause 22 all the expenditure for the Transition 

Agency has to be approved by the Minister. That does reinforce the need for some 

independent review, given the huge amount of control that will be given to Rodney 

Hide and the very hand-picked select number of individuals who will ultimately end up 

in total control of Auckland— 

Hon Member: $28 billion. 

CHRIS HIPKINS: —in control of $28 billion, and in control of—how many 

employees? 

Hon Member: Over 6,000. 

CHRIS HIPKINS: And in control of over 6,000 employees. That is a lot of people’s 

jobs and a lot of people’s lives that Rodney Hide will effectively be given control of. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Tsar. 

CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes—the “Tsar of Auckland”. Members should bear in mind 

that it is not the National Government that will be getting the control; it is Rodney Hide, 

the ACT Party Minister, with his 3.5 percent of the vote, who will have control of all of 

Auckland. There should be some oversight of that. 

I come back to new Part 11, which establishes the new Auckland Transition Agency 

Review Commission. It makes it clear that a judge has to be in control of it. It cannot be 

one of the political mates of the National Party or the ACT Party. They cannot make it 

Christine Rankin, Richard Prebble, or, John Banks, and we are very supportive of that. 

Hon Member: Why not? 

CHRIS HIPKINS: He is not a judge. If members would read the amendment we are 

debating, they would know that. 

This amendment gives the review commission the power to hear submissions. It 

gives it all the powers that a District Court might have in the exercise of its civil 

jurisdiction. If members look at the explanatory note of new Part 11, they will see that it 

sums it up very well. It states that the new part amends the Local Government 

(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill “to ensure decisions concerning members of the public 

are subject to independent review.” Once again, it comes back to the notion of the 

concentration of a very, very large amount of power in a very, very small number of 

individuals. There has to be some kind of accountability, some kind of oversight. 

It is particularly important, in my view, given the way this bill has been rushed. The 

bill has not been through a select committee process, so there has been no public 

scrutiny. People have not had the opportunity to make submissions and say they think 

there is a problem with this part or that part, or that they would like this amendment or 

that amendment. Having sat through a number of select committee processes on pieces 

of legislation so far in my time in Parliament, I can say that I find those processes 

incredibly valuable. 

On the surface, during a first reading, a bill may seem perfectly logical and wellwritten, 

but it is amazing what technical issues—that we would not otherwise get a 

handle on—are picked up during the select committee process. By not putting this bill 

through the select committee process, the public are being denied that opportunity. 

Having an independent review mechanism in place would pick up any mistakes that 

have been made because of a lack of consultation. 

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the question be now put.


MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I say to the National Government, which is 

desperately trying to shut down debate on new Part 11, that Labour members would like 

to have a discussion about it. We are putting up serious amendments to try to do the best 

we can to rectify rotten and flawed legislation. Given that this is the only debate on this 

legislation happening in this country, we do not think it is too much to ask that those 

members of this House who care about the rights of the people of Auckland, who 

actually care about democracy in Auckland, are allowed to have a debate on this issue. 

So I thank the Chair for giving Labour the call. I say to Government members that they 

might do well to listen to what we are saying, rather than squawking like headless 

chooks. Nathan Guy might think it is funny to kill democracy in Auckland, but the 

Labour Party does not. 

New Part 11 is very important. There is one very simple line in this part, which the 

Labour Opposition has put up, that might not seem like a big deal; clause 38(2) says 

simply: “The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency.” Do 

members know what? The Auckland Transition Agency is not independent from 

Rodney Hide; it is not independent at all. Because of that, people should be very 

concerned. This hand-picked bureaucracy will have all the powers of the current eight 

democratically elected Auckland councils. As I said last night in the debate, given that 

the Auckland Transition Agency is basically, for all intents and purposes, going to be 

the Auckland Council for the next 18 months, the people of Auckland, the ratepayers of 

Auckland, need to know that there is some kind of check and balance on the power of 

that organisation. 

I see Sam Lotu-Iiga laughing; he thinks he is about to get a third job, on the 

Auckland Transition Agency. I urge Government members to look seriously at new Part 

11 and take a call to debate it, rather than just being annoyed that they are being made to 

work on a Saturday. 

Another very important point is that clause 50, “Hearings”, states: “The Commission 

shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition 

period.” This is a very interesting clause. When we go back to Part 3, which was voted 

on last night and was opposed by members on this side of the Chamber, we notice all 

kinds of clauses on the requirement for the Auckland Transition Agency to report to the 

Minister, but nothing about its need to represent the community. There is clause after 

clause about how the agency must report to the Minister at regular intervals on progress, 

and must provide a final report. What does the bill say the agency must do for the 

people of Auckland? The Government members have gone quiet now, because none of 

them have actually read this legislation. They have their research unit notes and they 

have been trotted down here to take closure motions, but none of them have read the 

legislation. Well, there is nothing in the bill about representing the people of Auckland. 

In fact, the agency is “to provide information to the public of Auckland … as it thinks 

fit,”. If we look at the process of this bill, which is going through the Committee stage 

without it having been to a select committee, we can probably guess that “as it thinks 

fit” will be never, unless the agency tells the councils not to buy toilet paper, as one of 

the Auckland councils suggested in the newspaper the other day. 

That raises a very important point. The Auckland Transition Agency has the power 

to veto any kind of spending a council wants to do. The agency will ask the Minister 

whether it is OK for the North Shore City Council to buy toilet paper this week, and the 

Minister will say no, because he is worried that the council will go over to Mount Albert 

and use it to block the bulldozers. The council can then say to the agency that, actually, 

the toilet paper is important for tourism; it needs to buy toilet paper for a lot of public 

toilets, and it is worried that without it people might not want to come to Auckland.


Labour members are proposing a review commission. It will have to meet, it will 

have to be accountable to the people of Auckland, and—this is a really good part—its 

members will actually have to have experience in local government. Unlike the 

members of the Auckland Transition Agency’s governing body, these people will have 

to know what they are doing, and they will be there to serve the people of Auckland in a 

local government capacity. The review commission will be able to review the Minister’s 

decision about toilet paper. 

I think that is a really important safeguard for the people of Auckland. A transition 

agency is being set up to hand power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime 

Minister’s mates until a council structure can be put in place, which will then hand 

power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime Minister’s mates. We need a check 

and balance, and the review commission is that check and balance. As I said, the review 

commission will have to meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the 

duration of the transition period. There is no requirement on the Auckland Transition 

Agency to actually meet with the people of Auckland. There is no requirement at all for 

it to be accountable to the people of Auckland. 

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now 

put. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): Thank you for the chance to take a call on 

new Part 11 in the name of my colleague the Hon George Hawkins. There are two great 

questions in politics—only two. The first is: how on earth did Gerry Brownlee get that 

job? How on earth was Gerry Brownlee given that job? And, the second great question 

is: who guards the guardians? 

This morning, considering the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in 

urgency, we have to ask ourselves some questions about the basics of politics—some of 

the great questions about how it is handled for citizens and by citizens. This new part 

considers the question in this particular way: it appoints a review commission to oversee 

the work of the Auckland Transition Agency. 

I draw members’ attention to new clause 52, which sets out the powers of the 

commission that George Hawkins is recommending in this new part. It states: “The 

Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to reconsider a 

decision taken.” That is a very important point. I am not sure members opposite 

understand just how much power Parliament is devolving in urgency at the moment. 

They have been briefed at caucus that this is a simple bill, but it is not a simple bill. This 

bill shifts power in New Zealand not to more people but to fewer people. And those 

fewer people are not elected; those fewer people are appointed. They are not appointed 

by the lead party in the Government, the National Party; they are appointed by a 

Minister from a party that enjoys about 3 percent of the party vote in our country. 

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: And a fine Minister at that. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Well, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is very easily impressed 

through his community board meetings, his council meetings, his district drainage board 

meetings, his annual plan meetings, and his draft long-term council community plan 

meetings. He is very easily influenced by power; he tries to collect every job that is 

going. Goodness knows whom he is invoicing for today for his being here, but I hope it 

is not the people of Auckland. 

The point here about new clause 52 is that under the bill as it stands, Mr Hide gets to 

appoint an authority whose actions cannot be reviewed by anybody. Mr Grant 

Robertson will talk about the process by which the review commission will do its work, 

and there is an important part around hearings. But my point is that the powers of this 

commission are important safeguards for our Parliament. We are trying to decide who 

will guard the guardians. One-third of our people will be governed by the transitional


authority—one in three New Zealanders’ lives will be affected directly by a bill that 

members opposite do not want to debate. 

After 15 minutes’ consideration of a commission that could review and be a backstop 

to this agency, National members want to move closure on it. They are shutting down 

debate on a topic that affects the lives of over 1 million New Zealanders. Over 1 million 

people’s lives change as this bill goes through, yet National members are not interested 

in that. They think it is no problem. They trust Mr Hide. Mr Hide has been doing over 

the National Party since 1996, but they are too stupid to even realise it. Rodney Hide 

runs rings around these people, and he will find ways of getting his people into the 

agency. He even smartly put up a new amendment yesterday to give the transition 

agency five people, not four, so that he could appoint another of his people to run all 

this. That is how smart the Minister of Local Government is. The Leader of the House is 

so stupid, he cannot work that out. 

There are two great questions in politics. First, how the hell did Gerry Brownlee get 

that job? And, second, who guards the guardians? The Labour Opposition, through 

proposed new clause 52, gives an answer to the question of who guards the guardians. 

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Wasting taxpayers’ money. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: Sam Lotu-Iiga has the cheek to talk about wasting 

taxpayers’ money. He is so good at wasting money that he wastes not only taxpayers’ 

money but ratepayers’ money as well. That is efficiency! It is machine-like efficiency 

to, in the same hour and on the same day, waste both taxpayers’ money and ratepayers’ 

money! I do not know any other member in this Committee who can do that. Do 

members know the sad and terrible thing about it? Although he is getting money off 

both sides, both sides are getting poor value for money. I wish Sam Lotu-Iiga wore a 

big receipt on his chest so that we could rip if off him and get our money back. The 

Minister of Consumer Affairs is from the ACT Party. We know that the ACT Party is 

running rings around the National Party, so why does the Minister of Consumer Affairs 

not get our money back from Sam Lotu-Iiga? That is the question we want answered 

here this morning. 

I am in favour of new clause 52. It will be good for the decisions of this transition 

authority to be able to be reviewed by the commission, which will be set up to check 

these things. You know, after the one term that Paul Quinn is getting in Parliament, 

maybe he could be on this commission, because every commission needs a secretary. 

Everybody needs somebody who is useless, and he could be the person to make sure 

things are going well in that particular regard. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I move, That 

the question be now put. 

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): It is very good to get a call for 

the Green Party, after many attempts, on this excellent amendment in the name of my 

colleague George Hawkins to insert new Part 11, which appoints a review commission 

for the Auckland Transition Agency. If ever an organisation needed judicial oversight 

by a review commission chaired by a judge, this agency does. Three people—the 

Minister and two of his henchpersons appointed by him—will be able to countermand 

every decision made by every council in Auckland, and make them do something 

different. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: So it could be a squash player and a dancer who has been 

dropped on her head? 

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Well, the mind boggles at just who those two people 

might be, but regardless of who they are, they are clearly subservient to the Minister. 

Our largest city is not run as a dictatorship by one Minister in Parliament who, 

incidentally, had the support of some 3 percent of the population when his party was


elected. That is what we call a dictatorship, and that needs judicial oversight and a 

review commission. Although the debate yesterday talked about the councils still 

having decision-making powers, it is very clear here that they do not actually have any 

decision-making powers at all, unless the Minister happens to like the decisions that 

they make. They will be completely neutered organisations for 18 months, they will be 

completely subject to the will of the Minister, and that could include doing anything. As 

colleagues have said, it could include selling assets, it could include taking a different 

approach to implementing the plan—the possibilities are limitless as to what these 

councils might be required to do by this transition agency. 

This review commission is a very sensible idea. It will be chaired by somebody who 

is, or is eligible to be, a District Court judge. That means that there is some respect for 

the law in what is going on there, and I think that will be a useful thing, as well. It is a 

five-person commission, so it is actually somewhat larger than the body that it is 

reviewing, which, I think, just reflects on the stupidity of having a mere three people 

able to run the whole of Auckland for 18 months. So it is a very well-worked-out 

amendment. It has all the detail in it about the appointments and the oath of office. The 

commissioners will even have special advisers to help them with proceedings. My 

colleague has thought of all the details about the remuneration of commissioners and 

their procedures and hearings. There is no doubt that they will also have staff and that 

they will be protected. 

We had concerns yesterday from the Government about 6,000 local government 

workers who were scared about their jobs. I have to ask who made them scared about 

their jobs. It is not the Green Party that is making them scared for their jobs, and it is not 

the Labour Party or the Māori Party that is giving them all this anxiety about their 

employment—it is the Government that is doing so. There is a very easy way to address 

their concern about their jobs, and that is to just get rid of this silly legislation or send it 

to a select committee so that we can hear from those people about whether they are 

adequately protected. 

Again, this is the first of many good amendments to this bill. I strongly support it, 

because if we are going to have this stupid structure there are a lot of checks and 

balances we have to put in place. The Green Party has six proposed new parts coming 

up, which will ensure that this transitional authority does sensible things, sustainable 

things, fair things, peaceful things, and democratic things in Auckland. Maybe when we 

have passed all those amendments we will end up with a transitional agency that will 

actually do what the people of Auckland want it to do, despite this legislation being 

very poorly conceived in the first place. As I say, this is just the first of a number of 

parts that will improve this legislation enormously. It would, of course, be much better 

if it were sent to a select committee so that the people of Auckland could have their say 

about how they want this legislation to be improved, and that may yet still happen if we 

persist. 

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr 

Chairperson. It is a very serious point of order that I bring to the Committee, and this is 

the sort of issue that arises when we are in urgency. Last night the Minister in the chair, 

Rodney Hide, moved amendments to Part 3 that could have some very far-reaching and 

unintended consequences. He moved that the employees of the existing staff of the eight 

authorities lose their current employment rights. Under this amendment, moved by the 

Minister in the chair, women currently employed by the Auckland authorities could lose 

the right to paid parental leave, and this is incredibly serious— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is raising a debating point. 

I know that the member feels strongly about this, but this is a matter for a call, and for a 

debate to be brought to the Committee’s attention. It is not a matter for order in the


process of how the Committee conducts itself. If the member wants to continue with 

this, she will have to demonstrate that it is about order, not about substance. So far it has 

all been about substance. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr 

Chairperson. I do not think my colleague was attempting to get into a debating matter; it 

is a matter of order of process in terms of what the Minister has advised the Committee 

of. We are seeking to find out whether the Minister is in a position to be able to supply 

us with a report or maybe a briefing from the officials about this issue of paid parental 

leave, because the employment relationship has changed, and we need to make sure we 

can get the information from the Minister, because the part has been dealt with. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you. If the member wishes to 

have a briefing from officials, then I am quite sure the Minister would welcome the 

member approaching the Minister and having access to the officials. That is entirely 

appropriate, and it is what normally happens, but it is not necessarily a matter of order. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr 

Chairperson. I thank you for your advice in that particular area, but this is very serious, 

because it is my understanding that we will come up to a clause relatively soon that 

indicates that this amendment binds the Crown. It would be good if the Minister could 

supply to the Committee a written opinion on that particular area as to whether this 

amendment, in binding the Crown, overrides the Parental Leave and Employment 

Protection Act. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that I have just 

made the point that that is an issue of substance; it is not an issue of order. If the 

member wants to approach the Minister to get a written opinion from him, he is more 

than welcome to do that; this does not take up the time of the Committee. We want 

points of order to be on matters of order, not matters of process. 


Chairperson. In the past, Chairs and Speakers have had reasonable latitude around 

points of order where there is a genuine attempt, as there is in this case, to avoid 

disorder. I am sure that if what has been indicated is the case, this has the potential to 

lead to gross disorder during the week. I am attempting to help you to avoid that. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you. What I think I will also do 

is get the maintenance staff to check the member’s chair. It seems that there is 

something wrong with it in that the member does not seem to be able to stay in his seat 

for very long! I say to him that to imply that previous Chairs have done something quite 

differently is saying that I am not handling the job right. I am sure the member did not 

want to imply that that is the case. But I say to the member that my experience of being 

the Minister in the chair is that where members want information from the Minister and 

from officials, they approach the Minister directly, and the Minister makes the 

information available via the advisers he or she has in the Chamber. Points of order are 

to be about order, not about process. 

HEKIA PARATA (National): I move, That the question be now put. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. 

Ayes 63 

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 

Noes 51 


Motion agreed to.


The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George 

Hawkins to be agreed to: 

to add the following new part: 

Part 11 

Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 

38 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission Established 

(1) The Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission is established immediately 

before the commencement of this section and which shall have the jurisdiction 

and powers conferred on it by or pursuant to this Act and any other Act. 

(2) The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency. 

39 Interpretation 

For the purposes of this part, Auckland Transition Agency Review 

Commission or Commission means the entity established by section 38. 

40 Membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 

The Commission shall consist of the following members: 

(a) a Chair of the Commission: 

(b) five Commissioners. 

41 Eligibility for appointment as Chair of the Commission 

(1) A person shall not be appointed or hold office as Chair of the Commission unless 

he or she is, or is eligible to be, a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a 

District Court Judge at the time of appointment as a Commissioner, he or she 

shall be appointed as a District Court Judge at that time. 

42 Eligibility for Commissioner 

When considering whether a person is suitable to be appointed as a 

Commissioner the Attorney-General shall have regard to the need to ensure that 

the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in matters coming before 

the Court, including knowledge and experience in— 

(a) economic, commercial, and business affairs, local government, and 

community affairs: 

(b) planning, resource management, and heritage protection: 

(c) environmental science, including the physical and social sciences: 

(d) architecture, engineering, surveying, minerals technology, and building 

construction: 

(da) alternative dispute resolution processes: 

(e) matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Maori. 

43 Appointment of Commissioners 

(1) The Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, 

after consultation with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Local Government 

and the Minister of Māori affairs, appoint a person as the Chair of the 

Commission. 

(2) The Commissioners shall hold office for the duration of the transition period. 

44 Oath of office 

A person appointed as a Commissioner shall, before undertaking any duties as 

such, take an oath of office that he or she will honestly and impartially perform 

the duties of the office. 

45 Special advisors 

(1) The Chair may appoint as a special advisor a person who is able to assist the 

Commission in a proceeding before it. 

(2) A special advisor is not a member of the Commission but may sit with it and 

assist it in any way the Commission determines. 

46 Registrar and other officers 

(1) The Commission— 

(a) shall have a Registrar; and 

(aa) may have 1 or more Deputy Registrars; and 

(b) may have other persons to assist it in an administrative capacity. 

(2) The Registrar, a Deputy Registrar, and every other person assisting the 

Commission shall—


(a) be appointed under the State Sector Act 1988; and 

(b) be officers of the Commission. 

(2A) A Deputy Registrar has all the powers, functions, duties, and immunity of the 

Registrar subject to the control of the Registrar. 

(3) An officer of the Commission may also hold another office or employment in the 

Public Service. 

47 Remuneration of Commissioners and special advisors 

There shall be paid, out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, to 

every Commissioner, and special advisor, remuneration by way of fees, salary, or 

allowances, and travelling allowances and expenses, in accordance with the Fees 

and Travelling Allowances Act 1951, and the provisions of that Act shall apply 

accordingly, and— 

(a) the Commission shall be a statutory Board for the purposes of that Act; and 

(b) every special adviser shall be deemed to be a member of a statutory Board. 

48 Commission sittings 

The quorum for the Commission is the Chair of the Commission and one 

Commissioner sitting together. 

49 Commission procedure 

The Commission may regulate its own proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit. 

50 Hearings 

The Commission shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the 

duration of the transition period. 

51 Hearing of submissions 

(1) All hearing of the Commission shall be held in public. 

(1A) Hearings will be informal with the Commission hearing submissions of any 

ratepayer in the Greater Auckland region that wishes to appear before the 

Commission. 

(2) The time and place of hearing before the Commission shall be fixed by the 

Registrar ensuring that all hearings are held within the current boundaries of the 

Franklin District, Papakura District, Rodney District, North Shore City, 

Waitakere City, Manukau City, Auckland City, Great Barrier Island, and 

Waiheke Island. 

(3) The Commission will also accept submissions by mail or email. 

52 Powers of the Commission 

(1) The Commissioners have the same powers that a District Court has in the exercise 

of its civil jurisdiction. 

(2) The Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to 

reconsider a decision taken. 

53 Review of decision by Commission 

Decisions of the Commission are subject to review by the High Court. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. 

Ayes 51 


Noes 64 


New Part 11 not agreed to. 

New Part 10 Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland 

Transition Agency 

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak in favour of new Part 10, which is 

about the personnel provisions for the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition 

Agency. This is a very important new part, and I hope the members across the Chamber 

will listen to the debate on it. It is about personnel provisions that affect 6,300 workers, 

and the treatment of those workers also affects their families. We are talking about a


very significant number of Aucklanders who, as one can imagine, are feeling very 

nervous and insecure at the moment, given that the major structural change is occurring 

in a time of high unemployment and major economic crisis. I hope that there will be a 

fair hearing across the Committee of this issue. I am sure that Nikki Kaye—the new 

friend of the worker—will support this new part. The party leaders across the other side 

of the Chamber are not here, but if they were they would recognise the value of these 

sorts of provisions, as well. As I understand matters, recently they have understood the 

value of working with unions in trying to look at employment matters. 

New Part 10 proposes a number of important general principles. First and foremost, 

those general principles include the idea of being a good employer—that is a very 

important principle. It also requires that policies developed under that principle are 

available to employees, and that the Auckland Council would report on its compliance 

with those policies. We have outlined some of the things that good employers might do, 

including the fair and proper treatment of employees, providing good and safe working 

conditions, providing equal employment opportunities, recognising the aspirations of 

Māori, and making sure that employees of the Auckland Council maintain proper 

standards of integrity, conduct, and concern about the public interest. I reinforce that 

point, because the people who work for councils provide public services. These people 

care about the public services that they provide, which are very, very important things 

that affect the day-to-day living of people in Auckland. So we are very aware that those 

workers will want to be in a position to provide good-quality services to the public. 

The context of this part is very important, and we talked a little about that last night. 

Workers are feeling very insecure at the moment. Council employees—employees of 

the different councils and of the regional council—are feeling very concerned. Why is 

that? The royal commission said some very important things about the staffing issues 

related to this important change that is going on. It said it expected current council staff 

to form the nucleus of the new organisations. One of the royal commission’s reasons for 

adopting its proposed model was “to maintain stability in the council workforce, to 

minimise both the personal impacts of reorganisation on council staff and start-up costs 

for the new organisation, and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the 

transition”. 

The unfortunate thing is that although that statement provided a degree of certainty to 

the affected workers, on the other hand the Government has decided that there will be a 

rationalisation of council staff, which will start to occur immediately. That means there 

will be job losses. The Government is disregarding not only many of the other 

recommendations of the royal commission but also the recommendation about 

providing security for council staff. In the current economic environment, that is very, 

very difficult for people to deal with. 

If one looks at how workers in the Public Service are currently being treated by the 

Government, one would understand why council workers in Auckland are feeling 

insecure. I ask members to look at the level of job cuts that is going on at the moment in 

the Public Service. I ask members to look at the fact that those workers are being treated 

as second-class workers and are not eligible, for example, for provisions like the 9-day 

working fortnight—not that that has actually made a great deal of difference yet. But 

Public Service workers are not even eligible for it. 

We have already seen a number of attacks by the Government on workers. We have 

seen a number of workers lose the right to challenge unfair dismissal. The Government 

is now looking at the provisions around holidays. The Minister of Labour has put up a 

zero percent increase in the minimum wage, and actually does not agree with pay equity 

for women workers. I could go on, but I say those things also mean that workers are 

feeling very insecure and nervous.



Chairperson. 

Sandra Goudie: Mindless! 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I say to Mrs Goudie that I have a point of order. This is 

very serious point of order, and I want to word it as carefully as I can. We are in 

Committee and it is a Saturday morning. The Opposition has put up a lot of 

amendments and new parts by way of amendment. Obviously, some are more detailed 

than others. This particular new part, Part 10, is very important to the Opposition 

because it directly affects the lives of 6,500 people. My point of order is that on the last 

part considered by the Committee, if we include the time taken on points of order, a 

closure motion was accepted within 40 minutes of the Committee’s considering a brand 

new part that had never been near a select committee and had not been distributed to 

members until today. 

The point I am making is that I understand that there will be pressure on both you 

and the other Chair of the Committee to get this business through as quickly as possible. 

I respectfully say that a part must be given the due consideration of this Committee, 

regardless of whether it is a Tuesday afternoon, a Wednesday evening, or a Saturday 

morning. I think that we need to have the chance to debate our new parts, which have 

not been to a select committee. The level of public scrutiny— 

Hon Simon Power: This is outrageous! It’s your discretion; he shouldn’t be telling 

you this. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: The Deputy Leader of the House can interject. I said at 

the beginning that I was trying to take a careful but serious point of order to reflect to 

the Committee exactly how we feel about this, which is that this particular part is of 

importance to us. I am not challenging your ruling, Mr Chairperson, because there has 

been no ruling. There is no closure motion before you; we are at the beginning of the 

debate on this part. I respectfully submit to you that the previous part was shut down 

very, very early. I want an assurance that that was not a tariff simply because we are 

meeting on a Saturday morning, which appears to be the reason for the Government’s 

sense of urgency about the closure motions. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The first point I make is that the Chair 

will not feel pressured about accepting closure motions. I do not feel pressured in any 

particular way. I observe that I consider these new parts to be in a slightly different 

context from the parts that have been tabled in the House, because those were on notice 

and so on, and these are not. 

Secondly, I am guided—and I am sure that the other Chairs have been guided—by 

content. We need to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. I have said that I will be 

quite liberal and let people make other comments as they go through the parts. If 

someone makes an interjection and the member responds, that is fair enough. But we do 

not want the rest of the speech to be on the interjections; we want to be on task. 

Thirdly, I assure the member that there is no tariff. A closure motion having been 

accepted for the previous part does not mean that this is the rate that we will carry on for 

all other parts. It will be about the content of the part, the content of the speeches, and 

the way that the Committee conducts itself. The length of debate can go up; it can go 

down. But content will be important. 


Chairperson. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The chair again, Mr Mallard. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The first thing is that I do not appreciate comments of 

that sort. I do not think it is helpful. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Fair enough. I apologise to the member.


Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The other point I make is to ask you to elucidate on 

your ruling on one particular point that was not clear. You indicated that it would make 

a difference whether the parts had been on notice or not on notice. I could not tell from 

your comments whether something that had been on notice would have a longer debate; 

whether because something had not been on notice members needed time to look at it, 

and it would therefore have a longer debate; or whether something not on notice would 

have a shorter debate because there had been no notice. Could you indicate which of 

those you meant? 

Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): I appreciate the member’s 

wanting some elucidation on some of the finer detail around some of these judgments, 

and the shadow Leader of the House’s views on these matters. It has always been my 

understanding that when a closure motion is taken by the Chair is a matter for the sole 

discretion of the Chair. It has been my experience over the last short while that 

whenever an attempt is made to try to define those parameters, the fall-back position is 

the Standing Order in that regard. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is absolutely correct. It has 

always been, and will always be, the sole discretion of the Chair whether a closure 

motion is taken, and the Chair will take it as he or she sees fit. I do not want to get into a 

long debate about the matter the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. Although members put up 

amendments and call them parts, that is only the way they themselves have described 

them. Those proposed new parts could in another way be looked at in substance, in 

effect, as amendments. 

Hon Annette King: You can’t make that decision. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I can make that decision about 

substance. For example, members get up and quite often say: “I am raising a fresh point 

of order.” when, in fact, they are not. They say that simply to relitigate the same matter; 

they describe it as a fresh point of order when it is not. I think everybody has been 

guilty of that at some stage. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you elaborate on the notice thing, Mr Chair. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the notice thing, the bill was put on 

the Table, and members have had a long time to read it, in terms of hours. But these 

proposed new parts have turned up—they have just appeared. The point I make is that I 

consider the bill, as tabled by the Government of the day, as being the issue we are here 

to debate. That is the main focus of this debate. When members table amendments to 

the bill, they are of lesser concern, to a degree, than the actual bill. When members table 

amendments that they put up as new parts, they may describe them as parts, but when 

one reads them one could describe them as amendments because they are not as 

significant as what we would normally have as a part of a bill. We will be flexible about 

this matter. 

I say to members that regardless of all that is going on around the edges, it will 

remain the sole discretion of the Chair how long the debate goes on for. There will be 

no correspondence entered into. The Committee will determine closure motions by vote, 

and the content of the speeches will be the Chair’s consideration. If speeches are on 

target, and are discussing and elucidating the amendments we are considering, then the 

debate will tend to go on for longer. If people get off task and we are on to everything 

else but the part or amendment we are discussing, then the Chair will consider closure 

motions much more quickly. Members should be assured of that. 


Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling; it was very helpful. I would like to extend an 

invitation to you to make an examination of Part 2 of the bill and of the proposed 

amendments. When you are considering your tariff in relation to substance, I think you


will find there is much more substance in these amendments than there was in Part 2, 

and therefore the debate should be proportionately longer. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member could make that argument, 

but I have read quite a lot of the proposed amendments and I think some of them have 

not added to the fountain of wisdom in this place. I also mention to the member that 

substance is quite often more than just the number of words counted on the word 

processor. 


Chairperson. I reassure you that this is a fresh point of order and has nothing to do with 

the timing of debates. This point of order is about a comment you made that I require 

some explanation on. It is the point you made that the proposed new parts we are 

dealing with should be seen just as amendments. When amendments to parts were 

debated previously they were stand-alone, single, one-clause amendments. The 

difference with this proposed new part—if we take, for instance, the part we considered 

for a little over 30 minutes in total, Mr Hawkins’ proposed new Part 11, “Auckland 

Transition Agency Review Commission”—is that it contains 25 new clauses. Yesterday 

we were voting on amendments to clauses. I think to consider an entire new part as 

being just the same as an amendment leads to some confusion in the Committee. 

Clearly, proposed new Part 11—with 25 clauses—will be much more substantial than 

an amendment to omit a certain date and substitute another. Much more work goes into 

developing these proposed new parts. They cover a much larger ambit of issues, and I 

think to just dismiss them as being the same as amendments that the Committee has 

seen previously is neither fair nor correct, because these proposed new parts contain a 

substantial number of clauses. I just ask your advice on that matter, because I think it 

could lead to some confusion as the Committee considers proposed new parts this 

morning. 

Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): The attempt to define the 

nature of the debate by what it is labelled and how many words are involved, rather than 

by the content of what is involved in the debate itself, is leading to confusion. I submit 

that it seems to me that an attempt to define these types of debates puts you in a very 

difficult position, Mr Chair. As I understand it, the position under the Standing Orders is 

simply that your discretion—and your discretion alone—determines when the closure 

motion is taken. That should be the end of the matter. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): My friend the Deputy Leader 

of the House misinterprets what I mean. I am not discussing closure motions. We have 

dealt with that issue, the Chair has ruled on it, and we accept what you said. We are 

talking about the difference between proposed new parts and amendments. 

The Committee of the whole House used to consider a bill clause by clause. Indeed, 

if the Government forgot to move a part by part motion, then we would be subjected to 

hours and hours in Committee as it worked through clauses. It was always a challenge 

for Government whips to make sure a Minister moved a part by part motion. We have 

moved away from that situation to an assumption that the Committee of the whole 

House will always consider bills part by part, and that amendments relate to clauses—as 

we have seen so far. It is completely different when amendments are put down that 

create new parts, as we see here. An amendment to create a new part is a separate, 

debatable question, as opposed to individual amendments on clauses, which are not 

debatable questions; they are questions taken at the end of a debate alongside the 

Minister’s amendments and other members’ amendments. It is a completely separate 

area. Your comments that these proposed new parts are just like amendments is the 

point the Opposition is raising with you.


The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member, with all due 

respect, that the whole structure of his argument is based on a wrong assumption. The 

fact is that whatever name the member puts on these amendments—whether he calls 

them “parts”, “model parts”, or whatever—they are all amendments. Each one is an 

amendment. An amendment that has “part” on it has exactly the same status in this 

Committee as an amendment that takes out one word and substitutes another. It is an 

amendment—it is nothing other than an amendment to the bill. It is no different. It is 

irrelevant whether the member calls the amendment a part; it is still an amendment. 

However, the Chair, instead of having a very narrow debate on an amendment, has 

given consideration to the fact that the amendment has a substantial amount of clauses 

in it, which is why we had multiple speeches on the amendment and did it slightly 

differently from any other amendment. That is the point we are at. 

I reiterate two things. Firstly, the Chair will be the sole determiner of the debate and 

will then simply allow the Committee to make its own decision about whether the 

debate continues. Secondly, the Chair’s decision will be driven by two things: whether 

there has been relevance, and whether there has been undue repetition. So there are two 

criteria: relevance and repetition. If members are relevant and are providing fresh 

material, then the Committee will continue to debate the part. The moment it changes— 

there is repetition, and relevance goes down—then the Chair will start to look at a 

closure motion. 

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): Speaking to the amendment to insert new Part 

10, in the name of Carol Beaumont, I draw attention to a couple of points in particular. 

First of all, the members opposite are of the view that these amendments are vexatious, 

and they are expressing some irritation that the Opposition should be bringing such 

amendments to the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is 

that we have been opposing this bill because it is an affront to democracy and because it 

is an affront to the rights of the people of Auckland. 

This amendment, in particular, although not addressing the democratic rights in 

substance, actually goes to the question of something that is even as profound as 

Aucklanders’ democratic rights. It goes to the question of the working conditions and 

the security of the people who work within local government services in Auckland. That 

is the issue. That is why, I say to Mr Power, who is now the Minister in the chair, this 

could in no way be considered a vexatious amendment. It is nothing of the sort. 

In fact, I draw to the attention of the Committee the Government’s voting on matters 

such as this even as recently as last night. The Government voted down amendments 

that asked for the views of women, of Māori, of Pasifika, and of people of different 

ethnicities to be represented in the consideration of the Auckland Transition Agency. 

This amendment gives the Government a chance to reconsider the mistakes it made 

last night. The effect of what the Government did last night was to forbid women, 

Māori, Pasifika, and other interest groups to have any kind of consultation on, or 

representation in, the activities of the Auckland Transition Agency. Time and time again 

the Opposition put up amendments that asked for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to be 

consulted and for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs to be consulted. The 

amendments did not even go as far as to call for a poll, although there was a moment 

when we did call for one. In fact, the amendments asked just that the Ministers 

responsible for the portfolios of women, Pasifika, people with disabilities, and ethnic 

affairs be consulted in the process. 

The Government voted against every one of those amendments. That needs to be 

sheeted home to the Government, because we will be talking about that around 

Auckland for years to come. This amendment gives the Government another


opportunity to do the right thing. We are looking for some protection for the workers 

who provide the public services administered through local government in Auckland. 

Is it too much to ask of this National Government that there should be good and safe 

working conditions, that there should be equal employment opportunity programmes, 

that the aspirations and aims of the Māori people should be recognised, that there should 

be opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees, that there 

should be recognition of the aims and aspirations of ethnic or minority groups, or that 

there should be some recognition of the employment requirements of women— 

including paid parental leave? 

The Government now has an opportunity to do the right thing, to take notice of the 

progress that has been made in employment law in the last 9 years, to recognise the 

rights of our workforce in Auckland and the differences in its composition—especially 

in relation to the workforce in local government—and to defend its rights to those 

provisions I spoke about. If the Government proceeds to oppose each of these parts of 

the bill—these amendments, I should say, based on the procedural debate that has just 

taken place—and if it votes down this part, then it can expect all 6,500 of the workers in 

local government in Auckland to know which side their bread is buttered on. That will 

be a very clear indication of what this Government stands for. 

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I am delighted to take a call. I was invited 

earlier by the Chair to take a call when I raised a very serious point of order, but the 

debate on new Part 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, put 

forward by my colleague Carol Beaumont, is the perfect debate for me to put my issue 

into context. 

I inform the Committee that I was invited by the Chair to speak to the Minister in the 

chair about our very real concern, which was raised by the people of Auckland early this 

morning, that their right to paid parental leave might have been expunged by an 

amendment last night from the Minister of Local Government. This is a very serious 

issue. I went to the Minister, as I was invited by the Chair to do, and the Minister said— 

and members should listen to this, because the Auckland Transition Agency reports to 

that one Minister, with nobody else providing any checks or balances over his powers 

and authorities—“You had your turn last night; you didn’t take it.” We were voting on 

amendments last night. We were voting yes or no to amendments; we could not debate 

or discuss amendments in the Chamber last night. When I took up the offer of the Chair, 

the Minister said: “It is finished. You had your turn last night.” Is that the sort of 

attitude he is going to take when the transition agency raises issues? It will report to Mr 

Hide only, as the Minister. Are those the sorts of powers and authorities that he will 

extend over the rights of the 6,500 workers whose current terms and conditions might 

have been amended very badly last night, with an impact on their lives? 

Those members opposite were not in the House when we voted on paid parental 

leave—which women members in the previous Opposition voted against—but I am sure 

that the new women members do care about women’s rights and paid parental leave, as 

do many, many men. The amendment last night may have been an unintended 

consequence. In the point of order that I reasonably raised I asked whether it could be 

looked at, and whether the Minister could clarify it for the Committee. If that is the sort 

of attitude the Minister is going to have, as the one person with power and authority 

over the transition agency, it is deeply worrying. 

In this new Part 10 that we have put forward, we suggest that we establish a code of 

practice for employees—for those full-time employees who have worked for over a year 

for the current authorities that will go by next year. Clause 108(2)(k) states: “there shall 

be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee;”. These are serious 

amendments that we have put up. We had no opportunity to look at this bill before we


got it to debate in the House, and the relevant part of it was pushed through last night in 

urgency. We are using the one democratic tool that we have got to try to make this bill 

better, and the response from the Government benches has been that we are wasting the 

Committee’s time. 

I tell the members of the Government that people have been phoning us all night. My 

daughter phoned and asked: “What is this bill that is going through the House?”, and I 

said: “We are in urgency to fight about the bill to establish the Auckland Council.” She 

said: “What is the bill all about?”, and I said: “Tough! You will not have a chance to 

debate this bill. You will not have a chance at all.” Calls came through all night long 

from people in Auckland, and we are receiving calls this morning. They are taking it 

seriously. They are anxious and they are worried. They are hugely concerned about their 

rights. They are hugely concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. 

This is when a Government gets things wrong: when it rams things through the 

House and does not involve community voices. That has happened, and that is why we 

are here, and I am pleased that we are here. We are going to fight this fight. It is 

absolutely critical to consider our code of practice for workers, their rights, and their 

conditions. It is not just about structural changes to the transition agency. The 

Government sees it as simplistically as that—that it is just about structural amendments. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I am sorry that we have to 

take time to debate part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that 

was actually passed last night, but the Opposition members who are introducing new 

parts are sowing confusion. I think it is because they are genuinely confused. Let me be 

very, very clear. Paid parental leave is a statutory entitlement. Nothing in this bill 

changes that, and I would have thought that members opposite understood that. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Opposition members are in the 

Chamber together because we are the last line of defence, and up until now this debate 

has been about the rights of Aucklanders— 

Hon Members: Ha, Ha! 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: They may laugh. What exactly is it about democracy that 

they oppose? What is it about democracy that “Gerry-mander” opposes? We are not 

here this morning, debating new Part 10, to talk about the democratic rights of all 

Aucklanders. [Interruption] The importance of Part 10— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Those 

exchanges across the Chamber between members are not acceptable. The member is on 

his feet and speaking in a debate. Interjections are fine if they are fair and reasonable, 

but interchanges between members are out of order. I invite the member to continue. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: New Part 10, unusually compared with the other parts of 

the bill, is not about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders; it is about the 

employment rights of those some 6,000 Aucklanders who are employees of the 

organisation. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition asks Government members to specify 

exactly which of the provisions they object to, because I understand, from their barrage, 

that they are likely to be voting against this new part. They should tell us why they 

object. Is it because they disagree with the proposition that there should be an obligation 

on the part of the Auckland Transition Agency and the Auckland Council to be a good 

employer? Is it because of the good and safe working conditions in this part? Do they 

object to an equal employment opportunities programme? If they do, why not put out a 

press release in support of that view? Is it the impartial selection of suitably qualified 

persons? 

Perhaps that is it, especially when we look at clause 104, “Appointments on merit”, 

because that goes to the heart of our concerns about the bill. It is particularly concerning 

when one puts it together with the governance structure that is over this entity, because,


unusually, it is not reporting to a Cabinet committee—it is not reporting to Cabinet. 

Those people will be the sole appointees of one Minister—the Minister of Local 

Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. Why does that matter? It matters in two respects in 

relation to clause 104. It gives that Minister absolute jurisdiction over appointments. 

The board has only two to four people, in addition to a handpicked chair. That is not a 

wide enough range of skills, or people, to give diversity of opinion. This is designed to 

be a directive. It is designed as a diktat; that is how it is structured. Because of that, it is 

essential that it has written in, as a statutory obligation, those things that we would 

expect a good organisation to take for granted. But there can be no guarantee here, 

because the governance structure is flawed from the outset. 

Why has the governance structure been designed that way? It follows a model of 

change management called “shock and awe”. Roger Douglas used it—crash through 

opposition, move so quickly people cannot unite or take to the streets, move before they 

work out what is really happening, and drive through the middle. That is exactly what 

this legislation is about. 

That is why we are in the Chamber, historically, on a Saturday morning; why we will 

be here on Monday morning, and Tuesday morning, and Wednesday morning, and in 

Budget week; and why the legislative programme of this diktat Government is going to 

be a shambles. The junior Government whip is looking very worried, because he knows 

that he will be taking responsibility, in the eyes of the people of Hawke’s Bay, for the 

fact that he cannot manage the House. And the Leader of the House, who is already a 

public joke, who has barely opened the Standing Orders, must take primary 

responsibility for the fact that it took the Government 2 days to question an amendment. 

Change a comma, and it took them 2 days to work out how to question that amendment! 

What kind of House skills is that? No wonder the “Business Herald” yesterday had a 

diary piece asking who the lamest duck in the Government was, arguing whether it was 

Richard Worth or Gerry Brownlee. It is, I think, a lay down misère. Gerry Brownlee is 

next, but at the moment we have not finished with his colleague. Gerry Brownlee is 

next, because he will never recover from this process. 

Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”— 

Hon Darren Hughes: Ha, ha! 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is an oxymoron, is it not? How about the pot calling 

the kettle black? Because I do not have confidence that the Minister of Local 

Government is one to appoint people on merit; I think he is one to appoint on ideology. 

I think he wants to appropriate and privatise the assets built up by the people of 

Auckland over 45 years. He will ensure that the people who are there are doing just that. 

PAUL QUINN (National): I move, That the question be now put. 

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support this very 

important new Part 10. I am pleased the Minister has accepted that paid parental leave is 

well established and will be covered in the legislation, perhaps regardless of this 

amendment. But some other provisions are quite important. For example, clause 

101(2(d) requires “Recognition of—(i) The aims and aspirations of the Maori people;”. 

I think that is important. It might be quite educational for the little group that will run 

the Auckland Transition Agency to have to take into account the aspirations of the 

Māori people. In the process of running the transition while taking into account the 

aspirations of the Māori people, the agency might come to the realisation that the new 

body really should have direct Māori representation, in the form of three Māori seats. It 

is quite possible that if the agency takes to heart the provision in this new part, it may 

make very strong recommendations to the Government saying: “Now we’re operating 

and we’re listening to Māori in the process of operating this transition, we very strongly


recommend that the Government reinstates the three directly elected Māori seats 

proposed by the royal commission.” That would be excellent. 

Clause 101(2)(f) requires “recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment 

requirements, and the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups;”. As is well 

known, quite big meetings have been held in places like South Auckland, and there has 

been very strong Pacific Island participation in those meetings. Those people are 

worried about the loss of the identity of Manukau City, and about how account will be 

taken of the interests of Pacific people, who are concentrated in that city. But if the 

transition agency really takes on board the provision in clause 102(2)(f), then perhaps it 

would say to the Government: “Well, hold on. The structure you have put in place, 

which strips out local representation and knocks out sub-regional representation like 

that for Manukau City, really affects the rights of different ethnic groups, particularly in 

the case of South Auckland, Manukau City, and Pacific Island people.” Again, perhaps 

the agency would make urgent representations to the Government to make alterations to 

the legislation, at the last minute. That would, at least, improve the possibilities of subregional 

identity and the interests of the Pacific Island people being taken into account. 

The same applies to other non-European groups in our society who feel shut out by this 

big structure, where rich white people will tend to get the positions. There will not be— 

Jacinda Ardern: Rich white men. 

KEITH LOCKE: Rich white men; I apologise. 

There is also a provision in clause 101(2)(g) to recognise the employment 

requirements of women. Again, as has been rightly pointed out, that may educate the 

transition authority to recommend to the Government urgent changes to the structure, so 

that women are not disadvantaged in the way that they will be under this legislation and 

the companion Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill that will go through 

Parliament. 

Clause 104, “Appointments on merit”, is quite important, because we know that the 

appointments to the transition agency are to be made directly by the Minister of Local 

Government, without any reference to a Cabinet process. We know that will be hard to 

achieve, so having that provision might at least make his Cabinet colleagues and others 

say “Hold on, there should be a merit procedure.” 

Clause 105, “Acting appointments”, could be very relevant, because it deals with 

resignations from the transition agency. I would expect there might be quite a few 

resignations, even though the agency is supposed to go for only a short time. After a 

few weeks in the job, a new appointee might say: “I’m in a horrible position here, 

operating like a dictator, intervening in agenda items of local bodies all across the place. 

The body I’m helping to set up here isn’t going to work.” There might be a lot of 

resignations, so this provision could be very pertinent. 

