Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3704 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 Subpart 2—Pacific and Minority Representation Guarantees representation and participation by Pacific and Minority groups by directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum and an Ethnic Advisory Forum and allows the members of those forums to appoint one member each to hold a seat on the Auckland Council 72 (1) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum, the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in consultation with Pacific communities and pacific leaders based in the Auckland district (a) The Pacific Advisory Forum should— (i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council: (ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Pacific Communities: (b) The Pacific Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless— (i) 75% of members of the Pacific Advisory Forum vote in favour of removing the seat. (2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish an Ethnic Advisory Forum, the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in consultation with Ethnic communities and Ethnic leaders based in the Auckland district (a) The Ethnic Advisory Forum should— (i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council: (ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Ethnic communities: (b) The Ethnic Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless— (i) 75% of members of the Ethnic Advisory Forum vote in favour of removing the seat. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment as amended be agreed to. Ayes 36 New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4. Noes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. New Part 5 as amended not agreed to. Clauses 1 and 2 Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): We are now making rapid progress on this bill, and we are up to the title clause and the commencement clause. I am sure that Opposition members will have some further suggestions on what the title might be, but the title, as it stands, and as recommended by the Government, is the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which actually captures what the bill is about. I know that the commencement date has been contentious, because all the way through yesterday and today we heard no less a person than the deputy Leader of the Opposition, Annette King, tell us that the bill does not come into force until November next year. I am afraid that the Labour Opposition is wrong about that. This bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, and I know there has been a bit of confusion about that.
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3705 However, Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010, because that concerns the Auckland Council. Clauses 27 and 28 in Subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31 October 2010. I commend the title and commencement of this bill to the Committee. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Minister has pointed to a very important issue. He is quite right that, except for Part 2, which comes into force on 1 November 2010, this legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Of course, therein lies the problem, because by the date that this bill receives its Royal assent there will have been no proper consultation with the people of Auckland as to its effect. One of the amendments that will be put forward by members on this side of the Chamber is to delay the date of that Royal assent to a date that is substantially later, so that the normal processes that precede legislation coming into force can, in some other process outside this Parliament, take place in order to protect the citizens of Auckland and to give the fourth estate the time to properly identify the effects of the provisions contained in this bill. Let us consider that issue. The provisions of this bill were not available to the media or to the Opposition until shortly before this debate began. We have not had much time to properly get into the implications of this bill. It is true that Parliament has been sitting very long hours. We have been embroiled in the detail of each provision as it has come before us, but we have had to do that under the pressure of urgency, sequentially one issue after another, and we have not had the time to consider other issues that may be there but which we have not thought of in the limited time we have had to deal with this bill. But that does not apply just to Parliament. It applies to everyone in Auckland. They have been prevented from having the time they would normally have to look at these things. These are very technical matters. They involve the interrelationship of the Local Government Act 2002, the various Acts of Parliament that cover Watercare Services and the like, and the various Acts of Parliament that control local assets and the environment, such as the volcanic cones and the lovely marine environment around Auckland. In order to get our heads around the complexities of all of those interrelationships, it is very important that we give ourselves the time to reflect on these issues, and the time to take the appropriate advice. Some of these issues are so technical that a lot of laypeople are not able to get their heads around them in a short period of time. They need time to be able to talk to nongovernmental organisations that have expertise in these areas, to their lawyers, and to their local body politicians. Those local body politicians themselves have not had the time to get their heads around these issues, so they are not yet in a position to inform their ratepayers and citizens as to where the hooks in this lie. Some of those hooks have been well identified by the Opposition, including Labour and the Greens, but a lot of them still lie untested because the process has been rushed. So one of the important and necessary changes to the bill would reverse the provision that currently states that the bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent— which could be next week—and puts it out to some later date. Labour members are open as to the range of dates. The date has to be substantially later than now, but I do not have an unreasonable view as to what that date might be. If we could have a date that was similar to the date that would have been achieved after a full select committee process, followed by a second and a third reading debate in this House, then that would be an appropriate period of time to consider the date by which this bill ought to come into effect. Although the process by which we could have some decent scrutiny would not have the advantage of the officials’ advice, would not have
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: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 87: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
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?