Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3717
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.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr
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