Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3630 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
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