Clause 108(3)(a) provides for the maintenance of service delivery levels. That could 

be important too, because there would be a tendency for the new— 

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I am happy to take a call to support clause 101 in new 

Part 10, which is in the name of Carol Beaumont. There are three points that I would 

like to make in this debate. Firstly, I will talk about the Auckland Council and the 

Auckland Transition Agency being good employers. My second point will be about the 

aims and aspirations of Māori. My third point will come back to the fact that this is all 

about democracy and transparency. 

In respect of the Auckland Council being a good employer, I point out that it is really 

about caring for and protecting the rights of workers. When I was a school principal we 

had a framework saying that any employer or teacher who was dictatorial and lacked 

support would breed a resentful child. This is what I see in the legislation that is being


pushed through. We are being dictated to, and there is a lack of support, which will 

breed resentment in the community. 

This issue is also about the aims and aspirations of Māori people. I say to members 

that Māori aspire to be heard in their workplaces, to be influential. I struggle to see what 

is wrong with recognising the aims and the aspirations of Māori, the employment 

requirements of Māori, and the need for greater involvement of Māori in Auckland 

public affairs. I wonder why it is such a hard issue to deal with, why it is so hard to 

debate, why we have to push this bill through so quickly, and why Māori people do not 

have an opportunity to participate in any sort of debate on an issue that really does 

affect them, and to participate in settings that allow Māori to be heard. To have public 

meetings is fine, but I just wonder how many public meetings will be held on marae, 

and I wonder how many public meetings will be held at times when whānau can get to 

those meetings and actually contribute. It is really important that the aims and the 

aspirations of Māori people are not overlooked in this whole debate. 

One of the greatest aims and aspirations of Māori is simply to get a job. When we see 

that our unemployment rate is up at around 11 percent, which is higher than that of most 

groups aside from the Pacific Island population, we realise that it is really important that 

Māori rights and Māori conditions at work are considered and looked after. Again, this 

comes back to democracy. We hear National members say they are listening. But I ask 

whether they have heard what the people are saying. There is a big difference. When 

those members sit in a meeting and simply listen to what people are saying, and then 

move on in their own direction, they are not hearing what people are saying. People do 

not like the direction that all this is heading in. 

To come back to the issue of the Auckland Council being a good employer, I say that 

this is about people having an opportunity to be selected. What we are seeing here is 

that the Minister of Local Government will base his selection criteria on individuals or 

groups that support his ideology. That ideology is quite intimidating for the Māori 

people, because our values are totally different from those of the Minister. We have a 

fear that the people being selected will be mainly male, mainly wealthy, and mainly 

Pākehā. Let me tell members now that Māori are certainly not Pākehā. We are certainly 

not generally wealthy, and we certainly do not live in the suburbs of Remuera, 

Pakuranga, Howick, and those other places. We tend to be the people who live in west 

Auckland, Glenfield, Ōtara, and Māngere. 

Moana Mackey: They need a code of practice. 

KELVIN DAVIS: They do need a code of practice. The Minister must notify the 

House and make a workforce transition code of practice. 

Moana Mackey: Why do they oppose that? 

KELVIN DAVIS: Indeed—why do they oppose having a code of practice? 

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora nō tātou. Thank you very much for the 

opportunity to speak for the voices of Auckland that have been silenced as a 

consequence of the chilling erosion of democracy being orchestrated by Rodney Hide 

and Mr Brownlee this morning. It is good to see Mr Harawira back here after practising 

his salute with a Melanesian flavour to it. 

I stand to speak about the importance of the rights of those Aucklanders whose 

democratic entitlements have been swiped away as a consequence of the Auckland 

Transition Agency. Now we focus on their rights as employees. They cover a large and 

vast distance. My colleague earlier spoke about those who are disadvantaged, those who 

occupy marginal positions. Their level of irrelevance grows by the hour in the mind of 

the National Government. It does not care about people who do not have powerful 

friends in shiny towers. It does not care about people who do not belong to the chamber 

of commerce, who do not belong to other powerful professional organisations. All it


cares about is turning the transition agency into a small, unaccountable group of people 

who will be driven by profit. They will not think of the humanitarian considerations that 

employees deserve at a time when avalanche after avalanche of bad news is coming 

from overseas. The rights of children, mothers, fathers, and grandparents are the rights 

that we should be concerned about, and they have been completely forgotten. 

The Minister of Local Government stands up and gives lame accounts as to how 

Opposition members are either being trivial or not treating the House seriously. This is 

the highest court in the land. Aucklanders have every right to look to the Opposition to 

hold the Government to account in terms of speaking up for their right—given that to 

date we have failed to make any difference whatsoever in relation to their democratic 

rights—to be able to go to work and continue to contribute to and enrich the city of 

Auckland and its broader environment, knowing that they will not fall victim as they did 

in the 1980s to Mr Roger Douglas’ foul schemes, knowing that they will not fall victim 

to half-baked ideas from people who, unfortunately, will not be elected but will be 

appointed. The Government will not appoint Māori from the local tribes. It will not 

appoint tangata whenua and give them a decent fee to represent the indigenous 

dimension. Similarly, the Government wants to appoint people on fat salaries who will 

not be accountable to us. They will smash the rights, smash the entitlements, and accept 

none of the obligations that fall upon good employers. 

So it falls to us to remind the media, to remind our friends here in the broader 

Opposition, and to remind the Government that these sorts of things open up ill will. 

These sorts of things cause people to feel that they no longer have a decent stake in the 

development of what is meant to be the super-city. This provision enables the creation 

of a mega-city over the bodies of good, God-fearing, decent workers. How can that 

possibly be sustainable? How can that possibly lay down a basis for productivity, and 

for growth in the confidence of people who want better parks, who want better goods 

and services, but who fear they will be unable to achieve them, because every time they 

have a request of a significant nature to improve their working environment it will have 

to go across Rodney Hide’s desk? His desk will be littered with applications for 

contracts and a variety of other foul schemes to erode and undo the good work that the 

very workers we are concerned about have created and contributed to. 

It might be said that we should not focus too much on those groups that we will get 

to speak about later in the day—that is, the tangata whenua and the Pasifika. But those 

are the groups, along with other vulnerable sectors of the employment force, that this 

bill is designed to protect. I would like to hear from Mr Rodney Hide. How on earth 

does he think that instilling power in a small group of corporate-driven, unaccountable 

people will enrich the rights of workers? 


Chairperson. Towards the end of that speech I was watching the clock fairly carefully. I 

want to check with you that the clock did not go a little bit fast towards the end. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It certainly did not go fast. There are two 

of us here checking. That is completely out of order. 

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be 

now put. 

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana): Kia ora, talofa lava, 

and warm Pacific greetings. I am very pleased to stand in this Chamber to support Carol 

Beaumont’s amendment to insert new Part 10. 

I want to put forward a bit of history from a Pacific woman’s perspective in relation 

to the importance of being a good employer and having good personnel policies that 

acknowledge and look after the diversity of our communities and our country. Pacific 

unemployment has gone up from 8 percent to 13.7 percent, yet Auckland is the biggest


Polynesian city in the world. I will talk about a personal story, to put it in context. I say 

hello to my mother, who is 80 years old and is watching us on television. Mum came 

over from Samoa in the 1950s. She worked as a shorthand typist for the Department of 

Social Welfare, and she managed to become the manager of 30 women. She became the 

first Pacific equal employment opportunities coordinator in that department, together 

with Elsie Ellison of Ngāti Porou, who was the first Māori equal employment 

opportunities coordinator. The point about having those communities represented in the 

workplace is that it means there is a better connection with those communities. Having 

them represented ensures that they participate and have information, but, more 

important, it ensures that the needs of those communities, and some creative responses 

and innovation, can be part of the mix. 

I am very, very proud to say to the Minister of Local Government that it is important 

in this debate to honour the contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. 

We should think of the big picture. I think of the Rugby World Cup. Who plays in our 

rugby team? Who plays in the New Zealand Warriors and in the Kiwi netball team? 

Who won the Lexus opera competition last week? It was a Kiwi-born Samoan. Who 

heads Black Grace? It is Neil Ieremia from Cannons Creek, who now lives in Auckland. 

Jonah Lomu and all those other people came from very humble beginnings. 

It is those workers who need to be looked after. It is about value for money, but it is 

also about value for people. It is really important that we address that issue in terms of 

work, workers’ rights, and better investment to support those workers to lift their 

capability. It is also important to have an organisation that reflects the look of 

Auckland, because that is good for New Zealand, good for the Pacific, and good for the 

world. Our whole community, like any other community, has contributed to “New 

Zealand Inc.” New Zealand is very, very well known all over the world in terms of its 

Māori, Pacific, Asian, and Pākehā contributions. Each contribution enhances us. Unless 

those groups are reflected in the workplace, not just at the level of a cleaner but at the 

management level where decisions are made, the delivery of the agency will be 

ineffective and fall short of its responsibility. 

I stand as a New Zealand - born Pacific woman. I am very proud to be a Kiwi. 

Pacific people are very proud of our country. We do not want to be honoured just for 

playing good rugby; we have a contribution to make in terms of the economy and our 

society. Our people, like those in many other communities, work extremely hard no 

matter what job we do. We see examples of that in Parliament, from bottom to top. It is 

important that we look after our people, because they contribute to the economy, and 

they contribute enormously in terms of social capital, too. They do a lot of voluntary 

work in the areas of sports, culture, spirituality, and faith. Those areas are all part of the 

package. 

I congratulate Carol Beaumont on her vision of creating personnel policies that are 

not token gestures or responses but actually enhance, are integral to, and reciprocate the 

enormous contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. After all, Aotearoa 

is part of the Pacific. Thank you. 

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise to support this excellent new part proposed by 

my colleague Carol Beaumont. I can only echo what all my colleagues have said. But I 

also affirm our plea to the National Government to seriously consider this part, and to 

think about what we are talking about when we talk about good employment practices, 

being a good employer, and how important that is, particularly at a time when 6,300 

workers are living with enormous uncertainty. They do not know whether they will 

have a job in 18 months. They do not know what the rationalisation of their jobs means. 

That is what the Government has proposed—that their jobs be rationalised by October 

2010.


Last night we heard a whole lot of platitudes about how Part 3 was about protecting 

the workers. Well, no, it actually is not. It may protect the workers who transition at the 

point of the changeover in October 2010, but I ask how many of them will be left. How 

many of them will have been rationalised in the meantime? That is why this provision is 

extremely important. But, in addition to that, I would like to put forward some 

additional amendments to clause 101, “General principles”, in new Part 10. I propose 

that we add new subparagraphs (i) to (v) to subclause (1)(a). 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is, I think, the 

most serious point of order I have taken with regard to chairing in a very long time. Mr 

Chairperson, in giving the call you went from my colleague Winnie Laban to Darien 

Fenton. Colin King attempted to take the call at that time. I accept that it is your 

discretion to call whom you like. What I would like from you is an assurance that you 

received no comment at all from John Carter—as I thought you did—indicating that you 

should not accept the closure motion. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not correct. I have sole discretion 

over who takes a call. I am impartial in these matters, and that is where the matter ends. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a long tradition, 

well established in this House, that calls go from side to side. You chose not to take the 

call— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have made my decision. I have sole 

discretion as to who is given the call. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am seeking an assurance that you did not get an instruction 

from John Carter. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is impugning my integrity. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is, and I do not like that. I ask you to 

withdraw that comment. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw. 

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are involved at the moment in a very 

technical process, which some of us are playing very carefully by the rules, as to the 

timing of the tabling of amendments. What you have done in your approach has the 

effect of showing considerable favouritism towards the Government. I want to know— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is completely out of order. I strongly 

object to that assertion. The discretion as to who takes a call is entirely in the hands of 

the Chair at the time. I will choose who takes the call—it is as clear as that. I offered the 

call to Darien Fenton, and she has the call. That is where the matter ends. 

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the point the 

Opposition is raising is a serious one. It is not done to challenge you or your authority, 

but it is very important that all the Chairs of the Committee are not seen as liaising with 

the Government in any way. Last evening I was surprised to see you meeting with the 

chief Government whip and the Clerk of the House at the same time. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you say; thank you for those 

comments. I want to assure you that I do not get my instructions from the other side of 

the Chamber. I am an independent person; I chair the Committee as I see the points that 

were made earlier by the previous Chairperson presiding as to content, as to delivery, 

and as to substance. At this stage, I have given the call to Darien Fenton, and that is 

where the call lies. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that I am at 

some risk in doing this, but the Committee would be entirely satisfied if you gave it the 

assurance that you did not receive any comment from Mr Carter before he left the 

Chamber.


The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging my ruling, and that is 

completely out of order. I am impartial; I make the decisions based on how I see the 

flow of the debate. Whom I choose to speak is at my discretion. That is why I chose 

Darien Fenton, following Winnie Laban. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: You are not prepared to give the assurance? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Look, I have given you my assurance that I 

do not get instructions from anybody. You are asserting that I do, and I take strong 

exception to that. 

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept absolutely 

what you have said—that you are not getting instruction in any way or taking 

instruction. But I just wanted an assurance that it is not your practice to meet with the 

chief Government whip and the Clerk at the same time—that that is not your practice— 

as I discovered you doing last evening. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it is true that you did. I happened to 

be with the Clerk of the House at the time—just to explain to the Committee—and the 

chief National whip came in. That had nothing to do, I can assure you, with the process 

of deliberations last night; it was just fortuitous that we happened to be in the same 

place at the same time when you came in, and I left immediately afterwards. I can 

assure you there was nothing untoward in that. Once again, I do take exception to that 

assertion. 

Hon Darren Hughes: I accept that. 

DARIEN FENTON: I go back to the amendments I am moving to clause 101, 

“General Principles”, to add new paragraphs to subclause (1)(a). Paragraph (i) of my 

amendment states: “The principles of a good employer must include the views of 

employees”, and paragraph (ii): “The principles of a good employer must respect the 

democratic rights of employees”. I will go on to the rest of the provisions in a moment, 

but I tell the Committee that we cannot help but notice how desperately National 

members have been called on to hold meetings in Auckland, to go and get the views of 

Aucklanders. You know, there have been big ads in the New Zealand Herald, and those 

members have been running around. There are some gaps in those meetings, I must say, 

but the National members have been running around and saying they want to listen to 

people’s views. Here is a chance for National members to put things right, to go beyond 

listening to the views of Aucklanders—which, clearly, they have not done—and to 

ensure that the views of employees are listened to. This is a chance for employees’ 

democratic rights in the workplace—to have a say in their workplace, to contribute to 

the change that is happening, to be listened to, and to be treated as partners in the 

workplace—to be actually affirmed. 

Paragraph (iii) of my amendment states: “ The principles of a good employer must 

include the shared understanding of employees”, and paragraph (iv): “The principles of 

a good employer must include regular consultation with all employees”. Well, the 

principle of consultation is well established, but we believe that because of the inability 

of the National Government to understand what consultation means—and particularly 

consultation with the people of Auckland—we need to have that written into this bill, 

when it comes to employees. The word “consultation” means that employers sit down 

and take the time to share views with their employees. It means they talk about 

proposals, ask for input on those proposals, genuinely consider the employees’ 

responses—genuinely consider them—then come to decisions and work with employees 

to implement them. 

The final paragraph in my amendment is that “(v) The principles of a good employer 

must include a regular statement that no employee”—no employee—“should feel 

obliged to participate in the making of political videos for the employer”. I wonder why


we think we need that! I think the events of the last week have been very, very difficult 

for the National Party candidate for Mt Albert, and many, many questions are still to be 

answered about the making of a particular video that stars a particular National MP who 

is now a Minister. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions, but I want 

local government employees of the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition 

Agency to be assured that they will not be required to make political videos for Rodney 

Hide or for the transition agency, with goodness knows who being in those videos. The 

type of employment practice that National favours was, I think, confirmed last night 

when it did not support our amendments to Part 3. When it came to giving a voice to 

workers in the transition authority, National’s call was “if the face fits”—if the face is 

white, male, and rich. 

CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now 

put. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 53 


Motion agreed to. 

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney 

Hide to the amendment to add new Part 10 in the name of Carol Beaumont be agreed to: 

to omit clause 101. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment 

be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 53 


Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Further amendments in the name of 

Charles Chauvel and Darien Fenton are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the 

previous decision. 


Chairperson. During the period of the extended speech when you did not take a call 

from the Opposition, that amendment was tabled. I want to tell you that the effect of 

your action was to cause these amendments to be ruled out. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Mr Chairperson, I ask you to 

have a look at Standing Order 85, because the repeated questioning of the way in which 

this process is being conducted by a presiding officer is in fact extremely disorderly. 

Everyone knows that great effort is being made by the Opposition to put up a fierce 

fight against this bill. That is perfectly reasonable, but it does have to be within the 

rules. Mr Mallard himself said that his party is paying particular attention—pedantic 

attention—to the rules, in order to prolong this debate. There is nothing wrong with that, 

but there is a procedure, Mr Chairperson, that works in this Parliament and that is yours 

to preserve, and I think that it is time Mr Mallard was informed that his repeated


questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the 

Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Chairperson, I want to 

take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said, and assure you that your 

integrity has not been questioned, at all. But, obviously, as the Committee has 

undertaken its proceedings, there are differences between the Government and the 

Opposition about the way things should be handled, and the only recourse we have is to 

you, as the Chairperson, and the other chairpersons as well, to protect the minority. The 

notion of disorderly conduct, I think, is a red herring, coming as it does from a man who 

once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly 

conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures 

should not be going that way, at all, and to try to put words into Opposition members’ 

mouths, because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we 

are concerned about, I think is ridiculous. 

The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side 

were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you, as 

the Chairperson, did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr 

Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it, so 

for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our 

raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments. I 

act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill. 

There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have 

had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not 

spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of 

order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take 

strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that 

and move on, but I just make that point. 


Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time, 

because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is 

a new practice, because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House, 

that when more than one Government member is seeking the call, as was the case when 

you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was 

seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in 

Parliament. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): A quick perusal of the 

Hansard of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a 

similar practice. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to go into that. It is entirely 

at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is 

entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time, and I exercised that prerogative. I will 

now put the amendment. 


Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to: 

to omit clause 104.



be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 53 



The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister’s amendment has now been 

agreed to. Therefore, the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton are now ruled out 

as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont 

be agreed to: 

to insert the following new part: 

Part 10 

Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland Transition 

Agency 

101 General principles 

(1) The Transition Agency and new Auckland Council must— 

(a) operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good 

employer; and 

(b) make that policy (including the equal employment opportunities 

programme) available to its employees; and 

(c) ensure its compliance with that policy (including its equal employment 

opportunities programme) and report in its annual report on the extent of its 

compliance. 

(2) For the purposes of this section, a good employer is an employer who operates a 

personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the 

fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment, 

including provisions requiring— 

(a) good and safe working conditions; and 

(b) an equal employment opportunities programme; and 

(c) the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and 

(d) recognition of— 

(i) the aims and aspirations of the Māori people; and 

(ii) the employment requirements of the Māori people; and 

(iii) the need for greater involvement of the Māori people in Auckland 

public affairs; and 

(e) opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees; 

and 

(f) recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment requirements, and 

the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups; and 

(g) recognition of the employment requirements of women; and 

(h) recognition of the employment requirements of persons with disabilities. 

(3) In addition to the requirements, specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this 

section, the chief executive shall ensure that all employees maintain proper 

standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the public interest. 

(4) This part applies for three years from the commencement of this Act. 

102 Equal employment opportunities 

(1) For the purposes of section 101 of this Act, an equal employment opportunities 

programme means a programme that is aimed at the identification and 

elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures, and other institutional barriers 

that cause or perpetuate, or tend to cause or perpetuate, inequality in respect to the 

employment of any persons or group of persons. 

103 Employee context


(1) In this part an employee of a local government does not include a person who, in 

the context of local government employment, is a casual or temporary employee, 

other than a long term casual or temporary employee, of the local government. 

(2) In this section long term casual or temporary employee of a local government, 

means a casual or temporary employee of the local government who has been 

employed by the local government, or by the local government and its 

predecessor local government, on a regular and systematic basis, for several 

periods of employment, for at least 1 year immediately before the issue arises as 

to whether the employee is a long term casual or temporary employee. 

104 Appointments on merit 

The chief executive, in making any personnel appointments, shall give preference 

to the person who is best suited to the position. 

105 Acting appointments 

(1) In the case of absence from duty of any employee (from whatever cause arising) 

or on the occurrence from any cause of a vacancy in any position in the Auckland 

Transition Agency or Auckland Council (whether by reason of death, resignation, 

or otherwise) and from time to time while the absence or vacancy continues, all or 

any of the powers and duties of the employee or pertaining to the position may be 

exercised and performed by any other employee for the time being directed by the 

chief executive to exercise and perform them, whether the direction has been 

given before the absence or vacancy occurs or while it continues. 

(2) No such direction and no acts done by any employee acting pursuant to any such 

direction shall in any proceedings be questioned on the ground that the occasion 

for the direction had not arisen or had ceased, or on the ground that the employee 

has not been appointed to any position to which the direction relates. 

106 Application of Part 10 for transferring employees 

(1) For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council, this Part applies to any 

local government in the Auckland Region as defined in Part 1. 

(2) For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council, this Part applies to a 

person as an employee of a local government, other than the chief executive 

officer of a local government. 

107 Prohibition on retrenchment because of reform matter implementation 

(1) A local government must not take any action to end an employee’s employment 

with the local government if the action is taken, whether completely or partly and 

whether directly or indirectly, because of the taking effect under this Act. 

(2) For deciding whether a local government has contravened subsection (1), the 

reason given by a local government for taking action to end a person’s 

employment must be considered but is not conclusive. 

108 Local government workforce transition code of practice 

(1) The Minister will approve codes of practice (workforce transition codes of 

practice) directed at ensuring the proper transition of local government 

workforces from any existing local government to any new or adjusted local 

government as in existence after the changeover day for the new or adjusted local 

government area. 

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a workforce transition code of practice may 

establish employment terms and conditions for employees, that are consistent 

with— 

(a) firstly, the essential principles stated in subsection (3); and 

(b) secondly, the supporting principles stated in subsection. 

(3) The essential principles are that— 

(a) services delivery levels should be maintained or enhanced; and 

(b) as far as possible, the locations at which local government employees 

perform their work should not be changed. 

(4) The supporting principles are that— 

(a) employment security for local government employees should be maximised; 

(b) local government staff should be retained to the maximum extent 

achievable;


(c) the impact of reform matters on local government employees should be 

minimised; 

(d) there should be maximum employee involvement in the implementation of 

the reform matters as they affect employees; 

(e) contracts of employment should be honoured; 

(f) there should be maximum support given to employees; 

(g) employees should be treated fairly and with respect; 

(h) merit and equity should apply in all appointments; 

(i) there should be prompt and sensitive dispute resolution; 

(j) there should be no overall loss of employment across the local government 

employment sector; 

(k) there should be no overall reduction in working conditions for any 

employee; 

(l) there should be no overall disadvantage to an employee in relation to the 

employee’s working conditions. 

(5) It is the responsibility of each local government to ensure, to the extent a 

workforce transition code of practice applies to the local government, that the 

local government acts in conformity with the code of practice. 

(6) A workforce transition code of practice, whether made before or after the 

commencement of this subsection, is not subordinate legislation, but is a statutory 

instrument. 

109 When workforce transition code of practice takes effect 

(1) The Minister must notify the House of making of a workforce transition code of 

practice. 

(2) A workforce transition code of practice takes effect— 

(a) on the day the Minister’s notice is notified or published in the Gazette; or 

(b) if a later day is stated in the Minister’s notice or the workforce transition 

code of practice—on that day. 


Ayes 52 


Noes 64 


New Part 10 as amended not agreed to. 

New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets 

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The assets involved in the entities to which the 

bill refers are worth about $27.2 billion. They provide annual revenue of about $2.3 

billion. The royal commission report and the explanatory note of the bill reveal that 

those assets, which are currently owned by the people of Auckland, are central concerns 

of this reform. One has only to turn to the general policy statement in the explanatory 

note to see that that is so. The need for safeguards and constraints in decision making by 

local authorities and their subsidiaries during the transition period is also identified as a 

central matter of the concerns being dealt with by the Committee today. 

That is why it is unusual, in my view, that there is nothing in this legislation to 

ensure that those $27.2 billion worth of public assets are protected during the transition 

period. An extremely powerful authority is being created by the legislation. It has all the 

powers of the entities that it replaces, yet nowhere is there any safeguard to guarantee 

that those assets owned by the people of Auckland—which are listed in my proposed 

new schedule 2—will be protected and kept in public ownership during the transition 

period. The people of Auckland and, indeed, the people of New Zealand deserve an 

assurance that that will occur, They deserve an assurance that this reform is not all about 

privatisation, as many of us suspect, either in the short term or in the long term, but, in


fact, there will be a guarantee that those assets are kept in the ownership of the 

ratepayers of Auckland. 

That is what my Part 9 would ensure. It requires that the Auckland Transition 

Agency should not sell or otherwise dispose of, or sell any equity securities, or 

surrender any voting rights in, or relinquish any right to appoint trustees, directors, or 

managers of any asset or organisation listed in schedule 2 during the transition period. 

Obviously, because of the scope of the bill, the amendment deals only with the 

transition period, but members on this side hope that no assets will ever be alienated in 

Auckland as a result of this reform. The protected assets that are set out in schedule 2 

are the parks of the people of Auckland, the swimming pools of the people of Auckland, 

and the public libraries of the region, and the assets of the region such as those held by 

the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. 

Simon Bridges: Stop reading! 

CHARLES CHAUVEL: That member might benefit from actually reading the 

schedule, instead of interjecting, and deciding what his position is. It would be nice if 

National were to commit once and for all to public ownership of these assets, rather 

than using mealy-mouthed weasel words about whether it has any commitment to the 

ownership of public assets. Make no mistake, members on this side of the Chamber 

strongly believe in retaining these assets in public ownership. That is what my Part 9 is 

about and that is what my schedule 2 will bring about. It will forbid this shadowy 

appointed agency from selling these assets during the transition period without any 

public scrutiny and without any ability for the public of Auckland to have a say on it. I 

would like to hear the Minister in the chair, John Carter, take a call and commit that side 

of the Chamber to the position that is set out in this part. It would be great to hear a 

commitment not to sell Ports of Auckland Ltd, Metro Water, Auckland International 

Airport Ltd, or Watercare Services. Those fantastic assets have delivered a great return 

to the people of Auckland. They are strategic to the future of the region, and they must 

be kept in public ownership, not alienated by the shadowy body of appointed cronies 

who will be running Auckland for the time it takes to deal with the transition. 

I would like to talk in particular about the assets in South Auckland, because they are 

of real concern. Members on this side of the Chamber have been to meetings in South 

Auckland and have heard from ordinary people in that part of the region that they are 

worried that they might lose access to their free swimming pools as a result of this 

reform. They might lose access to the fantastic services that are currently provided by 

the excellent Manukau City Council, of which my colleague Su’a William Sio was 

formerly the deputy mayor, and of which Len Brown is currently doing a fine job as 

mayor. That city has made a real effort to reach out to its people and provide them with 

excellent services, as have Waitakere City, Auckland City, and the other entities dealt 

with by this legislation. But nowhere in this bill is there any interdiction against the 

selling of those assets, and that is a major omission. It is just like the absence of any 

decent personnel provisions, which was the deficit that my colleague Darien Fenton 

sought to remedy earlier. This deficit must be remedied, because the people of 

Auckland must be assured that there will not be any alienation of assets, either during 

the transition period or afterwards. 

I spoke about the quantum of the assets involved, and I said that the value of the 

assets was $27.2 billion, with annual revenue of $2.3 billion. There must be an 

assurance—we must hear it today from members on the opposite side—that the assets 

will be kept in public ownership. 

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put. 

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Mr Chair— 

Hon Member: Unbelievable!


GRANT ROBERTSON: That was unbelievable from Todd McClay, as my 

colleague said, because we have not had one speech from him in this debate. It is 

interesting that the debate on the retention of public assets is the debate that the National 

Government wants to shut down the quickest. Is it not interesting that the one thing 

National does not want us to talk about in this Chamber today is the retention of public 

assets? We on this side of the Chamber know that the real agenda of the Minister in 

charge of this bill, Rodney Hide, is privatisation. That is the real agenda. Roger Douglas 

will not deny it. He knows that that is the real agenda of the ACT Party and of the 

Minister who is responsible for this bill. 

New Part 9, proposed by my colleague Charles Chauvel, will protect public assets for 

Auckland people at least for the time of the transition agency—because that is what this 

bill deals with. If we could put forward something that could protect those assets 

beyond that, then we would, because we know that the agenda of Rodney Hide and the 

National - ACT Government is to privatise those assets. We know that is the agenda. 

Simon Bridges: Give me the evidence. 

GRANT ROBERTSON: Simon Bridges wants some evidence. The evidence is the 

Minister in the chair—at the moment it is John Carter, although usually it is Rodney 

Hide. The Minister responsible for the bill and the Minister in the chair are the evidence 

for the privatisation agenda. Rodney Hide said that the transition agency would be 

responsible for the rationalisation of governance arrangements. We know what 

rationalisation means to people in the ACT Party. It means selling off public assets that 

have been built up over generations in Auckland. Generations of Aucklanders have 

contributed to the growth of the services and assets in their region. The parks, the 

swimming pools, and all the securities they now have in that region are the result of 

generations of hard-working Aucklanders, who are now having all that trashed by the 

National Government. 

National and ACT should be ashamed that they will not support this new part, 

because it would give at least a scrap of reassurance to people in Auckland that their 

assets are safe. The powers of the transition agency are so broad and so wide that 

anything is possible under it. Every single decision of the existing councils is under 

review. The wide-ranging powers of this agency need some kind of control, and that is 

what New Part 9 does. It ensures that for the time of the transition agency the list of 

public assets in schedule 2 will be protected. 

We know that the people who Rodney Hide will appoint to the transition agency will 

not be the kind of people who are interested in the protection of public assets. We know 

that the agency will be made up of Rodney Hide’s friends. Mr Hide will be the only 

person who decides who will be on the transition agency. What kind of democratic 

approach is that? Here is an agency that is taking on the powers of councils right across 

Auckland, and one man—Rodney Hide—is deciding who is on that agency. 

As my colleague Darren Hughes said earlier this morning, Rodney Hide has been 

playing National for years, and its members have fallen in right behind him. Rodney 

Hide will decide who is on the transition agency and who will control the assets of 

Auckland. We on this side of the Chamber have absolutely no confidence that the 

transition agency will not seek to sell off public assets. 

We have no confidence, because we know the background. It is the reason that Roger 

Douglas is back here. He has returned from the political grave to come back into this 

Parliament and force on that party over there the agenda of privatisation. That is why he 

is here. He tried it in the 1980s, but he did not quite get there in the end. He was foiled, 

so he is back now to run this agenda through the National Government. He and Rodney 

Hide will make sure that those assets can be sold off in time, and they will bring their 

cronies in to run the transition agency.


We on this side of the Chamber are saying no. We are here on a Saturday morning 

trying to protect the public assets of Auckland, which were built up over generations of 

hard-working Aucklanders who have said that they want assets they can all share in. 

They want swimming pools. They want parks that their children can play in. So here we 

are today, on a Saturday morning, saying that we will not let Rodney Hide run his 

agenda through this Parliament—we will not do that. 

National had the option to send this bill to a select committee. It could have done 

that. Why has it not done that? I want to see a member of National get up and say why 

the people of Auckland do not deserve a chance to make submissions on this bill. Why 

do they not have the opportunity to say they believe their public assets are important 

and that they want to ensure their children have parks to play in? That is the opportunity 

National should be giving Aucklanders today, and it has taken that right away. 

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I move, That the question be now put. 

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I want to take the opportunity that Charles 

Chauvel’s amendment presents to bring home again why we are here today. The point 

about this whole debate is that the people of Auckland have not been given a chance to 

have a say on things that will affect their daily lives—things that will intimately affect 

the way their lives are governed in the wider Auckland region. That is why we are here. 

I am delighted that members of the public have taken the opportunity of the Committee 

sitting on a Saturday—in outside terms; in temporal terms—to come and see why we 

are doing this. 

Let me be completely explicit and transparent about this. The Government worries 

that our amendments are frivolous and vexatious, and that we are wasting the time of 

the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that this 

Government is trying to railroad issues through this House that the people of Auckland 

have not had a chance to examine through the usual democratic process of making a 

submission to a select committee. That is why we are challenging the faults, the deficits, 

and the liabilities in the legislation that is in front of us. 

My colleague Charles Chauvel has introduced an amendment here that goes to the 

heart of the matter. It is about the protection of public assets. There is no protection for 

public assets in the bill before us on the whole super-city structure that is being 

promoted by the Government, against the recommendations of the royal commission. 

There is no protection for public assets to remain as public assets. Let me just be clear 

what we are talking about here. We are talking about assets that people in local 

communities have agitated for, campaigned about, petitioned on, donated money 

towards, and been rated for, for years and years. They are places like the Long Bay 

Regional Park. They are places like Little Shoal Bay Foreshore Reserve in Northcote. 

They might be places like Rocket Park in Mount Albert. They might be places like 

Mountford Park in Manurewa—a very fine park named after a very fine Labour 

councillor, in fact. They might be places like the regional botanical gardens in 

Manurewa. 

Those kinds of local assets, regionally and locally held on behalf of the people for 

the public’s enjoyment, are many of the things that make our local communities as rich 

as they are. If we go to libraries and swimming pools—and if the members opposite 

would care to read the amendment, they would see those facilities are listed on it—we 

will realise this is a question of equity. This is a question about who gets access to 

books and sporting facilities unless they are held in the public domain for the use of the 

public. Those assets must be protected. It must be possible for poor families who do not 

have facilities on their doorsteps and swimming pools in their backyards to have access 

to the local facilities that have been built up over time, after having been petitioned for, 

argued for, and funded by local people.


It is that richness of facility and asset that my colleague Charles Chauvel is trying to 

protect in his amendment. There is no protection in the bill currently before the House 

for those assets. Why would the members opposite not expect the Labour Opposition to 

get up and defend those things? They are public assets, and there is no guarantee that 

the kinds of transitional arrangements that the Government is putting up will protect 

these assets. 

I will say one more thing about this amendment. It is a modest proposal. It is only 

about the transition period; it is not even in perpetuity—although goodness knows we 

could do with that kind of protection, as well. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Colin King—[Interruption] I have 

called Colin King. The member has not been able to get a word out so far, and I have a 

constant barrage coming from the other side of the Chamber. Can we just please hear 

what Mr King wants to tell us. 

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): My colleague Maryan 

Street has noted that new Part 9 is a temporary measure, if you will, in respect of the 

Auckland Transition Agency. But I just point out a couple of things, as well. The 

National Party pledged in its election campaign that it would not sell any public assets 

at least in its first term. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill sets up a 

transition agency of which all assets—including those that Manukau, for instance, 

retained—fall under the purview and the power. Effectively, then, those assets have 

been nationalised to the Government, because that agency is appointed by and reports 

directly to the tsar of local government, Mr Hide. Mr Hide will appoint his assetstripping, 

villainous mates to that agency, so one could quite logically say that Mr 

Hide—and therefore, since he is a Government Minister, the Government—will control 

all assets brought into the agency from Greater Auckland. Yet not one clause in this bill 

guarantees that any of those assets will not be sold. 

I ask the Minister—or perhaps a National member, because it was National’s 

promise—to get up today. If National is not prepared to accept Mr Chauvel’s new part 

that would guarantee that those assets would be retained at least during the transition, 

then I invite a National Minister, perhaps Mr Brownlee, to get up and provide us with 

that guarantee, therefore fulfilling his and his Government’s election promise. 

Hon Member: An Auckland member. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, an Auckland member, as my colleague says; 

an Auckland member would do. I look around. Maybe an Auckland member is hovering 

around here—Mr Hide is the Minister in the chair. 

This is important. We have to ask what the motivation is for not giving such a 

guarantee. We know that Mr Hide’s whole life has been one of attempting to strip out 

public assets and public ownership. His whole purpose for being, he tells us, is to assetstrip 

from the public purse. There is no guarantee in this legislation that he will not 

appoint his villainous mates to this agency—because he will. He will appoint those 

people who have a motivation to strip out assets. I know I am right, and do members 

know why? Why would Rodney Hide appoint people who did not agree with him? Of 

course he would appoint those who agree with his philosophy— 

Hon Shane Jones: And they’ll get a gong! 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And, as my colleague says, they will probably get a 

gong. Mr Hide is on record many times as saying in respect of this super-city 

proposal—and I am sure he will not disagree with me—that he wants more private 

enterprise in local government. We know what “private enterprise in local government” 

is code for. The good people of Manukau—and of other places, in other local 

authorities—who chose to keep their assets, build them up, retain them, and gain


revenue from them, will now have those assets completely stripped away under an 

agency that Mr Hide will appoint his mates to, and that is absolutely answerable in all 

ways to him. His policy is to sell off assets. 

I ask Mr Brownlee whether he will take a call. Will he respond, perhaps by 

interjection, and say that he will guarantee that Mr Hide will not be able to strip, 

through his mates on this agency, the assets of the super-city? Or perhaps Georgina te 

Heuheu will respond. There is silence. Silence means they have answered the question. I 

say to those who ask why we are sitting here today that today, if this bill passes, the 

Government will have nationalised unto itself—yea, nationalised to Mr Hide—all the 

assets of the Greater Auckland region. Then I tell those people who are listening to hold 

their breath. 

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: New Zealand’s not listening. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: What an arrogant little new member that member 

is. He said: “New Zealand’s not listening.” I suspect that in that member’s electorate, 

and in Epsom and in other places, they are listening and they will be listening if asset 

stripping takes place. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Michael Woodhouse. 

Michael Woodhouse: Mr Chairperson— 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, 

Mr Chairperson. I point you to Speaker’s ruling 16/1 in regard to the use of cellphones. 

I ask you to ask Mr Quinn to remove the blockage from his ear. He has been using his 

cellphone for about the last half an hour. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not really a point of order. 

Members know the rules about cellphones. They are not to be used in the Chamber, 

although, having said that, there is some inconsistency because the Chamber is littered 

with other sorts of phones. I am not sure how we justify the distinction, but we do. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My colleague 

Mr Roger Douglas pointed out to me that he wondered whether you had noticed that we 

were here and were trying to take a call. He thought that maybe you had not noticed us. 

I just wanted to make the point that we are here and we are very, very anxious to take a 

call on this matter. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that I am well 

aware that she and the Green Party are here. 

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the question be now put. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this 

proposed new part, because this actually gets to the heart of the Local Government 

(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I have already said that what we are seeing here, with 

this bill, is “Rogernomics Part 2”. Suddenly all of New Zealand can understand why 

Roger Douglas took himself out of retirement to come back to Parliament, and why 

Rodney Hide chose to be Minister of Local Government. At the time some people were 

a bit perplexed. Why would Rodney Hide want to be Minister of Local Government? 

But now the reasons are all unfolding. 

We need to be clear that ACT and the new right have realised that they have been 

thwarted in this term of Government from selling off assets—further State-owned 

enterprises—at the national level. The Prime Minister has made that clear. I can imagine 

a breakfast where they all got together and contemplated “What are we going to do to 

advance our agenda in this term of Government, because unfortunately we will not be 

able to achieve our objective of selling off the remaining publicly owned, State-owned, 

enterprises in New Zealand?”. They said: “Ah, I know what we’ll do. There is $28 

billion worth of assets in local government.” I can imagine them sitting around at a 

breakfast meeting, saying “I know what we will do. First of all, we will get rid of those


annoying, irritating eight city councils and that whole layer of democracy, because they 

have really been quite irritating and they have not yet fallen into corporate hands. We 

will get rid of them. Then we will set up a completely new local government 

structure”—which this bill is doing—“that concentrates power in the hands of the 

executive and the hands of the mayor.” 

This is what academics call “the new strong mayor model”. Basically it means that 

the mayor can have complete control of the Auckland Council by picking the deputy 

mayor and the chairs, and by coming up with the agenda and the long-term plan. Then 

the mayor can unleash the agenda on to the unsuspecting voters of Auckland. And they 

are unsuspecting, because none of this was mentioned in the ACT Party or National 

Party manifestos before the last election. What will the agenda be? We know that the 

agenda is to sell off local government assets. Someone on the Government benches 

yelled out “What’s your proof?”. Can I suggest that National Government members 

read the ACT Party’s local government policy. It is on the website, and it is plain and 

clear for everyone to see. 

At least ACT is honest about its policies. It does not try to hide them. ACT is quite 

up front. ACT says in its local government policy that it wants to privatise effectively 

all of the commercial assets that these councils own, such as the Ports of Auckland, the 

airport, and so forth, and it wants the roads to be privatised, and water to be privatised. 

The rest of that $28 billion worth of assets will be put into corporate boards and then 

those corporate boards will be at arm’s length from the council. The councillors, those 

who are not in the control of John Banks and his merry men—even if there were some 

left-wing members who were able to find themselves elected on to the Auckland 

Council—will have no control because all of these assets will be put into these 

corporate boards, at arm’s length, and of course they will all meet in secret, and they 

will then begin to unleash this agenda of privatising the assets of Auckland; assets that 

have been built up for many years. 

This is the second part of the agenda. It was plotted out. It is the reason they have all 

come together and got Roger Douglas back into Parliament and why we have Rodney 

Hide as Minister of Local Government. I am worried that Aucklanders will realise this 

when it is too late. 

Hon Member: That’s what happens. 

SUE KEDGLEY: It is what happens. There was another piece of legislation that 

slipped through last year. Nobody cared much about it. The Green Party tried frantically 

to alert New Zealanders to this legislation. 

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put. 

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): This amendment, to insert a new Part 9, goes to the 

heart of this debate. If the inevitable happens and the National Government succeeds, 

with the assistance of Rodney Hide— 

Hon Member: And Peter Dunne. 

PHIL TWYFORD: —and Peter Dunne, thank you—in ramming through this 

legislation, then this day will go down in history for Aucklanders as the day when 

National and ACT stole their democracy. The day will also go down in history as the 

day when National and ACT stole $28 billion of public assets and put them on the 

auction block for future administrations to flog off. 

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to 

the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 

to insert the following new clause: 

38A Interpretation 

In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—


sell has the meaning it has in the Sale of Goods Act 1908 

voting has the meaning it has in the Electoral Act 1993. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 


Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to 



38B Poll of electors before sale 

Any authority this Act can only sell assets after conducting a poll of electors 

under the Local Electoral Act. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 



The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That brings us to the substantive 

amendment— 


Chairperson. I know there is quite a lot of movement going on to your left and to your 

right, but many more amendments were tabled before the question on the first 

amendment was put. Those amendments have been tabled to the Clerk’s Office; they are 

on this part. It may take a few seconds for your staff to catch up with you, but I think it 

is fair to say that there are hundreds of questions for you to deal with before you get to 

the substantive question on the part. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. I cannot wait. It is 

always good for people to try to catch up with me; it is not usual. I will ask the Clerk to 

check the veracity of what the member has said, and to ensure that all the amendments 

to the amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel are being considered, before I put the 

question on the Charles Chauvel amendment to insert a new Part 9. We will just pause 

for a moment in silence, unless someone has a very good story or a humorous yarn to 

amuse us with while we sort this out. 

Members, I will do something unusual here. The amendments to proposed new Part 9 

that were moved by Moana Mackey follow a very similar form, which is: 

“Notwithstanding any other provision the residents of [Dominion Road] in [North Shore 

City] shall be understood to have a public interest in any Auckland Council owned 

assets.” The test for relevance of an amendment is that it has to be serious, has to stand 

in law, and has to be accurately described. The Clerk and I have been backwards and 

forwards across this issue, and it seems that a judgment call needs to be made. I invite 

someone from the Opposition, which has put forward these amendments, to put the case 

for why the amendments should stand. I also invite Government members to make a


submission on whether they think the amendments should stand—I will not prejudge 

what they think. Following those submissions, I will make a decision. 

Before I make a decision and we have some discussion about it afterwards, I want 

members to make a submission as to why they believe that these amendments meet the 

requirements not only of the Standing Orders but also of the interpretation of Dave 

McGee, who wrote Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand and is well known to 

members. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you give us the reference? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Page 379. [Interruption] Just to answer 

the question by Gerry Brownlee, when I make a ruling on this matter there will no doubt 

be some controversy, because people put a lot of time and effort into these amendments. 

I thought it would be better to have some discussion about them before I ruled than to 

have a continuous stream of points of order after I rule. I thought we should get the 

issues on the table and have a bit of a discussion about them before I make a ruling. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr 

Chairperson. Speaking on your course of action, I think you are doing the right thing. 

There needs to be some consideration of this matter. Certainly, on the face of it, this 

side of the Committee will have an opinion. I wonder how you feel about putting 

yourself in this position. I do not want to be in the position of recalling the Speaker 

because we are questioning your course of action; we are not. I just wonder, given the 

nature of this particular ruling—you are not in a position to recall the Speaker; that is 

not how it works—how you feel about it. Are you comfortable progressing with this 

course of action? If you are, then I think we would leave it there at this point. 

Otherwise, if you indicate you wish to have the Speaker back, then we will cooperate 

with that course of action, as well. That statement is not meant in any way to detract 

from the course of action you have proposed; I think it is probably the right way to go 

about things. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just say to the member that it is a line 

call. I have outlined the criteria for amendments, and I have outlined that I am about to 

rule, but I thought that before I make a decision I would invite opinions from either side 

of the Committee. I have indicated where the terms of McGee and the Standing Orders 

are in relation to what I am interested in. I know from past experience that when I make 

a decision—as I will do—it will be litigated, so I am just turning it round and 

suggesting that we have some litigation in front, and then the issues will be a bit clearer, 

rather than having endless points of order after the ruling. If, at the end of that 

discussion, members are unhappy with my decision, I accept that you can recall the 

Speaker, but at that point the issues will have been much better clarified. I do not have 

any ego about this; if you want to challenge my ruling, I am OK about that. I presume 

that Mr Mallard will put forward a case as to why these amendments should stand. 


