Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3710 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 We should call this the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”, because we know this is the first step in the plans of National and the ACT Party to merge all local authorities into super-councils up and down the country. I took an interest in this particular issue because I know that Paul Quinn and his mate John Terris have been going around the Hutt Valley saying they are in favour of merging Wellington local authorities. Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I put to you that we are getting repetition. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Chris Hipkins to continue. CHRIS HIPKINS: I asked Rodney Hide whether he had received any advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils, and he has. He has already received advice on the potential merger of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils. He answered that in parliamentary written question No. 05571, where he confirmed that he had received advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils on 24 April 2009. I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call and give the people of the Hutt Valley an absolute reassurance that they are not going to lose their local governance as well, as part 2 of this reorganisation that National and the ACT Party are pushing. We know that Hutt Valley people cannot be certain that they would even get a say in that reorganisation, because National and the ACT Party would ram through more legislation in this House. That is why we should call this bill the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”—because we know that there is more to come. We should call this the “National Party Knows Best Bill” because we heard from members opposite that the people had their say on 8 November last year. It is all over from then on in; National has 3 years when it can do whatever it likes under parliamentary urgency, and it does not have to go back and consult the people. It does not even have to send legislation to a select committee. It can do just whatever it likes. That is why we should call this bill the “National Party Knows Best Bill”. We should call it the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill” because after 3 days of debating amendments Gerry Brownlee finally worked out how to get them ruled out of order—not on his own; in fact he probably had quite a bit of help from Rodney Hide to do that. Gerry Brownlee sat through 3 days of voting on amendments before he thought it might be a good idea to pick up the Standing Orders and maybe have a bit of a read. The Leader of the House has finally read the Standing Orders! That is a cause for celebration. So we should call this bill the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill”. We could call it the “Where is Melissa Lee Bill”, because, despite wanting to be the next MP for Mt Albert, she has not taken one single call on this debate. She wants to be the next member of Parliament for a seat in the centre of Auckland, yet she has absolutely nothing to say on the reorganisation of Auckland’s local governance. We could call this the “Privatisation is Back on the Agenda Bill”. National members may have gone around the country saying they would not sell State-owned enterprises like Kiwibank, but they have suddenly discovered there are a whole lot of State assets in local government that they can get their hands on and hock off. They voted against the amendment put forward by Labour that would have saved that. NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This bill is being rammed through with no select committee consideration. Two parts of the bill will be in effect very shortly. Part 3 has some of the most significant implications for Aucklanders that one could imagine. Around $28 billion worth of assets, 6,300 workers, and local government representation and services for over a million people will all be affected by the work of the transitional
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3711 agency that is being established, and that agency is under no obligation to consult anybody, other than the Minister Rodney Hide. Some of my colleagues have already suggested that we should be calling this bill after Rodney Hide. That seems very appropriate, given how much power he has to control this agency. This agency is made up of somewhere between three and five people. There are no requirements here to determine any criteria for selecting them. There is no need for that agency or its board to be representative of anybody. In fact, it could be made up of five of Rodney’s best friends or, as somebody said, five members of the ACT Party, for example. This is entirely possible under this bill. Let us call it the “Centralised Power in the Hands of a Rich Few Bill”, shall we? Let us do that. Let us call it the “Centralised in the Hands of the ACT Party Bill” or indeed the “Centralise it in the Hands of Rodney Hide Bill”. Will Rodney Hide bother to talk to anybody about any of the important matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with? I think it is highly unlikely, given there was no consultation on the recommendations of the royal commission, given that developing the Government’s proposal after the royal commission did not seem to involve consultation with anyone other than the Government, and given that no effort was made to cost it or to take a regulatory impact analysis before pushing this bill through Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely that he will consult people about the implications of some of the matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with. Despite our best efforts over the last few days to scrutinise this bill, in the absence of a select committee process there will undoubtedly be things that have not been able to be checked in this Parliament. We have done our very best. We have raised issues concerning representation and making sure that people are represented—that the diverse and large population of Auckland is represented appropriately. We have put in place amendments concerning assets in order to make sure not only that they are not privatised but also that our elected representatives do not lose control of them—that they have the right to control those assets. We have made a number of amendments concerning workers and the treatment of the 6,300 council workers. But none of that has been taken into account by the Government. Its members are far too arrogant to think that any of those things have merit. I think that Aucklanders, and in fact New Zealanders, will be highly resentful of the fact that the Government has not bothered to pick up a number of very important matters that Labour has raised with it. Labour members know that those issues matter to New Zealanders. The public control of public assets and the fair treatment of workers matter to New Zealanders. We have raised our concerns about unintended consequences, such as the paid parental leave provisions, which Gerry Brownlee considers to be a silly matter. If we are right, then a lot of women will be very concerned—and a lot of families, in fact—about Mr Brownlee’s attitude to this important matter of paid parental leave. There are a number of matters that we have not even been able to consider. One of those matters concerns clause 33. This clause has not had any consideration by the Committee, but again we could call clause 33 the “Let Councillor Lotu-Iiga off the Hook” clause because that clause, which we have not considered yet, is all about filling extraordinary vacancies during the transition period. This now provides councillor Lotu- Iiga with the opportunity to resign— Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member, but I would like some advice. It is highly irregular and deeply offensive for a member, as he is wandering around the Chamber, to be screaming—not interjecting—at the speaker on her feet. He is not even bothering to sit in his seat. I ask you to enforce the relevant Standing Orders.
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: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 93: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 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?