Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3724 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 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?
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill 3725 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
Page 1:
First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 107: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 143 and 144: Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146: HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?