Chairperson. Yes, Mr Chair. I am working on the assumption that the consideration is 

not whether the amendments are vague or lacking form. I just want to test that with 

you—that the question before you, I presume, is not a question of vagueness, because 

the amendments are not vague; they are quite clear. I think they are in the proper form 

for amendments and for incorporation into law, and I want to make sure before I start 

this discussion that that is accepted. If that is not accepted, then we could come back 

again with more discussion. 

We then go to the question of whether the proposed amendments are frivolous. That 

is an important question, and I accept that there could be a discussion on the question. 

The particular amendment we are talking about concerns Dominion Road in North 

Shore City, and whether the residents of that particular road have a public interest in the


Auckland Council - owned assets. I am working on the assumption again that there is 

not a lot of debate around the Auckland Council and that it owns assets, that they are 

public assets, and that the public has an interest in them. 

We then go to the definition of “frivolous”—and a number of people will be looking 

in their different dictionaries. A key part of the definition goes to the words “not 

serious”, “trifling”, and “futile”. I want to make it clear that Opposition members are 

absolutely serious on this particular issue. There is a fundamental debate to be had here 

about the assets and about who has an interest in them—whether it is the residents, 

including the residents of particular areas, who have an interest in the assets, or whether 

the assets should be available for transfer away from the residents of those particular 

areas to others. 

That is my view, and it is certainly the view of the Opposition. I am not suggesting 

that it is automatic that the Committee will necessarily agree with this amendment. It is 

a question of whether the Opposition should have the right to test the will of the 

Committee on this amendment. It is my view that the amendment is a serious 

amendment, and one that deserves the attention of the Committee. It is something on 

which the Committee can express its view, and it should be allowed to do so. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): We most certainly have a 

view. If one thinks about the substantial bill, one will find that it is about the transitional 

arrangements that are to exist beyond the passing of this bill, for the integration of the 

various Auckland local authorities into one entity. I am pleased to hear the Opposition 

agree that there will be many assets across the city of Auckland, it is certain, that will 

come under some structure directly accountable to the Auckland Council, which will be 

the much wider body to look at these things. 

This amendment attempts to suggest that certain residents in certain roads—I believe 

that some 500 roads are nominated—have a greater interest in those council-owned 

assets than any other person in Auckland. That is simply not the case. The Auckland 

Council is there for the residents of the Greater Auckland City, whatever that 

configuration may end up being—that is yet to be determined. It would be quite 

inappropriate to suggest that the interests of one street, or these 500 streets, are greater 

than any others. I think the suggestion that we need to protect these particular streets 

because of a particularly special interest is quite wrong. 

I suppose these are attempts to call attention to the part that Labour is attempting to 

insert in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which, in National’s 

view, is an unnecessary part. We most certainly think that it goes back to a single point: 

are the interests of any one resident, in any of these streets, identified in successive 

amendments, any greater than the interests of another? That would, on its own, suggest 

that this is an utterly frivolous way to go about considering these matters. 

The protections of Aucklanders are intrinsic in the transitional arrangements that 

have been dealt with by the Committee so far. For Labour members to come along and 

suggest that they are doing some great and good work for particular residents is an 

extreme stretch. Putting up amendments in the names of a mere 500 streets inside the 

Greater Auckland area does indicate an act of trivial pursuit in this particular debate. A 

Parliament cannot be made to look stupid by things like this. We cannot be put in a 

position where, having dealt with the substantive part of a bill, we then insert some part 

or amendments that tend to second-guess the intention of Part 3. 

It is also interesting to note that these are amendments to one of the extra parts that 

Labour itself wishes to submit. I would have thought that, in the consideration that 

clearly would have gone on during the preparation of this particular part, that reference 

might have been raised about the need to protect particular streets. I cannot believe that


the preparation of these 500-odd amendments was a last-minute thing, which leads me 

back to the point that Labour members are very much engaged in a trivial pursuit. 

If members go back to Part 3, which has been dealt with by the Committee, the 

interests of the people in Auckland and the assets that will be part of the new Auckland 

City are extremely well-protected as far as transitional arrangements are concerned. 

This Committee cannot pre-empt what might be in the bill that is expected in 

September, and where some of these matters may be made more clear. The reason for 

having a transitional agency is so there can be consideration about how things will go 

forward. 

I think three points are relevant. The first point is that this is an amendment to 

Labour’s own proposed amendment to the bill by way of a new part, and is therefore 

very poorly considered at this late point. The second point is that the transitional 

arrangements in Part 3 already make the protections for all Aucklanders, and the 

Committee has dealt with that matter. The third point—and it must be upheld—is that in 

a bill dealing with an entire region, to single out individual streets as apparently having 

some greater interest for no reason other than that they are a street inside the proposed 

Auckland Council area, cannot be allowed to stand. It is a great effort in trivialising the 

activities of the Committee, and I think it would be appropriate if these amendments 

were ruled out of order. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I have taken some time, 

because we have been directed to page 379 of McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New 

Zealand. The point of that particular reference is that the Chair or Speaker has the 

power to rule out amendments that are frivolous, vague, or lack legislative form—that is 

to say, they lack precision. Amendments must be in a form of words that may be 

embodied in law. 

I suggest there is no other course of action but to rule these amendments out, because 

when one goes through them, one can see that a map of Auckland has been used, and 

that each clause picks out a street name at random and says that particular street is 

understood to have a public interest in Auckland Council - owned assets. That has to be 

regarded as frivolous, because street after street is named. When taken in the context of 

the amendments that have been put up, that has to be frivolous, and it would cause this 

Committee to become a laughing stock. 

The proposed amendments are also vague. It is not quite clear how it is possible for 

one street to have a particular interest over and above that of any other street. I say that 

what that would mean is a mystery to all and sundry. The proposed amendments are 

vague and therefore lack legislative form. Of course, there is the final problem: no one 

street in the Auckland Council area has any greater interest than that of any other street. 

That in itself makes the amendments a nonsense. The primary bill that members are 

here debating does not threaten anyone’s interest in publicly owned property. 

I submit that there is no option but for the Chair to rule these amendments out of 

order. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I have three points to make. 

The first point, Mr Chairperson, is where your call, on balance, should go. It is my firm 

view that generally it is the right of Oppositions to put amendments. It is the democratic 

right of all members of Parliament to put amendments. If there is any doubt at all, then 

it should be the House that decides whether an amendment is put. The second point I 

would make is that the arguments we have heard from both Mr Brownlee and Mr Hide 

are arguments—which some members might find compelling—on the substance of the 

amendments. They think that the amendments are bad, that they are wrong, and that 

people should not vote for them. There is a pretty clear answer to that, and it is to vote 

against the amendments when they come up. This is not a debate about whether they are


good amendments or bad amendments, or whether the propositions that are put are right 

or wrong; the question is whether the House has the right to consider to them. It is my 

submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that they are serious, relevant, in the right form, and 

serve to emphasise a point that is very important to all Opposition members. They were 

lodged properly— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s covered. The matters are covered in Part 3. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Chairperson, is the member allowed to make a 

running commentary? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the member is quite right. I want 

to hear just Mr Mallard. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: So, in summary, your discretion should be exercised 

very sparingly. These amendments are substantive, and if members disagree with them, 

they have the right to vote against them. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank members. That has clarified 

matters quite considerably for me. The first point I make is in response to the point 

raised by Mr Brownlee about the House looking stupid. That is a fair point, but it is not 

entirely for the Speaker to prevent the House from looking stupid—that is up to 

members and how they deal with things. The second point I make to Mr Mallard is that 

members do have the right to move, and that is what has been exercised here. Mr 

Mallard said that the Committee should decide whether these amendments are right or 

wrong. The question before us is whether we will do this collectively or individually. If 

we were going to make this decision collectively, then I could put it to the Committee, 

to test the will of the Committee, as to whether we accept these amendments. However, 

that is abrogating the role and responsibility of the Chair, and I am not about to do that. 

Regarding the issue raised by Mr Brownlee about fairness to Aucklanders, I think it 

is almost like a bill of rights test as to whether this should be a consideration. I think 

that gets closer to the point. There is no doubt that the amendments as they stand are in 

the legislative form. There is no doubt that they could be written into legislation. The 

Clerk said to me that one of the considerations I should have as a Chair is about 

consistency. There are many examples in legislation of inconsistent bills and Acts. I ask 

the members to look at the smoke-free legislation. Parliament has not always been 

consistent, and I do not think that consistency is entirely the right test. 

I think that we are getting closer to the point, which was made by Mr Brownlee, that 

this is a bill about all Aucklanders. That point has been re-emphasised by the Hon 

Rodney Hide—that one interest group should not be superior to another. The bill we 

have before us is a public bill about setting public policy for all Aucklanders. It is not 

about setting policy for the interests of private individuals. I think that the issue here is 

that these amendments as they stand will be setting policy for private individuals and 

private interests. It is about individuals who are private residents in particular streets, 

that is, they are residents in those streets as private individuals. Therefore, I am of the 

view that these amendments are about private interests and not about the interests of 

Auckland or about public policy for Auckland. The amendment to insert new Part 9 that 

has been put up Mr Chauvel was in order, because it was about public policy that treats 

all Aucklanders in the same way; it was about public interests. But the interests of 

individual property owners in a street are private interests, and they should be dealt with 

by way of another bill—a private bill. I therefore rule the amendments out of order. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): As you anticipated in your 

preliminary remarks, this is something that, in my opinion, requires a Speaker’s ruling. I 

move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the judgment given by the 

Chairperson.



House resumed. 

Speaker Recalled 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Mr Speaker, the Committee has asked 

for you to consider the matters that I have ruled on and for you to make some decisions. 

It extends from an amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to insert a new Part 9, 

“Protection of Public Assets”. In his amendment Mr Chauvel wants the bill to reflect a 

register of assets that should be protected in a variety of ways. That is not the issue here. 

Subsequent to that, the Labour Party moved a range of amendments—I have not 

counted them, but they are substantial—to amend Charles Chauvel’s part. Objection 

was taken to those amendments and I was asked to rule them out, and I invited 

comments from both Labour and National on them. 

It seems to me that it gets down to a particular issue, which the Clerk has raised with 

me, that the bill before the House is a public policy bill. It is not about establishing 

rights for individuals. The Clerk’s view of this bill is that although the amendments are 

consistent in form and could stand in legislation, they have to have some form of 

consistency. However, I did not think that was a turning point, because this House has 

passed legislation before that has been inherently inconsistent—like the liquor 

legislation and so on. I did not see that as a particular test. The particular test that I did 

put weight on was that these amendments would give private individuals and businesses 

in particular areas rights or interests that would not be available to the general public of 

Auckland, and that, therefore, the amendments sought to be about private interests and 

not public interests. 

The bill is about establishing public policy for Auckland—it is a public policy 

decision. On that basis, I ruled the amendments as being out of order. There are many 

other points that could have been made in submission, but I am sure representations will 

be made by both National and Labour on those other particular points. That is the 

summary of the position as I see it. 


Speaker. The first point I would like to make is that I think the process that was 

followed by the Chair in calling for members’ comments on this issue is a good process. 

Unfortunately, I think we have reached a point where we do not agree. The decision 

goes to the question of whether these amendments are frivolous. We have had 

acceptance that they are not vague; in fact, they are very specific. They do not lack 

form; we have had acceptance that they can be written into the law. The Chair of the 

Committee has indicated that in his opinion these amendments are not appropriate 

because they give private rights to individuals. We could have a debate about that 

matter. They are not private, transferable rights. If someone leaves a street, he or she 

does not take those rights with them. There is not ownership of rights. But if I were to 

have that debate, I would be getting into the substance of the debate. 

That is the problem with the Chairman’s ruling. He has actually got into, in making 

his ruling, a view on the merits of the amendments, rather than whether they should be 

ruled out under the areas that are very well outlined by McGee on page 379. My 

submission to you is that no one has made the case that these particular amendments are 

frivolous. Given the tests that have been applied in this Chamber by Chairs today—in 

parliamentary terms, or during the last 4 days in temporal terms—these amendments 

could not possibly be frivolous. A whole series of date changes and a whole series of 

name changes have been accepted by the Chairs, which, if one were applying a frivolity


test, would have been much more frivolous than these amendments. On the standards of 

frivolity, these amendments cannot be ruled out. 

The point I will go back to is that it is my submission to you that the judgment of my 

friend and colleague the Chair of the Committee Rick Barker in this particular case is 

wrong because he has gone to the merits of whether it is appropriate to grant a private 

right by way of a public bill. There is nothing that prevents this Parliament from doing 

that. People might think it is wrong. People might not like it, but my submission is that 

for groups of people it happens all the time. When we have bills that deal with local 

authority matters it happens quite regularly that groups of individuals gain, and other 

groups of individuals lose. I will go back to the point about the substance that the rights 

are not transferable rights. 

As a final point I say that the Chairman made a very good argument on the 

specifics—one that I might even find rather compelling, if I were considering it 

carefully—but it is not the basis on which items should be ruled out. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think it is very interesting 

that part of the argument advanced by the Hon Trevor Mallard is some assessment 

against a frivolity scale. We should remember that this proposed new part that Labour is 

attempting to insert is to protect the assets of the citizens of Auckland. To then amend it 

to protect the interests of residents in particular roads I think trivialises the point of the 

part in the first place. In all other respects—not wishing to prolong proceedings—I 

think the Chairman of the Committee, Rick Barker, outlined extremely well for the 

House why he was choosing to rule these amendments out of order. I am sure you will 

have noted the comments he made in his address to you, in which he was explaining 

why he had reached this conclusion. Without wanting to prolong proceedings I simply 

want to say that we concur wholeheartedly with his decision, and accept fully the 

rationale he has applied. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I think the judgment you have to make as 

Speaker in this situation must take into account the context in which this debate is being 

held. It is pretty clear from the conduct of the Committee that the Opposition is trying to 

delay progress—we are trying to filibuster this bill—and that the Government wants to 

bring the debate to an early end. I want to cause the Speaker to reflect on the fact that 

the fourth estate has actually been commenting on whether this filibustering is an abuse 

of parliamentary process. I suggest that it is not. It is already clear that although the 

progress that has been made on this bill is slower than the Government might like, none 

the less it is substantial. 

This bill has been considered under urgency, and even at the current rate of slow 

progress it is very clear that this bill will be completed in accordance with the 

Government’s agenda within a week, which is far, far quicker than would be the normal 

process were it not for urgency. It is the right of the Opposition to use the Standing 

Orders to filibuster. Filibustering does not bring this place into disrepute. It is not an 

abuse of process. It is not frivolous. We are using the rights we have as parliamentarians 

in the Opposition to slow down the progress the Government wants to make under 

urgency. I make the point again that substantial progress has been made. I do not think 

anyone thinks this debate will go on for weeks or anything like that. This is the only 

opportunity we have to scrutinise the bill. Many other jurisdictions use filibustering. We 

have a practice now whereby we do not get even to the end of debate where new points 

are being raised on proposed new parts, yet closure motions are taken. It is completely 

appropriate that the Opposition be able to filibuster this bill. 

Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members. Dealing with the previous 

contribution first, the Speaker may well have views about whether filibustering is taking 

place and whether time is being wasted, but those views should not in any way


influence the Speaker’s decision on this matter. The matter that is currently before the 

House has been argued by both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Gerry Brownlee, 

and has already been ruled on by the Chair of the Committee. There are a number of 

matters perhaps I should touch on in ruling on the question before the House. 

The first one is perhaps to come to the substance of the argument that was given 

greatest weight by the Chair of the Committee. It is a matter of some importance. 

Standing Order 249 deals with the classification of bills. Members will see there that 

there are different categories of bills, and we are dealing with a Government bill, and 

with a matter of public policy, introduced by a Minister. Therefore, matters that relate to 

private interests are not properly dealt with under a public bill; they are matters that are 

dealt with under a private bill. 

This is not the first time this issue has come before Parliament. Some members may 

recollect that when the House was previously considering liquor legislation, individual 

amendments were proposed to deal with the interests of each hotel and tavern in New 

Zealand. The amendments were ruled not to be in order, as they dealt with private 

business interests more appropriately dealt with in private legislation. So this is not the 

first time this kind of issue has been dealt with by the Committee. That is the first issue 

to cover. In terms of the substance of the decision made by the Chair, under the 

Standing Orders there is an issue around the nature of legislation, and in respect of 

previous precedent in the House the Chair’s ruling is absolutely consistent with those 

previous precedents. 

The other important issue is that the Chair is required to rule on the admissibility of 

amendments. The Chairperson’s rulings are not to be corrected or reversed by the 

Speaker. That is Speakers’ ruling 78/1. That change can be done only by the House by 

resolution upon a motion with notice. Our Speakers’ rulings indicate that the standard 

practice of the House is for the Speaker not to overrule the ruling of the Chair. But in 

this case I must say that the argument accepted by the Chair is totally consistent with 

the Standing Orders and with previous precedent, and the Chair’s ruling must stand. I 

declare the House back in Committee on the bill at hand. 

In Committee 


New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets (continued) 

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to 


to insert after “those Acts” “, of Parliament”. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 



Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): We have just had a little bit 

of confusion, and the whips of ACT and the Māori Party had to correct their votes. I 

think it would help if you named the person putting the amendment. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies. We have three amendments 

in the name of Sue Moroney, and I will mention her name each time I put the question.




to insert after “Transition Agency”, “of only 4 people”. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 





to insert before “Transition Agency”, “the unelected group of friends called”. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 



The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson 

to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 

to add the following new clause: 

39 The local government together with the citizens of Auckland, both present and 

future generations, have the right to— 

(a) realise the benefits of fixed and variable public assets, including those held 

by Crown corporations and Crown agencies: 

(b) full public disclosure and unfettered public access to information regarding 

the financial and legal status of Crown corporations and Crown agencies 

held in the public trust: 

(c) be consulted about any planned changes to Crown corporations and Crown 

agencies. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 



The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson 

to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 


40 This Part 9 is made for the purposes of— 

(a) providing for peace, order and good Government of the Auckland region:


(b) protecting public assets vested in Council from damage, accelerated 

deterioration or abuse: 

(c) ensuring future generations of Auckland citizens have the use of public 

assets: 

(d) protecting important public assets from privatisation which may limit the 

access of future generations of Auckland citizens. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 52 


Noes 64 



The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel 

be agreed to: 

to add the following new part: 

Part 9 

Protection of Public Assets 

38 Protection of Public Assets 

Nothing in this Act, the Local Government 2002, the Local Government (Auckland) 

Amendment Act 2004, the Local Government Act 1974, the Local Electoral Act 2001, 

or any regulations made under those Acts, shall permit the Transition Agency to— 

(a) sell or otherwise dispose of, or sell any equity securities in; or 

(b) surrender any voting rights in: 

(c) relinquish any right to appoint trustees, directors, or managers of any asset or 

organisation listed in Schedule 2 during the transition period. 


Ayes 52 


Noes 64 



Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I move that progress be 

reported, and that there be an instruction to the House that this bill be referred to the 

special select committee for Auckland legislation for it to have hearings on it, and to 

report back to the House within 4 weeks. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): A member can only move that progress be 

reported; an instruction cannot go with it. If the member wishes to move that progress 

be reported, I will accept that proposition, but he cannot include with it an instruction 

about what will happen after that. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek the leave of the 

Committee to move a motion to report progress that includes an instruction that select 

committee consideration take place, and that the select committee report back to the 

House within 4 weeks of it receiving the bill. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there 

any objection? There is objection.



groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council 

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Tēnā tātou katoa. New Part 5 is a very grave part 

of the bill, because it points to the delinquency and the severity of the complete 

disregard for the history, constitutional, and demographic importance of Auckland in 

the planning for Auckland’s future mega-city status, and the complete level of 

ignorance about the future character of the mega-city of Auckland. That is why we 

stand with a degree of hope that is clouded by the bad decision-making that has guided 

the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, to date, which has resulted in his 

isolating, marginalising, and completely neglecting a growing percentage of Auckland’s 

population. 

In 1867 Donald MacLean derived a response to the growing unrest amongst iwi that 

the Crown was governing the country without any inclusion of a meaningful nature of 

Māori. That was when statutory Māori representation—after the failure of the rūnanga 

experiment early in the 1850s—took root. This part is an extension of that. Why would 

a modern nation want to provide distinctive Māori representation in its largest city, as it 

seeks to use that city as a catalyst to transform the wider economy? Why would it want 

to do that? Not only because of heritage but because the reality is that these are the 

people whose population percentage is growing disproportionately faster. They are the 

Asian proportion, they are the tangata whenua in a broader sense, and they are the 

Pasifika people. So what is being asked for here is a continuation of that proud tradition 

that exists at the level of national Government. 

Nā reira, ko tāku ki te Whare, he aha oti te raruraru me whakaae tātou kia 

waihangatia wēnei tūranga Māori hei noho, e kitea ai te kanohi Māori i te aroaro o te 

motu; ngā tūru Māori e rua, mā te marea me tētahi atu tūru motuhake mō ngā tāngata 

whenua? Nui noa atu te pōuri ahakoa te moe tahi a Te Pāti Māori ki ō rātou hoa, kāhore 

he paku aroha e puta ana ki a rātou. 

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 

[So, mine to the House; what problem is there that we agree to create these Māori 

positions to enable the face of Māoridom to be seen before the nation—the two 

positions for Māori, for the public, and a special one for the people of the land? I am 

greatly saddened that although the Māori Party has bedded together with their 

colleagues, they display no compassion for them.] 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise. This is a 

matter in which I have no expertise, but I think, from my limited knowledge, that we 

might have had a slight miss in the interpretation right at the end. I think the “two” that 

my colleague outlined was for Māori seats and the “one” was for mana whenua. I think 

it is important that we get that right. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. If there was a wrong 

interpretation, I am sure that when the member resumes his speech he will pick up on it. 

I am leaving that to the discretion of the Hon Shane Jones. Was there a mistake in the 

interpretation, or was it accurate? If there was a mistake, you have an opportunity to 

correct it. 

Hon SHANE JONES: I shall take that opportunity. With due respect, this 

correction, I am sure, is not included as part of my formal speech. I mean absolutely no 

disrespect to the interpreter, a senior scholar of our language, but the essential point is 

that my proposed new part corrects the absence of tangata whenua and mana whenua 

representation, and provides two slots for Māori in general. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My proposition to you was about the 

interpretation provided by the interpreter. Did the interpreter report accurately what you


had first said? If the interpreter did not report you accurately, I am giving you the 

opportunity to correct the record. We are not getting into a debate on what you said; all I 

want to know is whether it was interpreted accurately. This is your opportunity to 

correct the interpretation, if it was incorrect—not a debate, just a correction if that was 

the case. 

Hon SHANE JONES: I have nothing further to add in relation to that issue. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. 

Hon SHANE JONES: Let us move on to my very clever innovation as to how the 

people of Pasifika will actually be included. Arā, noa atu te aroha ki ō tātou huānga mai 

i Te Moana-nui-a- Kiwa. I tae mai ki konei hei horoi i te paru a ētahi kē atu. I hara mai 

hei tātā wahie, i hara mai hei waha wai engari i te mutunga he tangata, he iwi rangatira. 

Ko te mea tika kia kite ai tō rātou kanohi i roto i tēnei kaunihera hou kei puta te kōrero, 

kāhore wā rātou pānga, horekau ō rātou kanohi e tika ana kia kitea ai i roto i ngā tūranga 

teitei. 

Ahakoa te kitea o te kanohi Hāmoa i tērā taha, poto noa ake te wā mōna ki reira. E 

kore oti i a ia te kake i ngā hōiho e rua i roto i te hāora kotahi. Nā reira, he utu kei te 

hara mai mōna engari, hāunga anō tēnā take. 

Te wāhanga tuatoru, ko ngā tāngata i tae tata mai, mai i te whenua o Āhia. Ērā 

tāngata i hara mai i te rawakoretanga, ētahi i arumia e ētahi kē atu, ētahi i ahu mai ki 

konei kia tatū ai te noho o wā rātou tamariki ki Aotearoa. Nā reira e tika ana ō rātou 

kanohi me ō ngā motu, me ō te tangata whenua kia kitea ngātahitia. Kaua e waiho ko 

ngā hoa o te Minita anakenake hei whakatutua, hei whakarite mō te noho a te iwi mai i 

ngā moutere, mai Āhia, mai i ngā marae o te motu he rite ki te pononga noa iho nei. 

Kāhore he mana. Nā reira koia tā mātou e tautoko i tēnei wāhanga. Tēnei wāhanga 

rangatira kia kore ai te iwi Māori e ’hakatahangia. 


[There is much sympathy for our relations from the Great Sea of Kiwa, the Pacific 

Ocean. They came here to clean up the mess left by others, to be woodchoppers, bearers 

of water, but in the end they are humans and a dignified people. To have their faces 

seen on this new council is the proper thing to do. It would allay any talk that they have 

no interests and they should not be seen in these positions of high standing. 

Although the face of Samoa can be seen on the other side, the member’s presence 

there is limited. He will not last on both horses for a single hour. So there is a cost 

ahead for him, but that is another matter. 

The third part relates to recent arrivals from Asia. Some came from poverty, some 

followed other Asians over here, and some immigrated here so that their children could 

settle here in New Zealand. So it is right that their faces are represented alongside 

those of Pasifika and the people of the land. Decisions on how people from Asia, 

Pasifika, and from the marae of the land should live should not be left solely to the 

Minister and his cronies. That makes the people subservient and without dignity. So that 

is what we are supporting here in this part, this noble part that ensures Māoridom is not 

marginalised.] 

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ā, kai te 

Heamana, ki tāku nei mōhio mēnā ka huri te tangata ki te kōrero i te reo Māori i roto i te 

Whare nei, ka katia te wāti tae noa atu ki te mutunga o tana kōrero. Otirā, ka huri atu ki 

te reo o tauiwi, ka tīmata anō. 

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]


[Mr Chairman, my understanding is that when one speaks in Māori in this House, 

the clock is stopped until the end of that address in Māori. It is turned on again once 

one starts speaking in English.] 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a very good point, and I thank the 

member for bringing it to my attention. The interpretation is in addition to what the 

member is saying, so the time allocation is not reduced. In the case of the previous 

speaker, Shane Jones, the clock was turned off while we had the interpretation. 

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you 

for those words of assistance. The point remains, however, that during the course of the 

debate on this particular part there will be a great deal of bilingual debate. We need 

reassurance. When we lapse from one language to the other, the timekeeping will be 

essential. This debate is the only chance that that portion of Auckland’s population will 

ever hear their language being spoken in defence of their rights. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that point. In terms of the 

timekeeping, there are two of us here who keep the time. In fact, in relation to the 

member who spoke before—I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard is keeping his eye on 

the clock—I gave the member about 10 seconds extra, because we had not turned off 

the clock as quickly as we might have. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to support proposed new Part 5 of the 

Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. In doing so I put in context why we 

think it is important that this specificity is laid down now: to ensure that in future we 

achieve Māori representation. 

I think it reflects no honour at all upon the National Party that, after 3 days of debate 

on a bill that is being considered in urgency and that is not going to select committee, 

not one of the amendments that have been put by the Labour Party, by the Green Party, 

or by others other than the Government have been supported by the Government. So 

after 3 days of debate, the bill is as it was proposed by the National Party. People would 

think on that basis that we have an infallible Government. This Government is so 

confident of its own abilities that it thinks it does not have to listen—not only will it not 

listen to the will of the people through the select committee process, but it cannot even 

listen to Opposition submissions in order to find kernels of good ideas that it can bring 

itself to agree with. 

People considering whether that is a realistic assessment of how this Government 

deals with personnel, and of the appropriateness of appointments that it causes to be 

made to bodies, need only reflect on mistakes that have been made by the Government 

in the last week in terms of the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families 

Commission. It is the Government’s right to appoint her, but it shows that if people 

have the ability to make appointments, or to control who the representatives of the 

people on important bodies like councils— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to 

those members who are obstructing my view that I would like to be able to see the 

speaker when he is speaking. 

Hon DAVID PARKER: The appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families 

Commission shows that it is very important to have checks and balances on those who 

control the appointments, in order to make sure that we have fair representation, and 

that we do not have inappropriate appointments or a lack of representation. The example 

of Christine Rankin shows that this Government, above all others, is not infallible when 

it comes to the matter of representation and who it appoints to bodies. 

Representation is what lies behind proposed new Part 5. This part inserts 

mechanisms to make sure that the discretion of those involved in the future as to who 

should be elected to councils and what groups ought to have some representation is


limited by the legislation, rather than being left completely at large. We know that if it 

is left completely at large the National Government could make the same mistakes in 

respect of future representation in this new Auckland body—in terms of not achieving 

fair representation of the 1.4 million citizens of Auckland—as we have already seen in 

respect of the Families Commission this week. That is why I am so supportive of this 

amendment brought forward in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. 

Part 5 will make sure that these mechanisms work fairly for the people of Auckland 

by prescribing limits—instead of the absolute absence of limits in the current 

legislation—to give some direction as to what is fair representation in the future. It is 

important to note that this is not done just for the local tangata whenua in the narrow 

sense. The amendment does not say that these are only the people who have whakapapa 

back to the lands of these areas, and, therefore, have rights of representation. We know 

there are ethnicities and ethnic groups in the Auckland area—substantial groups within 

our democracy, but not strictly tangata whenua in that they cannot whakapapa back to 

an iwi showing land-based links—who will not have a voice on this new area. None the 

less these are representative or discrete groups of people who should have some voice if 

they are going to believe in the democracy that we have in New Zealand. 

If these groups do not have a voice—if they find that their large percentage of 

population is effectively prevented from having a voice on this new council—they will 

not vote, and they will not believe in our democracy. They will have less faith not just 

in local government democracy, but in all of our political institutions, and that would be 

a bad thing. That is why new Part 5 sets out the mechanisms to ensure representation 

not just of that narrow group of land-linked tangata whenua, but of Māori more 

generally, and also of Pacific peoples. We know that the largest Polynesian city in the 

world, or rather the largest centre of population of Polynesian peoples in the world, is 

Auckland. Yet this bill in its current form does not recognise their right to a voice in 

Auckland. 


Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): Ā, tēnā koe kai te Heamana. Tū noa iho tēnei ki te 

tautoko ake i ngā kōrero, i te wero o taku hoa a Shane Jones tino Hōnore. Nāna i tū ake i 

roto i te Whare nei ki te tautoko nei nā i te kaupapa kei waenganui i a tātou. Nāna i kī 

mai rā kua takahia te mana o te iwi Māori o Tāmaki-makau-rau ki raro iho. Koi nā, e 

āhua tino raruraru ana mātou ki tēnā kaupapa a te tangata e noho nei ki tō taha, te Minita 

mō ngā Kaunihera-ā-Rohe. Nō reira, nā runga i tēnā kai te Heamana e tika ana kia tuku 

wero ki tēnā taha o te Whare, ki ngā mema Māori o tēnā rōpū, o tēnā rōpū, otirā, ngā 

rōpū katoa e huihui nei i roto i tēnei Whare, kia tū ake rā ki te whakapuare ō rātou 

whakaaro mō te kaupapa kai runga kai te tēpu i te mea rā, ko te mana o Ngāti Whātua. 

Ko ahau tēnei e tū atu nei kua takahia ki raro. Nā, ko te mana o Tainui o tēnei kua tū 

ake nei kua takahia ki raro. Ko te mana o te Kawerau-a-Maki, kua takahia ki raro. Pērā 

anō i te mana o Pare Hauraki, kua takahia ki raro. Kua takahia ki raro i te mea rā, ko 

tēnei pire e kīa nei me wahangū kōtou, me wahangū ki tēnei kaupapa. Korekau he mana 

kei waenganui i a koutou. Kua tuku atu te mana ki ngā rōpū paku āhua kiritea ngā 

tangata, mā rātou e tāhaetia i ngā taonga a Tāmaki-makau-rau ka hoko atu ki tāwāhi. 

Koinā te take e tū ake ai. 

Kua takahia hoki te mana o ngā iwi o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ngā whanaunga mai i 

Hāmoa, i Tonga, i ngā Kuki Airana, i Whītī, mai i ēra motu katoa. Kua takahia ki raro. 

Nō reira, taku wero anō ki ngā mema Māori o ngā rōpū tōrangapū katoa, tū ake, tū ake 

ki te whakahē i te kaupapa kei runga ki te tēpū. Ki te Minita Poraka e noho nei ki tō 

taha, kua āhua hōhā a Tāmaki-makau-rau whānui tonu ki a ia. 

Nō reira mihi ana hoki ki ngā rōpū kua huihui nei i tēnei Whare. Otirā, kia kaha ki te 

tū ki te kōrero i ngā kōrero hōhonu, ngā kōrero whānui e pā nei ki te mana motuhake a


te iwi Māori. Nō reira, e Hone tēnā koe. Otirā, āhua hōhā ki tō tumuaki rā ki a Tariana, 

hara mai ki roto i te Whare i nanahi, ka tuku i tana wero ki ā mātou ka kī mai rā, ē, āhua 

taurekareka noa iho a kōtou kōrero e Reipa. Kai te tino whakahe ki tēnā wero i te mea 

rā, mātou o tēnei taha ka tuku wero ki te Kāwanatanga kia āta whakaarohia, kia āta 

whakarongo ki ngā nawe, ki ngā pōrarurarutanga kua horahia nei i roto i te Whare. 

Kīhai i te whakarongo. Nō reira, nāna nā Tariana i kī ai, ē, āhua taurekareka noa iho ngā 

wero, ngā kōrero katoa o te Rōpū Reipa. Ē, kai te tū a Reipa ki te tautoko i ngā iwi 

katoa o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Ko wai a ia ki te kī mai, kai te āhua korotake noa iho ngā 

kōrero? 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have not had the 

interpretation. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I did pause. Is there to be a 

interpretation? 


[Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to endorse the statements and the challenge set 

down by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones. He stood up in this House to support the 

matter in our midst. He stated that the authority of the Māori people of Auckland has 

been trampled upon. We are troubled by that, a matter that the person seated by you, 

the Minister of Local Government, created. Because of that, it is right that we challenge 

that side of the House, the Māori members of each party, and, indeed, all parties 

gathered here in this House, to stand up and express their views on the matter that is on 

the Table about the authority of Ngāti Whātua. 

As a descendant of Ngāti Whātua, I say that the authority of this one standing before 

you has been trampled upon. As a descendant of Tainui, as well, my authority has been 

trampled upon again. Kawerau-a-Maki’s authority, just like Pare Hauraki’s authority, 

has been trampled upon, because this bill states that in respect of this matter you 

collectively must remain silent. You have no authority at all. It has gone to smaller 

groups whose members are somewhat fair in colour and who will steal Auckland’s 

resources and sell them offshore. That is my reason for standing up. 

Trampled upon as well is the authority of the people of the Great Ocean of Kiwa, of 

the Pacific, those from Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands, Fiji, and all those islands. My 

challenge once again, therefore, is for Māori members of all political parties to stand 

up and oppose the matter on the Table. To the Minister seated at your side, Mr 

Chairman, Auckland at large is somewhat weary of him. 

And so I acknowledge the parties gathered here in this House. Be staunch and 

address us at length and in depth about Māori independence. Greetings to you, Hone. I 

find your leader Tariana a bit of a bore. She came into the House yesterday and stung 

us by saying: “Labour, all your challenges and talk amount to nothing.” We reject that 

taunt entirely, because we on this side are challenging the Government to really 

consider and think through the complaints and concerns being presented in the House. 

The Government is not listening. So for Tariana to say that all of Labour’s talk and 

challenges amount to nothing is being somewhat extreme. Labour is actually standing 

up in support of all the people in Auckland. Who is she to tell us that what we have 

stated is pointless?] 

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I thank the interpreter for his very close description of what I 

said. 

I would like to summarise one particular point. I was very offended—and I have to 

say this while Hone Harawira is in this Chamber—by the comments made by the Hon 

Tariana Turia yesterday. She came to this Chamber and described as vexatious Labour’s 

efforts to have the Government recognise the needs of the Auckland people and allow 

them to have a say in this process. That is absolutely ridiculous. If that member cannot


accept that this Parliament has a process that everybody, including the general public, 

has an opportunity to take part in, then she is just as guilty of a dictatorial attitude as the 

Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, and as the Leader of the House, and as many of 

those members sitting on that side of the Chamber. The junior Government whip is 

waving the paper in the air. He knows I am right. There is a process issue at hand here. 

The people of Auckland have the right to have a say in what the Government has in 

mind for their future. 


put. 

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Heamana. 

Tēnā koe, Mr Jones, e ngaro haere ana. Tēnā tātou katoa, tēnā koe Mita. Greetings to 

you, Mr Chairman, to my whanaunga, Mr Jones, and to Mita Ririnui, who has just 

spoken. Tēnā tātou, ’hakoa tangi ana taku ngākau, pau te kaha te rongohia i ngā kōrero 

kua puta mai i te māngai o taku whakanaunga, a Shane Jones, me te tautoko anō hoki a 

Mita Ririnui—although my heart grieves greatly to hear the words spoken by Shane 

Jones and supported by Mita Ririnui here today. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. Sincere apologies to 

the member, but I think there is a risk of this member being treated inequitably. He is 

providing his own translation and, therefore, he is not getting the benefit of the clock 

being stopped while that translation is occurring. If that were to continue, it would result 

in his speech being half the length of any other member’s speech. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is entitled to have the clock 

stopped when he speaks in Māori—that is, if he provides his own translation. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: He has been. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I understand. Thank you for bringing it to 

our attention. I ask the member to continue. 

HONE HARAWIRA: He pātai, he pātai. I have a question, Mr Chairman: me 

tīmatangia anō ahau? May I start again? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. The member has spoken for well over 

1 minute, and we have stopped the clock. So I ask the member to continue. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point I was 

making is that about half of that time was for translation, and the clock was not stopped 

for that. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I said that at the time, and we 

will take that into account. 

HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe. Tangi ana taku ngākau i te mea, kua rongo ahau i 

te kōrero me te whakaaro o Shane Jones, e ōrite ana te tū o te Māori ki tērā a wētahi atu. 

Tangi ana taku ngākau ki tērā. I was very grieved to hear Shane Jones put forward the 

view that Māori are just like anybody else. Tangi ana taku ngākau i te mea, ehara mātou 

i te tangata e ōrite ana ki tētahi atu. I am grieved to hear Shane Jones say that, because 

we are not the same as everybody else. He tangata whenua mātou te iwi Māori. We are 

the people of this land. E rongo ana au i ngā kōrero mō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, e rongo 

ana au i ngā kōrero mō wērā kei roto o Haina, me wērā atu o ngā rohe. I hear the call for 

representation from the Pacific peoples and from Asian people. Engari, kei hea te kōrero 

mō ngā Tararā, kei hea te kōrero mō Kenya, kei hea te kōrero mō Somalia, kei hea te 

kōrero mō ētahi atu? He whai pōti anake tēnei kaupapa. Kāre au i te whai 

rangatiratanga. Koi rā taku riri. Tēnā koe.


Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to Hone 

Harawira, who has the call. I have deliberately raised my point of order at this point, 

rather than interrupt him when he resumes his speech. We are considering new parts to 

this bill, and I express a concern that the time being allowed for the consideration of 

these parts is obviously a lot less than the time allocated for earlier parts that were put 

forward by the Government. 

I make the point that it is the Opposition’s right to put forward new parts, and to have 

them properly debated. It is, of course, proper of the Chair to cut off debate when no 

new points are being raised and where there is undue repetition. That, of course, Mr 

Chair, is within your rights, but I suggest that in respect of some of the closure motions 

that were moved earlier in the morning, we are verging on having debate cut off before 

all points have been exhaustively covered by speakers. 

I know there is a tension here between the Government getting its business through 

and the Opposition delaying it, but I suggest that it is the right of Opposition members 

to act as we are acting. That Opposition members are able to exercise their rights to the 

limits of the Standing Orders, particularly in urgency, is an important check against the 

powers of the Government, and I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to consider that in your 

rulings this afternoon. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Chairperson, an interesting point of order has been put to 

you by the Hon David Parker, but it directly challenges your authority in the Chair. I 

simply remind the Committee that it was the Hon David Parker who this morning told 

anybody who was here to listen, or anybody listening in, that the Labour Party was in 

fact engaging in a filibuster on this bill. I would have thought that that was a clear 

indication to everybody that most of the matters being dealt with at the moment are not 

serious. They are simply vexatious and frivolous, and they are being put forward by 

Labour to try to prolong the debate today. 

The other thing is that if we were engaged in an actual debate on this bill, that debate 

might be interesting, but the vast majority of time spent on this bill has been spent on 

dealing, through the vote process, with the extensive range of frivolous amendments put 

forward by Labour. Some 8,000 amendments, I think, have now been dealt with in one 

way or another. The real point, though, is that National thinks that continued challenges 

to the Chair are completely unacceptable, and should not continue to be a feature of this 

debate. 

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Chairperson, I think it is important at this junction that the 

Committee consider very carefully, under your guidance, the way forward. In the first 

place, I submit to you that the point of order raised by my colleague David Parker in no 

way trifled with your rulings. It sought a clarification from you, and it asked, at your 

discretion, that you take into account the various factors as we go forward. I echo the 

strongly expressed sentiments of my colleague David Parker in this respect. 

The second point is that the Leader of the House has, in his submission, failed to 

distinguish between amendments and parts. The submission of David Parker 

specifically related to parts, not clause amendments, and asked that parts be fully 

debated. As is well known to you, Mr Chairperson, and to the Leader of the House, 

amendments to clauses— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member should read the Standing Orders. 

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I know what the point of order will be. I 

ask the Leader of the House to let the member make his point of order. If I feel he is 

getting off the point, I will stop his point of order.


Hon David Cunliffe: The example given by the Leader of the House—about socalled 

trivial changes to dates, and so forth—is clearly distinct from proposals to add 

entirely new parts. I submit to you, Mr Chairperson, that the application of the word 

“trivial” to a part such as new Part 5, which the Committee is currently debating, is a 

gross insult to the communities affected, which are Māori, Pacific, and other ethnic 

groups. It is simply not appropriate that members of this Committee should describe 

mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of that nature as “trivial”. 

That brings us, I guess, to the core point of what the Leader of the House submitted, 

which was that these parts are, in his view, no more than a filibuster and therefore do 

not deserve the protection of the Standing Orders. That brings into question the matter 

of whether the member’s perception of the part should stand for the whole Committee. 

Clearly, it should not, and new Part 5 should be seen as an example of an extremely 

substantive and well-thought-out part. Why is it necessary? That is the whole point— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is straying into the 

substance of the part. Let me make a number of points. Firstly, it is not helpful to have 

descriptors of what members do as being trivial, or this, that, or the other. A point of 

order is about order; it is not about the emotional words that one might wish to attach to 

it. 

Secondly, I make the point that no matter what members write on their 

amendments—whether they insert new parts, new multi-parts, and so on—they are still 

amendments. So according to the Standing Orders we are considering amendments, not 

parts. However, because they are amendments of such a nature, they will get a little 

more air time than they would if they were just one-word amendments, and that is 

reflected in the Chair’s consideration. I repeat for the Committee the point I made 

before, which is that the two Rs, which are relevance and repetition, will guide the 

Chairs’ decisions. 

The third point I make, again—and this will never change as long as we have this 

Parliament—is that the decision will be the Chair’s and the Chair’s alone. No 

correspondence will be entered into, and there will be no emails, no texts, no groans, no 

sighs, and no rolling of heads or eyes—that will all wash over the Chair, whose opinion 

is impartial. The Chair will determine the appropriate time for the Committee to 

consider an amendment. 

I also make another point, which I think is important and fundamental here. New 

Zealand is a democracy. We argue and battle over words. This is a contest of words, and 

this is a contest of wills. It seems to me, in a way, that it is a little bit like Ogden Nash: 

when the going gets tough, the tough go shopping. He did not say that, but in this 

situation, when the going gets tough in the Committee, the tough write amendments or 

parts. That is what this is about; it is a wrestle. But at the end of the day we have to have 

the debate. It has to be relevant, cogent, and to the point, and repetition should not be 

entered into. 

Both sides will feel aggrieved and disappointed at some point—such is the role of the 

Chair. But we will make these decisions as we go, piece by piece. I state it again: it is 

the Chair’s decision—no correspondence will be entered into—and it is about relevance 

and repetition. 

HONE HARAWIRA: Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Chairperson. Kia ora tātou katoa. If 

Labour’s proposal for Pasifika nation seats was genuinely about representation, then 

where are the seats for the Somali, the Kenyan, the Dalmatian, or the South African? 

Although I respect much of what Labour has had to say today, this proposal is nothing 

but a naked grab for the votes of the large Pasifika nation populations in Auckland. 

Although I have the greatest respect for my Pacific cousins, I note the fact that the 

phrase “sons of Māui”, attributed to George Hawkins, was actually one coined first by


me in this Chamber, in recognition of our historical relationship to one another. 

Although I respect the right of Asians to be heard, I can never accept the betrayal by 

Labour’s Māori MPs of the primary right of Māori to be on the Auckland Council, as 

manu whenua, as tangata whenua, and as Māori. 

I am outraged by the cringing position taken by those Labour Māori MPs, in 

allowing the status of Māori to be downgraded to that of other ethnic groups, for we are, 

and always will be, the first people of this great land of Aotearoa. I call on those Labour 

Māori MPs to speak up for Māori, to fight for Māori, and to be Māori. I call on them 

either to fight for those seats on the Auckland Council—for mana whenua first, for 

Māori second, and for anybody else after that—or to admit their failings, to recognise 

their duplicity, to confess their complicity, and to resign their seats forthwith. Their 

mana, for what it is worth, the mana of their people—and indeed the mana of their 

tūpuna—deserves nothing less. Kia ora tātou. 

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I feel obliged to take a call on new Part 5, which 

contains Subpart 1 and Subpart 2, in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. This part is 

important. We are proposing this part to ensure that the representation of Māori, Pacific, 

and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of Auckland City is protected. Earlier in this 

Chamber I cited what North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams said on this bill and the 

other related bill. He said: “These Bills effectively shut down elected local government 

in greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of handpicked, 

unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months, until the deeply 

flawed super city takes over.” We have to introduce this part because this bill, amongst 

other things, will remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of 

Auckland. Labour thinks that the National Government’s complete failure to consult on 

this plan is wrong and that Aucklanders deserve a say in the future of their city. 

