Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3641
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