Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3713
had longer, but it shows that we can have short periods, medium periods, or long
periods of select committee consideration.
What was the Government scared about when it said that this transition bill could not
go through a select committee process? It is outrageous, but it sort of fits in with what
the Government did not long after it came to power, which was to rush a whole lot of
important bills through Parliament under urgency so that there was no proper
consideration. It is becoming a pattern—a very bad pattern.
As Chris Hipkins said, this process could be a blueprint for what will happen across
the country, including to the Wellington region. It is something that every New
Zealander should shake in their boots about, and not just think it is something that
concerns only Auckland. It concerns the very democracy of this country. We do not
want democracy to be cut out at the local level and have democracy—even limited
democracy, as we have seen over this urgency period—only in this Parliament. The
limitations on the Government in our unicameral parliamentary system are bad
enough—things can be rushed through very fast despite the resistance, in particular, of
the Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour—without stripping away the powers of the
people in terms of their local democracy. So the Greens are very supportive of Sue
Kedgley’s amendment and very much against this bill as a whole.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr
Chairperson. I am sorry that this point of order is slightly late, but I have only just come
back into the Chamber.
Hon Member: So we suffer.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a new point
of order.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think I know what the member is
going to raise. I just say to members that it is helpful if we keep our comments down
while a point of order is being raised. I do not mind small muttering, but that comment
was a bit excessive.
Hon DARREN HUGHES: My point of order is about the stage we are now at in
Committee, which is the debate on the title and commencement clauses. As you are
probably all too painfully aware, this bill has not been to a select committee; this is not
the first time that has been said by the Opposition. There is a longstanding convention
that, as a result, firstly, a slightly wider scope is given to members for their speeches,
and, secondly, the debate goes for longer than a normal debate on the title and
commencement clauses. I understand that the Government has repeatedly moved
closure motions on these clauses, so I just wanted to formally raise with you whether
you will be taking into account the fact that this bill has not had the select committee
scrutiny that it would normally have had.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that the Chair will
take all matters into account. It is a long and complex algorithm, parts of which will be
relevancy, repetition, the quality of the debate, the fact that the bill has not gone to a
select committee, and the fact that it is a wide-ranging debate. All those elements will
be judiciously weighed up, and the balance of the argument will be sought. At that point
the Chair will decide whether we are going to take closure. I thank the member for his
effort.
KEITH LOCKE (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was listening
very carefully to your criteria for judging the length of this particular part of the debate.
In reference to the point you mentioned about the quality of the debate, I think this
debate—particularly from Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party—has been of an
extraordinarily high quality. I think that should be taken into consideration, because I
am sure that that quality will continue.