Auckland is home to many Asian Kiwis, and I am one of them. Statistics New 

Zealand predicts that about one-third of its residents will be of Asian ethnicity by 2016, 

up from 20 percent in 2001. But it is sad that, in response to such important 

legislation—which has created the biggest challenge Auckland has faced in its entire 

history—National’s Asian MPs are systematically silent on the issues. Mr Kanwaljit 

Singh Bakshi was here last night smiling to himself, and he was here this morning as 

well. But where is the Hon Pansy Wong? Where is the honourable Melissa Lee? I saw 

her on television, on Close Up, busy apologising for the comments she had made the 

night before. But what about the interests of thousands upon thousands of Asian 

Aucklanders, whom those MPs at least claim to represent? Under National’s plan, in 

future the people of South Auckland and west Auckland in particular are unlikely to be 

entitled to influence local government in Auckland. I think the small but growing 

number of elected community board members and councillors of Asian ethnicity will be 

denied any real ability to influence the future of local government in Auckland. I am not 

blaming National Asian MPs. The 800-page of the report of the Royal Commission on 

Auckland Governance took 18 months to prepare, it cost millions of dollars, and it 

received 3,537 submissions. The National Government’s sham version of a super-city 

that is being forced on Auckland was thrown together in just 3 days. 

We are introducing new parts and further amendments. At this Committee stage it is 

very important for me to reiterate that I oppose this bill for three main reasons. The bill 

is procedurally unfair, because as Part 3 shows, existing local authorities will have their 

powers stripped from them, and 1.4 million people in Auckland are not able to have a 

say about that. Goodbye Pork Pie? I do not think Aucklanders are impressed. Clause 49 

of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a referendum on 

reorganisation proposals. This bill will override those provisions. In a broad 

constitutional sense, this bill is flawed. The bill also creates huge uncertainty. Both Mr


John Key and Mr Rodney Hide have admitted in this Chamber that they have no idea 

how much their sham version of the super-city is going to cost. 


put. 

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koutou 

katoa. I stand to support Labour’s position on new Part 5 of the Local Government 

(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, but also I tautoko Mr Hone Harawira’s comments. We 

stand here under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our rights do not come from multiculturalism; 

they come from te Tiriti. Although we acknowledge the multiple cultures of Aotearoa, 

the first point is the difference between mana whenua rangatiratanga and minority need 

for representation. Any legislation in this House should be passed on that basis, 

recognising the value of mana whenua, first-nation people first, then recognising the 

diversity that Auckland undoubtedly has. 

The other main problem with this bill is its capacity to reinforce a trend that has been 

dominating local government since its inception in Aotearoa. I have named this TMPM 

syndrome—“Too Many Pākehā Men” in positions of power syndrome. Local 

government in Tāmaki-makau-rau and throughout the motu is already cursed with 

TMPM syndrome, with current and historical dominance of Pākehā men just about 

everywhere we look. This is not an attack on Pākehā men. I have lived with two of 

them, though not at the same time. Members should not get me wrong: I value my 

Pākehā men very deeply, especially the current one. However, I think for Pākehā men a 

minority experience in a decision-making process would be a salutary lesson because 

unless one has experienced marginalisation as a minority in the decision-making 

process, one has no idea what one is talking about or what it feels like. 

What is the problem with TMPM and local government? If we are to have 

representative democracy, which is not necessarily the only way we can do things in the 

Pacific, it should absolutely be representative. In addition, we must acknowledge mana 

whenua and the three Māori seats as recommended by the Royal Commission on 

Auckland Governance. To my knowledge there is no local authority district in Aotearoa 

where two-thirds of the community is Pākehā men, yet 90 percent of local councils 

Pākehā men. Fifty percent of all communities are women, and many other cultures are 

well represented in most communities, but we will not see them on local authorities 

except in corners desperately trying to be heard. 

Mr Rodney Hide’s bill exacerbates the problem we have with TMPM syndrome. 

There will not be a choice to stand for the super-city council. An “at-large” voting 

system is about the money needed to establish name recognition before one can start to 

have a chance. That fact immediately marginalises tangata whenua and other people in 

the city. The system is also not about numbers. Even if Pākehā men were the majority, 

councils would still need to represent different perspectives. Tāmaki-makau-rau needs a 

vibrant system of participatory local government that uses creative techniques of 

engagement with the diversity of communities, whilst staying based on Te Tiriti o 

Waitangi. Māori are not a stakeholder to be consulted, but are the first nation, with 

whom we Pākehā—and I am speaking for the Green Party, which is predominantly 

Pākehā—via the Crown, need to negotiate relationships based on the article signed on 6 

February 1840. Te Waiōhua have made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, and hence the 

Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour are calling for the Prime Minister to support the 

recommendations of the royal commission on this issue. There will be a hīkoi, and we 

will support it with weary hearts as yet again the Crown pays lip-service to the Tiriti 

relationship but gatekeeps the actual political process. 

Unsurprisingly I expect to hear proponents of this bill say that if people want 

diversity in the super-city then they can vote for it, and if they want Māori seats they


will vote them in. We have heard this line of argument since 1800—that if the citizens 

at large want the Māori seats they will vote for them, and that there is no need to 

recognise mana whenua—let alone anyone else. Sadly, this argument flies in the face of 

everything we know about the history of political representation, Parliament being a 

case in point until MMP. Even since then the Māori seats have been essential to allow 

Māori voters self-determination, albeit in a Westminster-Pākehā hybrid framework, 

which is not exactly the tangata whenua or Pacific way. 

Yes, we could go to the citizens of Auckland and hold a referendum and ask them 

whether they would like to have the three Māori seats. 

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move that the question be— 

Hon Member: No, no. Take a call. 

COLIN KING: The time we are spending in the Chamber today is very important. It 

is significant from the point of view that we need to be very conscious about what we 

are actually here for. We are here at this time to be conscious of the importance of every 

citizen in New Zealand, but, more important, to be concerned that we do what is right 

and fair for the future of New Zealand. 

Many an amendment has been proposed from the Opposition today. When we look at 

the title of this particular proposed new Part 5, “The mechanisms to ensure 

representation of Māori, Pacific, and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the 

Auckland Council”, we start to understand the future vision that the other side of the 

Chamber is proposing. The Government of New Zealand is proposing to do away with 

those impediments that are holding back New Zealand, and have done for the last 9 

years under the previous Labour Government, which is now a very bewildered and 

confused Opposition. 

Those members continually try to divert people’s attentions away from the main 

issues, like ensuring that we have a united focus as a country and that we build up a 

future for this nation that we and our grandchildren can be proud of. We can form such 

a future by way of a combined city of Auckland that reaches its potential. We must all 

acknowledge that at the moment it is the young generations whose potential we want to 

realise, whether they are Māori, Pasifika, or people who come to New Zealand in the 

future. 

The proposed configuration of Auckland governance is presently being obstructed by 

a very distracted Opposition. It is an Opposition that had 9 years to do something 

positive for this country when it was Government, but, unfortunately, the Labour 

Government will be remembered for its wasteful 9 years in office. We now have a 

Government that is determined to make the very most of a situation, yet we tend to trifle 

around the edges at a time when we should be pulling together as a nation. I believe that 

we are at a stage here with the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that is 

certainly significant. The debate around the bill is hugely significant from our point of 

view because it is a contest of ideas. It is about the future and representation of the 

people. It is not about ideologies and contests to bewilder, confuse, and distract, which 

we hear from the Opposition. 

We have had some interesting debates and some very broad debates. Some have been 

well off the mark and have not concentrated on those things that will make a significant 

improvement not only to Auckland but also to the nation of New Zealand. Auckland is a 

shop window to the world, a capital city in the context of the largest city of New 

Zealand with 1.4 million people. It is very important that those citizens are comfortable 

in the knowledge that they have an overarching arrangement in Auckland that ensures 

we do not have the dislocation that there has been for many, many years. 

Every other New Zealander who looks at Auckland is bewildered that it does not 

have the cohesion that one would expect. The situation we find ourselves in today can


only point back to the previous administration, which lacked the courage and ability to 

take New Zealand forward. The Government today is endeavouring to address and work 

through what will be the most efficient and practical solution for the candidates, the 

citizens, and the arrangements that have existed in a dislocated fashion throughout 

Auckland’s recent history. Whether it is Māori, Pasifika, or other ethnic groups that 

need to be considered, let us move forward today. It is a goal to have one people and 

one nation. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be 

now put. 


Chairperson. All morning, all afternoon— 

Hon Annette King: That’s not a point of order. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —I am allowed, I am making my point—all last night, 

all day yesterday, and right from the start of this debate, Labour members have said 

“We want to debate this bill fully.” This afternoon, shortly after David Parker spoke, 

those Labour members have been trying to shut down debate on what they are 

describing as the most important bill for Auckland. My point is this— 

Hon Members: What’s the point of order? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the interjections are fair, in that 

the member should come to his point of order. There is a question before the 

Committee, which is that the question be now put. It is a relatively straightforward 

question. I am more than happy to hear the member’s point of order, providing it is 

about the question being now put. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My apologies. It is actually a point of irony. 

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I raise a point of order, Mr 

Chairperson. On a proposal about whether Māori, Pacific Island, and Asian seats will be 

put forward on to this council, why is Labour denying its own Pacific and Asian 

speakers the opportunity to speak on this amendment? Or is it trying to bury this 

proposal in order to try to dig its Māori MPs out of a hole for sacrificing the Māori seats 

and downgrading the status of Māori to that of other ethnic groups in Auckland? It is 

absolutely unacceptable. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Members, we are in a very interesting 

position here. We have had three closure motions put forward by National members that 

the question be now put. We are in the remarkable position of having the Opposition 

move that the question be now put. It is a procedural motion— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’d like to speak— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not think there is anything to speak 

about. The member may raise a point of order about the order of this matter, but not on 

the substance of it. 


Chairperson. We had two senior members of Labour giving impassioned speeches this 

afternoon and asking for more time to be taken on this matter. We have not moved a 

closure motion since those speeches. I think you need to consider whether the 

generosity of the Government in allowing Labour the time it wants for this debate is 

going to be abused. Or do we have confirmation that the entire attack from Labour is 

trivial? On the one hand those members asked for extra time and got it, but now they 

have decided they want to shut things down. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The proposition put to you by 

the Leader of the House is not correct. Since we have returned from lunch, Mr 

Macindoe sought a closure motion, and Mr King got two-thirds through a closure


motion before being told he was not to do that. So Mr Brownlee is not correct. I have 

moved a motion, and I would like you to consider the motion I have moved. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): A whole raft of 

amendments have been tabled. Under Standing Order 293(1)(c), as Minister in charge of 

this bill I require that consideration of this part be postponed to give the presiding 

officer time to prepare the papers. 


Chairperson. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I can probably be helpful and 

say that my reading of the Standing Orders means that you do not have any discretion in 

this matter. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I say to the honourable member on 

this matter that I think I agree. I will confirm with the Clerk precisely the effect of this. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I raise a point 

of order, Mr Chairperson. I may also be able to help the Committee. 


Chairperson. I raised a point of order before Mr John Carter. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Can I just first say to the honourable 

Hone Harawira that I heard the point of order. I did not think it was particularly relevant 

to this. The Hon Darren Hughes had moved a procedural motion. It is not debatable, it is 

not about content and it is then for the Committee to decide. I have the choice of 

whether I put the motion. I was in the process of making that decision. In the meantime 

the situation has changed because the Minister in charge of the bill has exerted his right 

under Standing Order 293(1)(c), which states: “the member in charge of the bill requires 

that consideration or further consideration of a part or other provisions be postponed.” 

The Minister is now saying that he is postponing consideration of that part, and that is 

his right—it is his motion. If that right is exercised, then the debate on this stops. The 

Hon John Carter has a point of order. Once I have dealt with his I will come back to the 

member. 


Chairman. I raised a second point of order before Mr John Carter rose to make a point 

of order. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just told the member I am going to 

listen to John Carter first and I will come back to that member second. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I am not 

raising a new point; I am speaking to the point of order following that of Mr Mallard. I 

am hoping to help the Committee by saying that you are quite right that the Minister, as 

you have already stated, has the right to make that decision and postpone, and it is not 

debatable. It is the right of the member in charge of the bill. That is the advice that I 

have sought and that is the motion that— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): All right. I now call the honourable 

member Hone Harawira. 

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I was simply going to say 

that, although I respect the right of Mr Hughes to call for the motion to be taken, that 

does not deny the right of other members to stand and ask for the call. Is that correct? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, that is not quite correct. Members 

might stand to seek the call but once a member has sought and moved the motion that 

the question be now put it is the Chair’s decision as to whether the question is put. If it 

is put, the Committee will decide whether the question is put. If the Chair decides not to 

take the motion, then of course the floor is open for other members to take a call at that 

point.



Chairperson. I have two points of order to raise with you. First, regarding the status of 

the motion that I moved, you will have to give a decision on whether the question would 

be put. Second, in respect of the Minister in charge of the bill not wanting to consider 

the bill that is in urgency before the Committee at the present time, when we return to 

this part we will be at the point after my closure motion. That is my first point of order. 

My second point of order relates to the time factor in which the Minister in charge of 

the bill wants to postpone consideration of this part. We will need to know what time 

we are going to come back to that, in order to consider it, because we have other parts 

ahead to debate. If we get ourselves into a position where we have finished those parts 

and have to report progress, the opportunity for this part to be voted on by the 

Committee and for the amendments to be considered by the Committee will not come. I 

am presuming it is not a catch-all, so that the Minister can delay for consideration just 

this part for another day—whatever that might mean. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I have now had time to 

consider Standing Order 293 as far as (4)(a) and (4)(b). I was under the impression that 

the Minister was not specific on his delay, and therefore the effect of what he has done 

is to put this right down to the bottom before the preliminary clauses. So we will do the 

other 27 or 28 parts, unless they get similarly deferred, and then we will come back to 

this at the end before we deal with the preliminary clauses—probably on Thursday or 

Friday, maybe. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): We have a very interesting position 

here. I cannot remember the Committee being in this gymnastic position before. It is a 

very unusual twist and I think that people who are listening to this will be unaware that 

there are other circumstances outside this Chamber that are driving this and the 

timeliness of it. But, firstly, to the simple point: the situation, as I understand it, is that 

the Hon Darren Hughes has moved a closure motion, at which point I was about to 

consider whether we should put it. Then enter stage right the Hon Rodney Hide, who 

says that he wants to exercise his authority as the member in charge of the bill to have 

the consideration of this part or provision postponed. That is his right; there is no 

argument about it. At the moment that occurs, it then freezes everything on this part; it 

is simply sealed in an envelope and pushed to one side. So we do not deal with the 

closure motion from this point; the whole lot is locked up and is moved. 

We then go to Standing Order 293(4)(a), the part I would rely on here, which states: 

“any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt 

with, other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. It seems to me that 

the Standing Order is saying to us that we are now reorganising things so that this part, 

which is in the name of Shane Jones, now moves right to the back of the queue and we 

now start on the next part that we have for consideration. At the point we reopen it, will 

be the time we then consider—I suspect I will get some advice from the Clerk on this— 

the motion moved by the Hon Darren Hughes. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: Right at the end, just before the preliminary clause. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is correct. If the Clerk advises me 

differently on that I will come back to you but that is as I see it at that point. 

New Part 5 postponed. 

New Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): This new part will be 

vigorously debated by Labour members. There has been one of the sneakiest attempts I 

have ever seen to strip the working women of Auckland—and, for that matter, in a 

minor way, the men as well—of their right to paid parental leave. This Government is


trying, by a change of employer, to take away the current entitlements of the pregnant 

women of Auckland. Having Judith Collins as the Minister in the chair is the most 

massive irony, because a woman from Auckland is taking from her sisters the right to 

paid parental leave. 

There are women who quite carefully and properly have timed their pregnancies in 

order to get paid parental leave. It is something that thousands of women, including 

hundreds— 

Hon Tau Henare: How do you do that? 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Tau Henare wants to know how one times a 

pregnancy. I plead guilty to not having a lot of expertise in it myself, but I want to make 

the point— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It appears as though 

there are no copies of new Part 12 on the Table at the moment. I am sorry to interrupt 

the member; no doubt he got his copy from his research unit, which we do not have 

access to. I cannot see it; there are none on this side of the Table. [Interruption] 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Please, members. The floor is the Hon 

Gerry Brownlee’s. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They are not here. I cannot see them on this side of the Table. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): If the member’s complaint is that there 

are no amendments from Steve Chadwick on the Table, I think that is a legitimate 

complaint. Members should have access to the paperwork, and I ask the Clerk’s Office 

to do the necessary work to bring the paperwork to the Table for them. But that should 

not in any way interrupt, stymie, or stop the flow of the debate. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This is a relatively simple matter. Under the paid 

parental leave legislation, a woman has to work for a particular period of time—6 

months—before she is entitled to paid parental leave. She has to be with an employer 

for that length of time. It is one of the debatable points of the legislation. Labour, when 

last in Government, considered whether that period should be reduced or whether it 

should be there at all. But it is clear that an entitlement is triggered by employment with 

a particular employer. 

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill changes the employer 

without a proper transitional provision to carry forward the entitlement, with the effect 

of taking away the entitlements of women in Auckland who are employed by any of the 

eight councils—the seven territorial local authorities and the one regional authority. I 

say to members I had some doubts about this provision. I was not sure when I first saw 

this provision. I said surely it would not be true, and surely the right would be there. But 

then it was pointed out to me that, firstly, the provision binds the Crown, and, 

secondly—and even more interestingly—the KiwiSaver legislation has a transitional 

provision with regard to the employer. Why is people’s entitlement to KiwiSaver 

maintained with a change of employer, but a woman who is pregnant does not have an 

entitlement to paid parental leave? It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—and it is 

shameful. 

I make it clear that this is yet another reason why this bill should go to a select 

committee. It should go to a select committee so that this cock-up—the one where John 

Banks can put in Sam’s replacement—can be fixed. It is a relatively simple matter of 

fairness. I am informed by my colleague Annette King that 50 percent of women’s 

pregnancies are planned, so why should a woman employed by one of those councils 

who has planned her pregnancy around her entitlement to paid parental leave have that 

entitlement expunged? Why should she have that money taken from her as a result of 

this legislation? It might be all right for rich Tories.


MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to take a call on this very important 

part. This is an indication of why it is so important that we spend time in this Chamber 

reviewing what this legislation actually does. It is being rammed through. It is not going 

through the select committee process, whereby members of the public can come along 

and have their say, and whereby parliamentarians can look clause by clause at the nittygritty 

of the legislation, to make sure that something has not slipped through that would 

have an unintended consequence, or an intended consequence that the people of 

Auckland do not want. We have found one of those here, which concerns paid parental 

leave. 

We know that the Government does not like paid parental leave. It was a dead rat 

that Government members had to swallow, because they knew that taking it away 

would be too unpopular. But we have here legislation that removes the right of women 

who work at these councils to have their paid parental leave entitlement carried over in 

the transitional period. What will happen is that whenever this legislation passes, 

basically the eight elected councils in Auckland, as they are known today, will cease to 

exist. They will cease to exist as employers, and we will move to a transitional 

arrangement up until the next local body elections. Because the employer is to change, it 

means that unless we put in this very simple amendment to make it clear that there is no 

intention to stop the paid parental leave entitlement, those women will lose their 

entitlement. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, whether the 

Government will be supporting this amendment. 

There are two options here: this situation is the result of either a conspiracy or a 

cock-up. Usually in such cases there has been a cock-up; that is the reality. If it is a 

conspiracy, it means that in an underhand, back-door way the Government is using this 

process to undermine paid parental leave. If we go with the alternative point of view, 

which is that this is just a cock-up, then the Government should have no problem in 

supporting a very simple amendment to clarify it is not intended that women who work 

for these local authorities will lose their paid parental leave entitlement. I will be 

watching very carefully to see what the Government does with regard to this particular 

amendment. 

We know that Government members will not take any calls, apart from closure 

motions, unless they suddenly decide there is a procedural reason why they need to start 

filibustering on their own legislation. I hope Colin King makes another fantastic speech 

on this issue. The Labour Party cannot wait to put his speech on Māori representation 

on its blog Red Alert as the only National speech on Māori representation. That will be 

fantastic. I am looking forward to Mr Colin King taking a call on this particular 

amendment. 

The amendment is very, very simple. It states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the 

rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental 

Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.” If members of this Committee have no 

problem with regard to the women of Auckland who work for these local authorities 

keeping their paid parental leave provisions, then they will support this amendment. If 

the National Party and the ACT Party are genuinely trying to undermine paid parental 

leave—and they are well on record as not liking it—then they will oppose it. This will 

be a very, very interesting vote. Mr Brownlee, the Leader of the House, looks like he is 

poised to jump up. He has been trying to make out that everything that is going through 

this House has been frivolous. That is not the case. We have had to buy time to actually 

look at what this legislation does. We have said to Mr Brownlee that if the Government 

sends the bill to a select committee, he can go home now. If Government members send 

it to a select committee, the debate will end. But they will not do that, because they do


not want the people of Auckland to find out about things like this fish-hook, which says 

paid parental leave would be undermined. 

I say it is the job of a good Opposition to scrutinise the law. Let us not forget that 

every minute that we spend in this Chamber debating this legislation is another minute 

that Aucklanders continue to be run by their democratically elected councils, and not the 

unelected anti-democratic bureaucracy that Mr Brownlee, Mr Hide, and Mr John Key 

want to put in charge in Auckland. I think that is reason enough for us to be here today 

debating this part. I look forward to Mr Gerry Brownlee’s speech. Maybe we will see, 

for the first time, the Government being rolled and, in desperation, having to support a 

Labour Party amendment because Gerry is on the job. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): I am a little 

perplexed as to why this particular part has been allowed to be debated today. Let us 

read the entire part. Clause 250 states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and 

entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and 

Employment Protection Act 1987.” The next clause, clause 251, states: 

“Notwithstanding anything in this Act, all current councils and all new councils created 

under this legislation will be related employers for the purposes of the Parental Leave 

and Employment Protection Act.” 

I want the Clerk at the Table to listen to this, because it is a very important point and 

it would be good if the Clerk would listen. Will we be going through the farcical 

situation over the next few days whereby the Clerk’s Office accepts new parts of this 

bill that simply restate the existing law? 

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to 

my point of order. The first is that it is not appropriate for the member to deal with 

questions of procedure, which should be dealt with by you, in the middle of a speech 

rather than by raising a point of order. Secondly, it is completely inappropriate— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not a point of order. 

Hon David Cunliffe: That is my point, if Mr Brownlee would listen to it; 

interjecting on a point of order, as the member knows as Leader of the House, is outside 

the Standing Orders. My second point is that it is inappropriate for any member of this 

Committee, let alone a senior member and let alone the Leader of the House, to exert 

influence over the staff of the Office of the Clerk. If he wishes to make a comment 

about House procedure, he should direct it to you, Mr Chairperson; he should do it 

through a point of order, not through a speech; and he should not harangue the Clerk. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I make two points. Firstly, I do 

not think anybody in this Committee who has been here a while would believe that the 

Clerk’s Office would be moved by any pressure by any member on any point. In actual 

fact, members have often complained that the Clerk’s Office is immovable to any 

pressure on any point. Secondly, I do not think it is necessarily good for the member to 

address the issues to the Clerk directly. Yes, the Clerk has an influence over these 

things, but I feel that the member should direct the issues to the Chair, as the Chair is 

responsible for them. If the member is grumpy about decisions, then he should heap it 

upon the Chair, as the Chair’s shoulders are big enough to take all of his discontent on 

this issue. But members should direct issues at me, not the Clerk. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I suppose I am somewhat surprised that it now seems 

that in the days ahead the Labour Party is going to introduce to this bill new parts that 

reconfirm existing law. I know that the Labour Party is now struggling with its 27 parts, 

so here is another one from me: “That all council vehicles will obey all the rules of the 

road while they are operating for the council.” That could be a new part. Then, of 

course, any number of other existing pieces of law could be put into a new part.


I cannot understand why the Labour Party cannot work out that existing, settled law 

is just that. Nothing in this bill can undo other laws. That is not possible. Poor old 

Darren over there is scratching his head and tapping his head; I assume he is trying to 

stay awake, but I am not sure. It is pretty darn simple. The transition authority, which 

this bill is about, gathers together the opportunities that exist for the creation of the new 

council. A third bill is coming, and I want to say very emphatically that this bill does 

not impose the new transition agency in the role of employer; it simply puts a duty on 

that authority to work with— 

Hon Darren Hughes: It does so! 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, that is the point, is it not? We have written this 

bill over a long period of time and we understand it; that side of the Committee does 

not. It will be a sad day for Parliament if all existing law is to be somehow turned into a 

new part of this bill for the Committee to consider. It is an utter nonsense. It is a 

pathetic device, and it utterly trivialises the process of Parliament. 

It is sad to me that a party that went out to set up this whole process in the first place 

is now so desperate that it has to resort to these sorts of beltway tactics in order to make 

itself feel good. Are we going to see more of it? I suspect we will. I suspect that 

throughout the afternoon the statute book will come out and every little bit of law that 

relates to anybody’s activity anywhere— 

Hon Maryan Street: That’s our job. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —will somehow be written up into a new part. They 

are confirming it. Maryan Street is confirming it. That is the tactic. David Parker was 

right that this is a massive filibuster. The only thing I will say about Trevor Mallard is 

that he is probably going to get me out of a hole. He said the bill will be passed on 

Thursday, but I guess in the end it is our choice which Thursday. 

It is very, very sad for Parliament to see this sort of part accepted into this type of 

bill. It would be interesting to know where the connection is that has caused the concern 

and, I think, the mock outrage expressed by members of the Opposition today. This bill 

is about an authority that will gather up the other eight authorities in Auckland to work 

with them in order to ensure that the transition to the new one-Auckland council, which 

will not even be settled until September, is successful. It is an utterly pathetic effort. 

SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the right to speak 

in this debate. Over the course of the last 3 days I have not had the opportunity to 

participate. The Government has been so keen to close down debate on this bill that— 

never mind the people of Auckland getting a say—as a member of Parliament, I have 

not been able to take a call yet. 

Hon David Cunliffe: We need longer. 

SUE MORONEY: We need significantly longer on all these parts. I have wanted to 

comment on many of them and, to date, I have not been able to. 

In regard to this new part in particular, I am pleased to rise and take a call to stop the 

Government from taking away the ability of employees of local body authorities in 

Auckland to have paid parental leave in the transitional period. If Mr Brownlee had read 

the legislation, he might realise this. Mr Brownlee’s speech was very important, because 

it reminded us of exactly why this bill should be going to a select committee. The 

Minister does not realise what occurred yesterday during this very debate on this very 

legislation. His own Government moved to withdraw a provision before the Committee, 

and in doing that it actually put at risk paid parental leave for women employees of 

councils. He has not even worked out that that clause—and if my colleague would be 

good enough to pass me his copy of the bill— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Clause 36.


SUE MORONEY: Yes; clause 36(1). So he knows that the Government put forward 

an amendment to take this clause out. I will read out that clause, which the Government 

took out of the bill yesterday. Clause 36 is headed “Transfer of remaining employees”, 

and subclause (1) states: “Every person who is an employee of an existing local 

authority immediately before the close of 31 October 2010 becomes an employee of the 

Auckland Council”—that is the transitional body—“on the same terms and conditions 

as applied immediately before he or she became an employee of the Council.” 

I read that clause out because that is what the Government removed from the 

legislation yesterday. That is why we are putting forward an amendment, in the name of 

the Hon Steve Chadwick, to add New Part 12. We want to guarantee that women—and 

men, actually—who are about to have children can take paid parental leave. 

It is no surprise that National is trying this on, because every single time the issue of 

paid parental leave has been put before Parliament, it has voted against it. National has 

voted against paid parental leave on every single occasion. That is why it is the job of 

the Opposition to watch out for this, and to make sure that the Government does not slip 

in something like this. That is exactly why the people of Auckland—and, in fact, the 

people of New Zealand—should have the right to see this bill referred to a select 

committee. These are the very questions that need to be addressed. They are complex 

situations, and we do need to ensure that all the rights of these employees are protected. 

As I said, it is no surprise that National is doing this. Just last week, National also 

canned the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce. So it is no wonder National 

members are trying to make sure that there are no rights for these employees going 

forward. National members have removed that provision from the bill. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is utter rubbish. 

SUE MORONEY: No, it is absolutely true. They did it to ensure that the 

employment terms and conditions did not automatically transfer through to the 

transitional authority. 

This is a serious issue, because 6,300 employees are involved in these eight councils. 

They need to know—and they should have the right to ask this question—why the 

Government has taken out of this bill those workers’ right to have the same terms and 

conditions that they have worked many years to acquire. Why did National move to take 

that right away from them as it moves towards this sham of a transitional body? It is an 

important question, because the very act of creating that transitional body changes the 

employer and, therefore, the employment circumstances of 6,300 workers. This is an 

issue that will be important to the families of Auckland. If National members do not 

think that paid parental leave is important, then they are wrong. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): Now we 

understand what the deal is. It is right that yesterday clause 36 was taken out of the 

Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was set aside because that matter 

will be dealt with in a successive bill. Two further bills will be dealt with before the 

Auckland Council is established. [Interruption] If members would just calm down, I 

will explain it all to them. 

Firstly, it is worth noting that this particular part, new Part 12, refers to the transfer of 

remaining employees. These are employees who are not part of the transition in the 

initial stages. It is important that they are protected. National understands that. Labour 

members wanted to muck around so much with the bill that they put up 8,000 

amendments to this particular part. That is utterly absurd. National has said: “All right, a 

select committee can deal with this, and it will be included in a successive bill that deals 

with the Auckland transition arrangements.” The members opposite know that is how 

this works. Even today, they are putting up their own little part, and then they want to 

amend it. Here we have an exceptionally confused Opposition engaging in mock


outrage over the employees of these organisations, when the harsh reality is that the 

Government is well aware of the issues, and is doing the right things to ensure those 

protections are there. 

No one can contract out of employment obligations put in the law. Opposition 

members can wave all the bits of paper they like, and they can get as excited as they 

like, but they are simply wrong. So we have the absurd situation of Moana Mackey 

asking what harm there was in putting this provision in the bill. That is like asking why 

the 50 kilometre per hour rule should not go in the bill, or why all the pedestrian rules 

should not go into the bill. That is like asking why a raft of other civil matters that are 

part of legislation should not be included in the bill, or why everything on the statute 

book should not be included. The reality is that that is an absurdity. When the law 

applies, it applies, and one cannot contract out of it. 

Our friends on the other side of the Chamber are as confused as ever. I would love to 

know—and here is the real question—what is so wrong with a select committee 

considering this issue, because that is what Labour is now opposed to. National has said 

that a select committee should consider this matter. We have taken the provision out of 

the bill so that a select committee can consider it. Mr Hide has said there is an issue 

here, and we will remove it from this bill. Labour members have put up 8,000 

objections to protecting workers, so the Government will let the select committee decide 

which of those amendments are valid and which are not. Then, Labour comes back 

today and starts putting into the bill another part—another couple of hours of Parliament 

wasting its time—to put in place a law that already exists. I hope Labour members 

recognise that it is time to get off this silly course and to let this part be dealt with. They 

can bring in their 20,000 amendments that they claim they have sitting in the back 

room, and Parliament can once again go into this farcical situation of voting down the 

nonsensical, halfwitted thoughts of Labour members. 

I will make it abundantly clear that, in the action the Government has taken, there is 

no intention to remove from this bill the protections for employees who will be left over 

after the transfer—far from it. National wants a select committee to consider what is 

right and fair. Why does Labour oppose that? 

Grant Robertson: Send the whole bill to the select committee. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If Labour members oppose the whole bill, why are 

they so hell-bent on changing it from top to bottom with the raft of ridiculous 

amendments that we are seeing? The trivial pursuit exercise that the Labour members 

are engaged in is a great tribute to the Labour research unit. There is no doubt about it. 

The members of the unit are clearly the brains of the Labour Party. Labour does not put 

its brains up front; it puts its beautiful people up front. And that must also call into 

question the quality of the brains that back up Labour members. It is with considerable 

regret that the Government will not be supporting this part. It is utterly ridiculous and it 

is completely stupid. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Gerry Brownlee needs to 

understand Newton’s first law of holes: when in a hole, stop digging. Gerry Brownlee 

said the Government has no intention of threatening the principle of paid parental leave, 

and that the matter should go to a select committee. I say “Bravo!” to “Mr Mander”—he 

is known as “Gerry Mander” because of the overall intent of the Local Government 

(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—because he has hit the nail on the head. It is rather a 

large hammer, but he has hit the nail on the head. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have worked very 

hard to get an extraordinary range of nicknames in this Parliament, but I really do not 

like that one.


The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sure the member will be able to 

rectify that and have his say in future speeches. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I withdraw the epithet. The Opposition and the 

Government are actually in direct agreement on this point of paid parental leave. The 

Labour Opposition and the National Government, led by the esteemed Leader of the 

House, agree on two things: firstly, that the principle of paid parental leave is too 

important to be left in doubt, and that there is no harm in having a provision for the 

avoidance of doubt; and, secondly, that the matter should be sent to a select committee 

if there is any doubt on it at all. 

I say to Gerry Brownlee that if the Government agrees to those two things, then he 

can go home; otherwise, it will be a long day and a long night. I will tell members why. 

Paid parental leave is really important because when people need it, they have no choice 

but to need it. It is not possible to be half-pregnant. If a woman is pregnant and 

expecting a child, she is well down the track. It is therefore essential that women can 

rely on the terms and conditions of their employment when they most need to rely on 

them. 

There is a delicious irony here. The women and men of Labour are standing up for 

the rights of women and families, but the men of National are prepared to ignore those 

rights. Are the women of National leaping to their feet in defence of family rights? I ask 

why the Minister of Corrections does not rise to say “Harden up, ladies!”. Where is the 

Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police at this time? What about the Associate 

Minister of Immigration? What about any one of the innumerable blonde members from 

the South Island? What are they doing at this time? Amy Adams is a wise and capable 

member—she is even a lawyer, I believe—so why does she not rise to her feet in 

defence of the women of Auckland’s regional government and tell them that their paid 

parental leave will be guaranteed because this good, great, new, caring, conservative, 

and centrist John Key Government will protect them? No, I guess she will not. 

Why is the Government rushing this bill through the House when it does not come 

into force until November? Why does the bill have more holes in it than a Swiss 

cheese? Why does the bill have more air between its ears than the Leader of the House? 

Why does the bill need the Labour Opposition to comb through it to find all the little 

things that a select committee would find? The answer is that there is a hidden agenda. 

That is why we are here, unusually—in fact, historically—on a Saturday. We are here 

because we are the last line of defence for the democratic rights of Aucklanders. The 

Minister the Hon Rodney Hide, who is giggling, knows he has the sole authority under 

this bill to appoint a coterie of three henchmen to gut Auckland. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I move, That 

the question be now put. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I certainly want to speak on this important amendment, 

new Part 12. But before I do, I say how thrilled I am that people in Wellington have 

taken the time to come to Parliament to listen to this debate. That means that we in 

Wellington are well-prepared for when our turn comes, as it most certainly will once the 

Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill has been foisted on the people of 

Auckland. The Government will then turn its attention to other parts of New Zealand, 

and Wellington will be one of those parts. So it is great to see everyone here. We will be 

up with the play and aware of what is happening. Already there are calls from the 

Mayor of Wellington and others for a similar sort of forced amalgamation here in 

Wellington. So I thank those people very much for coming out today. 

The other thing I want to do is table ACT’s policy on local government. The 

National Party has asked us to give it proof that a privatisation agenda is lurking 

beneath this bill. Here is the proof positive. Everyone can read it for themselves: “Local


government will be required to shed its commercial activity … Roads and piped water 

will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.”, etc. I would like to table that policy so 

everyone can be quite clear as to why we have the suspicion that the ACT agenda is to 

privatise the $28 billion of assets in Auckland. People can read it for themselves. 

The other thing I take issue with is some of Gerry Brownlee’s comments. He said 

that nothing in this bill can override any other bill. In fact, the reason we are here today 

is that the bill overrides the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 that stipulate 

that there should be a formal consultation and a poll of electors in any part of New 

Zealand where a reorganisation takes place. This bill has overridden the right of 

Aucklanders to have a poll in order to make a decision about whether they want to see 

their eight councils obliterated and whether they want this new, highly centralised 

Auckland Council to be foisted upon them. This bill overrides the other bills. I do not 

know why Mr Gerry Brownlee suggested that it could not override other bills, because 

it does. 

Then he asked why we would assume that this bill would take away the right to 

parental leave of the women who are part of the 6,300 employees in the existing 

councils. Well, why would we not assume that the rights were going to be taken away, 

when the bill takes away virtually everything else in Auckland governance? The bill 

takes away the rights of eight existing local councils to be sovereign and to implement 

the wishes of their electors. It effectively ties the local councils’ hands behind their 

backs, and they will have to go cap in hand every time they want to spend more than 

about $5,000. So why would we not assume that this bill seeks to override the rights of 

women employees to have paid parental leave? 

It is incredible that we are debating the issue of paid parental leave. I have actually 

been doing some research, in between coming to the Chamber, on women’s liberation. 

Paid parental leave was one of the things that women were calling for in 1970. Here we 

are in 2009 and the National Government is seeking to take away paid parental leave. It 

is truly alarming, which is why this amendment is so critical. If the Government is not 

trying to take away the rights of women to paid parental leave in the transition, why 

would it not allow this amendment for the avoidance of doubt? 

The other thing that I would like to table today is a definition of “blitzkrieg”. That is 

what is being done here. One of the fundamental tactics of Rogernomics is speed—do 

not give people a minute to breathe, just keep moving, and give them no time for 

reflection. Blitzkrieg was developed in Nazi Germany. Major General Fuller defined 

blitzkrieg as “Speed, and still more speed, and always speed was the secret … and that 

demanded audacity, more audacity and always audacity.” 


put. 

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This is a very important matter and I find it very 

troubling that Mr Brownlee thinks that this is silly or trivial. We are not being silly or 

trivial. 

Hon Tau Henare: He said you’re silly and trivial. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my 

colleague. Mr Brownlee certainly did not say that you were silly or trivial, as Tau 

Henare has accused him of doing. If we are going to have those interjections, I think 

that he has to get them right. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. Members 

should make sure they are relevant when they are interjecting. 

CAROL BEAUMONT: This matter is not silly or trivial. 

I want to support the amendment that my colleague Steve Chadwick has put up. This 

bill affects assets of $28 billion, but, more important, it affects the working conditions


of 6,300 workers. These workers are people—people with families, people with 

mortgages, and people who are our neighbours and families. Frankly, it is important that 

we get this right. We have raised a legitimate concern about whether the actions of the 

Government have put at risk people’s right to paid parental leave. This is something that 

is certainly seen as very important on this side of the Chamber, and something that a 

number of us on this side of the Chamber campaigned very hard for. That is why this 

bill should go to a select committee, so that we can make sure that important things like 

people’s right to paid parental leave are not at risk. I would be very glad if they were not 

at risk, but there seem to be at least two possible reasons why they may be. 

The first of those is the removal of clause 36(1), and the second one is that later in 

that same clause there is an explicit reference to continuity of employment for the 

purposes of KiwiSaver. There is a principle of statutory interpretation that if one 

explicitly refers to one thing, it means that if other things are not explicitly referred to, 

they are not covered. At least it has raised some very significant questions. As my friend 

and colleague Sue Moroney said, this could be a cock-up or it could be a conspiracy. 

Either way, potentially there are risks. A cock-up is highly probable, given the way that 

this bill is being rammed through the House. It is entirely possible that this is a cock-up, 

and that that is not the intention of the Government. That at least is a little reassuring. 

However, it could well be that this is yet another example of attacks on workers and 

attacks on women by this Government. As evidence of that, in the last few days this 

Government has got rid of the pay and employment equity unit at the Department of 

Labour. Why? Does it not matter to people that women are paid fairly for the work they 

do? On the conspiracy side of the equation, the fact that we have a Minister of Women’s 

Affairs who does not seem to have the slightest idea about anything in her portfolio 

area— 

Carmel Sepuloni: Who is the Minister? 

CAROL BEAUMONT: —I think her name is Pansy Wong. She does not seem to 

have any idea of what is going on in her portfolio. We have a Minister of Labour who 

seems hell-bent on reducing workers’ rights. We have tried during this debate to make 

sure that workers’ rights are looked after. A new part was put up this morning about 

personnel provisions. We talked about getting some principles, like good-employer 

principles, into this legislation. I want to ask what is wrong with that. Why are members 

opposite opposed to good-employer principles? In other local government 

amalgamations that have taken place, it has been an absolute cornerstone of the 

legislation to make sure that employment rights are centre stage. 

Getting it right for the people who work for local authorities is important, not only to 

those workers but also to the people in that area in order to make sure that those workers 

are able to get on and do their job without worrying that they are going to either lose 

their job or have their wages and conditions of employment reduced. Queensland is a 

very good example of this. I am holding up now the code of practice, which was agreed 

by all parties, to ensure that people were not made redundant, that people’s jobs were 

actually guaranteed for 3 years, and that their wages and conditions were fully 

guaranteed, as was their right to be represented by unions. Queensland was able to 

conduct one of the smoothest local government amalgamations that has been seen. That 

is in direct contrast to what happened in South Australia, where a whole lot of people 

lost their jobs. There was a lot of nervousness and concern, and, in fact, there were very 

significant service provision problems for the people of South Australia, not to mention 

the effect that the amalgamation had on the workers and their families. 

Frankly, I think it is really important that Steve Chadwick has put up this 

amendment, and we should think very seriously about whether you are going to make 

sure that people are not disadvantaged.


The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Not me. 

CAROL BEAUMONT: Sorry, of course you would not be doing this. The members 

opposite need to be very, very confident that they are not making workers lose their 

entitlements. To go back to the matter at hand, this issue is important because—and I 

say this for the benefit of those who do not know—to get paid parental leave a worker 

has to have had 6 months’ continuous service with an employer. I will give a little 

example—a very current example—which involves the National Party and a staff 

member working for the Labour Party who came across from Ministerial Services. Her 

employment contract ended and she had to take a new contract with the Parliamentary 

Service. She was pregnant at the time of the election, which meant she missed out on 

getting paid parental leave by 1 month. We tried to deal with that matter with National, 

and I say for the record—and this perhaps goes back to the conspiracy side of the 

equation—that National was completely uninterested in trying to resolve that problem 

for that particular worker. Perhaps some of the women over on the other side of the 

Chamber should think about what that means. Paid parental leave is a very important 

employment right in the current economic environment where things are very tough for 

people. 

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I move, That the question be now put. 

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I appreciate having the opportunity to 

continue the debate. At every step of this debate, while the Opposition members have 

demanded their say on bits and pieces of the Local Government (Auckland 

Reorganisation) Bill, the Government, on the other hand, has moved closure motions to 

put an end to the debate. I say to the Government that Labour is determined to have its 

say and is determined to recognise that Aucklanders’ views are important. For that 

reason, I rise to speak on proposed new Part 12 about the paid parental leave 

entitlement—to ensure that the voices of our women throughout Auckland, and 

especially those in Manukau City, are recognised and heard. The proposed amendment 

has two purposes: to give confidence to the women in Manukau City and the other 

seven local and territorial authorities throughout Auckland that their paid parental leave 

will be protected, and to provide protection and confidence to the close to 7,000 

workers who are effected by the restructuring and reorganisation of Auckland councils. 

When I look across to the other side of the Chamber, I see the member Dr Jackie 

Blue. I notice that she has been angry and frustrated throughout this debate. No doubt, 

as a member from the Auckland region, she is reflecting the anger and frustration that 

the people of Auckland are feeling about this particular debate. She is sitting on her 

own, away from the rest of her colleagues. She is the member who should have been the 

Minister of Health. Her anger and frustration are a reflection of the way that people 

throughout the Auckland region are feeling; they are angry and frustrated that this 

Government is not prepared to allow public consultation on the bill by sending it to a 

select committee. That is all that the Government has to do. I invite Dr Jackie Blue to 

take a call. She should not worry about what the whips are telling her to do; she should 

take a call on this amendment and stand up for women in the Auckland region. Close to 

7,000 workers will be affected by the reorganised structure. It would not be so bad if 

just young, single people were involved, but probably 50 to 60 percent of the workforce 

is women—married, middle-aged women with children—and if they have mortgages, 

they have a real sense of fear about what will happen. 

It is also important that the Committee votes in support of the proposed new Part 12 

because earlier the Government voted down a motion moved by Charles Chauvel—one 

of my colleagues—that the Government put in place a code of practice that honours and 

delivers the principle of protecting the workers affected. I have a concern about the 

workers for the various council-controlled organisations such as Manukau Water. I have


been given a secret document, which states: “It is worth noting that barely 24 hours 

after the Government announced its decision—which expressly didn’t mention 

Watercare as the provider—the Minister of Local Government sent out a media release 

which effectively reversed that position and said Watercare would be the provider … 

there is a secret transition plan [that] is beneficial to private sector companies supported 

by that Minister. This plan will see more than 500 people currently employed in the 

water industry lose their jobs in favour of private sector contractors.” Those workers are 

additional to the close to 7,000 workers I mentioned. It is an outrage that Aucklanders 

who are listening to this debate and who want their views on it to be heard are finding 

that it is being shut down by the closure motions that members of the Government keep 

moving. The Government needs to listen to Aucklanders and to allow their views on 

this debate and on this particular bill to be heard. 

The disturbing thing throughout the debate is that the Minister of Local Government, 

Rodney Hide, and Mr Key have been promoting the bill as simply a technical bill, but 

the reality is that the bill changes everything. The bill takes away the powers and rights 

of councillors and mayors elected in 2007, because with the setting up of the Auckland 

Transition Agency the powers are given to three or four people handpicked by Rodney 

Hide who are then given the power to decide what happens within the local councils. I 

say again that all that this Government needs to do is send this bill to a select 

committee. 


