Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3661
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