A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 42 



The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve 

Chadwick be agreed to: 


Part 12 

Paid Parental Leave Entitlement 

250 Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any 

territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 

1987. 

251 Notwithstanding anything in the Act, all current councils and any new council 

created under this legislation will be related employees for the purposes of the 

Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. 


Ayes 42 


Noes 64 



The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to a series of transcript 

amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4. I will read them out. 

The first proposed new Part 4 is “Amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001”. The


amendments seek to amend substantially another Act, and therefore could change the 

bill into an omnibus bill; the amendment is therefore out of order. I refer the member to 

Standing Orders 256 and 257. The next amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley is to 

insert a new Part 4, “Auckland Rail Transport Transition”. This amendment is outside 

the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and 

targets. 

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to challenge 

your ruling, but— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Could I read them through first, and then I 

will give the member the opportunity to take a point of order. The next amendment is to 

insert a new Part 4, “Transport Funding Transition”. This amendment is also outside the 

scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. 

The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Amendments to the Land Transport Act 

1998”. This amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with 

governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new 

Part 4, “Transition Cost Recovery Plastic Bag Levy”. This amendment is outside the 

scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. 

The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4, “Cruelty Free Auckland Ports”. This 

amendment is outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not 

operational aspects and targets. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 amending— 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you make 

clear whether these are still Sue Kedgley’s amendments? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, they are. The next amendment inserts 

a new Part 4 amending the Overseas Investment Act 2005. This amendment is out of 

order, as it proposes a substantive amendment to another Act. The next amendment 

inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transition to Sustainable Investment”. Part 3 of the bill 

sets up a transitional agency, and all provisions relating to it are logically found there. 

The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt 

with by the Committee, so the amendment is therefore out of order. The next 

amendment inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transitional Agency Civil and Political 

Rights”. Part 3 of the bill sets up a transitional agency, and all provisions relating to it 

are logically found there. The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with 

clause 13, in Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt with by the Committee, so the amendment is 

therefore out of order. 

Those are the amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley that I have ruled out of order. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot 

understand how you can rule that this bill deals only with substantive amendments and 

does not deal with operational amendments, when the bill deals with incredibly detailed 

operational matters. You need only to look at clause 31, which says the councils are not 

allowed even to enter into a contract of more than $5,000 without the approval of the 

Auckland Transition Agency. Very, very detailed operational matters are outlined in 

other parts of the bill. I cannot understand how it can be argued that the bill does not 

deal with operational matters, when, in fact, the whole bill is full of them. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My interpretation in my ruling relates to 

the preliminary provisions of the bill. They set out very clearly that the bill is about 

structure and governance, and not about operational matters. My ruling is based on the 

preliminary provisions of the bill before us—the clauses associated with those. That is 

my ruling. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I really am 

struggling to understand this. I think this is a pretty important point. The bill is riddled 

with operational matters. In fact, you could argue that much of the bill is about not


structural issues but, indeed, very detailed operational matters, such as whether 

someone may borrow money, whether a council may contract for something worth more 

than $5,000, or whether a council can appoint a director of a council-controlled 

organisation. They are very, very detailed provisions. I wonder whether it would be 

possible to recall the Speaker to get his ruling on the matter; otherwise, a lot of our very 

sensible amendments, which we have put a lot of effort, work, and time into, and which 

we feel cover important strategic issues, are going to be ruled out. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments. 

[Interruption] Could that cellphone please be turned off. I thank the member for stating 

her position. As I have said, I have ruled the amendments out of order because they deal 

with operational matters. They are not debatable. Are you seeking to recall the Speaker? 

I invite you to do so. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I would like to move that we ask the Speaker to come 

here and give his opinion on this significant issue. 


Speaker. Can I have a go, Mr Chairperson? I do not think we have a proper motion 

before us. I am prepared to move it. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think it is important that the person who 

is sponsoring the amendments recalls the Speaker. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I thought any member could move it—to get it right. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for his 

help, but I think it is appropriate that the person sponsoring the amendments have the 

opportunity to recall the Speaker. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I move, That the Speaker be recalled to consider this 

important issue. 



Speaker Recalled 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled out of order a number of 

amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley. In my opinion they are operational matters. 

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is about structure and 

governance, and the amendments proposed by Sue Kedgley are operational matters. I 

ruled that the amendments are outside the scope of the bill. There are a number of them, 

and I will not go through them in detail. It is my view that they fall outside the scope of 

the bill because they are operational. Some of them look to amend other Acts, and that 

is inappropriate. I have ruled accordingly. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for coming back to 

the Chamber. I did not call you back lightly; I think an important precedent has just 

been set. There is a worry that the interpretation given by the Chairperson could be used 

as a way to prevent consideration of many of the Greens’ amendments, which we spent 

considerable time and effort working on and which we felt were well within the scope 

of the bill. 

I am particularly concerned about the ruling that the Committee cannot consider 

those amendments because this bill deals only with matters of structure and not with 

operational matters. In fact, clauses 30 and 31, for example, deal entirely with 

operational matters. I do not think there is anything more operational than, in clause 

31(3)(i), whether a council can enter into a contract “the consideration for which is … 

$5,000 or more:”. I do not think there is anything more operational than, in clause 

31(3)(m), whether a council is allowed to appoint “a director of a council-controlled


organisation:”. I will not keep reading. Very, very detailed operational matters are 

enshrined in the bill, and therefore I do not think that it is adequate to dismiss any 

amendment on the grounds that it deals with operational matters. Although the 

Chairperson said this bill deals only with governance matters, quite manifestly it deals 

with operational matters as well. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): In order to be helpful, 

Mr Tisch was diligent in giving a very detailed series of justifications in the report back, 

as it were, to the member. Quite a number of technical and individual issues were 

contained within that description. It is, of course, your call, Mr Speaker, but I mean this 

in all seriousness. I say that it may be helpful, given the nature of this matter, if Mr 

Tisch could outline in detail those matters for you in order for you to make an informed 

ruling, because they were very, very individualised and were quite technical. As I say, 

he was very diligent in his description in order to give the justification for the member. I 

think it would be difficult for you to give an informed ruling without that information. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think that what was 

suggested by the previous speaker is unnecessary. Mr Tisch has very generously taken 

Sue Kedgley through his reasons for ruling out her amendments. He could have invoked 

the provision of Standing Order 294, which is that he simply has to read some numbers 

out, in order to satisfy the requirements of the House. The issues that deal with each 

individual amendment have been adequately covered by the principle that Mr Tisch has 

decided to adopt in approaching this matter. 

I do not want to speak further, other than to say that the Government endorses the 

approach that the Chair has taken. There must be a separation between governance and 

operational matters. The specifics of this ruling were well elucidated to the member by 

Mr Tisch. Naturally, members will appeal and appeal. It is a little like question time: 

one keeps asking the question but may not like the answer. Mr Tisch has been generous 

in giving a series of reasons; I do not think you should require him to go through all that 

again. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Mr Speaker— 

Mr SPEAKER: Please be as brief as possible. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will try to be brief, but I think there are two points. 

The first concerns process, and I refer you back to your earlier ruling as to the role of 

the Chair. I make it clear that we are not challenging that ruling about the Chair’s role 

and his or her ability to make these decisions. I am not asking you to reverse those 

decisions but more to act as a Privy Counsellor of a Court of Appeal, and refer back to 

the rulings of the Chairperson for further consideration. I do not mean all of the rulings 

he made, because some of them were very clear and correct. For example, there were 

substantive amendments to Acts other than Acts that were already being considered in 

the bill. I do not want to disagree with my colleague, but it is pretty hard to argue with 

those rulings. 

Secondly, a number of amendments were ruled out effectively because they were 

operational matters, not governance matters. I reinforce the comments that Sue Kedgley 

made: this bill is riddled with operational matters, such as lines being drawn as to what 

the transition authority can do and what it cannot do. Sue Kedgley’s amendments were 

absolutely consistent with the substance of the bill, and therefore, in my opinion, it 

would be proper for you to invite the Chairperson to reconsider his position on that 

point. 

Mr SPEAKER: I will deal with the matter in maybe two steps. First, I reiterate what 

the Chair has said to the Committee of the whole House—that is, that the scope of this 

bill is quite narrow and deals with structure and governance issues. It would be my


assessment that the Chair was on very good ground in making his rulings. But, more 

important, I make it very clear that on matters of relevance the Chair is the sole judge. I 

refer members to Speakers’ rulings 78/1-3. Those Speakers’ rulings go back 100 years. 

They are some of the few Speakers’ rulings in our Speakers’ Rulings that go back that 

far, and they have been reiterated every few years many times. Speaker’s ruling 78/3 

states: “It is bordering on an inappropriate use of the undoubted right to recall the 

Speaker to do so on the ground of relevance,”. So where the Chair has made a judgment 

on the issue of relevance and scope, the Speaker cannot overturn that judgment. I have 

taken the first step of saying that I believe that the Chair has acted on very sound 

ground, but 100 years of Speakers’ rulings make it very, very clear that the Speaker 

cannot overturn the judgment of the Chair on those matters. 


In Committee 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a further series of transcript 

amendments in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert a new Part 4. The first of those 

proposes to insert new Part 4, “Transition Towards Greater Climate Protection: 

Amendment to the Resource Management Act 1991”. That amendment is outside the 

scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. 

The next amendment inserts a new Part 4, “Transition to Simplified and Streamlined 

Dog Control: Amendment to the Dog Control Act 1996”. That amendment is also 

outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects. 

There is a further amendment in the name of Keith Locke to insert new Part 4, 

“Transition Agency Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio)”. That amendment is 

also outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational 

aspects. 

There is a further amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a 

new Part 8, “Local Councils”, which would establish local councils. That amendment is 

out of order as being inconsistent with the decision made by the Committee last night. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: What? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will have an opportunity to 

contribute by way of a point of order when I finish. 

There is a further amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to insert a new part 63, 

“Special Provisions relating to the continuation of obligations in Part 7 of the Local 

Government Act 2002”. But Subpart 2 of Part 3 of the bill dealt with that issue. Part 3 

was dealt with by the Committee. That amendment is therefore out of order. 

There is a further amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to insert a new Part 

163, “Special Provisions relating to the Electoral Act 2001 to apply while this Act is in 

force”, which relates to the Electoral Act and its application to this legislation. Clause 6, 

in Part 1 of the bill, dealt with that issue. Part 1 has been dealt with by the Committee. 

That amendment is therefore out of order. 

A further amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert a new Part 32, 

“Establishment of transitional consultative councils” is out of order as it sets up another 

body. The bill sets up one body. 

There are further amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a 

new Part 23, “Special Provisions relating to the Papakura District Council”, and a new 

Part 24 “Special Provisions relating to the Franklin District Council”. Those 

amendments are out of order as the bill deals with a specific Government structure 

across all of Auckland.


There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4, 

“Transition Agency and Environmental Rights”. That amendment has been ruled out of 

order as it is outside the scope of the bill. The bill deals with governance, and not 

operational matters. There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a 

new Part 4, “Transition Agency Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. This is ruled 

out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, and 

not operational matters. I have ruled that those amendments are out of order as they are 

outside the scope of the bill. 

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ka mōtinihia 

ahau kia whai rīpoata mō tō tātou kōkiri whakamua. 


[I move that we report progress.] 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Progress cannot be reported on a point of 

order. 

Schedules 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the schedules stand 

part. [Interruption] There is no debate on schedules. The schedules are not debatable. 

We will go to the vote. 


Chairperson. Because we are now moving to consideration of the schedules, I take it 

that all the additional parts that have been submitted by way of amendment have been 

ruled out of order by you—that the series that you have just ruled out were all the 

remaining parts that there were to be amendments. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is correct. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I also seek a second assurance. It was not while you 

were in the Chair, but there was an outburst from the Leader of the House directed at the 

Clerk’s Office. I just want an assurance that that outburst is not linked to the fact that, 

all of a sudden, every single amendment that created a new part has been ruled out. The 

convenience of that for the Government is not lost on the Opposition. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I am the sole judge of that. I 

can assure the member of the integrity of the Clerk’s Office and the hard work it has 

done over the last few days. I will be here to protect the Clerk’s Office at every 

opportunity, and I am the sole judge of such things. I heard that comment. I was not 

here, but I did hear that comment. Any criticism of the Clerk’s Office goes through the 

Chair, but I want to give you the assurance that I have full faith in the integrity of the 

way that the Clerk’s Office has been operating. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I want to absolutely endorse 

those remarks. I think you would find that absolutely everyone in the Chamber shares 

those views. The Clerk’s Office has worked remarkably hard, and it has people of 

integrity and professionalism. That is why the Opposition objected so strongly to the 

way it was addressed by National’s Gerry Brownlee. 

My next point of order relates to the suspended amendment to insert a new Part 5, 

“Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the 

reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, which also deals with Asian representation in 

the Auckland super-city. That part was suspended by the Minister in charge of the bill, 

the Hon Rodney Hide. We have to take that before the preliminary clauses. I am just 

checking that you will do that after the schedules have been voted on. Is that your 

intention?


The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. Your assumption is correct. That is 

the process that we would go through. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 43 


Schedule agreed to. 

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We 

actually voted 32 opposed, but the interpreter said 42 opposed. I just want to correct 

that. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The new result for Labour is 32 opposed. 

Members the Ayes are 64, the Noes are 43. The motion is agreed to. 


of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wonder whether you can help on a point of procedure. I 

assume, now, that we have done the schedules. There are two points that I want to ask 

about. We have a postponed amendment to insert a part—I think it is Part 5, 

“Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the 

reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, in the name of Shane Jones. I understand that 

when that was postponed there was a motion from Darren Hughes before the Committee 

that was to be considered. From memory, I think it was a closure motion. I wonder 

whether that situation still stands or is that the next thing we go to. That is the first thing 

that I want to understand. 

The second thing that I wonder about is a matter of procedure. After the part that has 

been postponed is considered by the Committee and a decision is taken, we move to the 

preliminaries, as I think they are called. While we are still considering the postponed 

Part 5, is there an opportunity for anyone in the Committee to put another part to be 

considered, because we have not yet got to the preliminaries? I wonder whether that is a 

possibility. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Just further to that, I am a little confused 

myself, because Standing Order 293(1)(c) is not often used. If we go down to 293(4) we 

see that “Unless otherwise specified, consideration or further consideration of—(a) any 

postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with, 

other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. What I am not clear about, 

after all the amendments that have been tabled here today, is what your ruling is in 

respect of just what the preliminary clauses are. It would be helpful to the House if you 

could detail the preliminary clauses that are still there. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think I can advise on the last 

question first. I think clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses. But on the substantive 

matter that was raised by John Carter, which is what the position is with regard to 

further parts, when Mr Barker was in the Chair and he was contemplating accepting 

closure, he had not accepted the closure, and it is my understanding that further parts 

can be submitted until the time that closure is accepted. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the first point 

about the preliminary clauses is correct. Clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses of 

the bill. On the second point, no, the closure motion for Part 5 was postponed. We have 

before us a closure motion that was put forward by the Hon Darren Hughes. It is still 

appropriate.



Chairperson. Can I just get absolute clarity here. My recollection—and I am absolutely 

clear on this—is that Mr Barker, when in the Chair, had not accepted the closure 

motion. He had not said he was going to put the question, and he had not started to put 

it. Many of us are of the view that it would have been better if he had put the question, 

but that is not the case. He was thinking about whether he was going to accept the 

motion. He had not accepted it in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 

Therefore, the parts that are being lodged now are valid. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I do not think it would be too 

hard to go directly to Hansard to clear up this matter. My clear recollection is that Mr 

Barker said the words “The question is that the question be now put.” At that point, Mr 

Hide raised a point of order to suspend the proceedings. Once the suspension has been 

lifted, clearly we should go back to the point at which the Chair was about to proceed 

with the vote. I do not think there is a question about whether the Chair intended to take 

the motion. He, in fact, accepted the closure motion and was in the process of putting 

the question. Hansard will show that the words “The question is that the question be 

now put.” were uttered. Mr Hide’s postponement at that point means that, naturally, we 

would go back to that point once the suspension has been lifted. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I do not feel any need to go 

back to Hansard at this point. My recollection is different from that of Gerry Brownlee. 

I know that Gerry Brownlee is an honourable member, and I am prepared to accept his 

word. If that was what happened—I cannot remember it—then I accept his word that 

that was the case. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have been advised that the closure motion 

was still live. That was where the debate on new Part 5 was postponed. We now come 

back to the position where the Hon Darren Hughes moved the closure motion. We will 

continue from that point. 


groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council (continued) 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I put the closure motion on Part 5. 



Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be 

agreed to: 



be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 43 



The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There are a number of amendments in the 

name of the Hon Parekura Horomia. These are ruled out of order as they are 

inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. 


Chairperson. I have obviously just got a copy of the Minister’s amendment, and I


wanted to test with you whether in fact these are inconsistent or whether both could 

happen. Clearly, there is a review to be set up in the name of the Minister. That is 

correct; there is no doubt about that. But the question then is whether there can also be 

the reviews that are set up according to the amendments in the name of Parekura 

Horomia. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think you are looking at a further 

amendment, and not the one that I have— 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sorry. Which one have you put? The trouble is that we 

cannot tell which of the Minister’s amendments you are referring to. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister’s amendment we just voted 

on is this one here. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: The short one. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): And that is tabled. So that is the 

amendment we have just voted on. 



agreed to: 


A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment to the amendment be 

agreed to. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just for clarity, 

so that we are quite clear what we are voting on, could we have clarified as to what this 

clause 72 is. I cannot seem to find it. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Can I assist the member—and 

it might mean that we need another minute or two for the member to have a look at it. It 

is part of the Horomia amendment to add new Part 5. If one can find it amongst the 

papers, that is where it is. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that. This is the amendment 

that we are referring to. It is tabled. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 44 


Amendment to the amendment to the amendment agreed to. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The following amendments in the names of 

Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis, the Hon Mita Ririnui, Jacinda Ardern, and Dr Ashraf 

Choudhary are out of order, as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the 

Committee. 



agreed to: 

to add the following new clause: 

72A Representation 

(1) Despite any other provision—


(a) there will be a review of the ethnic make-up of the Transition Agency 

(including its governing body) on 30 May 2009; and 

(b) the review will include a review of the Māori, Pacific, Pakeha, Chinese, and 

Korean representation of the governing body. 

(2) Despite any other provision, community boards of existing local authorities will 

be consulted on any Māori, Pacific, or other ethnic representation of the Auckland 

Council. 

(3) Despite any other provision, representatives from all ethnic groups will be 

consulted on 30 May 2009 about the activities of the Transition Agency. 

(4) Despite any other provision, the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to 

appoint a board of Indian members, a board of Pacific members, and a board of 

Māori members to advise the Transition Agency. 

(5) Despite any other provisions the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to 

appoint a board of experts to advise the Auckland Council on matters of ethnic 

affairs. 


be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 39 



The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The following amendments are now out of 

order: amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern, amendments in the name of Dr 

Rajen Prasad, amendments in the name of Su’a William Sio, and amendments in the 

name of the Hon David Cunliffe. 


Chairperson. Because this is happening relatively rapidly, can we ask you to elaborate 

on why those amendments are out of order? The one I am particularly interested in at 

the moment is that of Mr Prasad, which refers in particular to Indian representation, and 

I am not sure that the fact that there are to be reviews on ethnic issues cuts out that 

amendment. I am sure there will be parallel arguments for some of my colleagues’ other 

amendments, but the fact that the Government has lined up an amendment to have a 

review generally does not cut out that specific review— 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for those comments. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): In support of my colleague, and 

as a member who has put forward a series of amendments here, I say that your rulings— 

which we are not seeking to question; I want to make that clear—have been on two 

grounds: either because of inconsistency with the previous decisions of the Chair or the 

Committee, or because they are matters related to operations rather than governance, in 

the case of a large quantity of amendments, including whole parts. So, in fact, two 

grounds of precedent are in play here. It is not clear to us from the way in which you 

have issued your latest ruling, Mr Chairperson, which of those decisions applies to the 

various amendments. It is a serious matter, because we are dealing here with whole new 

parts, which are debatable amendments, by precedent from the Chair—from all 

Chairpersons—and it is important for us, as we report back to our constituencies, to 

understand the reasons why these amendments are outside the Standing Orders. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. We have just passed an amendment 

in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide, which covers all the points you have just made. 

The other amendments are of the same substance. That is why the other amendments are


now ruled out of order—because we have just passed that amendment in the name of 

the Hon Rodney Hide. 

Hon David Cunliffe: Could you elaborate? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. It is written down here, and the 

member has a copy of this. We are not getting into discussion on this, because we have 

just passed it and it is not debatable. I refer the member to the amendment we have just 

passed, which now means that subsequent ones are out of order. 


Chairperson. This is a new point of order, and it goes to the wording of the Rodney 

Hide amendment—the longer one—where throughout it there is mention of 

“provisions”. Probably unfortunately for Mr Hide, within at least one of the new part’s 

amendments “provisions” are not mentioned but there are “sections”. So although 

“provisions” is widely used within a number of the amendments, one particular set of 

amendments has “sections”, and it is my submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that that 

set of amendments is not ruled out by the Hide amendment. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The substance of the amendments and the 

substance of the Minister’s amendment are the same. That is why the others have been 

ruled out. 


Chairperson. You advised that the Minister’s amendment ruled other amendments out 

of order. Are you able to tell us what the other amendments were? 

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I say to the member that the other 

amendments are tabled. They are available for the member to peruse; they have been on 

the Table for some time. They are there for him if he wishes to have a look at them. 

The same amendment that we have just passed means that other amendments have 

been ruled out. They are in the name of Jacinda Ardern, Dr Ashraf Choudhary, and 

Raymond Huo. 

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura 

Horomia be agreed to: 


Part 5 

Mechanisms to ensure representation of Māori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the 

reorganisation of the Auckland Council 

Subpart 1 

Guarantees Māori representation on the Auckland Council by directing the Auckland 

Transition Agency to establish Māori seats 

71 

(1) Two Māori members are to be elected to the Auckland Council by voters who are 

on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll 

(a) The 2 Māori seats shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless— 

(i) a referendum of Māori voters on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll 

is held; and 

(ii) 75% of those voters vote in favour of removing the seats. 

(2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Mana Whenua Forum, the 

members of which will be appointed by mana whenua from the district of the 

Auckland Council 

(a) The Mana Whenua Forum should— 

(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council: 

(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the 

Auckland Council on issues of relevance to mana whenua: 

(b) The Mana Whenua seat shall not be removed from the Auckland 

Council unless 75% of Mana Whenua Forum members vote in favour 

of removing the seat.


Subpart 2—Pacific and Minority Representation 

Guarantees representation and participation by Pacific and Minority groups by 

directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum 

and an Ethnic Advisory Forum and allows the members of those forums to 

appoint one member each to hold a seat on the Auckland Council 

72 

(1) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum, 

the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in 

consultation with Pacific communities and pacific leaders based in the Auckland 

district 

(a) The Pacific Advisory Forum should— 



Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Pacific Communities: 

(b) The Pacific Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council 

unless— 

(i) 75% of members of the Pacific Advisory Forum vote in favour of 

removing the seat. 

(2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish an Ethnic Advisory Forum, 

the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in 

consultation with Ethnic communities and Ethnic leaders based in the Auckland 

district 

(a) The Ethnic Advisory Forum should— 



Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Ethnic communities: 

(b) The Ethnic Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council 

unless— 

(i) 75% of members of the Ethnic Advisory Forum vote in favour of 

removing the seat. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment as amended be 

agreed to. 

Ayes 36 


Noes 64 


New Part 5 as amended not agreed to. 

Clauses 1 and 2 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): We are now making rapid 

progress on this bill, and we are up to the title clause and the commencement clause. I 

am sure that Opposition members will have some further suggestions on what the title 

might be, but the title, as it stands, and as recommended by the Government, is the 

Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which actually captures what the 

bill is about. 

I know that the commencement date has been contentious, because all the way 

through yesterday and today we heard no less a person than the deputy Leader of the 

Opposition, Annette King, tell us that the bill does not come into force until November 

next year. I am afraid that the Labour Opposition is wrong about that. This bill comes 

into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, and I know 

there has been a bit of confusion about that.


However, Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010, because that concerns the 

Auckland Council. Clauses 27 and 28 in Subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the 

close of 31 October 2010. I commend the title and commencement of this bill to the 

Committee. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Minister has pointed to a very important 

issue. He is quite right that, except for Part 2, which comes into force on 1 November 

2010, this legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the 

Royal assent. Of course, therein lies the problem, because by the date that this bill 

receives its Royal assent there will have been no proper consultation with the people of 

Auckland as to its effect. 

One of the amendments that will be put forward by members on this side of the 

Chamber is to delay the date of that Royal assent to a date that is substantially later, so 

that the normal processes that precede legislation coming into force can, in some other 

process outside this Parliament, take place in order to protect the citizens of Auckland 

and to give the fourth estate the time to properly identify the effects of the provisions 

contained in this bill. 

Let us consider that issue. The provisions of this bill were not available to the media 

or to the Opposition until shortly before this debate began. We have not had much time 

to properly get into the implications of this bill. It is true that Parliament has been sitting 

very long hours. We have been embroiled in the detail of each provision as it has come 

before us, but we have had to do that under the pressure of urgency, sequentially one 

issue after another, and we have not had the time to consider other issues that may be 

there but which we have not thought of in the limited time we have had to deal with this 

bill. 

But that does not apply just to Parliament. It applies to everyone in Auckland. They 

have been prevented from having the time they would normally have to look at these 

things. These are very technical matters. They involve the interrelationship of the Local 

Government Act 2002, the various Acts of Parliament that cover Watercare Services 

and the like, and the various Acts of Parliament that control local assets and the 

environment, such as the volcanic cones and the lovely marine environment around 

Auckland. In order to get our heads around the complexities of all of those 

interrelationships, it is very important that we give ourselves the time to reflect on these 

issues, and the time to take the appropriate advice. 

Some of these issues are so technical that a lot of laypeople are not able to get their 

heads around them in a short period of time. They need time to be able to talk to nongovernmental 

organisations that have expertise in these areas, to their lawyers, and to 

their local body politicians. Those local body politicians themselves have not had the 

time to get their heads around these issues, so they are not yet in a position to inform 

their ratepayers and citizens as to where the hooks in this lie. Some of those hooks have 

been well identified by the Opposition, including Labour and the Greens, but a lot of 

them still lie untested because the process has been rushed. So one of the important and 

necessary changes to the bill would reverse the provision that currently states that the 

bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent— 

which could be next week—and puts it out to some later date. 

Labour members are open as to the range of dates. The date has to be substantially 

later than now, but I do not have an unreasonable view as to what that date might be. If 

we could have a date that was similar to the date that would have been achieved after a 

full select committee process, followed by a second and a third reading debate in this 

House, then that would be an appropriate period of time to consider the date by which 

this bill ought to come into effect. Although the process by which we could have some 

decent scrutiny would not have the advantage of the officials’ advice, would not have


the advice of parliamentary services to the select committee, and would not have the 

input of many politicians, at least we would have something. Members of the fourth 

estate, non-governmental organisations, councils, their lawyers, and all the people who 

have a very strong interest in this issue would have the time to consider the implications 

of this, and they would then have the time to take the other political steps that one can 

take when one does not like legislation. 

A case in point of recent occurrence is the foreshore and seabed legislation, which 

was highly controversial and incendiary. There are people who say that we did not get 

that right. What we did not do was rush it through in such a short process as is being 

done to the 1.4 million people in Auckland, and stop people from having their say. 

Indeed, we allowed sufficient time for people to— 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The debate on the title clause of 

a bill is an opportunity to take stock of the various arguments that have been made 

during the Committee stage and to reflect those through the title. So it is absolutely 

appropriate that we reflect on the key arguments that have been made throughout the 

debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. 

I said at the start of this debate some days ago that I do not often get angry about 

matters before this Committee, but that I am deeply, deeply angry about this bill. Let me 

remind the Committee why. The first more appropriate title for this bill is the “They 

Stole Our City (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill”. I speak here as a passionate 

representative of Waitakere City. It is a city of which I, like the 200,000 people of west 

Auckland, am proud. I am proud because we have built a city that treasures its 

environment. It is a city that treasures the arts and promotes smart business. The role of 

the territorial authority, the Waitakere City Council, has been crucial in achieving that. 

The member Sam Lotu-Iiga is a councillor as well as an MP and he should not trash his 

other employer. The same is true of Manukau, the North Shore, central Auckland, and 

east Auckland. We are made stronger by our diversity. We do not need to be 

homogenised by some top-down, business baron - driven council for the few in a 

smoke-filled room. That is what we are arguing about today. 

The second reason we are arguing is that this bill should be called the “They Stacked 

the Deck to Keep Auckland Bluer Bill”. It is not about making Auckland greater; we do 

not need eight at-large councillors to do that. There will be eight at-large councillors 

because someone wants the right wing to be in control. That is because if people want to 

run an at-large campaign across Auckland, they need $250,000 to send one letter to 

every household. The poor need not run. If people are not rich or famous, they can 

forget it; they cannot be an at-large councillor. They cannot get their name recognition 

up, so they should forget it. That is why historically 19 out of 20 at-large councillors in 

Auckland used to come from east Auckland. That was no surprise, as that is where the 

money and power was. That is why we had a ward system in the first place. The royal 

commission got that one wrong, and the Government has got it way wrong. 

Thirdly, the bill could be called the “Complete and Dishonest Waste of Money Bill”. 

The transition costs of this legislation have been calculated by independent analysis at 

Auckland University at $750 per ratepayer—not per household; per ratepayer. There are 

four people in my household; that is $3,000 of transition costs, and for what? To take 

away the city I am proud of, and to homogenise us and bring us under the control of the 

barons of Remuera. 

What about the “No Proper Consultation Bill”? It is bad enough to do all that, but 

provided the Government goes through a proper parliamentary process, Parliament is 

sovereign. We accept that, but listen to the lies that have been told about this bill. The 

Government said it would consult once it got the royal commission report. Then it said 

that, no, it would consult when it had made policy decisions. Parliament has a select


committee process, but the Government said it was sorry, but there would be no select 

committee, because it is ramming the bill through. We are here on a Saturday because 

the Committee of the whole House is the last line of defence. We are the last line of 

defence against something fundamentally wrong happening to democracy in New 

Zealand. 

I tell those members to be careful what they wish for, because sometimes the 

previous Government got that a bit wrong. Others have said the Foreshore and Seabed 

Act, the Electoral Finance Act, or even the child discipline bill were examples of 

something that was maybe not as bad as this, but was sort of similar because we did not 

carry public opinion. This legislation is the worst constitutional outrage I have seen in 

10 years in this Chamber, and I am ashamed that the Minister of Local Government, Mr 

Hide, is so afraid of public opinion. 

If that is not bad enough, how is this for gall? He has put fully paid ads in the 

newspapers and will have a sham consultation after this bill is already passed. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I have an amendment to the title, and I would initially 

like to speak to that amendment. My amendment states “to omit the words (Auckland 

Reorganisation) and replace them with (Gutting of Auckland Local Democracy)”. I 

think that sums up what this bill is about. Another possible suggestion would be to call 

it “Rogernomics Part 2”, because that would also encapsulate what the bill is about. It is 

almost breathtaking that we could expunge eight democratically elected city councils 

overnight with the passage of this bill, without ever asking one of the almost 1.5 million 

Aucklanders whom the councils represent whether they wish their councils to be 

obliterated off the face of the earth, as they will be on 1 November next year. 

It is also extraordinary that there is absolutely no mandate for this bill, because 

neither National nor ACT said in its manifesto that it was intending to eliminate the 

eight city councils of Auckland. Those parties did not tell Aucklanders that, and they 

did not put it in their manifestos. This is shades of Rogernomics, 1984. There is no 

mandate from the royal commission, which wanted to retain the eight city councils. The 

people of Auckland have not been consulted. They are not even allowed consultation on 

this bill. It is extraordinary. I think it will take a while for Aucklanders to fully 

understand the implications of what has happened over the last few days—namely, that 

democracy in Auckland has been drastically shrunk. Democracy has been shrunk and 

eight councils have been obliterated. 

But, even worse than that, the Government has come up with a completely new type 

of local democracy in New Zealand. That is why I am glad that people from Wellington 

have been sitting here watching; they understand what is going on. Everyone else in 

New Zealand needs to wake up to what is going on, because it is going to happen all 

over New Zealand once this reform has been rammed though. The Government has 

come up with a new model of local democracy that gives unprecedented powers to the 

mayor—the so-called strong mayor model. Members opposite are hoping that John 

Banks will be the mayor. Someone like John Banks could be voted in by a minority— 

by, arguably, 30 percent of Aucklanders—take control of the Auckland Council, pick 

his cohorts, his inner cabal, control the council agenda, and ram through his agenda for 

Auckland. I think some Aucklanders do not realise that that is what will happen. We are 

trying to warn people about it now. 

The only things to counterbalance the new, unprecedented executive powers of the 

mayor are these pitiful little local boards. The Government is setting up this funny little 

committee for Auckland, but what will it consult on? Everything has been set in motion; 

everything is done. The only thing that I have heard anyone say we can consult on is the 

powers of the local boards, which are not even set in statute. We are going to have huge 

consultation, but what about? The powers of the local boards.


In response to my question in the House, the Prime Minister assured Aucklanders 

that every single Aucklander would be able to be heard by the committee that is being 

set up. I am sure Aucklanders will want to be heard, if only to protest at the atrocious 

way in which this measure is being rammed through Parliament using shock tactics, as 

Naomi Klein called them; the Government is using the blitzkrieg tactics of 

Rogernomics, which are not to give people a minute to breathe but just to keep ramming 

it through. 

The other thing I want to say is that I am disappointed that the media ignored a very 

significant clause in this bill that will help to expunge local democracy from Auckland. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Committee 

report progress. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That progress be reported. 

Ayes 25 

New Zealand Labour 25. 

Noes 75 

New Zealand National 58; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; 

United Future 1. 

Motion not agreed to. 

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is unbelievable. The Opposition is attempting to 

assist Government members who have been complaining and complaining that we have 

been dragging it out, and when we say “OK, why don’t we move on?”, they vote against 

it. It is absolutely unbelievable. Maybe we could call this the “Absolute Shambles and 

What the Hell is the Leader of the House Doing Bill”, because Government members do 

not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. 

I have a lot of suggestions for alternative titles for this legislation. The first would be 

the “Why Should Aucklanders Get a Say When Tories Know Best Bill”. I think that 

really sums up this legislation, being rammed through all stages under urgency with no 

select committee, which obliterates eight democratically elected councils overnight. It is 

unbelievable; maybe we could just call it the “Democracy is So Tiring Bill” because I 

think that is how National members feel about it. For them it is tiring having to stay 

here at Parliament to vote on things, even though that is what we are paid to do. It is 

tiring to go out and talk to people. Democracy makes us really, really quite tired and we 

can see the bags under Mr Brownlee’s eyes. 

My next name is a very important one, because it relates to the amendment Labour 

tried to put up to secure paid parental leave for the employees of local authorities. We 

could probably call it the “Gerry Brownlee Does Not Understand How Paid Parental 

Leave Works Bill”. We tried to explain to him that when we move to this transition 

agency the women working there will effectively have a new employer, which means 

that their paid parental leave entitlement does not carry over. Mr Brownlee said that we 

should not put a provision about that in the bill, because we do not need to put in a 

provision to say that the residential speed limit is 50 kilometres an hour. I not sure 

whether Mr Brownlee knows that the residential speed limit does not change when 

someone changes employer. That is a crucial difference between the speed limit and 

paid parental leave. He might want to go and talk to the Minister of Transport about 

that, get a briefing, and have it explained to him. 

The bill could be called the “Gerry Brownlee (Trust Me I Know What I Am Doing) 

Bill”. He said the paid parental leave provisions were going to go to a select committee. 

But the fact is we are passing this legislation now. It will come into force whenever this


sitting of Parliament lifts. We were asking him why he did not put in a really simple 

clause that clarifies what, apparently, the Government members claim—that they do not 

expect the entitlement to go. Let us just put that in the bill to clarify it. Mr Brownlee 

says that that part does not come in until November 2010 anyway, and by then we will 

have passed the other legislation. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, 

given his control of the House this week I am not entirely convinced that those other 

pieces of legislation can be expected to be passed by November 2010. I think it is a 

great leap of faith for the women who work for the Auckland City Council to say: 

“That’s all right. Mr Brownlee is so much in control of the House that this will not be a 

problem and the legislation fixing it up will be passed.” 

The next very important amendment Labour put up was to ensure Māori 

representation on the transition agency. Maybe, since the Māori Party opposed it, we 

could call this bill the “Iwi Versus Kiwi Bill” because we are seeing the same old 

National Party. I just want to point out to my colleagues in the Māori Party and the 

Green Party that Labour did try to make that part stand alone. We tried to make that part 

for Māori representation stand on its own without the other representation for Pacific 

and Asian people, but the Clerk told us we could not do it and that the only way we 

could get it up was to combine it. I want to say, because we are criticised by Māori 

Party colleagues for putting the others in with Māori, that we tried. 

At least Labour did try, because I did not see other amendments on the Table from 

parties that were accusing us of not doing enough for Māori representation; only Labour 

put up amendments on the Table to ensure Māori representation. I think it is important 

that that goes on the record. 

Labour also put up an amendment to make sure that public assets could not be sold 

by this transition agency. National opposed that, so let us call the bill the “Sell the 

Family Silver Bill”. One of the assets we are talking about is Auckland Airport. Do 

members remember what the National Party said about Auckland Airport when Labour 

stepped in to ensure that it stayed in New Zealand hands? National members were up in 

arms, and then they sit here in this Chamber and expect us to believe that they care 

about the public retention of assets. The situation we find ourselves in is absolutely 

incredible. It is rotten, rotten legislation by a rotten-to-the-core Government that is 

showing its true colours. 


put. 

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): We are 5 minutes into the debate— 

maybe 10—and National members are already trying to shut it down. We should call 

this bill the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill” because this bill gives 

Rodney Hide ultimate and total control of Auckland. It establishes a transition agency 

whose members he can hand-pick. The bill says that that transition agency has to have 

all of its expenditure approved by the Minister, and it gives that transition agency the 

ultimate control over all the decision making of all the democratically elected existing 

authorities in Auckland. It hands ultimate and total control to the ACT Party and to 

people like Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas. Rodney Hide can now appoint whomever 

he likes to this transition agency. That is why we should call this the “Rodney Hide 

(Total Control of Auckland) Bill”. He could appoint, if he so chose, Roger Douglas and 

Richard Prebble to this agency, because even though Roger Douglas is a member of the 

House, we know that National members do not have any problem with double-dipping. 

They do not have any problem with double-dipping; they do not have any problem with 

anyone being involved in local government politics at the same time as being in this 

House.


We should call this the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”, because we 

know this is the first step in the plans of National and the ACT Party to merge all local 

authorities into super-councils up and down the country. I took an interest in this 

particular issue because I know that Paul Quinn and his mate John Terris have been 

going around the Hutt Valley saying they are in favour of merging Wellington local 

authorities. 

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I put to you that we are getting 

repetition. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Chris Hipkins to continue. 

CHRIS HIPKINS: I asked Rodney Hide whether he had received any advice on the 

merging of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils, and he has. He has already 

received advice on the potential merger of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils. 

He answered that in parliamentary written question No. 05571, where he confirmed that 

he had received advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils 

on 24 April 2009. 

I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call and give the people of the Hutt Valley 

an absolute reassurance that they are not going to lose their local governance as well, as 

part 2 of this reorganisation that National and the ACT Party are pushing. We know that 

Hutt Valley people cannot be certain that they would even get a say in that 

reorganisation, because National and the ACT Party would ram through more 

legislation in this House. That is why we should call this bill the “Local Government 

Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”—because we know that there is more to come. 

We should call this the “National Party Knows Best Bill” because we heard from 

members opposite that the people had their say on 8 November last year. It is all over 

from then on in; National has 3 years when it can do whatever it likes under 

parliamentary urgency, and it does not have to go back and consult the people. It does 

not even have to send legislation to a select committee. It can do just whatever it likes. 

That is why we should call this bill the “National Party Knows Best Bill”. 

We should call it the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill” 

because after 3 days of debating amendments Gerry Brownlee finally worked out how 

to get them ruled out of order—not on his own; in fact he probably had quite a bit of 

help from Rodney Hide to do that. Gerry Brownlee sat through 3 days of voting on 

amendments before he thought it might be a good idea to pick up the Standing Orders 

and maybe have a bit of a read. The Leader of the House has finally read the Standing 

Orders! That is a cause for celebration. So we should call this bill the “Gerry Brownlee 

Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill”. 

We could call it the “Where is Melissa Lee Bill”, because, despite wanting to be the 

next MP for Mt Albert, she has not taken one single call on this debate. She wants to be 

the next member of Parliament for a seat in the centre of Auckland, yet she has 

absolutely nothing to say on the reorganisation of Auckland’s local governance. 

We could call this the “Privatisation is Back on the Agenda Bill”. National members 

may have gone around the country saying they would not sell State-owned enterprises 

like Kiwibank, but they have suddenly discovered there are a whole lot of State assets in 

local government that they can get their hands on and hock off. They voted against the 

amendment put forward by Labour that would have saved that. 


CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This bill is being rammed through with no select 

committee consideration. Two parts of the bill will be in effect very shortly. Part 3 has 

some of the most significant implications for Aucklanders that one could imagine. 

Around $28 billion worth of assets, 6,300 workers, and local government representation 

and services for over a million people will all be affected by the work of the transitional


agency that is being established, and that agency is under no obligation to consult 

anybody, other than the Minister Rodney Hide. 

Some of my colleagues have already suggested that we should be calling this bill 

after Rodney Hide. That seems very appropriate, given how much power he has to 

control this agency. This agency is made up of somewhere between three and five 

people. There are no requirements here to determine any criteria for selecting them. 

There is no need for that agency or its board to be representative of anybody. In fact, it 

could be made up of five of Rodney’s best friends or, as somebody said, five members 

of the ACT Party, for example. This is entirely possible under this bill. Let us call it the 

“Centralised Power in the Hands of a Rich Few Bill”, shall we? Let us do that. Let us 

call it the “Centralised in the Hands of the ACT Party Bill” or indeed the “Centralise it 

in the Hands of Rodney Hide Bill”. 

Will Rodney Hide bother to talk to anybody about any of the important matters that 

the transitional agency will be dealing with? I think it is highly unlikely, given there 

was no consultation on the recommendations of the royal commission, given that 

developing the Government’s proposal after the royal commission did not seem to 

involve consultation with anyone other than the Government, and given that no effort 

was made to cost it or to take a regulatory impact analysis before pushing this bill 

through Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely that he will consult people about the 

implications of some of the matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with. 

Despite our best efforts over the last few days to scrutinise this bill, in the absence of 

a select committee process there will undoubtedly be things that have not been able to 

be checked in this Parliament. We have done our very best. We have raised issues 

concerning representation and making sure that people are represented—that the diverse 

and large population of Auckland is represented appropriately. We have put in place 

amendments concerning assets in order to make sure not only that they are not 

privatised but also that our elected representatives do not lose control of them—that 

they have the right to control those assets. We have made a number of amendments 

concerning workers and the treatment of the 6,300 council workers. But none of that has 

been taken into account by the Government. Its members are far too arrogant to think 

that any of those things have merit. 

I think that Aucklanders, and in fact New Zealanders, will be highly resentful of the 

fact that the Government has not bothered to pick up a number of very important 

matters that Labour has raised with it. Labour members know that those issues matter to 

New Zealanders. The public control of public assets and the fair treatment of workers 

matter to New Zealanders. We have raised our concerns about unintended 

consequences, such as the paid parental leave provisions, which Gerry Brownlee 

considers to be a silly matter. If we are right, then a lot of women will be very 

concerned—and a lot of families, in fact—about Mr Brownlee’s attitude to this 

important matter of paid parental leave. 

There are a number of matters that we have not even been able to consider. One of 

those matters concerns clause 33. This clause has not had any consideration by the 

Committee, but again we could call clause 33 the “Let Councillor Lotu-Iiga off the 

Hook” clause because that clause, which we have not considered yet, is all about filling 

extraordinary vacancies during the transition period. This now provides councillor Lotu- 

Iiga with the opportunity to resign— 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for 

interrupting the member, but I would like some advice. It is highly irregular and deeply 

offensive for a member, as he is wandering around the Chamber, to be screaming—not 

interjecting—at the speaker on her feet. He is not even bothering to sit in his seat. I ask 

you to enforce the relevant Standing Orders.


The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is unfortunate that the member has 

interrupted the speech being made by a member of his own party. This is how I recall it, 

as I heard it. The member speaking was making reference to the member who was 

moving across the Chamber. The member who was moving across the Chamber heard 

his name mentioned and felt that it had been mispronounced. The member decided to 

try to correct the pronunciation of the member’s name. That is how I heard the 

exchange. We could get picky about it and interrupt all members’ speeches, but I would 

prefer not to. I thought that was the matter. The member is still speaking and making 

her points, but I invite members when they are speaking to do their best to pronounce 

people’s names properly. 

CAROL BEAUMONT: Councillor Lotu-Iiga is missing in action, according to The 

Aucklander in two articles now. We have not even had a chance to consider the fact that 

this clause enables him to deal with the heat that he is under. 

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the question be now put. 

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I rise to support the amendment of my colleague Sue 

Kedgley that states this bill should more appropriately be called the “Gutting of Local 

Democracy Bill”. We have heard from Rodney Hide that the bill will take effect, for the 

most part, on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I think many Aucklanders will 

be very concerned that that will be the beginning of the stripping away of their local 

democracy and their ability to participate properly in civic affairs. I think they will be 

looking to another commencement date—the commencement date of the hīkoi in 

Auckland. The hīkoi has been initiated by Māori and will be led by them, but no doubt 

it will bring in a lot of Aucklanders who want to protest. People will be coming from 

the south, the north, and the west, and from the Ōrākei Marae, into the centre of town 

for a big march up Queen Street to Aotea Square. I think that will be a very important 

commencement date. 

One thing that worries me is that when this bill takes effect and the Minister appoints 

the members of the transitional agency— 

Sue Kedgley: The gang of four. 

KEITH LOCKE: It is called the gang of four by my colleague. It is the gang of four 

if we include Rodney Hide. The agency needs to have only three members—a chair and 

two others. If we look at the schedules, which unfortunately we did not get time to 

debate in some detail, we see they state that the quorum can be two members. If there 

are three members—the chair and two others—and the chair is empowered under the 

provision in the schedules to call meetings at times and in places that its chairman 

appoints, he can call a meeting of just himself and one of the other members who turns 

up. They can have a vote but if it is divided, then the chair has the casting vote, so we 

have one person who can effectively direct everything in Auckland for that whole 

transitional period. When we think that there are all those other provisions that any 

agenda items can be interfered with and anything can be changed, basically that puts 

huge power particularly in the hands of the chair of the board. 

We can contrast that with the powers under the associated bill, where the local 

community boards—20 or 30 of them—do not have any powers at all, other than what 

is delegated by the larger Auckland Council. The larger Auckland Council might say 

“We’re not going to delegate anything. Get stuffed.”, and that would be it, under this 

legislation. 

So members can see how the name “Gutting of Local Democracy Bill” is very 

appropriate. Why could it not have gone to a select committee? I was on the Foreign 

Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free 

Trade Area Bill. We had less than a month to consider that bill. Perhaps we should have


had longer, but it shows that we can have short periods, medium periods, or long 

periods of select committee consideration. 

What was the Government scared about when it said that this transition bill could not 

go through a select committee process? It is outrageous, but it sort of fits in with what 

the Government did not long after it came to power, which was to rush a whole lot of 

important bills through Parliament under urgency so that there was no proper 

consideration. It is becoming a pattern—a very bad pattern. 

As Chris Hipkins said, this process could be a blueprint for what will happen across 

the country, including to the Wellington region. It is something that every New 

Zealander should shake in their boots about, and not just think it is something that 

concerns only Auckland. It concerns the very democracy of this country. We do not 

want democracy to be cut out at the local level and have democracy—even limited 

democracy, as we have seen over this urgency period—only in this Parliament. The 

limitations on the Government in our unicameral parliamentary system are bad 

enough—things can be rushed through very fast despite the resistance, in particular, of 

the Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour—without stripping away the powers of the 

people in terms of their local democracy. So the Greens are very supportive of Sue 

Kedgley’s amendment and very much against this bill as a whole. 


Chairperson. I am sorry that this point of order is slightly late, but I have only just come 

back into the Chamber. 

Hon Member: So we suffer. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a new point 

of order. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think I know what the member is 

going to raise. I just say to members that it is helpful if we keep our comments down 

while a point of order is being raised. I do not mind small muttering, but that comment 

was a bit excessive. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES: My point of order is about the stage we are now at in 

Committee, which is the debate on the title and commencement clauses. As you are 

probably all too painfully aware, this bill has not been to a select committee; this is not 

the first time that has been said by the Opposition. There is a longstanding convention 

that, as a result, firstly, a slightly wider scope is given to members for their speeches, 

and, secondly, the debate goes for longer than a normal debate on the title and 

commencement clauses. I understand that the Government has repeatedly moved 

closure motions on these clauses, so I just wanted to formally raise with you whether 

you will be taking into account the fact that this bill has not had the select committee 

scrutiny that it would normally have had. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that the Chair will 

take all matters into account. It is a long and complex algorithm, parts of which will be 

relevancy, repetition, the quality of the debate, the fact that the bill has not gone to a 

select committee, and the fact that it is a wide-ranging debate. All those elements will 

be judiciously weighed up, and the balance of the argument will be sought. At that point 

the Chair will decide whether we are going to take closure. I thank the member for his 

effort. 

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was listening 

very carefully to your criteria for judging the length of this particular part of the debate. 

In reference to the point you mentioned about the quality of the debate, I think this 

debate—particularly from Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party—has been of an 

extraordinarily high quality. I think that should be taken into consideration, because I 

am sure that that quality will continue.


The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I am sure that the quality of the 

debate has been such that the member will take the oral record and replay it on a 

continuous loop to himself when he is home at the weekends. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to 

take your ruling to mean, then, that you are reflecting Speaker’s ruling 110/7, which 

says: “members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks 

about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.”? Of 

course, this bill has been considered for 3 days, and although none of the Opposition’s 

amendments have been accepted, a very wide range of issues have been raised, many of 

which deserve to be touched on in this debate. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member can be assured that the 

Chair has that very point weightily in his mind, and will consider it very carefully. 

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I think the Local 

Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill could be quite properly named the 

“Rodney Hide - ACT Party Double-cross Their Constituents Bill”. If members recall, 

some time ago in an earlier debate Mr Hide said that he would come into this 

Parliament and, if he was a Minister, he would listen to people. Mr Boscawen, of 

course, led marches all over the country— 

Hon Steve Chadwick: Only Mt Albert. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, in Mt Albert. He was calling for people to be 

listened to over various issues. Yet when those members get into Government, no one is 

listened to. The people of Epsom—Mr Hide’s electorate—apparently are not intelligent 

enough to be listened to. The people in Heather Roy’s part of the world that she 

purports to represent—she does not have any constituents—apparently are not 

intelligent enough to be listened to. 

Hon Steve Chadwick: Or to bother. 

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Or to bother. As other speakers have said, it is 

interesting that once the bill is passed, National will take out half-page ads in the paper 

and have public meetings in order to consult with folk—after the horse has bolted. I 

think that is pretty reprehensible. This is one of the biggest changes to the biggest city in 

our country, and it will have huge commercial, social, and logistical impacts for a whole 

host of New Zealanders. I believe that that is absolutely wrong, and I invite Mr Hide 

and others to reflect on their conduct and on that of the Government throughout this 

debate. 

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I move, That the question be now put. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put. 

Ayes 68 

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1. 

Noes 32 

New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7. 



Hide to clause 1 be agreed to: 

to omit “Auckland Reorganisation” and substitute “Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation”.



Ayes 64 


Noes 36 


Amendment agreed to. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): As a consequence of that amendment to 

the Minister’s amendment, Sue Kedgley’s amendment is ruled out of order as it is 

inconsistent with the previous decision. Secondly, there are two amendments in the 

name of the Hon David Parker that are inconsistent with the previous decision, and, 

therefore, are ruled out of order. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to 

take it that my third amendment is within order, notwithstanding the prior vote, and that 

it could be put? 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I wonder whether the Hon 

David Parker could explain for us what his third amendment is. It is a bit confusing with 

so many amendments. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): My first amendment was to delete the word 

“reorganisation” and substitute the words “concentration of power”; my second was to 

delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “democratic deficiency”; and 

my third was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “facilitating 

the privatisation of council assets”. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have considered the three 

amendments, and I wish to change my ruling to say that not just two amendments are 

out of order, but all three are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous 

decision. 


Hide to clause 2 be agreed to: 

to omit subclauses (1) to (3) and to substitute the following new subclauses: 

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) this Act comes into force 2 days after the date 

on which it receives the Royal assent. 

(2) Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010. 

(3) Sections 27 and 28 and subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31 

December 2010. 


Ayes 64 


Noes 36 


Amendment agreed to. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There are a number of amendments in 

the name of Jacinda Ardern. I have to confess that I have not personally read each of 

them, but I have been told by the Clerk’s Office, which has worked through each of the 

amendments, that they are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision 

of the Committee. 


Chairperson. I seek your assurance that you have sought the assurance of the Clerk’s


Office that that is the case, and that all of the amendments have been read by the Clerk’s 

Office. My view is that it would be very hard for that assurance to be given considering 

the time that has been involved. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): It is not for me 

to speak, of course, but I know that the Clerk’s Office has done an outstanding job in 

regard to the whole issue of these bills. I have had the opportunity to notice that the staff 

peruse these things thoroughly. I would feel confident that they will have vetted the 

amendments submitted by the member, and if the staff say the amendments are out of 

order then I would accept that is so. At the end of the day, the important thing is that the 

Chairperson has sought advice from the Clerk’s Office, and it has provided advice. 

Finally, the decision comes down to you, Mr Chairperson. If you rule that the 

amendments are out of order, then we have to accept your ruling and that they are out of 

order. We have already had rulings from the Speaker, who has been called back on that 

very point. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to 

advise the Committee, because, obviously, a lot of amendments are involved. We 

acknowledge that the Committee has passed two amendments in the Minister’s name— 

the second one being to clause 2 to omit the words “on the day” and to substitute the 

words “2 days”. A number of the amendments in front of you refer not only to the date 

on which the bill comes into effect, but also to what has to happen before the Royal 

assent can be given, and particularly to some consultation with specified individuals. I 

think that even though we can accept that the actual day the bill becomes an Act has 

changed because of Mr Hide’s amendments, there are a number of amendments for the 

period leading up to that point. I think that some advice from you to the Committee 

would be quite helpful. 

NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): You, Mr Chairperson, have given a 

clear ruling to the Committee that these amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern 

have been ruled out of order. I think it is unfair of the Opposition to directly attack the 

Clerk’s Office. I think the staff have done a fantastic job. You have ruled, and the 

Committee, therefore, should not challenge your ruling. 

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will start by saying that the Opposition also 

agrees that Office of the Clerk has done a wonderful job, and there is no criticism at all 

of the office. The staff have worked under considerable pressure. There has been an 

enormous number of amendments brought about by the process that the Government is 

running. The point that Mr Hughes makes is quite a valid one, and one on which we 

seek a ruling. His point is that the effect of some of the Opposition amendments is not 

covered by the amendments that have been put by the Minister, because they relate not 

to the date on which the Act comes into force following the Royal assent, but to what 

must happen prior to the bill going for the Royal assent. That is a different question. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to members that I am happy to 

rule. I have now personally perused for myself half of the amendments—they are all in 

the same form—and I find the amendments are out of order on two counts: firstly, the 

date issue is well taken care of in Rodney Hide’s amendment; and, secondly, I would 

rule them out on the basis that they are not serious amendments. I intend no disrespect 

to the very important office of the chief Opposition whip, but I do not think that it is a 

serious amendment to say that things cannot happen until the chief Opposition whip has 

signed them off. The member may disagree, and I must tell members that there are lots 

of things for which the chief Opposition whip’s sign-off is very important—one of them 

being leave, amongst other things—and we all hang on his word. However, in this 

particular circumstance, I do not believe that is a serious amendment. The second role 

whose sign-off is required is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It then goes on to the


president of the Law Commission, the Chief Ombudsman—I could go on—there is the 

Mayor of North Shore City, etc. 

Hon Member: A good fellow. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Yes, as the member interjects, I have no 

doubt that the mayor is a very good person, but it would be inappropriate for the Chief 

Ombudsman, for example, to be involved in signing off anything to do with statutes. 

That is not the role that the person has. So the first reason I think the amendments are 

out of order is that they are inconsistent with the amendment put forward by Rodney 

Hide, and the second reason is that I do not think they are particularly serious. 


Chairperson. I think two points need to be made. They probably both go to questions of 

substance. I take very serious issue with your ruling on frivolity. I do not accept the idea 

that reorganisation cannot be done with a sense of unanimity and a sense of Parliament, 

the country, and the local authorities coming together. I think it is appropriate for the 

Committee to make that decision. A process that involves other people who guard the 

country’s processes, such as the president of the Law Commission and the Chief 

Ombudsman, might raise argument as to their roles, but I think an argument can be 

made that it is appropriate for those people to be involved. On the question of dates, it is 

certainly my view that the date issue, notwithstanding Rodney Hide’s amendment, when 

put together with the other substance could rule out some of the amendments, but not all 

of them. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the date issue, I say that the 

Committee, having made an amendment on the issue, has set the date that the bill comes 

into force. The Committee has determined what the date is, and any other date is then 

inconsistent with that decision. The date amendments have gone. 

On the substance issue, Mr Mallard makes a very good point, but I have heard no 

justification as to what role the Mayor of Carterton could possibly have in this 

legislation. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I can give you that one. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I ask the member to let me finish. 

Carterton is a long way from Auckland, I grant you. I have ruled the amendments out. 

The member might like to make some closing comments, but I do not think I am 

persuadable. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): On the question of the Mayor 

of Carterton, I think that it has already been made clear from the evidence in the 

Committee this afternoon—although you might not have been in the Chair—from Mr 

Hipkins that the Minister of Local Government has called for, and received, a report on 

reorganisation in the Wellington region. Carterton is part of that region. The concern of 

the Opposition is that this process not only is being set up for Auckland but will be 

carried throughout the country. It is undemocratic reform: there is a lack of referenda, as 

required under the Local Government Act; and there is the lack of a select committee 

process, which should apply to this area. Although not all of us think that the Mayor of 

Carterton at the present time is the best character in the world, and that Ron Mark could 

well do a better job, the mayors of the Wellington region could well have a view as to 

processes for the country generally. 

Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I think that we have had enough. I 

say to Trevor Mallard that I listened to Chris Hipkins. He talked about Upper Hutt and 

Lower Hutt, but he did not mention Carterton. The last point that I make to the member 

is that the title of the bill is a give-away. It was Local Government (Auckland


Reorganisation) Bill; we now have the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau 

Reorganisation) Bill. Tāmaki-makau-rau is a long way from the Wairarapa. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 as amended be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 36 


Clause 1 as amended agreed to. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 36 


Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 


Bill reported with amendment. 

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I move, That the report be adopted. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 36 


Report adopted. 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TAMAKI MAKAURAU REORGANISATION) BILL 

Third Reading 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Local Government 

(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill be now read a third time. The purpose of the 

bill is to provide the legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland 

governance arrangements, which are required to be in place as early as possible. We 

need to act decisively if the new structure is to be established before October next year. 

This measure will allow members of the new Auckland Council and local boards to be 

elected at the October 2010 local government elections. The short transition period will 

minimise uncertainty and disruption for council staff and the public. 

The Auckland region needs decisive leadership, robust infrastructure, and facilities 

and services to cater for its people. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 

found that many of the things holding back Auckland related to the way that the region 

is run. It found that the Auckland Regional Council and the seven territorial authorities 

lacked a collective sense of purpose, constitutional ability, and the momentum to 

address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. The Government agreed 

with many of the royal commission’s recommendations, has gone further on a few, and 

has provided some alternative solutions, such as the social issues forum. The 

Government has made a fast and decisive response to the royal commission’s report.

16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3719 

I would like to thank the royal commissioners for their work, and to congratulate all 

those involved in coordinating the Government’s response. I also want to thank the 

people of Auckland who contributed through their submissions to the royal commission 

report, and who have continued to express their views. The level of interest and 

continued debate gives me great confidence that the new Auckland mayor and council 

will lead a vigorous and critical local democracy. I also thank my Associate Minister of 

Local Government, Mr John Carter, with whom I have built up a great sense of 

teamwork and friendship. He has done an outstanding job over the period in, first of all, 

developing the policy, producing the legislation, and, indeed, making sure the 

legislation has a speedy process through Parliament. I also thank Mr Brendan Boyle 

from the Department of Internal Affairs and his team, who have done an outstanding job 

for the people of Auckland, Parliament, and New Zealand. We should all be proud of 

the calibre of the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs. 

The Auckland Council, as a single unitary authority governing the region, will 

provide leadership and deliver core services efficiently and effectively. The second tier 

of governance, made up of 20 to 30 local boards, will ensure that Aucklanders are heard 

on issues and make local decisions on local matters. The new system for Auckland 

governance will be much simpler, be more coordinated, and provide for community 

representation at the grassroots level. This bill is the foundation stone upon which we 

will make Auckland a great place to live that drives New Zealand’s economic growth. 

The new mayor and councillors will be the first leaders in Auckland’s history to be in a 

position to balance local and regional issues. They will be able to speak with one voice 

to central government, and this Government intends to listen. This bill provides for the 

establishment of the Auckland Council on and from 1 November 2010, the 

establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency to manage and facilitate the transition 

to the new local governance arrangements, and requirements for the existing local 

authorities and certain other entities to participate in the reorganisation, both by doing 

specified things and by refraining from doing specified things. 

This Government was elected to govern. There are those who believe that they have 

more to say in addition to the decades of debate and the royal commission submissions 

and report. There are those who believe that the Government should somehow make the 

complex process simple, and put a single simple question to a referendum, which would 

delay or possibly stop the renewal of Auckland governance. There are those who say 

that we have waited 50 years and that we can wait longer. We cannot wait longer. The 

royal commission considered the possibility of waiting and said no. It said we should 

act now. It said it is essential that the transition work is under way quickly. It said that 

the 18-month time frame for the establishment of the Auckland Council is ambitious but 

achievable, and it said that it is most important that the deadline is met. It said that the 

consultation by the royal commission had been extensive, and that there was “no need 

to rehearse old arguments”. 

The bill will enable work to get under way to make Auckland an internationally 

competitive city and a place that encourages our children and grandchildren to build 

their futures in New Zealand. This is a bill that Auckland needs, and a bill that New 

Zealand needs. It is well-thought-out and, with the later bills, balances the need for 

urgency with the need for democratic input. I commend this bill to the House. 

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I begin by acknowledging the sterling service 

provided by the Clerk’s Office—those officers of this esteemed institution who have 

helped guide the parliamentarians through this tumultuous single day of sitting. I would 

not like it to go unnoticed that they have shown a great deal of diligence and patience, 

and they have had to sustain some attacks from the other side of the House, and, indeed, 

the Leader of the House, who drove a stake driven by desperation, pettiness, and

3720 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 

sleepiness into the heart of this very key part of our legislature. I want it noted that we 

appreciate the services of those in the Clerk’s Office. 

It is necessary for us to rehearse ever so briefly why we have taken umbrage with the 

style and agenda shown by the Prime Minister and Mr Hide. This is what the jurist, the 

Hon Peter Salmon and his assistants, came back with—it deserves more than 1 day of 

sitting time of this House. We did not actually imagine that weeks and months would be 

tied up as the House debated and sent the bill to a select committee, because the royal 

commission settled upon a model that a huge number of parliamentarians saw some 

merit in. We took a great deal of exception to the undemocratic, unconstitutional, 

reckless, and dangerous style with which the rights of Aucklanders, families, workers, 

and community members have been trampled on, as a consequence of there being no 

opportunity for the public to comment on this reorganisation bill. 

The bill posits inordinate power with a small, shadowy group of people. We have no 

idea what they will cost us, broadly imagining that the ratepayers of Auckland will be 

left with the bill. They are a small group of people whom we fear will rack up inordinate 

expenses and then provide an opportunity for others not far away from them to use that 

as a chance to drive ahead with a privatisation agenda. We have been concerned that, 

and we have recited reasons why, this reorganisation bill will actually weaken the 

ability of Auckland to achieve mega-city status. 

There have been ill-informed remarks from members on the other side of the House, 

because, I understand, they believe that entertainment opportunities have been 

squandered as a consequence of the Pasifika, Māori, and Asians—who deserved an 

opportunity to come forward and simply tell their story. So it fell to Labour to ensure 

that the cloak of democracy sits easily on this House—not ruffled, wrapped up, and 

thrown aside like unwanted chip paper; that is not for us. That is why we have taken the 

time to try to explore every opportunity to ensure that the ratepayers of Auckland 

remember that it was the National Government that showed arrogant, uncaring, profitdriven, 

narrow, and divisive zealotry. That was what we sought to show the entirety of 

Auckland. 

I must continue on this rather baneful subject of the costs. The royal commission did 

not come up with exclusive costings. Rodney Hide stood in this House and said he did 

not know how much it will cost. John Key is not interested in how much it will cost. 

Bill English is already busily working out how he can claw it back after Treasury has 

had to fund it. It will fall on a whole bunch of people in Auckland who can hardly cope 

with the cost structure they are living with at the moment. 

There is a small reliance on the Māori language, as this bill gets to its fateful, fitful 

end. You know, the name Tāmaki-makau-rau is emblematic of what we have been 

through here. “Tāmaki” means either “ancestor” or “object of desire”; “makau” means 

“sweetheart”, and it also means “low tide”. This is definitely where the tide has begun 

to ebb for this uncaring, reckless, agenda-driven, and ideologically driven Government. 

The people of Auckland can see when the tide starts to go out, and it is definitely going 

out in particular on those Auckland MPs in the Government. Let them go out and 

explain to the Auckland communities why, from now on, every council decision will 

have to be reinforced or mandated by a small shadowy cabal of tsars. That is very, very 

dangerous. Let those MPs go out and tell them. 

Let them tell them in Onehunga. Of course, “hunga” means “people”, and “one” 

means “soil”. That is where the people who supported this madness of the National 

Government will be buried. Māngere in South Auckland—well it is unfortunate that 

those members’ colleague, who could not be here, has decided that the entirety of South 

Auckland should be written off with a glib remark about criminality. Of course we 

know that in Māngere they will remember that, because “māngere” means “lazy”,


“māngere” means “idle”, and if there has ever been an example of a lazy approach to 

good governance, this Government has given it. 

Paul Quinn: You’d know! You’re the laziest of everyone! 

Hon SHANE JONES: Then there is Waitakere, as members will remember. It is 

important that I educate Mr Quinn. He has so much time on his hands as a consequence 

of Wayne Peters showing how Māori rugby ought to be run—showing how Māori 

rugby in Auckland, covered by the transitional authority, will be in better shape for the 

Rugby World Cup. In fact, I fear that the preparations for the Rugby World Cup may 

begin to rumble and shake in Auckland. But let us come back to Waitakere. 

“Waitakere” means “the bottom of the waka has been holed”. It means that the bottom 

of the waka is taking on water, not only because of the Waterview Connection, not only 

because they have criminalised every South Aucklander. They have criminalised them 

all, and then they want Christine Rankin to offer them counselling. 

There are some people who come to the House boasting how clever they are. Simon 

Bridges was one of them, but time will sort out why he never offered one constructive 

remark. But let us be positive, because our side has provided commentary and ideas that 

have been a wellspring of positive contributions. We want democratic standards and 

accountability to reign. I shall now, for the benefit of Mr Quinn, make a 2-minute 

speech in te reo Māori that will require a very careful translation. 

Nā reira, ko tāku ki a tātou mō Tāmaki-makau-rau, nui ngā rōimata mō te mahi 

koretake o te Kāwanatanga. Ka takahia ki raro te mana o te iwi Māori. Ka takahia te 

mana o tātou whanaunga, huānga, manuhiri mai i Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. Ka 

whakatahangia te hunga mai i Āhia. Nā rātou i mahi, nā te Kāwanatanga me wāna hoa i 

tītaritari tēnei taonga te tuku pōti kia mana ai ngā whakatau i roto i te tāone me te 

kaunihera hou o Tāmaki-makau-rau. Me tētahi atu take, kei hea ngā whenua, kei hea 

ngā taonga hei hokohoko i te tuatahi hei muru i ngā nama o tēnei mahi ka oti i a rātou i 

tēnei wā. Ka ahu mai wēnā moni, tēnā pūtea, i hea? Ka ahu mai mā te tauhokohoko, mā 

te hoko ki rāwāhi ki wā rātou hoa. 

Me tētahi atu take e te Speaker. Nui ngā mihi ki ngā pononga a te Whare. Nui ngā 

mihi ki ngā āpiha, ki ngā pūkenga, ki ngā wāhine me ngā tāne i whakawerawera ai, i 

whakamomori ai kia oti pai ai ngā mahi. Ko tā mātou he āwhina atu i a rātou. Horekau ō 

mātou hiahia te whakataimaha i wā rātou mahi engari, he āwhina atu i a rātou. 


[And so my comment about Auckland to us is that many tears have been shed over 

work of no consequence by the Government. The authority of Māoridom has been 

trampled under. The authority of our relatives, kin, and visitors from the Great Ocean 

of Kiwa, from the Pacific, has been abused. Those from Asia are marginalised. They did 

it: the Government and its cronies distributed precious votes to ensure that decisions 

relating to Auckland City and the new council are passed. And besides, there is another 

matter. Where are the properties, the means to sell in the first instance, to wipe out 

costs that will be incurred currently for carrying out this task? Where will those 

moneys, the budget, come from? It will come through a trade-off by selling to their 

cronies offshore. 

There is another matter, Mr Speaker. There is much admiration for those who serve 

the House—officials, experts, women and men who have sweated and toiled in their 

attempts to ensure that the tasks are completed well. Our part is merely to assist them. 

We do not wish to add to their workload.] 

So, Mr Speaker, as a final gesture, as a consequence of your coming back, and our 

having achieved a single day of sitting on Wednesday, democracy is much richer. 

To the translators, greetings—small room for improvement. Kia ora tātou.


Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I am pleased to 

follow my colleague from up in Northland. One of the things that happens when you 

work in this place is that you get to make friends. I count Shane Jones as one of the 

friends I have made. One of the interesting things I have found with Shane is that 

although he is an interesting and entertaining speaker, if members listen to what he 

says—with the exception of a couple of things—they will notice that he never actually 

says a lot. But he is entertaining nevertheless. 

I agree with him on a couple of points. The first point is that this House needs to 

thank the Clerks at the Table for all the work they have done. They have done a brilliant 

job. Secondly, we also need to thank the officials for all the support they have given us 

during this time. Leeanne O’Brien from the Parliamentary Counsel Office has done an 

outstanding job, as well, and deserves to be recognised and thanked very much. 

Amongst all these acknowledgments of the people who have made this Local 

Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill happen we also need to 

acknowledge the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rodney Hide, who has also 

shown good leadership to all the people who have been working with him. He has taken 

great interest in this legislation and is certainly supportive of it. 

I guess the point I really want to make, and which is important for us all to 

understand, is that over the last 2 or 3 days we have set in place the ability for us to 

listen to the wishes and needs of Auckland, and to put in place a system that will allow 

all Aucklanders to have good local governance that will deal with the infrastructural 

issues that have been of concern to them. At the same time, the system will protect their 

rights to have their local government at a local level in order to make sure that the issues 

that concern them and that affect them on a daily basis are attended to and reflected. 

That is why I am proud to support this legislation. It is not as if we have finished; we 

have actually just started. We have started on a long journey. There will be lots of 

consultation. There will be lots of input. There will be lots of changes. I have said 

before that just about everything is on the table other than the decision the Government 

has taken that we will have one Auckland City. Other than that, we are an open book. 

We will be out there to listen. 

That is the nice thing with this Government and our Prime Minister, Mr John Key. 

He is a person who listens. He wants to hear what Aucklanders have to say. John Key; 

this Government; the Minister in charge of the bill, Rodney Hide; and all of us have set 

up a procedure that allows that situation to happen. I have to say, if ever there was an 

opportunity to see democracy in progress it is today. I am proud to support the bill. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): This has been a black day for 

New Zealand, and the date on the calendar in this House is still showing 13 May. Of 

course, the only person who really likes that fact is the Leader of the House: he gets four 

breakfasts, four lots of morning teas, four snacks, four lunches, four afternoon teas, four 

dinners, and four suppers. He is the only person on the National side who has liked what 

has happened this week. I am surprised that it took National members so long to work 

out how to deal with amendments in the Committee stage. I was getting writer’s cramp, 

thinking they must catch on soon—they must work this out soon, but no. We saw John 

Carter running back and forth to the Chamber— 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: He had the trots. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: —then running to the Clerk’s Office, backwards and 

forwards. As my friend Mr Clayton Cosgrove says, he must have had the trots. No, he 

was going flat stick to the Clerk’s Office, and in the end National members and their 

colleagues woke up to it. 

The trouble is that tomorrow most New Zealanders will wake up to it, and they will 

know that they have not had the opportunity to have a say in this legislation. They have


been betrayed—absolutely betrayed. John Key has run around the country saying that 

he has listened; he did not come to the Chamber to listen to a word of this debate, yet it 

has gone on for 4 days. 

Hon Shane Jones: He is busy at proselytising for South Auckland. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Ha, ha—yes! I have in my hand a newspaper 

advertisement by the National Party, and I am interested that it states: “Have your say 

on Auckland local government”. Who is paying for that? The National Party is not; the 

Parliamentary Service is paying. Who will pay for the changes in local government in 

Auckland? The National Party will not pay; the ratepayers of Auckland will pay for 

that, of course. That will cost a huge amount of money, and 1.4 million Aucklanders 

will pay. And those who live in Manukau will not have much say, at all; the people in 

Manukau will not be able to get people elected to this council, because the intention in 

the legislation is to make sure that the blue-rinse brigade and their friends get elected to 

the council, instead of ordinary New Zealanders. Members may say that that issue is 

covered in the next bill to be debated. 

The mayors have been really trying to get people to understand the seriousness of 

what is happening to them. On Monday a week ago there was a meeting in Papakura, 

and they put out a thousand seats and over a thousand people were there; John Carter 

fronted. Over recent weeks Judith Collins has had a few words to say, but members 

ought to hear what people say about her. She will not win Papakura next time—oh, no, 

she will not. The Mayor of Papakura is disgusted at what she has done—MPs cannot 

talk down to people. Even in Franklin they are disgusted. They are absolutely disgusted 

in the Hunua electorate. When people have a look around, they wonder what is in it for 

them. Yes, there may be a better form of local government for Auckland, but the 

Government should tell that to the people who have lost their jobs over the last few 

weeks, and to the people who have lost their overtime and cannot afford to pay their 

costs. This Government does not want to pay for this change, and I think that that is 

absolutely disgusting. 

We have a situation in Manurewa—and I am sure it is the same in Manukau East and 

it would be true of my friend’s seat of Māngere—where people have been shattered this 

week by this Government. It is not just because of the effects of this legislation but it is 

a whole feeling of what National is doing to them. National seems to be all about 

getting out there and selling a message. I can tell members opposite that not all the 

people of South Auckland will be rushing along the motorway to go and rob people in 

Mt Albert, but that is Melissa Lee’s contribution to all of this. Well, that is not good 

enough. She speaks for the National Party, for the hearts and souls of the National 

Party. She tells us what they really believe. They believe that people in South Auckland 

do not count for much. Well, I have to tell National members that they do. South 

Auckland people are the salt of the earth; they are the best people. 

But have those people had a chance to have their say? Not from the Government, 

they have not. My friend the member for Māngere, my other colleague the member for 

Manukau East, and I have put out referenda, and the responses have been pouring back 

in. People think the Government has not consulted on this issue—90 percent of them in 

my case. They think the Government has not talked to them or put them in the loop. 

Those sorts of people in South Auckland think that National members look down their 

noses at them and think they do not matter. Well, for me they do matter. But this bill is 

saying to people: “We have robbed you of your democracy. We haven’t given you the 

chance.” As Opposition members, we have had to use our time to make sure those 

people can be heard—to put up plenty of amendments to the bill, and to keep the debate 

going in the Chamber—because the Government cannot trample over the rights of this 

House. They may trample over the rights of people out there—


Louise Upston: How many, George—how many did you do? 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The lady from Taupō is screaming out. 

Hon Members: How many amendments? Tell us! 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Listen to them; they do not care. There is another one: 

the three-blonde trio! I have to say that the person in National, of all the backbenchers, 

who has spent the most time in the Chamber is Allan Peachey. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who? 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Allan Peachey. But what did he say? He stood up once 

or twice and said a few words, but it was not with any passion. But at least he stood up 

and had something to say. But when did the others have something to say? Well, people 

can go to Papatoetoe on 9 June at 7 p.m. and hear the member Mr Bakshi address 

people. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The silent one. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He sat in the Chamber, in the corner over there, for 3 

days and said nought. 

Amy Adams: He’s listening—he’s a good listener. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He is a fine listener, and he is a fine dealer, a wheelerdealer 

to be sure, but I do not know whether he will be able to wheel and deal Auckland 

some democracy. 

In the end, people have a right to know. The elderly are scared that they are losing 

something—they are losing their local council, and that is very important to them. But, 

more important, people feel they are losing their mayor as a figurehead in their 

community. They will lose their leaders. Auckland does not have so many leaders that it 

can afford to put that number on the scrap heap. I think that that is one of the things 

people must think about. And the bill does not really look after the workers who are 

affected. What will happen to those 6,000 workers? My bet is that once the new council 

is up and running, they will be joining the dole queues. They will be coming into our 

offices and saying: “We’ve lost our jobs. The Government didn’t keep its word.” I think 

that that is something that will hang around for the National Party until the next 

election. 

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party rises more in sorrow than in anger at 

the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill. Once upon a time 

we in New Zealand took democracy very seriously. Our ancestors fought for 

democracy, and women fought for the right to participate in the democratic process, but 

now the Government can get rid of eight democratically elected city councils without 

consulting one single Aucklander about whether he or she wishes to get rid of the eight 

democratically elected councils in Auckland, which represent 1.5 million people. 

The Greens would not have a problem if there had been a vote and Aucklanders had 

agreed to get rid of their eight democratically elected councils. But it is being done by 

this bill, with the stroke of a pen, and without a single Aucklander ever having been 

consulted, without a mandate from the people of New Zealand ever having been sought, 

and without voters having been warned in the election manifestos of National and the 

Act Party that that was their plan. There was no mandate from the Royal Commission 

on Auckland Governance to get rid of the eight councils and to impose a new model of 

local governance—a model in which the Mayor of Auckland will have powers that no 

other mayor in New Zealand has. Why should we suddenly come up with a new model 

in which the mayor has unprecedented powers unavailable to any other mayor anywhere 

in New Zealand, and all of this without the people of Auckland ever having been 

consulted and without anyone having been alerted about it in the manifestos?


One of the things that has concerned the Green Party is the role of the media in the 

whole debate. The media have been moaning about the fact that it costs $10,000 a 

minute or something for Parliament to meet, but no one in the media that I am aware of 

has raised questions as to why we should not be told what the transition will cost. 

Nobody in the media has asked that question. The other thing is that nobody in the 

media has questioned the censorship provisions contained in the bill. There are 

provisions in the bill that amount to censorship. They say that the handpicked cabal, 

Rodney Hide’s two or three men who will be running the Auckland Transition Agency, 

will have the power to censor, to override, to prevent any agenda item from being 

debated over the next 18 months. Has anyone in the media expressed any concern about 

those censorship provisions? We are up in arms about what is happening in Fiji, where 

the Government there is censoring the media, but no one seems to be concerned about 

the fact that the bill includes provisions to allow the transition agency to censor all the 

councils of Auckland in the next 18 months. 

Nobody in the media seems to be the slightest bit concerned about the four little 

words “as it sees fit” that have sneaked into the legislation. These words create a new 

precedent in New Zealand, because they say that the transition agency is to let people 

know what it is up to only if it sees fit. As MPs we have a Register of Pecuniary 

Interests—and the latest is about to come out. Imagine if we put an amendment that we 

would declare our pecuniary interests only as we see fit. The media would be absolutely 

up in arms. It would be a scandal. It would be on the front pages of the newspapers that 

politicians were trying to withhold information about their pecuniary interests. But not 

one single media outlet has expressed any concern about this new precedent. The 

Government having slipped it into this bill, will it now be slipped into all the other bills 

that come before the House—that information is to be divulged only as people see fit? I 

am deeply disappointed that the media have been so cynical about this process and have 

not picked up on those provisions, which amount to censorship, to the ability to 

withhold information, and to the ability to control the agenda items of the councils over 

the next 18 months. Nor do the media seem to be the slightest bit concerned about the 

wiping out of a whole layer of democracy and the imposing of a new model of 

democracy—the “strong mayor” model, which really amounts to giving the Mayor of 

Auckland the powers of a tsar. 

They do not seem to be the slightest bit concerned about that, or the fact that it is 

being done through the passage of legislation in haste without any consultation with one 

single Aucklander. It is an absolutely basic principle of governance that if we are to 

change the system of governance, we need to have a majority of the governed assent to 

it. That is why we have referendums when we seek to change the system of 

governance—for example, with the introduction of MMP. The Government is changing 

the whole model of governance in Auckland without any referenda, without any 

consultation, and without any mandate. The media seem to think that it is a joke. 

Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas must be rubbing their hands with glee. There will 

be, I am sure, a considerable celebration—maybe not tonight; they might be too tired. 

Later on, the champagne will be popping, and they will say “We’ve done it again. 

We’ve completely conned Aucklanders.” Actually, it is not just Aucklanders, because 

once this measure has been foisted upon Aucklanders we know that it will be rolled out 

over the rest of New Zealand. They have managed to con New Zealanders and 

Aucklanders. Those two members will be rubbing their hands. They have used 

blitzkrieg tactics, ramming things through—tactics that were perfected in the 

Rogernomics era. All of those tactics have been brought out to whip this bill through the 

House. Roger Douglas will think it was worthwhile his coming out of retirement to 

return to the House. He has rammed his agenda through. He has come up with the


techniques. He has been giving advice as to how to sneak the measure through, how to 

slip in the little words “as it sees fit” so that people do not understand their implication. 

Rodney Hide will think it was well worth while his choosing the portfolio of Minister of 

Local Government, because he has pulled off what amounts to a coup d’état. He is 

setting up Auckland in such a way that at the next election not only will the eight 

democratically elected Auckland councils be expunged but we will have an Auckland 

Council with a mayor with the powers of a tsar. John Banks is the next likely mayor. 

Once he is in complete control of the Auckland Council, he will unleash stage two, 

which is to sell off the $28 billion of assets of the combined local councils. 

I sought to table a cartoon before, but I did not actually table it. I would like to table 

it now, because to me it is the only item in the media that has encapsulated what has 

happened over the last 3 days. Here is the maniacal, demonic vision of Rodney Hide in 

his yellow jacket with his proud little ACT motif, trampling on the councils of 

Waitakere, of Papakura, of Rodney, of North Shore, of Manukau, and of Franklin. It 

shows him stomping on them triumphantly. It is extraordinary that he has managed to 

do that in such a way that he has conned New Zealanders and, it seems, the media, too. 

He has got away with a coup d’état in a quite extraordinary and stunning way. I take my 

hat off to Rodney Hide. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. He has done it with devastating 

audacity and devastating speed, and, seemingly, he has conned the media of New 

Zealand. 

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia 

ora rā. Thank you very much. 

Over the last 3 days of debate it has been hard to remember what the Local 

Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill is all about. It is not about the “Cousins and Aunts 

and Uncles of Maui Council”, the “Melissa Lee Memorial Council”, or the “Auckland 

Funsized Council”. The bill is the next step on from the Government’s decision on 

Auckland governance. Making Auckland Greater is said to be about greater 

communities, greater connections, and greater value. Perhaps it would have been more 

appropriately called Making Auckland Divided; it is about great shame, great waste, and 

great failure. The great shame is that after a robust consultation process and a 

comprehensive report from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, the 

Government has hastily rejected any suggestion to provide for specific Māori 

representation. The great waste is the Government’s apparent disregard for mana 

whenua interests in establishing the Auckland Transition Agency. The great failure is 

the almost certain probability, based on the current performance, that in a region that 

has, by far, the highest Māori population in the world, there will be limited 

representation of Māori—if any. 

The caption that Māori Television has applied to this key news item is the Superman 

shield. It is most appropriate to use this graphic to demonstrate the bill. The bill purports 

to be more powerful than any legislation seen before it. It is able to leap 50 years of 

controversy in a single bound. Based on a legislative process that will be faster than a 

speeding bullet, this bill will, indeed, set up “Supermayor”—a mayor of steel, who 

controls one super, overarching local authority for Auckland, sweeping out of its way 

three district councils, four city councils, seven mayors elected at large, and 96 

territorial authority councillors. But as any comic book fan will tell you, the blue, red, 

and yellow cape of the superhero is eventually hung up, as Clark Kent resumes his real 

persona as the mild-mannered low-level employee of The Daily Planet. 

The real issue behind the widespread opposition to the super-city proposal is that 

Aucklanders want to be heard and they want their issues to be respected. They want the 

views they put forward in over 3,500 submissions to carry some weight. They do not 

want a sham deal or the façade of making Auckland greater, while all they can see


around them is the dismantling of arrangements to encourage participation in local 

authority decision-making. 

Our focus throughout this bill has honed in on the significant level of concern 

expressed throughout Tāmaki about the issue of Māori representation. In case there is 

confusion in this Committee, Māori living in Tāmaki-makau-rau do not need a supermayor, 

a super-council, or anything else to tell them how they could be represented; 

they know for themselves. 

On 29 October last year the Tāmaki Regional Mana Whenua Forum was established. 

It derived its mandate from the 13 mana whenua authorities within the Tāmaki region. 

When talk has been bandied about the traps about one or two seats for mana whenua, I 

think it is only fitting to remind the Committee of the iwi and the hapū who affiliate to 

the local authorities across this region. The mana whenua groups are Ngāi Tai, Ngāti 

Manuhiri, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Rehua, Ngāti Te Ata - Wai o Hua, Ngāti 

Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua, Te Ahiwaru, Te Akitai, 

and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. 

One of the many names for the Tāmaki area is Tāmaki Herenga Waka—Tāmaki, the 

resting place of many canoes. This is part of the history of Tāmaki-makau-rau. 

Ancestors arriving from Hawaiki either berthed at Tāmaki and made it their home, or 

used it as a resting place before continuing on with their journey, as Tainui did at 

Kāwhia, and as my waka, Te Arawa, did before heading down the coast to the Maketū 

region in the Bay of Plenty. So in the tribal histories of many people—including Ngāti 

Awa, Haurakai-Waikato, and Ngāti Whātua—our tūpuna lived in Tāmaki at one time or 

another. Māori representation must take into account the rangatiratanga of the iwi and 

hapū who whakapapa back to this land. 

It was pleasing to hear earlier in the debate the Minister for Local Government, 

Rodney Hide, state categorically that it is clear that proper engagement with local iwi 

and the new Auckland Council will be crucial for the new council to succeed. Our 

contribution throughout the debate on this local government bill has been to spell out 

exactly what proper engagement might involve. My colleague Hone Harawira, himself 

of Ngāti Whātua, talked about partnership protection, participation, and pragmatism. 

Proper engagement will be seen in the maintenance of an organisational structure, 

environment, and leadership that promotes and enhances the recognition of Māori 

values. Proper engagement is about the protection of mana whenua, of wāhi tapu, and of 

taonga Māori. Proper engagement is demonstrated by meaningful and mutually 

beneficial participation of Māori in the council. Proper engagement will be seen in the 

practical means of maintaining and resourcing a consultative mechanism, and a 

mechanism for tangata whenua and the council to contribute to a decision-making 

process. Partnership protection, participation, and pragmatism do not have to be too 

hard. 

During the second reading the Associate Minister of Local Government, John Carter, 

rose to his feet and said: “this Government is about consulting.” We ask the Minister 

and his associate how rushing this bill through under urgency enables a robust 

consultation process to occur. I want to read a letter from Michelle Wilson of the 

Tāmaki Regional Mana Whenua Forum. She said: “The forum strongly disagrees with 

the Government’s failure to appropriately act upon the recommendations of the royal 

commission and the lack of consultation with mana whenua in order to provide for 

appropriate Māori representation. As a result, there is a lack of provision from the 

Crown’s agent, the Government, to their Treaty partner. This is a clear breach of the 

intent and principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” 

This sort of statement was reiterated in the strongest terms by the Ngāti Whātua o 

Ōrākei chairperson, Grant Hawke, on the day the Government’s announcement for


Greater Auckland was made. Mr Hawke’s views were that the move was a breach of the 

Treaty of Waitangi and that Māori would continue to be under-represented at the local 

level. It was at this point that plans started to unfold about a hīkoi proposed across 

Greater Auckland on 25 May of this year. It appears that that hīkoi has mobilised 

Pasifika communities, ethnic communities, and other New Zealanders, who are uniting 

to stand up for the right to quality and equitable Māori representation. 

We have all received an enormous amount of correspondence from Aucklanders 

concerned about this issue, and I conclude my speech with one of those letters from 

Mona-Lynn from North Shore City. She said: “As an immigrant to this country I believe 

that if Māori have special status, they need to be treated specially, and Māori seats on 

the Auckland Council is one of the ways that this needs to happen. I do not feel 

threatened by these seats and do not feel that the way I will be served as a citizen of 

Auckland will be any worse off if these seats exist.” Mona-Lynn has the generosity of 

spirit and breadth of vision to know that for this super-city to succeed, proper 

engagement with Māori must occur. 

The opportunity to provide for quality Māori representation is all that we are asking 

for and have been asking for, yet in this bill Māori barely rate a mention. I say that no 

change of name to the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill will ever really cut it 

by itself. If it is good enough for the Government to claim the name Tāmaki-makau-rau 

and add it into this bill as the title, surely it is good enough for the Government to listen 

to the claim of Māori in the area and give something back. Let them have seats as of 

right. This is not the planet Krypton. We are not debating an entirely different galaxy; 

we are talking about Aotearoa and Tāmaki-makau-rau, and therefore we should be 

talking about tangata whenua. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill—as we are 

opposing all elements of this suite of super-city proposals. 

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): This Local Government (Tamaki 

Makaurau) Bill is the first of three bills to deal with Auckland governance. People have 

been concerned by Labour’s claims that Aucklanders are being shut out of the debate. 

The other two bills will have full select committee involvement, and people will have a 

huge amount of opportunity to submit. I commend this bill to the House. 

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): Even after such a brief speech, it is great to be 

following Judith Collins, because that member knows something about crushing. She 

knows about crushing the spirit of the people of Auckland. 

Hon Judith Collins: No, I just crush your spirit, hon! 

PHIL TWYFORD: Ha, ha! So much promise, so much good work, and so much 

wisdom was invested by the royal commission—by Dame Margaret Bazley, the Hon 

Peter Salmon, and David Shand—over 18 months. They worked, they analysed, and 

they consulted; they talked to the people of Auckland. There were about 3,500 thousand 

submissions, we have heard. They travelled the world, looking at some of the most 

interesting and progressive examples of local and city government. They produced a 

report that has met the expectations they raised. They generated a blueprint for the 

government of Auckland—strong government—for the next 50 years. But what has this 

National Government done? What has it done with the aid of the “little emperor” from 

Epsom? It has picked the eyes out of that report. It has ignored all the good stuff, and 

picked out the bits, just the little bits, that its members understand. 

What are those bits? They are the bits about the centralising of power. That is all that 

National members care about and understand. They want to centralise power, hand it 

over to their mates, their cronies, and lock up Auckland government for the next 

generation. On top of that, they have driven the legislation through like a bulldozer, 

with no consultation and no regard for basic democratic standards. And that is what we 

have seen this weekend, from the comments of National members. We are beginning to


see a very familiar pattern. We saw it with Stephen Joyce and the announcement on the 

Waterview Connection, and we saw it with Murray McCully in the way he dealt to 

NZAID, against the advice of his own officials, and against the advice of the aid 

community. 

We are seeing a pattern of work that we have seen over the royal commission’s 

report on Auckland. It is straight out of the play book of Crosby/Textor. What is done? 

The announcement is made, critics are allowed to complain and grizzle, a bit of time is 

given, and then the bulldozer is driven on through and finishes the job. Whoever would 

have thought that the National Party of the last 3 years in Opposition would get into 

Government and ride roughshod over its own manifesto promises? There was a promise 

in black and white that it would consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the 

royal commission. But has it consulted? No—not one iota! There have been no changes 

since 7 April, when Rodney Hide announced what the Government was going to do. 

Yet Rodney Hide and John Key have gone around Auckland, talking to mayors and 

community groups, and “making nice”—“We’re listening. We’re listening, yeah. 

Nothing is set in stone. You know, we really want to hear your views.” But nothing has 

changed in the last 5 weeks, and nothing has changed in the last 3 days in this House. 

What have we seen in the last 3 days? We have seen an abuse of this House, we have 

seen an abuse of the principles of urgency in this House, and on top of that, this 

Government has legislated away Aucklanders’ right to a referendum—to have a say, to 

have a voice. But do you know what? That is entirely appropriate when we look at the 

substance of this legislation, because it is the antithesis of democracy. The bill for 

which we are having the third reading sets out the Auckland Transition Agency. But 

what is that transition agency but a power grab? It is the abrogation of the democratic 

rights of 1.4 million Aucklanders, who 18 months ago voted in their mayors, their 

councillors, seven councils, and a regional council. But what is the effect of this 

legislation? It takes away their powers. Those councils can do no more than have an 

item on the agenda of their meetings for it to be checked and abrogated by the transition 

agency. Five hand-picked cronies of Rodney Hide, the “little emperor”, have the power 

of Auckland—6,500 employees, $28 billion in assets—sitting in their hands. Who is 

“Mr 3 percent” accountable to? Is it to the people of Auckland? I do not think so. 

John Carter and Rodney Hide have talked a lot about consultation, in the last few 

days—a lot about consultation. Well, let us talk about promises of consultation. Last 

night, Nikki Kaye, the MP for Auckland Central, savaged me—it was like being mauled 

by a chihuahua as she barked across the Chamber at me—when asking what my policy 

was on community boards. I will tell the House what our policy is on community 

boards. We believe in real local democracy—real local democracy. We want a second 

tier of local government that is actually capable of making a difference to the lives and 

communities of Aucklanders—not those ridiculous, pathetic talk shops that the National 

Government is foisting on Aucklanders. 

Clause 15 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill says that “The Council 

may delegate to a local board any of its responsibilities, duties, and powers, except the 

ones listed in clause 32(1)(a) to (f) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.” 

Let us have a look at that clause. It states that local authorities are not allowed to 

delegate setting a rate, making a by-law, borrowing money, purchasing or disposing of 

assets, adopting a plan, appointing a chief executive, or adopting or consulting on a 

long-term plan or governance statement. Quite frankly, there is actually very little in 

this legislation that a local board or community council will be able to do. It is a con 

job; the Government says that it wants to consult on it, but if it is serious about that, 

why is it legislating away those rights and powers?


The size of local boards is also an issue. If there are 20 local boards, as the 

Government says may happen at the lower end, each of them will be representing 

70,000 citizens. That is a population the size of New Plymouth’s. 

Jonathan Young: Great city! 

PHIL TWYFORD: Where is Jonathan Young? Is he here tonight? He is—OK. But 

can Mr Young imagine a city the size of New Plymouth, with 69,000 people, but with 

no power to rate, to own anything, to employ staff, or do any planning for its 

community? Is that the kind of local government that people want in New Plymouth, I 

ask Jonathan Young? I suggest that it is not. If there were 30 local boards, as the 

Government says could happen, each would represent 47,000 citizens. Is Mr Nick Smith 

here tonight? Hopefully, he is out campaigning in Mount Albert. So National is 

legislating for local boards the size of Nelson, or New Plymouth, with no power, at all. 

What are Government members consulting on? They are consulting on nothing. 

We have asked in this House, time and time again over the last 3 weeks, for this 

Government to tell us the costs of the transition. How much will it cost Aucklanders to 

transition to the Government’s flawed undemocratic model of a super-city? Did we get 

an answer? We got nothing. Government members could not tell us, or they refused. So 

we have done the numbers, and it will cost Aucklanders up to $750 more on their rates 

bills, which is on top of $700 on their water bills. So this Government is stinging 

Aucklanders for almost $1,500 for its flawed super-city model. Aucklanders have had 

no say on it—there has been no consultation—all on a hope and a promise that money 

will be saved on the super-city. Well, we know that mergers of this size often do not 

generate those cost savings. 

The people of Auckland want a super-city. They want good world-class public 

transport. They want clean beaches. They want sustainable communities, good jobs, and 

public transport to take them to those jobs. They want a decent waterfront. They want a 

central business district that works. If a super-city can deliver some of those things— 

good infrastructure, quality of life, and democracy—Aucklanders will vote for a supercity. 

But they do not want to be shafted, they do not want to be dorked around, and they 

do not want to be tricked out of their birthright by this National Government and its 

ACT allies. 

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): It is a privilege to speak on the third 

reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill. This very fine bill will 

enhance the growth and prosperity of the Auckland region and, therefore, of New 

Zealand. I commend this legislation to the House. 

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): In December 2006, John Key told the people of 

Auckland he was proposing a bill that would provide for an independent review of 

Auckland governance and allow for a referendum on reform choices. 

Grant Robertson: Who said that? 

DARIEN FENTON: It was John Key, the now Prime Minister. Dr Wayne Mapp, 

who has joined us tonight, said in his online report of 30 December that it is necessary 

to have a more independent review that will also give the people of Auckland an 

opportunity to choose their preferred system of local government. As we know, the 

National Party also made a promise in its manifesto. Tonight, with the passing of this 

bill, those promises are dead and buried. We know that they are hollow words, but are 

we surprised? No, I do not think we are. The people of Auckland have been silenced, 

and it is a shameful day. 

I am proud that the Labour members have put up such a fierce fight. Labour 

members and the broader Opposition have been the last line of defence against the 

determination of an arrogant Government to ram through this legislation, to get its way, 

and to set a new path for Auckland that is divisive, unfair, and unjust.


Throughout this debate over the last 3½ days every Labour MP has received texts 

and emails from Aucklanders who have been following this debate. I thought I would 

give some examples from my in-box. The first one says: “Thanks for your team’s great 

effort. At least if this Government gets it wrong Aucklanders will toss them out at the 

next election.” And I received this one from a National Party supporter: “We’re hacked 

off with National. Keep it up because this is about democracy for Aucklanders.” This 

one is from a Helensville resident: “I notice that National MPs are meeting but not in 

the Helensville electorate. Why does our MP not wish to meet the public in his own 

electorate?”. Who is the MP for Helensville? Oh, it is Prime Minister, John Key. This 

one is from a Chinese resident on the North Shore: “I put in a submission to the royal 

commission and presented it at a North Shore meeting. It asked that ethnic communities 

have a voice in the new plan. John Key is running the Government the way that he 

wants—i.e. big money and ignore the people.” Another really nice one says: “Sorry you 

have to work today but what you guys are doing is vitally important as far as democratic 

principles are concerned.” There are many, many more. 

This debate has been very enlightening, and I am looking forward to telling the 

people of North Shore City, of Rodney, of Waitakere, of Auckland City, of Manukau, of 

Papakura, and of Franklin all about how little National thinks of them. We now know 

with certainty from the debate over the last 3½ days what National thinks, because of 

the raft of amendments from Labour and the Greens that have just been tossed out 

without genuine consideration. Not even one amendment got through. The National 

Government dumped many amendments that would have improved this bill and may 

have restored some certainty and confidence for Aucklanders. 

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Name one. 

DARIEN FENTON: I am about to, I say to Mr Finlayson. Amendments in proposed 

new Part 10, for example, related to good-employer provisions for the Auckland 

Transition Authority and the Auckland Council. The other amendments proposed to the 

transitional provisions in Part 3 would have given certainty and protection to the 6,300 

workers in local government in Auckland, but those amendments were dumped. Those 

workers have been given their cards. They have been given the sack, and they have been 

given their dismissal notices. National’s message to existing council workers is: “Do not 

apply. Don’t bother.” If the face does not fit, people should not bother to apply, because 

with this set-up—the jack-up that this Government has engineered—the chances of 

getting a job with fairness, let alone getting any respect at work, are gone. 

Then there were the very, very important amendments, put up by my colleague 

Charles Chauvel, that would have stopped the transitional authority from privatising the 

$28 billion worth of ratepayers’ assets that it will have charge off. Let me talk about 

those—[Interruption] The member looks a bit lost. Rodney’s $1.5 billion of assets will 

be down the tubes. North Shore’s $4 billion worth of assets will be down the tubes. 

Waitakere’s $2.5 billion worth will be down the tubes, as will Auckland City’s $8.7 

billion, Manukau’s hard-earned $6 billion, Papakura’s $457 million, Franklin’s $1 

billion, and the Auckland Regional Council’s $1.4 million. That is $28 billion worth of 

assets, built up over generations, that will go from communities into the hands of the 

“Rodney Hide Transition Authority”, ready to be handed over to a mayor with extreme 

powers. Also, the voice of local people will be seriously diluted. 

We had the extraordinary sight of National and ACT voting down a further 

amendment that would have made sure that the paid parental leave entitlements of 6,300 

workers were not affected by the legislation. What a shocking message to workers that 

was! We on this side of the Chamber heard loud and clear National’s views about Māori 

representation. They showed their contempt for the tangata whenua and for the Pasifika 

people in the largest Pacific city in the world. [Interruption] I am proud to be speaking.


I was particularly interested in the amendments moved by my colleague Carol 

Beaumont, which were blocked by National and ACT. 

Hon Darren Hughes: By that nasty man. 

DARIEN FENTON: Yes; he is a nasty, nasty little man. He is a nasty piece of work. 

He is spiteful. 

The amendments moved by Carol Beaumont sought to cap the salary of the chief 

executive of the transition agency. These are very interesting amendments. I thought it 

was interesting that they were all voted down. I think that sends a great message to 

people who are at the moment dealing with the impact of the economic downturn. 

While ordinary New Zealanders are being told to pull in their belts, this Government is 

not prepared to exercise fiscal restraint and rein in the power grab that this bill will 

allow. 

I saw Bill English come into the House last night and pretend to be the friend of 

workers. He pretended to be concerned about the Lane Walker Rudkin workers and the 

Bright Wood workers. I look forward to passing on to those workers the message that 

National does not think that a chief executive in these economic hard times should have 

to have a salary cap. Why not? What is wrong with that? While the Bright Wood 

workers are being dumped with no redundancy entitlements, and while the Minister of 

Labour sits on her hands and does nothing about redundancy pay and redundancy 

notices, this Government thinks it is OK for chief executives to have extraordinary pay 

and not have any restraint on it. 

I want to honour my colleagues tonight. I think they are a fantastic team. This has not 

been a game for any of us. We have been doing our job. Each of us who has put forward 

amendments has done so with care and thoughtfulness. We have debated passionately, 

and we have done so with one thing on our minds—and that is to have the voice of 

Aucklanders heard loud and clear, because there is simply no other way for them to be 

heard. This Government has excluded Aucklanders from having a say and a voice on 

how the restructuring of their local government will affect them. 

It is clear that National is in a bit of a panic. There has been a direction that National 

MPs should get out in their electorates and hold some public meetings. But it is a bit 

late for that. I do not think it will fix anything for them now, because this bill makes it 

too late. I know that those National MPs are in for a really hard time when they front up 

to their electorates, because Auckland people are mad. They are really angry. They 

remember the promises those members made, like John Key’s promise for a 

referendum, and the manifesto promise. The last 3 days of putting a stake in the heart of 

local communities, and of rights and democracy, will not go without a response. 

I say to National members that when they get out there, they should take their tin 

helmets and put them on. This is the biggest merger in New Zealand’s history, and I 

would have expected the Government to be much more careful. There was no need to 

rush and there was no need for urgency. I tell the National-ACT Government that 

Aucklanders are watching and Aucklanders are mobilising. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re watching and they’re saying: “What on earth are 

those guys up to?”. 

DARIEN FENTON: Why does that member not listen for a moment? Finally, I 

want to acknowledge the workers in Auckland City tonight who, because of this bill, 

face an uncertain future. I say to them that the Labour Party is with them. We stand 

beside them and we will continue to fight alongside them. In closing, I want to 

acknowledge the workers in this place: the food service workers who feed us, the 

cleaners who cleaned our offices, the messengers, and the staff from the Clerk’s Office. 

Thank you for supporting the important work of this House in these extraordinary times.


Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It is with great pleasure that I speak 

in the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill, a timely and 

important bill. There is one thing I would like to remind this House about. Paragraph 89 

of the executive summary of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland 

Governance states: “The Commission respectfully urges the Government to view its 

recommendations … which needs to be adopted with urgency so that changes can be 

implemented in readiness for the October 2010 local body elections. The Commission 

has consulted widely and believes that, overwhelmingly, Auckland is ready now for 

positive change.” That is exactly what this excellent National Government is doing. I 

commend this bill to the House. 

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Methinks they do protest too 

much. When we look over at that side of the House, those members all know it. We 

have had not just a disappointing Opposition, but also a disgraceful performance for 3 

days as Opposition members have trivialised and hijacked one of the most important 

and widely supported measures affecting the greater Auckland region for many, many 

years. Let us not delay it a moment longer. I commend this bill to the House. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Tamaki 

Makaurau) Reorganisation Bill be read a third time. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 52 


Bill read a third time. 


Speaker. It is not normal for us to sit on a Saturday, and I want to be assured and make 

sure the House is assured that the National whip is in a position to cast 58 votes. There 

were number of National MPs seen leaving from the rear of Parliament House over the 

dinner break, and I do not think they have had the chance to return. I am not calling for 

a personal vote, but I want the assurance so I can take consideration of what we have 

been told. 

Mr SPEAKER: There are no provisions in the Standing Orders to seek such an 

assurance. The votes voted by the parties are the votes that are counted. 


Speaker. I just wanted to confirm that technically we are still on Wednesday, 13 May. 

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, we are. 

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you. I knew I would get this done before 

Thursday. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): It is true that it is the 13 th . . 

That is a number that is pretty fitting for Gerry Brownlee. 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AUCKLAND COUNCIL) BILL 

First Reading 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local 

Government (Auckland Council) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I 

intend to move that this bill be referred to the Auckland Governance Legislation 

Committee, as per the notice of motion agreed to on Wednesday to consider legislation 

concerning the governance of Auckland, that the committee report finally to the House 

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 

time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a 

day on which there has been a sitting of the House, or on a Friday in a week in which 

there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington region during 

the sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189, and 190(1)(b) and (c). 

Auckland is New Zealand’s only city of scale, and it is the country’s main gateway 

to the world. Because of Auckland’s scale, Auckland’s and New Zealand’s success go 

hand in hand. As a large and outward-looking city, Auckland can, and should, 

contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now. 

Governance arrangements for the Auckland region have been a cause of concern for 

at least the last 50 years. There have been some efforts by successive Governments to 

address the problems, but those efforts have clearly been insufficient. How local 

government is structured is important in determining what gets done, and, indeed, what 

does not get done in Auckland. Governance arrangements affect the capacity to plan on 

an integrated, region-wide basis, and the ability to solve large and longer-term 

challenges effectively. Governance arrangements affect citizens’ ability to have a say 

about what services and initiatives they value. 

The previous Government commissioned the Royal Commission on Auckland 

Governance to inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government 

arrangements that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future. After 

wide consultation with Aucklanders, and consideration of over 3,500 submissions, the 

royal commission reported to the Government on 25 March 2009. The royal 

commission has done an admirable job of consulting with Aucklanders and formulating 

their recommendations. I take this opportunity to thank the commissioners for their 

work. 

The royal commission’s report identified two broad, systemic problems evident in 

current Auckland local government arrangements. Regional governance is weak and 

fragmented, and community engagement is poor. The commission’s report addressed 

the issues and identified solutions. In particular, it exhaustively described the range of 

opinions in Auckland’s many communities. We accepted the key points of the 

recommendations: one council for Auckland, one mayor with governance powers, one 

long-term plan, and one rates bill. 

We did not agree with the recommendations about Māori representation. That will 

not come as a surprise. If the people of Auckland or the council want specific Māori 

seats on the council, they already have the ability to enable that. The Government will 

not impose the seats. We did not agree with the proposal to have six sub-councils. We 

want more local representation, not less. We want communities to know they have their 

own local representatives, so we have opted to have 20 to 30 local boards. I am proud 

that places like Waiheke, which Nikki Kaye represents so well, for the first time will 

have their proper local representation recognised in statute. 

This Government has resolved to act. The Government aims to put the new structures 

in place in time for the October 2010 local government elections. This short transition 

period will minimise uncertainty and disruption for council staff and the public. 

Legislation required to give effect to these decisions has been introduced as three 

separate bills. We have tried to balance the need for action with the need for continued 

democratic input. That is why we have split the legislation to effect reform into three 

bills, of which this bill is the second. 

The first urgent bill—the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) 

Bill—provides the necessary legislative mechanisms for transition to the new Auckland 

governance arrangements, which needs to occur as soon as possible in order to establish 

the Auckland Council by 2010. That bill has proceeded through all stages under 

urgency and without select committee consideration.

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 3735 

Hon David Cunliffe: Start at the top of the page, Pinocchio. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I thank Mr David Cunliffe for his assistance. A third bill, 

expected to be introduced later this year, will provide for the ongoing governance 

structure and detailed legislative framework for the governance arrangements. 

This second bill—the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—provides for the 

governance structure of the Auckland Council, including the high-level framework for 

the structure of the Auckland Council, with eight members elected at large and 12 

members from wards; in the order of 20 to 30 local boards, including their high-level 

functions; and the direction and provision of powers for the Local Government 

Commission to determine the boundaries of the wards of the Auckland Council and the 

local boards, and the number of local boards and their membership. 

I intend for this bill to proceed through a compressed select committee process, with 

the committee reporting finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. We need 

to balance the need for action with the need to ensure democratic input. That is what the 

select committee process is about. I urge all Aucklanders to take advantage of it. 

It is imperative that this bill be enacted by late September 2009 to enable the Local 

Government Commission to set the region’s boundaries in time for the 2010 local 

government elections. This bill implements the royal commission’s fundamental 

recommendations of a mayor for Auckland, to be elected at large with specific 

governance powers, and a single unitary Auckland Council, as the first tier of 

governance. As I mentioned earlier, the royal commission formulated these 

recommendations after wide consultation with Aucklanders and after considering over 

3,500 submissions. This bill is essential to allowing work to get under way to put the 

Government’s plan into action and to build a world-class city for the good of all New 

Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): That was a very interesting 

speech by the member Rodney Hide. When he mentioned Waiheke, it made me think 

“Oh, there’s the expert on public toilets in Waiheke speaking.”, and some members will 

remember that. 

Nikki Kaye: That’s offensive! 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Ah—diddums. However, this is a very important bill. 

Being here this week is like being on the set of Blackadder, where Blackadder and 

Baldrick—the two local government Ministers—are hatching up a cunning plan for 

Auckland. But what have they delivered? A giant turnip for Auckland. That is what has 

happened. You see, this bill is dealing with the rats and mice for Auckland; the big 

decision has already been made. I think people on the Opposition side of the House 

agree that one council for Auckland is the right idea, but we do not like the Government 

trampling over Aucklanders without giving them a say on the really important part—the 

really big change. 

Hon John Carter: Which is what? 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Associate Minister of Local Government is asking 

what that is. No wonder we are in trouble! Let me tell members that the honeymoon for 

National is over, and the brides sitting opposite are going home to their mothers and 

saying: “Well, it wasn’t that exciting.” They are disappointed, and they will feel from 

now on that Aucklanders really are upset with them—really annoyed. 

You see, we will be given the opportunity to talk about local boards. Those are what 

we are going to have, but they are not going to have very much power, at all. I suppose 

the most important power they will have is to decide who gets the key to the local hall. 

Perhaps they might be in charge of dogs, and in making decisions about brothels. I dare 

say my colleague on the other side of the House, Mr Bakshi, a list member for National, 

would know all about that, so he might be able to help there. The boards will talk about


parking. They might be able to talk about liquor bans, although maybe the big council 

will not let them do that. It is really quite worrying. 

Hon Members: George, George! 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Hello! 

Hon Member: Where’s Mr Prasad? I haven’t seen him for 3 days! 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Well! I want to talk about the Government’s use of 

parliamentary funds to advertise in the newspaper I have here. I have been looking 

through it to see who is having meetings. Well, the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith is going to 

have a meeting. Yes, the Hon Paula Bennett is. She went weak at the knees the last time 

she had a meeting about this. Who is having the most meetings? It is Nikki Kaye; that is 

fine. One person I have a bit of admiration for, because she did not jump up in the 

earlier debates, is Jackie Blue, and I would be interested to hear what she actually 

thinks. And we have the member for Maungakiekie, who is going to be very busy 

because he feels a cold draught up his majority. Who is next? It is my friend Mr Bakshi 

again. He has a meeting, and I want to advertise this meeting. It is in Papatoetoe on 9 

June at 7 p.m.; he is asking everyone to come along, and to bring a job offer as well. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will he say anything? 

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: He has said nothing in 4 days. Then we have Paul 

Hutchison, who made a brilliant third reading speech. Someone else wrote it for him— 

probably the whips or the research unit. 

But what is actually happening here is that the Government is trying to con 

Aucklanders that they are going to have a say. Well, that will not happen at all, because 

the major part of this legislation—of these three bills—has already been passed. We 

have a situation where National members are going around trying to con people. 

Mr Peachey is not doing it. He is not having a meeting, because he knows that the 

people where he lives are not going to waste their time on going out to one. They know 

he is not worth listening to, so they are not going to go, and that is quite a worry. 

The other name I was looking for was Melissa Lee. They kept her in the dark last 

time, and it is not a good idea to keep her in the dark; it leads to trouble. 

In the end, we want to find out why National members are having these meetings. 

Why did they not have the meetings before and tell people about the big plan? They did 

not do it; they did not want to do it. 

Of course, Richard Worth is not having any meetings, and I thought he knew the 

Mayor of Auckland pretty well—but, obviously, not as well as the Mayor of New 

Delhi—so that is really quite a surprise to us all. Wayne Mapp is not having a 

meeting—and why not? 

Wayne Mapp is out on manoeuvres. But he gets there, and what a great MP and 

Minister of Defence he is. He does not get seasick; yes, he is a person without any 

feelings, at all. He does not feel for the people on the North Shore. 

What will happen is that people will go along and make submissions, but will they 

have a chance to make real submissions? No. The National Government does not have 

confidence in its membership on the Local Government and Environment Committee. 

The chairman is from West Coast - Tasman, and of course he has had a terrible job. He 

has had to cut people off when they have wanted to say something. He has been giving 

people 5 minutes—5 minutes—to talk about such important things, but National wants 

someone a bit stronger, who will give Aucklanders only 2 minutes. In the end, the 

Government is not really listening, at all. 

When it comes to deciding whether there will be 20 or 30 community boards, the 

Local Government Commission will be doing that. 

Hon Member: This is the most exciting night George has had in 50 years.


Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is “Baldrick” going on again, over there; I wish 

he would keep quiet. 

The people of Manukau will want to talk about their airport shares, and how the 

National Government stole their shares in the airport. At least I had the decency to sell 

the shares back to the Government when I was mayor. 

Let us have a look at the cost. How much will it cost? The Government is not 

worried about the cost, because it will not cost the Government; it will cost 

Aucklanders. It will cost the people who are losing their jobs, the people who are losing 

overtime. They are the ones who will pay for it. Do members think that the National 

Government cares? 

We have local mayors like Len Brown, who goes around schools and talks to kids, 

sings to kids, and provides leadership, but there will not be any of that from local 

boards. They will be chasing dogs, licensing brothels, etc. Calum Penrose is an 

excellent person, and he is the Mayor of Papakura. What is happening there? In 

Papakura, where there are some difficulties, the kids are asking “Aren’t we going to 

have a mayor?”. The kids realise it; the kids realise that leadership is important. They 

need someone to look up to. They do not need as their figurehead the janitor who looks 

after the local hall. 

In the end, I think that this Government has made a big mistake. The process of 

getting out and talking to people should have happened with the first bill and not the 

second, if the Government is sending only one to the select committee. The process 

should have happened with both of them, actually. But of course the rush is on. And the 

rush will be on to the polling booths to get rid of the Government that has stolen 

Auckland this May. The people will remember this time as the turn-round time. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): It is quite 

funny, is it not—I say this in response to what the Hon George Hawkins just said—but 

the last time I looked, Auckland was still there. So I do not know who stole it. 

It is ironic—and we often get some irony in this House—that for the last 3 days or 

more Opposition members have been saying to us that they actually support having one 

city in Auckland, but the reason they do not support the first bill is that we have not sent 

it to the select committee. Here we are now, with a bill that will go to the select 

committee, and Opposition members do not like it. They do not want people to have a 

say. 

I am pleased to support the Government and to support the Minister of Local 

Government, Rodney Hide, in the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland 

Council) Bill. It starts the process of consultation that we said we would give the people 

of Auckland. Most important, it allows the people of Auckland to tell us what they 

want. I know that it is unusual for the Labour Party to do this, but rather than our 

prescribing things and telling people about them afterwards or letting them have their 

say afterwards, we are going out there with an open book. We are saying: “Just inform 

us, and then we will see how we can accommodate that.” That is the very point. 

We hear rhetoric from those members all the time saying that we are doing it wrong, 

but I did not hear one speech that said: “Here is the alternative.”—not one speech. 

Opposition members did not tell us what they would have done if they had had the 

opportunity. It is a good thing that those members did not have the opportunity, because 

we would have got some more old granny State stuff instead of actually genuinely 

getting out there and listening to the people. 

That is what this bill will do. That is what this Government is about, what this Prime 

Minister is about, and what this Minister of Local Government is about. I am proud to 

support a Government that is doing those things. This is a great day for New Zealand. It


is a great day for Auckland. It is a great day for the country. It is a great day for 

democracy. I support all those things. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I begin tonight by thanking the 

parliamentary staff who have stayed with us right through the proceedings of the last 

week. I would like to recognise the messengers, our security staff, those who have 

looked after us, and those who have fed us. We have had a few long hours, because this 

is an issue we all care about. [Interruption] Members opposite may laugh. 

I will give a little geography lesson about Auckland. There is a road called Dominion 

Road—Crowded House wrote a song about it—and it runs pretty much right down the 

middle of the isthmus, south of Queen Street. To the east of that road, as the eye turns to 

the east—past the bronze statue on Manukau Road of Rodney Hide on his charger— 

and out to the valleys and dales of Remuera and Glendowie, where Don Brash used to 

live, it votes blue. It votes blue out in those hills. That is where the old money lives, but 

I say to Gerry Brownlee that he would not know about that. We turn our eyes to the 

west, and that is where the real people live. They vote Labour, more often than not. 

Those people are pretty damn angry at the moment. 

This bill is not about us—it is not about members in this House. It is not about the 

tag wrestle, it is not about the pet names—[Interruption]—and it is not about the 

members who have come back to the House tired and emotional, I say to Mr Quinn. It is 

about the thousands of Aucklanders who are watching tonight and wondering why this 

is happening. The people have in their gut a strong feeling that something has been 

taken away from them this week—some sense of history, some sense of identity, be it as 

residents of Waitakere, or of the proud North Shore, like its mayor, or of Manukau City. 

We might laugh and call each other names, but at the end of the day we know that the 

people will have the last say. 

It is true that the Government has stolen the cities of Auckland. It did not need to do 

it. We needed an integrated regional body, and the royal commission delivered it. But 

the royal commission did not ask us to steal the cities. It said we should preserve the 

cities but make them work leaner and better. The Government could have done that, but 

it chose not to. What it did say was that it would consult Aucklanders, but it did not. 

The Government did not consult Aucklanders on the royal commission, it did not 

consult them on the bill, and it has not been back to Auckland. 

The Government says that this bill is going to a select committee. That would make a 

change! I wonder whether the Government will give the submissioners more time than 

they gave the submissioners on the changes to the Resource Management Act. There is 

a lot of quiet anger out in New Zealand about that process, too. 

The Government has stacked the deck to keep its mates in power. That is the part I 

cannot get over. There are eight at-large councillors. If people do not have quarter of a 

million dollars for a mail drop, they should not apply. It is only for the rich and famous. 

Nineteen out of 20 councillors, historically, have been white men from Remuera with a 

lot of money to spend. That will go down in west Auckland like the proverbial bucket of 

sick, because westies will not stand for it. Sam Lotu-Iiga, and I am using his proper 

name, thinks it is funny for now, but there is a little clause in the other bill that 

guarantees he can have a quiet retirement from Auckland City without calling a byelection. 

That is an outrage—while we are on the subject. 

There will be eight at-large councillors, and by my reckoning that means Waitakere 

City will get two. So 200,000 people will be represented by two councillors. That area 

is twice the size of a general electorate in a general election. That is not democracy as 

Aucklanders know it, it is not democracy as they care about it, and it is not democracy 

as they will vote to exercise it.


The next issue is the cost. If the Minister of Local Government is so confident that 

this is in the interests of Aucklanders, why does he not come clean and tell ratepayers 

how much it will cost them? We had to go to Auckland University for independent 

analysis, and the cost—I say to the ladies and gentlemen out there—is $750 extra per 

ratepayer, on average. That is what it will cost to fund the transition to make Rodney 

Hide the “Emperor of Auckland” with his mate John Banks. At $750 each, and with 

four people in most households, the cost to each household will be $3,000 extra. 

Ratepayers might get it back over 20 years, but right now they are paying for the 

political escapades of Rodney Hide and John Banks. We are not enjoying it; nor will 

they. 

Here we are, after a week of pretty heavy going in the House. We have had some fun 

too, and members may have noticed that our team has enjoyed itself. We are seeing 

National at its bulldozing worst. it is bulldozing the democratic institutions of 

Auckland. 

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know the song about interjections 

being rare, reasonable, and, hopefully, even witty. I observe that the former Leader of 

the House is none of those three, and it would be good if I could carry on with the 

speech. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a good point. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Michael Cullen is not actually here. He is the former Leader 

of the House. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I will rule on this. We are getting near the end of a 

very hectic 3 days, and it has become quite raucous. We have had a very robust debate 

over the 3 days. But I ask members to give respect to the member on his feet. Crossinterjections 

should be rare and reasonable. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Look, it is not about me or us; it is about the people of 

Auckland, and they care about this bill. I ask members to think about them as they do 

this to them. 

We are saying that the arrogance of top-down government does not sit well with 

New Zealanders. Kiwis are fair and decent people, but they are independent people. 

They got away from being the servants of the British Empire or some foreign 

Government, and they came here for a new life. They came here because they wanted to 

be able to decide for themselves how to live that new life. They will not appreciate 

Rodney Hide taking away democracy in Auckland. Although, of course, the 

Government can pass this bill just as it passed the other one, the people will have the 

final say. The many people who are watching tonight will remember this. 

Out west we had a little community meeting on a cold, wet Monday night, and 250 

people turned up. That was not by accident. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Where were you? Back in front of the heater in Herne Bay? 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I say to Mr Brownlee that I was there. Two days’ notice 

was given of a march in Henderson, and 1,000 people turned up. They do not do that for 

no reason. A hīkoi will bring the kaumātua of the north and the south together in 

Auckland, and I think we need to take notice of that. 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The patronising member from Herne Bay. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I say to Mr Brownlee that there are some political 

lessons. One of those is not to leave House procedure to the so-called Leader of the 

House. Forty-eight hours of debate and thousands of amendments after he had said we 

would be out of here, we finally concluded the other bill. The second lesson— 

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to know why that 

lazy Opposition could not take us right through to Budget day, as David Cunliffe 

promised.


Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am getting to that. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will carry on with my speech, because that, in fact, was 

my next point. When Gerry Brownlee is in trouble, he turns to the cavalry from the 

north. “Hone Carter” might not look flash, but he trotted over the hill just in time to 

save Gerry’s bacon from a humiliating defeat. Let us hear it for John Carter tonight! He 

should have been the Leader of the House. 

Of course, the most important lesson of the week is the lesson for John Key— 

amongst others he has probably learnt—and that is not to delegate something as 

sensitive as this to Rodney Hide and expect that everything will be OK. It is one thing 

to treat a minor party as expendable, and it is one thing to come to politics as though it 

is a corporation where one can just delegate to someone, and if it does not work out, one 

can sack that person, but politics does not work like that, because Kiwis remember. 

The analysts out there in media-land are saying that John Key has over-delegated this 

one. He has let Mr Hide run it, and Mr Hide has run into a buzz saw of public anger, 

and a buzz saw of opposition in the House, which was good-spirited but none the less 

determined. One hopes that Mr Key has learnt some other lessons this week, such as the 

fact that there is no way he can stop Melissa Lee from putting both feet in her mouth, 

even if he Velcros her to Jonathan Coleman. There are other lessons, too. He should not 

rub his finance Minister’s face in it, and still think they can look unified at Budget time, 

and he should not count out an energised Labour - Green - Māori Party coalition, 

because members might be seeing another one in the future, and it might be sitting on 

that side of the House. 

If Mr Hide thinks people are angry, he should keep his stumpy little bling-encrusted 

fingers off our city, because we care about Aucklanders, and Aucklanders care about 

Greater Auckland and the cities that make it up. I also advise him not to count his 

chickens. 

Paul Quinn: Hallelujah! 

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There is also a lesson for the member from 

Wainuiōmata, Paul Quinn. When he has had a good time it is best to stay out of the 

House after tea. That is the lesson for the member from Wainuiōmata. 

Here is the final lesson for the future. If members have rammed through governance 

reform like this to make the way clear for Mr Lotu-Iiga to finally have one job when 

other people are looking for them, and if members think they have paved the way for 

John Banks to ride into the Auckland Council, they should remember that Aucklanders 

make up their own minds. Every Aucklander, at that city’s next election poll, will 

identify John Banks with the bill that stole their cities, and they will say: “If there is one 

way we can protest against this bulldozing National Government, it is to make sure that 

‘Banksie’ is not the mega-mayor.” So this debate does not finish tonight, and it does not 

finish this year. The fight-back starts now. 

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): I also start by expressing the gratitude of the Green Party 

to all the staff in Parliament who have kept the place going over the last few days. I 

hope they understand that it was a protest. It was a protest against the slashing and 

gutting of democracy in Auckland, and against the profoundly undemocratic way in 

which this far-reaching bill—which will obliterate layers of democracy in Auckland— 

was whacked through this House without any ability for the people of Auckland to have 

select committee hearings or to be consulted in any way. I hope the staff of Parliament 

and the people of New Zealand understand that that is what it was about: it was a 

protest. What did the Government expect us to do? Did it expect us just to stand by 

while this Draconian legislation was being rammed through the House?


Rodney Hide has been very chipper since the dinner break. He has been very, very 

chipper, bouncing up and interjecting and looking incredibly pleased with himself—and 

why would he not? He has pulled off a coup—in fact, it is a coup d’état. He has justified 

his being the Minister of Local Government. No doubt, the ACT Party will have 

contributions rolling into its coffers from people who will be deeply grateful for what he 

has done, and who will be rubbing their hands together as they envisage the $28 billion 

worth of assets that will eventually be privatised in a year or two, and that they will be 

able to get their hands on. Of course, the people of the Auckland Citizens and 

Ratepayers Association are gearing themselves up all over Auckland even as we speak, 

and are looking forward to the day next November when they hope they can take over 

the council of the super-city of Auckland and unleash their agenda on the people of 

Auckland. So a lot of people are very grateful to Rodney Hide—or, at least, a lot of 

business people are. But I think that, once what has happened here sinks in, 

Aucklanders will not be grateful at all. I think there will be a major backlash when they 

realise what a coup d’état Rodney Hide has pulled off using the classic techniques of 

Rogernomics. 

National is now pretending that it will go out and consult, after pulling off the coup 

d’état, after setting up the super-city, and after wiping out eight democratically elected 

councils. The Government is now telling Aucklanders not to worry, because it will go 

out and consult, it will set up a committee, and it will listen to the people of Auckland. 

The only trouble is what is the Government going to listen to them talk about. What is 

there left to consult about? The whole thing has been set in place. There is one aspect 

left to consult about—the power of the local boards. The super-city is in place; it is 

ready to be taken over by John Banks, who will be the next tsar of Auckland. We hope 

he will not be, as David Cunliffe said, but that is the possibility that we need to face up 

to. He will have unlimited mayoral powers that no other mayor in Auckland will have. 

The only counterbalance to the power of the mayor, who will completely control the 

super-city, will be the local boards. 

Let us look at the legislation to see what the local boards are. The first thing that one 

notices in the legislation is that it states that a local board is not a local authority. I will 

repeat that: “A local board is not a local authority”. What is it, then? It is an 

“unincorporated body”. That is what those local boards are, and they have no powers at 

all in the legislation. The only powers they will have will be delegated by the supercouncil. 

So the super-council may decide to delegate some piffling little powers, or it 

may decide not to delegate anything. The bill then says that there will be four to nine 

members on each of the boards. We were told in a briefing that the board members will 

be paid $10,000 each. Those people will represent about 70,000 people. The people of 

Manukau are going to find themselves with, instead of their city council—which, as far 

as I know, most of the residents of Manukau are very, very satisfied with—two 

councillors on the Auckland super-city council, and a piffling little board with four 

members, which is an unincorporated body. They will not have even a local authority. 

And what will these local boards do? They will have absolutely no resources and no 

power. The local boards will not be able to hire staff. They will not be able to own 

anything. They will not be able to levy rates, borrow money, make by-laws, or develop 

plans. What will these boards do? They will do absolutely nothing. I say to Mr Hide that 

this is not local democracy; this is a pathetic joke. The Government has also got rid of 

the Māori seats, which were one of the best recommendations of the Royal Commission 

on Auckland Governance. What an outrage that the Government would simply 

obliterate the Māori seats. 

I warn Aucklanders that the consultation that we are now going to embark on, having 

set the whole thing up, will be—I am afraid to say—a completely pointless exercise. As


everyone knows, a select committee is completely pointless if the Government has 

already made up its mind. Let us make no mistake: the Government has made up its 

mind. I say to Aucklanders: “Do not be conned.” Nevertheless, I still urge all 

Aucklanders who understand what is going on here to make their voices heard and to 

protest at the select committee, because there will not be anything else to do at the 

committee hearings, apart from perhaps talking about the powers of the pitiful, 

toothless, impotent local boards. I encourage those people to turn up nevertheless, 

because, as the Prime Minister said in this House, every Aucklander who wishes to be 

heard by this select committee will be heard. I urge people, even though it is too late, to 

get out there and make their voices heard. 

I predict that this super-city is not going to bring about any savings at all, and I am 

really worried about that. The international research that has been done shows that none 

of these forced amalgamations—because that is what this is—none of these super-cities, 

has ever delivered any savings. Most of them have come out and estimated savings; of 

course, Rodney Hide has refused to tell this House whether there will be any savings at 

all. Some super-cities promised 18 percent savings, and they eventually saved maybe 1 

or 2 percent. 

The super-city will disenfranchise whole Auckland communities. There will be a 

backlash against it, and it will not solve any of the so-called problems of Auckland. The 

problems of Auckland do not relate to its structure. This whole debate has been about 

structure. The problems people have with local government are things like the phoney 

consultation, and the lack of accountability and transparency. None of those problems 

will be solved by this super-city. 

The people of Auckland are going to wake up and find that they have this huge, 

bloated, remote, inaccessible super-city, which will be a bit like a supertanker, and they 

will not be able to access it or influence it. The super-city will have $28 billion of 

assets, and it will be a huge mega-city—one of the biggest in the Western World. The 

irony is that most places—for example, the United Kingdom—are going in exactly the 

opposite direction. These places have worked out that big super-cities do not work. 

They are not flexible. They are not able to deal with the problems of local democracy. 

So they are going in exactly the opposite direction. They are setting up local councils 

that are smaller and are genuinely close to the people. 

I predict that New Zealand will have a big, bloated super-city for a few years, and 

then we will work out that it has been a complete disaster and a huge waste of money, 

and that, far from solving the problems and the alleged parochialism of Auckland, the 

super-city has only unleashed resentment and disempowerment. In a few years’ time, 

we will go back to what we had before. 

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. 

Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. 

Hon Darren Hughes: It is all Labour’s fault. 

HONE HARAWIRA: Not quite. The original submissions to the Royal Commission 

on Auckland Governance included a plea for recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi in 

local government, and recognition of rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and the rights and 

responsibilities of mana whenua. Sure, they acknowledged the limitations of 

arrangements being implemented by councils around the Auckland region, but they 

recognised at least the possibility of positive relationships under section 4 of Part 1 of 

the Local Government Act 2002, which states: “In order to recognise and respect the 

Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of 

Waitangi and to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to contribute to local 

government decision-making processes, Parts 2 and 6 provide principles and


requirements for local authorities … to facilitate participation by Maori in local 

authority decision-making processes.” 

But this Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill will throw out that promise. 

This bill will close off for ever any possible avenue for Māori participation in local 

government. It will slam the door on a rich resource of strategies and solutions to invest 

in full participation of Māori in local government in Auckland, and will deny the 

possibilities of partnership in favour of privatisation, user-pays, and the denial of 

participation by the citizens of Auckland. This bill may be about the organisation of 

cost-effective services and the restructuring of representation, but there can be no 

argument whatsoever for the denial of basic democracy to a third of the population of 

this country, and the refusal to honour the world’s greatest Polynesian city by giving 

three seats to people who have been giving land to the settlement of Auckland for more 

than 200 years. 

Although I do not like having to stand alongside the Labour Party, which in 

Government stole our foreshore and seabed, cancelled grants for Māori students, gave 

money back to the Government every year as if we did not need it, and refused to sign 

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I recognise an even older maxim, 

which says that the enemy of my enemy is my friend—at least, for now. Just a few 

hours ago, I was stinging in my attack on Labour, saying that if its proposal for Pacific 

and Asian seats on the Auckland Council were genuinely about representation, then 

where were the seats for the Somali, the Kenyan, the Dalmatian, the South African, or 

the Scot. I said that although I respected much of what Labour had to say, I felt that its 

Pacific-Asian representation proposal was nothing but a naked grab for the votes of the 

large Pacific and Asian populations in Auckland. And I added that although I had the 

greatest respect for my Pacific cousins, and although I respected the right of Asians to 

be heard, I could never accept the betrayal by Labour’s Māori MPs of the primary right 

of Māori to be on the Auckland Council as mana whenua, as tangata whenua, and as 

Māori. 

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is well 

aware, because I briefed him on it, that the Labour Party put down amendments to do 

exactly what he is now saying, and they were ruled out of order— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a debating point; that is not a point of order. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell me whether 

a member is allowed to deliberately mislead the House, after being warned like that? 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have just had a number of hours of debate, and the 

member should know what has actually been voted on and passed. I ask the member to 

take consideration of the comments he is making. 

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not for you to tell a 

member what he may or may not say in a third reading speech. It is also not for 

someone who is feeling sensitive to stand up and accuse a member of deliberating 

misleading the House, and to have your support in that. You should be telling Mr 

Mallard that he cannot make that accusation— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are nearing the end of the debate. We cannot say that 

a member is lying. Those are debating points. We know that very well. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We know it’s fact, though. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. Members cannot say that someone is 

lying. So let us continue, and I would ask Hone Harawira to complete his speech. The 

member has 5 minutes. 

HONE HARAWIRA: I said at that time that I was outraged by the position taken by 

Labour’s Māori MPs in allowing the status of Māori to be downgraded to that of other 

ethnic groups, for we are, and always will be, the first people of this great land of


Aotearoa. I called at that time on all those Labour Māori MPs to speak up for Māori, to 

fight for Māori, and to be Māori— 

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This member knows 

that is not true. He continues a litany of mistruths, and he knows exactly what he is 

doing. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already ruled on this, and I ask the member to 

continue. These are debating points. 

HONE HARAWIRA: I called on the Labour Māori MPs to fight for seats on the 

Auckland Council for mana whenua first, for Māori second, and for anybody else after 

that, or to admit their failings, to recognise their duplicity, to confess their complicity, 

and to resign their seats forthwith. And I said that their mana, for what it was worth, the 

mana of their people, and, indeed, the mana of their tupuna deserve nothing less. 

But tonight, for all my criticism of the Labour Party for its watering down of the 

stand on Māori representation, let me say that I am grateful for the sterling efforts of 

those from the Labour Party and the Green Party in helping to highlight the naked and 

rapacious grab for power by those who would seek to commercialise services that 

people in places like South Auckland have taken for granted. Services such as free 

libraries and free swimming pools will be turned into user-pays environments, which 

will deny tens of thousands of Māori and Pacific people access to educational and 

recreational services, and further consign them to an underclass that grows daily as we 

speak, as we plunge deeper and deeper into the greatest recession any of us have ever 

known. 

And I am grateful to those in Labour and the Greens— 

Hon David Cunliffe: In no way do I take offence at the member’s comments, even 

though he is not, in fact, representing our position correctly, but I seek the leave of the 

House to table a press statement by my colleague Parekura Horomia that clearly sets out 

the fact that Labour’s policy is— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are not points of order. They are debating points. 

Hon David Cunliffe: I sought leave. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table—what is it? 

Hon David Cunliffe: I sought leave to table a press release by our Māori affairs 

spokesperson. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press release. Is there any 

objection to that course of action? There is objection. 

HONE HARAWIRA: And I am grateful to those in Labour and the Greens for 

standing alongside the Māori Party in challenging the insidious proposal to deny every 

Aucklander the right to equitably participate in the wider council elections by ensuring 

that only those with the resources, the profile, the money, and the capacity to pay for a 

million-dollar campaign need even contemplate applying, once again consigning the 

powerless, the dispossessed, and the under-resourced to respond in the time-honoured 

fashion of rejection of a leadership that bears no relationship whatsoever to their own 

lives of struggle, and to react in ways that none of us really want to see. 

I remind all those in National to beware of bills that will still be alive when the next 

election comes around. Just like the Electoral Finance Act came back to haunt the 

Labour Government right through the election campaign and eventually materialised to 

bite Labour on the backside in the election of 2008, so too will the “Waterview 

Criminal Bypass Bill” and this “Auckland Denial of Democracy Bill” still be open and 

festering sores in the run-up to the election campaign of 2011, and National will be 

rightfully blamed and held accountable for them. 

In less than 10 days’ time, Māori people from all over Auckland will be marching for 

the right of Māori representation—mana whenua and taura here. Māori from their many


tribal homelands outside of Tāmaki-makau-rau will also be on that march, and I have no 

doubt that there will be people of many other races there—Asian, Somali, Dalmatian, 

Kenyan, Scottish, and South African. I sincerely hope and pray that we will also be 

joined by our cousins of the Pacific, the people whom I call the children of Maui, 

because we are all related through a common history, a common heritage, and a 

common love for the waters of the Pacific that are our backyard. 

In the same way that I welcome those from the Labour Party who have been 

speaking boldly and positively about a hīkoi that they have come to late in the day and 

now speak of in passionate terms of ownership, let me remind them that it will not be a 

march for the Labour Party, in the same way that it will not be a march for the Greens or 

the Māori Party. Although it has been the Māori Party that has championed the kaupapa 

of Māori seats at the table in the debates within this House, we have also acknowledged 

from day one that our role is to support the efforts, the plans, the hopes, and the dreams 

of the tangata whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau for genuine recognition of all that they are, 

all that they have given, and all that they desire for their children in the beautiful city of 

Auckland. 

We will march for the rights of those whose land we gave our freedom for, and we 

will march on 25 May 2009 not for our political parties, not for union beliefs, and not 

for our ethnic differences, but because we truly believe in the Treaty of Waitangi and 

the principle of partnership, which challenges us all to accept that Māori are not just 

another ethnic group, that Māori are not just another minority, that Māori are not simply 

citizens of Aotearoa, but that, in fact, Māori are tangata whenua—people of the land— 

that Māori are the first nation people of this land, and that the many hapū of Ngāti 

Whātua and Tainui have given lands for the development of Auckand, often to the 

detriment of their own future. 

I politely remind the House that 31 years ago the State moved in and arrested the 

children of Ngāti Whātua on the last remaining land that they could rightfully call their 

own. Who on earth would have thought that, in the wash-up, Ngāti Whātua would 

choose not recrimination, accusation, and blame, but would actually invite the Auckland 

City Council itself to share in the management of Takaparawhau, which remains to this 

day a jewel in the crown of the city of Auckland? Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa. Yee 

ha! 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I raise a point of order, 

Mr Speaker. The deputy leader of the Labour Party, the Hon David Cunliffe, indicated 

earlier when seeking leave—[Interruption] 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will hear what the member— 

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, you can’t let him do that! 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not heard what he is going to say. [Interruption] 

Sit down! I am standing— 

Hon Trevor Mallard: He just stood before— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am standing. The Hon Rodney Hide has a point of 

order. What is the point of order? 

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I am inviting the Hon David Cunliffe to seek leave again, 

because if Parekura Horomia— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is not a point of order. Sit down. 


Speaker. I now understand that you did not hear the first phrase of the leader of the 

ACT Party. He did not describe a member accurately; he did it provocatively and 

deliberately. He was in breach of the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings of this 

House, and I ask him to withdraw and apologise.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry; I did not hear that. If that is the case, I ask the 

member to withdraw that comment. 

Hon Rodney Hide: I withdraw. 


of order, Speaker. I know that—[Interruption] 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are on a point of order, and points of order are heard 

in silence. 

Hon JOHN CARTER: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is actually the point I 

was about to make. I know that it is getting later in the evening on Saturday night and 

we have been here for a long time, and I know that the debate at times has been 

robust—and so it should be. However, I was sitting here not far from my colleague from 

the far north, and I had difficulty in hearing him. I actually did want to hear what he had 

to say. Unfortunately, it was rather difficult because there were a lot of interjections 

from that side of the House. I am not saying we have not also interjected, but I suggest 

that the House let the last three or four speeches be heard. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments. 


Speaker. I concur with the comments of the Associate Minister of Local Government, 

but when a member uses words like “betrayal” in his speech about a political party, that 

is provocation. 

Following on from that, I seek leave to table the draft amendments prepared by the 

Labour Party for stand-alone, dedicated Māori seats. I advised the member for Te Tai 

Tokerau that we had done that earlier in the day but they were ruled to be not in order. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? 

There is objection. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I also seek leave to table a 

comprehensive list of all the amendments prepared by the Māori Party in order to 

ensure Māori representation. It is a blank piece of paper. That party moved none. 



ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki): It is a privilege to once again stand up 

in this House, to speak in support of this very fine Local Government (Auckland 

Council) Bill. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. We have just had 

points of order from members who said they would actually like to hear what the 

speakers are saying. Can members keep their interjections focused. They should be rare 

and reasonable, not interchanges with people across the House. 

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your comments, is it is 

appropriate for me to ask whether I could give my speech again, so that people could 

actually hear it? 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it is not. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the voting record of Tariana Turia, 

which shows that she voted many times with the Government over the Auckland 

reorganisation. 



ALLAN PEACHEY: It is a privilege to support this bill. The bill is one of a 

package of measures that will unleash the great potential of Auckland, and of the 

Auckland region, to contribute to the growth and prosperity of all of New Zealand. 

Nearly one-third of New Zealand’s people live in the Auckland region. Auckland is the 

base of some of the most significant business, commercial, and educational functions in


this country. It is the key to the growth and prosperity of New Zealand. I commend this 

bill to the House. 

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for 

the opportunity to speak tonight. If I sound emotional tonight, I make no apology for it. 

In fact, for the past few days quite a lot of emotion has been released by all sides of the 

House on this matter. It is a very significant matter, in terms of the people whom I 

represent and the communities I represent in Māngere and Manukau City. I have been to 

many funerals of friends and relatives—people whom I cherish and are dear to me. I am 

using this point as a preface before I get on to the bill. Those funerals have all been very 

sad occasions, but our debate over the establishment by this Government of a super-city 

without it asking Aucklanders about it has deeply hurt me. I say to this House that that 

hurt is a reflection of how the communities throughout Manukau City and Waitakere 

feel about the actions of this Government. In fact, they feel that it is an outrage that they 

have not been given the opportunity to have a say. It may be that they would agree to 

the proposal. 

That is the reason why I stand tonight to acknowledge and thank all of my Labour 

colleagues and the other parties—the Greens and, to some extent, the Māori Party—for 

holding this Government to account. That is what we have asked for—that it gives 

Aucklanders the opportunity to have a say. Often in this debate there has been outrage 

from the other side of the House, but the outrage that I feel, and that I suspect is felt by 

many throughout Auckland, is that the action of this Government can be described as 

criminal in many senses. We have had two senior members of the Government—Mr 

Key, the honourable Prime Minister, and the honourable Minister of Local 

Government—holding a gun to the head of the mayors and councillors and saying 

“Click! Bang! We’ve got the numbers. That’s why we’re doing this.” That is a sign of 

the sheer arrogance of this Government after only 6 months of being in power. 

For those who are listening, I say that Labour has fought tooth and nail to hold this 

Government to account. Labour has fought hard to ensure that the bills that this 

Government is introducing in urgency are examined, because the National and ACT 

Government’s undemocratic plans deserve to be given back to the people. 

So we come to the bill. There are four parts and 24 clauses. The member for 

Manurewa, George Hawkins, held up an advertisement earlier that had been paid for by 

the Parliamentary Service—by taxpayers. It is advertising a series of meetings. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: No. 

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Yes. It is an outrage. It is advertising a series of meetings 

that are to be held in the next few months by the Government in the Auckland region. 

Hon Trevor Mallard: After it’s gone through. 

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: After it has been done, exactly—after the fact. Here is the 

advertisement. It states “Have Your Say …”. This advertisement is deceptive, because 

the main decision has already been made. But here is the other concern: eight meetings 

are being held in the area of the current Auckland City Council, and the fear and 

concern we have is that these meetings are campaign meetings for John Banks by this 

Government. In Manukau and Waitakere, there is only one meeting. There is one 

meeting for the 380,000 people living in Manukau, which is the third-largest city in 

New Zealand—one meeting. I have to ask whether that is a sign of things to come, as a 

result of this Government and the super-city. 

I lament the loss of my city and of four mayors: the late Hugh Lambie; the late Sir 

Lloyd Elsmore; Sir Barry Curtis, who served 24 years; and now Len Brown, the Mayor 

of Manukau City. I lament the loss of the three councillors who represent Māngere. I 

lament the loss of eight community boards, made up of local people who live in the 

area. With the stroke of Mr Hide’s pen, those local government bodies exist in name


only. The power, rights, authority, and privilege are being given to three or four people 

picked specifically by that Minister. 

In Part 1, the purpose clause talks about defining Auckland. Clause 5 talks about the 

“Meaning of Auckland”. That clause does not define clearly what Auckland is about. It 

is about more than just an area; it is about the people who live there. It is about the 

diversity there, the languages that are spoken, the various events that are held regularly 

in Manukau, for example. Our concern now is about what will happen to our Polyfest, 

which started at the old school of Sir Edmund Hillary, now called Hillary College. What 

will happen to that? What will happen to our Asian and ethnic events that are currently 

being held in Manukau and funded by Manukau City? The Auckland Transition Agency 

now has control of all that, because it has the same powers as if there were a super-city. 

That is a deep concern. 

I say to this Government that if it had any sincerity—which I have yet to see—about 

consultation it would take the select committee consultation back to Auckland. It would 

take it to all seven different sectors of Auckland. 

Part 2 talks about the mayor and grants his or her executive powers. There is grave 

concern about the at-large election of the mayor and the substantial powers that are 

given to the mayor. The questions that we want answered are about how we will choose 

that mayor. Will it be by first past the post? Will it be by the single transferable vote 

system? Will it be by preferential voting? These are the questions our communities will 

be asking this Government. That is a decision that they have to make. 

The executive powers of this mayor are of deep concern to us. This mayor will 

appoint his buddies and friends to be deputy mayor and chairpersons of committees. 

Too much power in the hands of one person is not a good thing. We know what has 

happened in other situations like that. Power corrupts, and we do not think that is right. I 

liken the super-city to a canoe that will take us to the future. If that be the case, then all 

people need to be on board and everyone needs to be paddling in the same direction. 

There will be only 20 people on this council. Eight will be elected at large, and only 

the rich and wealthy will be able to stand for those positions. What about ordinary 

workers and families in our community? What about Māori? The Māori Party says that 

Labour has betrayed Māori. That is an outrage. We are the ones who have been 

demanding that this Government be held to account, to ensure that there are Māori seats, 

Pacific seats, and representation of Asian and other ethnic groups on this local council. 

What about the local boards’ powers? Local boards cannot simply go cap in hand to 

the council and ask for the resources and things that local government bodies need for 

local communities. It is not just about dogs, prostitutes, and gambling—although some 

members on the other side of the House might enjoy those things. It is not just about 

that. 

Finally, I will say three things. I say to Government members that if they are sincere, 

they need to give the people of Auckland time to consult on these bills. The 

Government needs to do that. It needs to give them time to develop quality submissions. 

Not everyone is familiar with the select committee process, and I do not want to see this 

Government go out there and select only its friends, the business elite, to come and 

debate this. We need to allow every single member of those communities of ours to 

debate this, in their own languages if need be. 

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I rise to take a short call on the first reading of the 

Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. It follows on from the Local Government 

(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill, which was passed this evening. We need to 

look at the facts here. The facts are that the previous Labour Government set up the 

royal commission—[Interruption]


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. An interchange is 

going on between two members, and I cannot hear what the honourable member Dr 

Jackie Blue is saying. She has only just commenced her speech. 

Dr JACKIE BLUE: The facts are that the Royal Commission on Auckland 

Governance was set up under the previous Labour Government. It recommended that 

there be one unitary council. It recommended that it be implemented urgently, and that 

is what this Government has done. The bill that was passed earlier this evening did that. 

The bill that we are currently discussing sets up the framework for that council, and 

what is important is that it looks at second-tier representation. We were not happy with 

the royal commission’s recommendations on the second tier. We want to go to the 

community on that issue, and we will be having a select committee process. We will be 

having open forums and we will be listening to people. We are not paying lip-service to 

the community. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend this bill to the House. 

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the 

Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. This bill does three main things: it sets up 

the framework for the Auckland Council, it sets up local boards, and it describes the 

role of the Local Government Commission. I will talk about each of those elements, 

because we have concerns about all of them. 

First of all, the context in which this bill is being received into this House is 

absolutely critical. I do not think that members opposite understand the damage that has 

been done already. There has been— 

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a mark of respect for 

my colleague that I ask through you that the Minister who had her back to the member 

and was wandering around the Chamber, and other members who were wandering 

around, do the member the courtesy of listening to her speech. It is important. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. It is important that we give speakers 

a fair go. As I have said on previous occasions, if members want to wander around and 

talk, they should do that outside in the lobbies. Only whips should be walking around. 

CAROL BEAUMONT: There has been an absolute litany of arrogance since 

March, when the royal commission report was received. I saw that arrogance just then 

when my colleague Su’a William Sio was speaking and describing accurately the view 

of the people of Manukau City. Honestly, the smirking, giggling, and carrying on over 

on the other side of the Chamber was unbelievable. 

Anyway, you took a report that the royal commission spent 18 months working on 

and you gutted it in a week—[Interruption] Sorry, not you, Mr Deputy Speaker. 

Hon David Cunliffe: “They”. 

CAROL BEAUMONT: They, the members opposite, took a report that had taken 

18 months of work and gutted it within just over a week. A number of really interesting 

and important ideas in that report seem to have sunk without trace. There were good 

ideas around economic development, a social board, and greater coordination between 

Auckland and central government. Many, many things are missing from the bill we are 

talking about now. The development agency is missing, as I said, as are the social issues 

board, the joint management structures between the New Zealand Transport Agency and 

the Railways Corporation, and many of the things the royal commission worked hard 

on. What has happened to those ideas? 

More important, the Government’s failure to listen to Aucklanders will mean that 

this bill and the legislation arising from it will be fundamentally damaged before they 

have even started. Thousands of people have been involved in marches and meetings, 

and many more marches and meetings are to come. Let us see what happens with the 

hīkoi, shall we? The media have also reflected people’s concerns—even the good old 

New Zealand Herald, with headlines like “Let citizens have say on Super City”. What


about the East and Bays Courier with “Call to keep local voice”? What about “Who 

stole our voice?”, “Democracy at stake”, or “Welcome to Greater Auckland”? The 

Government is so arrogant that it does not see that it has created a monster already; that 

concern is reflected in all of the polls that have been taken so far. 

This Government made a number of commitments to Aucklanders. I remind 

members opposite of what it said to Aucklanders. I am appalled that members opposite 

can sit there and fail to recognise the statement they made in their manifesto: “National 

will: Support the Royal Commission providing an opportunity for people within the 

Auckland region to express their views about the structures that will best achieve the 

goals set out above.” It also states that National would “Consult with Aucklanders once 

the findings of the Royal Commission are known.” Well, I do not know what has 

happened to those commitments, but over the last few days we have seen the Local 

Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill rammed through the House under 

urgency. There has been no opportunity for Aucklanders to be consulted on that, 

because the Government has passed the bill already. The Government has taken away 

the right of Aucklanders, under the Local Government Act, to have a poll on the issue. 

The Government has also established a small but very powerful transition agency— 

an agency that has no obligations to consult anybody, an agency that is made up of three 

to five people, picked at Rodney Hide’s discretion. Frankly, that is hardly reassuring. 

The agency has huge power— 

Paul Quinn: Have you got the right bill? 

CAROL BEAUMONT: I am talking about the Local Government (Tamaki 

Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill as part of the context for this bill, I tell Mr Quinn—if he 

were listening. The transition agency has huge power to control councils—huge power. 

It has more than $28 billion of assets, and there are no protections against the 

privatisation of those assets. It has huge power around developing change management 

plans for 6,300 workers who work in local government in Auckland. 

Over the last few days the Government has created a brand new select committee on 

the issue—a practice that National has been very strongly opposed to in the past. Why 

has that committee been created under urgency—why? We can only assume that the 

Government does not trust the existing Local Government and Environment Committee. 

Labour wonders what process that special select committee will follow. I can only hope 

that it will be a damn sight better than what has happened at the hearing on the 

amendment to the Resource Management Act. I had the opportunity to sit in on that 

hearing briefly and could not believe the way that people were being treated. It was 

absolutely appalling. Will the Government give a commitment on the bill we currently 

have before us that everybody who wants to be heard will be heard, and that it will give 

them adequate time to be heard? I do not think so. All of these sorts of actions have 

created an environment of mistrust, anger, and real fear among Aucklanders about the 

ACT and National Party agendas for local government, and members will continue to 

hear about that from Aucklanders. 

This is about a Government that is focused on centralising power—its power! 

Members on this side of the House do not question the need for change. Auckland faces 

many, many challenges. It is true that there has been significant discontent about local 

government, particularly about the inability to coordinate things regionally. There is no 

doubt about that. I might also say that there is a lot of discontent about the Auckland 

City Council in particular. Under the current mayor, the Citizens and Ratepayers - 

dominated council is arrogant, and it fails to address the needs of many of the citizens of 

Auckland. If people happen to live in Ōtāhuhu, they will know particularly what I am 

talking about. If the citizens of Ōtāhuhu are listening tonight, I tell them that I am


making sure this Government hears about the appalling way in which money has not 

gone to those citizens and their needs, but has gone to the wealthy in Auckland City. 

The previous Labour Government set up the royal commission, because it recognised 

there was a need for change. Labour members broadly support a unitary authority, 

because do we need greater coordination on key regional issues, but we disagree with 

the way in which the Government has trampled across the rights of Aucklanders in this 

process. So far it has done nothing but be arrogant to Aucklanders, and it has not 

listened to them. Labour members strongly disagree with a number of the key 

provisions in this bill. We disagree with the at-large councillor provision, because we 

believe that only people with money or fame will be able to stand and represent the 

whole city. People may scoff at that concern, but that was the case with the Auckland 

City Council until very recently—up until the late 1980s. If people took the time to see 

what the council looked like back then, they would see that most of the people on that 

council were white, were male, and came from the eastern suburbs of Auckland City. So 

there are real problems about at-large councillors. 

The 20 to 30 local boards that are being proposed are completely powerless. Labour 

wants to see a second tier that actually has teeth and that can do things for local people. 

What about Māori representation? The provision is appalling; we support Māori 

representation on the Auckland Council. There are other many other provisions of this 

bill that we are very, very concerned about. Another provision, which again goes back 

to the issue of arrogance, concerns the powers of the Local Government Commission. 

Under this bill, the commission will have a number of very important responsibilities, 

but nowhere does the bill talk about that commission consulting anybody. 

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Today the fifth National 

Government, with the help of Rodney Hide, has finally achieved for Auckland what 

parliamentarians have been trying to do for generations. We simply do not believe that 

this is as good as it gets for the people of Auckland. Tonight we have delivered one 

council that will enable Aucklanders to have better public services. As Aucklanders 

wake up tomorrow, they will realise that this is a watershed moment in Auckland. It is a 

watershed moment not just for Auckland but also for New Zealand: the moment that the 

tide turned from endless talkfests, strategies, and action plans to real progress for 

Auckland. 

The people of the central business district and the people of Ponsonby, Grey Lynn, 

Herne Bay, St Marys Bay, Westmere, and Waiheke Island deserve to have better public 

transport. The people of Auckland deserve to have a transport system that enables them 

to spend less time in traffic and more time with their families. One council will enable 

that to be delivered. But, most of all, the people of Auckland deserve to have local 

democracy, and this bill will deliver that for Aucklanders. This bill is about giving local 

communities in Auckland, like those of Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island, back 

their voice. For too long, the people of Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island have 

been forced to constantly battle for people to understand their communities. The royal 

commission recognised that when it stated that community engagement was poor. 

We have tremendous respect for the commission, but we believe that the option it 

offered did not give all local communities across Auckland the voice that they deserve. 

That is why we have given local democracy a real kick forward by offering local 

boards. The irony for members opposite is that those members have not yet confirmed 

whether they support the establishment of local boards. That is right! If they do not 

support that, they will have to go around the communities of Auckland—like those of 

Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island—and be very clear about what they are doing 

to local democracy for Auckland. On this side of the House, our policy is very clear; the 

Opposition’s policy is not.


Where we agree with the commission, we are implementing its recommendations, as 

we have done with the provision for one council and one mayor. Where we do not agree 

with it, we are going back to the people. That is what we are doing. The royal 

commission went to the people of Auckland and consulted, in an 18-month process that 

Labour set up and that cost millions of dollars. We respect taxpayers, and we will not 

waste their money by, in the words of Gordon from Grey Lynn, having “stagnation by 

consultation” So where we differ from the royal commission, we are going back to the 

people of Auckland. 

I am proud that the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee will enable 

Aucklanders to have their say on how to run their communities. I am proud that I am 

holding at least four public meetings, and I am proud that we are giving Aucklanders 

local boards that will enable them to have a real voice. Today the fifth National 

Government has delivered a basic system of local democracy to Auckland. Now it is 

time for Aucklanders to have their say. 

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): This is the evening of a 

momentous day not just for Auckland but for New Zealand, in that we are debating the 

Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, a bill that will lead New Zealand forward. I 

want to correct a few of the misconceptions that have come from across the aisle about 

consultation that has not yet occurred. Well, this is only the first reading of the bill, I 

remind some of our colleagues across the aisle, and there will be a level of consultation. 

We will have a number of public meetings where we will listen to Auckland. These 

meetings will be about members of Parliament listening to their constituents—not 

members of Parliament who live in other electorates trying to listen, but members of 

Parliament who live in their electorates. 

I also thank the clerks, and the staff of this institution— 

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is not 

really my role to defend the Prime Minister, but I think attacks on him in this way, by 

one of his backbenchers, when he is not in the House are just not fair. 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. I 

invite the honourable member to continue with his speech. 

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. 

Hon Member: You’re useless, Sam. 

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am not useless. Mr Assistant Speaker, I have thick 

skin, and I will continue to talk about the bill. We have heard about how sad that mob 

over there are about this bill. We have heard the Opposition’s hyperbole and 

exaggeration about the bill, and, in a week when one of our police officers has been 

killed, I say it is quite inappropriate for a member of Parliament to say that a gun is 

being levelled at people’s heads. To talk about deaths and funerals when one of our own 

members has lost her mother, and to compare that with this bill, is quite inappropriate. 

We had another member of Parliament from across the aisle—one who does not live in 

his electorate, of course—claim that the people are watching. Well, they are not 

watching. They are watching the Blues beat the Crusaders; they are up by 13 to 12, and 

I am quite happy about that. 

This bill is about establishing the Auckland Council and the governing board of that 

council. 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek some advice. If 

you could inform us— 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am not here for advice. The 

member is making a point of order. What is the point of order? 

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am seeking to find out whether the Auckland City Council 

ratepayer or the taxpayer is paying the bill for this member’s speech.


The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order; the 

member knows that. It was simply an attempt to break up the member’s speech. 

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a two-part point of 

order. It is a longstanding convention in the House that members should be referred to 

by their proper names. The member has referred to members opposite by the descriptor 

“a member who does not live in his electorate”. The second part of the question is 

whether that descriptor could apply to the member’s leader, when he has filled in a 

primary place of residence form with an address in his electorate but does not actually 

live there. 

Hon Members: What is the point of order? 

Hon David Cunliffe: The point of order is that, first, I seek the Chair’s guidance to 

have an offensive remark removed; and, second, I seek clarification of whether an 

epithet like “a member who does not live in his electorate” could apply to the speaker’s 

own leader, who filled in a primary place of residence— 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Neither point is a point of order. 

The member will resume his seat. 

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr Assistant Speaker, it is clear that we have had a 

historic day today. It is 13 May, and I am glad to be part of a Government that is taking 

action. I am glad to be part of a Government that has people like Rodney Hide, John 

Carter, and the Hon John Key in it. I am proud to be part of a Government that does not 

talk and sit on its heels for 9 years but takes action. We are leading this country into the 

future. Whether or not members opposite like it, we will be leading this country for a 

very long time. 

I am in support of this bill. Thank you. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Auckland 

Council) Bill be now read a first time. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 51 


Bill read a first time. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I move that the Local 

Government (Auckland Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance 

Legislation Committee. 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The Clerk reminds me that there 

was to be a report-back date. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I can read the whole thing, if you like, Mr Assistant Speaker. 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I think it would be very 

important that you read the whole thing. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I move, That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill 

be considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and that the 

committee report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. 


Speaker. The member had moved the motion. I do not think it is within the discretion of 

the House to hear the second motion in any way other than as an amendment to the first 

motion that he had moved. He moved it and sat down; he was finished. I do not think 

that we can now give him a second chance to get it right. It is a matter that can be 

corrected by way of a motion in the House properly put down by the Government to


foreshorten the time for the bill to be at the select committee, but that is something that 

will have to be done at the next sitting. The member very, very clearly moved 

something. It is something that the House should address. No other Minister gets a 

second chance to get a motion right, and there should not be an exception for this one. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I do apologise to the Hon 

Trevor Mallard. I did make a mistake, Mr Assistant Speaker. But I point out that the 

actual motion had not been put. You quite rightly corrected me, I moved the motion 

again, and that motion is now on the floor. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The point is, Mr Assistant 

Speaker, that you called the Minister, he moved the motion, he sat down, and his call 

was finished, just as Mr Mallard pointed out. Further, in support of what Mr Mallard 

has put to you, I say that there is a direct precedent for this. It happened in the last term 

of Parliament with a justice bill, when the Minister failed to move the correct referral 

motion at the end. On that occasion it was not pointed out by the Clerk. The Minister 

realised the motion was not correct moments after the question had been put and before 

the vote had been taken. The Hon Dr Nick Smith raised a point of order on it. That will 

be clear in the Hansard record. The Government paid the price for it, and had to come 

back subsequently with a procedural motion to clean matters up. There is nothing we 

can do about this. The motion was moved by the Minister, and he resumed his seat—it 

is over. You are now bound, Mr Assistant Speaker, to put that motion to the House to be 

voted on. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): The point that 

needs to be made is that there is a significant difference in this particular case. Although 

it was true that the Minister of Local Government had resumed his seat, nevertheless, 

you asked—and you are in sole charge of this House—the Minister to complete the 

motion, which he continued to do. Nothing intervened after the time that he made the 

comments, and, as a consequence, the House certainly can consider the motion as a 

whole. At the end of the day, you are the final judge, but given that you invited the 

Minister to continue the motion—which he did—and complete it, the House can 

consider it. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think it is a fairly simple 

point. Mr Assistant Speaker, you were acting on advice, and I accept that, but in this 

particular case I think you were not correctly advised. It is not often that I disagree with 

someone who sits in the Clerk’s chair, but when a member has completed his speech 

and resumed his seat it is all over, Rover. That is the case that occurred. 

It is not something that is irredeemable. The Government essentially has a choice: it 

can adjourn now and move the referral motion again as a Government order of business 

on the next sitting day, or it can put the original motion, and then, sometime over the 

next few months, pass a motion that returns the situation back to what the Government 

wants. Clearly, we will vote against it, but it is not something that we will obstruct, as 

long as it is done properly, within the procedures of the House. 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I think the situation is relatively 

straightforward. There is no doubt that the motion put initially by the Hon Rodney Hide 

was different from the motion that he had signalled to the House in his first reading 

speech. The first thing is that he had signalled clearly to the House that there would be a 

referral motion and that there would be a report-back date. He is therefore obligated, 

when he comes to move the motion, to move the same motion. I would draw a parallel 

with the situation when members put down questions for oral answer; members are 

required to ask the exact question that is on the Order Paper. 

The second point I would make in this regard is that the motion had not been carried 

by the House. Before I put the question, I invited the Minister—on the advice of the


Clerk—to correct the motion. The Clerk had identified that Mr Hide had made a 

mistake. The Minister then corrected it. The next point is for me to put the resolution. If 

the motion had been moved and carried, it would have been, as Mr Mallard said, all 

over, Rover. It would then have been the decision of the House. At this stage, it is not 

the decision of the House. 


Speaker. There are two points. The first relates to an indication at the beginning of a 

speech that there will be a motion to refer the bill to a select committee. You are 

absolutely correct in saying that members cannot move such a motion without their 

having signalled it at the beginning of the debate. Among the requirements is to signal 

which select committee the bill will go to, and any other restrictions. My submission to 

you is that those are the outside boundaries, and if a member later chooses to move 

something that is within those boundaries but does not take full advantage of them, then 

that is the right of the member. 

The other point I would like to refer you to is Speaker’s ruling 24/7—it goes back to 

1891, to Mr Speaker Steward—which indicates “A motion of which notice has been 

given cannot, when before the House, be altered by the mover without the unanimous 

consent of the House.” It is my submission to you that at the point that the Minister 

resumed his seat, that motion was before the House, and it cannot at that point be 

changed. I think it is pretty straightforward. The ruling is of very, very longstanding. A 

motion was moved that was within the boundaries of the notice that had been given, and 

the Minister then resumed his seat. At that point, the motion was before the House, and, 

notwithstanding your helpful advice—on the advice of the Clerk—to the Minister, it is 

my submission that at that point it was too late and you were obligated to put the motion 

in those terms. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I have two points. The 

first is that it was not a motion on notice. The second point is to note the number of 

times throughout the day when members have given votes, then sought to correct them. 

That practice has been accepted by the House. That is exactly what happened here, Mr 

Assistant Speaker. I admitted my mistake, and I thank you for pointing it out. The 

motion had not been put. It can now be put. 

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I want to add 

to the comments made by both the previous speakers, with regard to Speaker’s ruling 

24/7. Mr Assistant Speaker, I am sure you have noticed that the ruling refers to a motion 

of which notice has been given: “A motion of which notice has been given cannot, 

when before the House, be altered by the mover without the unanimous consent of the 

House.” However, in this case the motion was not a motion with notice; it was a verbal 

motion. So that Speaker’s ruling does not apply in this particular case. We all know that 

notices of motion are on the Order Paper. In this particular case, the motion was not on 

the Order Paper. 

Indeed, if we think about it, Mr Assistant Speaker—and I believe that you are 

absolutely right and I support your view—we will recall that the Minister had indicated 

that he would be moving a motion in the way that he finally did. There is a requirement 

to give such notice in the first reading speech, and for the previous member to suggest 

that the Minister could do something within the bounds of that notice is actually not 

true. The Minister is duty-bound, then, to put to the House the motion that he verbally 

gave notice he would put, and we need to now follow that. Mr Assistant Speaker, your 

ruling and indication to the House are, in my view, absolutely correct. 

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I shall pick up on the point 

made by the Mr John Carter. Speaker’s ruling 24/7 refers to notice. In a sense, the 

Minister foreshadowed in his first reading speech that he would be moving a motion.


Mr Assistant Speaker, you said that the situation was similar to that of questions of the 

day. The difference is that when the question is read out, that is the question; when the 

Minister foreshadows that he will be moving a motion at the end of a debate, he is not 

moving a motion; he is simply signalling to the House that that is his intention. 

Mr Hide referred to changes to party votes. Our Standing Orders and Speakers’ 

rulings specifically make the opportunity available for a party vote to be corrected 

before the result is announced by the presiding officer. That specific reference is in 

there. 

Mr Assistant Speaker, we have referred to the advice you have received. Really, it 

was not advice; it was a reminder. The Clerk at the Table prompted you about a mistake 

that the Minister had made. It was not proper advice that you received; it was a helpful 

reminder. It did not have the effect of making the original mistake by Mr Hide right, in 

any way, shape, of form. 

My final submission to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, is that the Minister moved his 

motion and sat down. That was the motion before us. The two precedents for this are, 

firstly, the one I have already referred to, where the previous Government faced such a 

situation. The point was raised by the National Party, and the Government of the day 

paid a procedural price for it. It had to come back and fix it up later, because the 

Opposition of the day had insisted that we were wrong—and it was correct—in that the 

motion had not been moved as had been foreshadowed by the Minister of Justice. An 

incorrect motion had been moved by the Minister on duty at the end of that debate. 

I would wrap the whole thing up by referring to the first day that this Parliament met, 

when the Leader of the House incorrectly moved a motion and sat down. Dr Cullen took 

a point of order to point out that the motion had not been put correctly, and it was only 

through the indulgence of the House on the very first day—the cooperation of the 

House—that that mistake was fixed. Such a level of cooperation, of course, is not 

present today. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I want to add to my point 

earlier. I have had a chance now to study the Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Trevor 

Mallard is referring to—24/7. The ruling comes under the heading “Motions (SOs 93- 

100)”. Clearly, the rulings under that heading concern motions that are before the House 

in writing. That is what Speaker’s ruling 24/7, in particular, refers to, and that is backed 

up by the reference to Standing Orders 93 to 100. 

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): Mr Hughes is incorrect in the way 

he has put it. He has surmised, under Standing Order 281, that there actually was a 

question to be put. In fact, there was not a question to be put, in the sense that it was not 

complete; it required the date to be added—as was indicated by you, Mr Assistant 

Speaker. It was only when that part was added on that the question itself was complete, 

and only at that point was there a question that could be decided by the House. There 

was the initial statement by Mr Hide; with your addition about the date, Mr Assistant 

Speaker, the question was completed, and it could then be put. So I believe that it is 

perfectly in order for this House to deal now with the totality of the question—both the 

referral and the report-back date. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I am working my way back 

from McGee to the Hansard of 1996. I would like to refer you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to 

Volume 556, at page 13643, which I think apposite in this particular case. While that 

page is being found for your reference, I think it also important for you to look at 

McGee, at the third paragraph on page 175, which clearly states: “Once the member sits 

down after moving a motion, the member’s right to speak is ended.” That is very clear. I 

am looking at the third edition, which is the latest one. In 1996 the Speaker was Mr 

Speaker Tapsell. There were a number of rulings at that time, but he was the Speaker at


the time referred to in footnote 22 on page 175 of McGee. He was the Speaker 

responsible. It is very, very clear that once a member sits down after moving a motion, 

the member’s right to speak has ended. Of course, once a member’s right to speak has 

ended, his or her right to move anything is forfeit, as well. Other than by way of leave 

of the House or a motion of the House, the member cannot recover the right to speak. If 

the member cannot speak, of course, the member cannot move a motion in the House. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I thank the Hon Trevor 

Mallard for drawing our attention to what is set out in McGee, but I draw his attention 

to the fact that if he reads the entire paragraph that he is referring to and the one 

preceding it, he will see that they are talking about making a speech rather than moving 

a motion. Trevor Mallard is saying that once a member has sat down after moving a 

motion, that member does not have a right to give a speech. That is not what we are 

dealing with here; it is something different. I was not asking to give another speech on 

the motion; I just wanted the motion to be put properly. 

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to make the point 

absolutely clear, Mr Assistant Speaker, just while you are finally looking at the matter. I 

remind members that it is a longstanding convention in this House that unless one can 

have the call, unless one has the right to speak, one cannot move a motion. There is no 

ability to move something in this House—or, in fact, as far as I am concerned, in any 

Parliament of the Westminster system—unless one has the call to speak. People get the 

call in different ways in different debates, but it is very, very clear and it is something 

that I think is quite important; otherwise, democracy could be trampled on relatively 

easily. If a member cannot be on his or her feet to speak—and the Minister could not 

be—then that member cannot correctly move a motion of that sort. 

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I will make a final, quick 

statement. I clearly had a right to be on my feet, because I had the authority of the 

Speaker—Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. You specifically asked me and invited me to 

get to my feet. I actually did have the right to finish the motion, because you, Mr 

Assistant Speaker, had invited me to do so. 

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have heard a considerable 

amount of discussion. Firstly, I think the issue about whether the member who was 

speaking had the right to speak is not particularly material to this point. What I think is 

material to this point is Standing Order 279, which states: “(1) The member moving the 

bill’s first reading must indicate in that member’s speech to which select committee it is 

proposed to refer the bill and whether it is proposed to move for any special powers or 

give an instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill. (2) Following 

the member’s speech, written notice of any special powers or instruction to be moved 

must be delivered to the Clerk at the Table.” This requirement is a protection for the 

House to ensure that at the time the Minister moves a motion and special directions, the 

House knows precisely what the Minister intends to do some time later, protecting 

members from ambush or unnecessary changes. 

I have in my possession the notice supplied by the Hon Rodney Hide to the Clerk of 

the House saying: “Consistent with the Standing Orders, I move that the Local 

Government (Auckland Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance 

Legislation Committee … and that the committee report finally to the House on or 

before 4 September 2009.” That is the notice that the Hon Rodney Hide gave to the 

House. Having made that statement to the House in the first reading, and having given 

this notice to the Clerk, the member is then obligated to ensure that that is the motion 

that is read. That is the requirement on the member. The Clerk identified that the 

member had changed his motion by omitting something, and there is an obligation on


me to ensure that the Minister moves the motion correctly as signalled to the House and 

as advised to the Clerk. 

The matter now is where the motion was at the point that the member raised the point 

of order. It is argued by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the motion was in the possession 

of the House, and only the House could change it. I disagree. I think the motion is 

within the control of the presiding officer, in the same way as amendments that come 

before the House are: the presiding officer decides whether they are in order or out of 

order. That is not a matter for the House to decide itself. Deciding whether a motion is 

in order or out of order is the sole preserve of the presiding officer. When that motion 

was moved, I as the presiding officer decided that the motion was out of order. I then 

required the member to correct the motion to ensure it was consistent with what the 

member had said after he moved the first reading, and consistent with what the member 

had said to the Clerk. 

Had the mistake not been spotted and had the new motion gone through the House, 

been a motion of the House, and been decided, it would then have been the House’s 

decision. But it was not. The motion rested with me and it was within my realm to put 

it, or not, and to ensure it was correct. In my view it is for the presiding officer to ensure 

the motion is accurate. That has been done. The motion now before the House is as read 

out by the Hon Rodney Hide: that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be 

considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and that the committee 

report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. That is the motion, and it is 

the only motion that can be moved according to the Standing Orders. I so put the 

motion. 

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government (Auckland 

Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, and 

that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. 

Ayes 64 


Noes 51 



The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I take this opportunity to wish 

members safe travel home. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Pō mārie. 

The House adjourned at 9.42 p.m. (Saturday)

Index to 

13 May 2009 

(continued on 16 May 2009) 

EXPLANATION OF ABBREVIATIONS 

1R—First Reading 

2R—Second Reading 

3R—Third Reading 

CWH—Committee of the whole House 

S.O.P.—Supplementary Order Paper 

BILLS 

Legislation is listed under BILLS. The name of an originating bill that has been divided into separate 

bills is shown in italics after the names of the new bills. 

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER 

Questions are listed under QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER by ministerial portfolio. 

BEAUMONT, CAROL— 

Bills— 

Local Government (Auckland Council) 

Bill, 1R 3749 

Local Government (Auckland 

Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3633, 

3690, 3710 

BILLS— 

Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, 

1R 3733 


Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3621; report 

progress to take Speaker’s ruling 3664; 

CWH 3666; report progress to take 

Speaker’s ruling 3695; CWH 3697; 

name changed to Local Government 

(Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 

3718 

Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau 

Reorganisation) Bill, name changed 

from Local Government (Auckland 

Reorganisation) Bill 3718; 3R 3718 

BLUE, Dr JACKIE— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3748 

______________________________________ 

BROWNLEE, Hon GERRY— 

Bills— 


Reorganisation) Bill, report progress 

to take Speaker’s ruling 3665; CWH 

3685, 3687; report progress to take 

Speaker’s ruling 3696 

Points of Order— 

Call— 

Allocation, 3648 

Committee of the Whole House— 

Length of Debate, 3675 

Postponement of Provision by 

Minister After Closure Motion 

Moved, 3700 

Serious or Vexatious Amendments, 

3660 

CARTER, Hon JOHN— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3737, 3754 


Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3722 





Moved, 3699 

Scrutiny of Amendments by Clerk’s 

Office, 3716

ii 

CARTER, Hon JOHN—continued 

Points of Order—continued 

Motions— 

Incorrectly Moved, 3754 

CHADWICK, Hon STEVE— 

Bills— 


Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3639 

CHAUVEL, CHARLES— 

Bills— 



COLLINS, Hon JUDITH— 

Bills— 



COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 

HOUSE— 

Report Progress to Take Speaker’s 

Ruling— 


Reorganisation) Bill, 3664, 3695 

COSGROVE, Hon CLAYTON— 

Bills— 


Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3656; 

report progress to take Speaker’s 

ruling 3696; CWH 3714 

CUNLIFFE, Hon DAVID— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3738 



3640, 3688, 3706 



Amendments to Add or Insert New 

Parts, 3675 

Personal Reflections and 

Unparliamentary Language— 

“Gerry Mander”, 3688 

Speakers and Presiding Officers— 

Responsibility for Procedural Issues, 

3685 

DAVIS, KELVIN— 

Bills— 



3698 

Māori Language / Te Reo, 3698 

DELAHUNTY, CATHERINE— 

Bills— 



13 MAY 2009 (continued on 16 May 2009) 

FENTON, DARIEN— 

Bills— 





FITZSIMONS, JEANETTE— 

Bills— 



FLAVELL, TE URUROA— 

Bills— 



GUY, NATHAN— 




Office, 3716 

HARAWIRA, HONE— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3742 




Call— 

Closure Motion Moved, 3681 

HAWKINS, Hon GEORGE— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3735 





HIDE, Hon RODNEY— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3733, 3753 



3681, 3704 







Moved, 3699 


3662 

Motions— 




Inaccurately Describing Member as 

Deputy Leader, 3745

HIPKINS, CHRIS— 

Bills— 



3709 

HUGHES, Hon DARREN— 

Bills— 



3668 


Call— 




Parts, 3637 




Moved, 3682 


Office, 3716 

Motions— 



Assurance of Impartiality from 

Chair, 3646 

HUO, RAYMOND— 

Bills— 



HUTCHISON, Dr PAUL— 

Bills— 



INSTRUCTIONS— 

see COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 

HOUSE and SELECT 

COMMITTEES— 

JONES, Hon SHANE— 

Bills— 



3669 



Māori Language / Te Reo, 3669, 3721 

KAYE, NIKKI— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3751 

KEDGLEY, SUE— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3740 

INDEX 

KEDGLEY, SUE—continued 

Bills—continued 



3689; report progress to take 

Speaker’s ruling 3695; CWH 3707 



KING, COLIN— 

Bills— 



LABAN, Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE— 

Bills— 



LOCKE, KEITH— 

Bills— 



3712 

LOTU-IIGA, PESETA SAM— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3752 

MACINDOE, TIM— 

Bills— 



MACKEY, MOANA— 

Bills— 



3684, 3708 

MALLARD, Hon TREVOR— 

Bills— 


Reorganisation) Bill, CWH 3621; 

report progress to take Speaker’s 

ruling 3664; CWH 3682, report 

progress to take Speaker’s ruling 

3696; CWH 3708 


Call— 




Parts, 3635 



Moved, 3682, 3699 


Office, 3715 


3659 

Motions— 


iii

iv 

MALLARD, Hon TREVOR—continued 

Points of Order—continued 



Impugning Chairperson’s Integrity, 

3646 


Assurance of Impartiality from 

Chair, 3646 

MĀORI LANGUAGE / TE REO— 

Davis, Kelvin, 3698 

Jones, Hon Shane, 3669, 3721 

Ririnui, Hon Mita, 3672 

MAPP, Hon Dr WAYNE— 


Motions— 


MORONEY, SUE— 

Bills— 



PARKER, Hon DAVID— 

Bills— 


Reorganisation) Bill, report progress 

to take Speaker’s ruling 3665; CWH 

3671, 3705 





Office, 3716 

PEACHEY, ALLAN— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3746 



POINTS OF ORDER— 

Call— 


Closure Motion Moved, 3681 



Parts, 3635, 3675 

Length of Debate, 3635, 3675 

Postponement of Provision by Minister 

After Closure Motion Moved, 3682, 

3699 


Office, 3715 


3659 

Motions— 


Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary 

Language— 

“Gerry Mander”, 3688 

13 MAY 2009 (continued on 16 May 2009) 

POINTS OF ORDER—continued 

Personal Reflections and Unparliamentary 

Language—continued 

Impugning Chairperson’s Integrity, 3646 

Inaccurately Describing Member as 

Deputy Leader, 3745 


Assurance of Impartiality from Chair, 

3646 

Responsibility for Procedural Issues, 

3685 

POWER, Hon SIMON— 




Parts, 3636 


RIRINUI, Hon MITA— 

Bills— 



Māori Language / Te Reo, 3672 

ROBERTSON, GRANT— 

Bills— 



3653 

SIO, SU’A WILLIAM— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3747 



STREET, Hon MARYAN— 

Bills— 



3655 

TE REO— 

see MĀORI LANGUAGE / TE REO— 

TWYFORD, PHIL— 

Bills— 





VOTING— 

Bills— 


Bill, 1R 3753, 3758 



3633, 3652, 3668, 3693, 3699, 3704, 

3708, 3718 


Reorganisation) Bill, 3R 3733

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?