Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

I take this minute to appreciate the Hon George Hawkins, because I am looking forward to his contribution, and he has a birthday coming up tomorrow. If we keep the House in urgency, he may save a year, and he will be 1 year younger than he otherwise would be. It would also save him having a barbecue.

We are discussing Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. First of all, Part 1 sets out the background material that provides the context for the bill. We should not need to debate that too much. I think that everyone is familiar with the background: Auckland’s difficulties, the setting up of the royal commission by the previous Government, and the current Government’s response. We then move to the purpose of the bill as stated in clause 3(7)(a): “to establish a single unitary authority to govern the entire Auckland region on and from 1 November 2010;”. That is actually the main recommendation of the royal commission. The purpose of the bill, accordingly, is also, as stated in clause 3(7)(b): “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region, (being 1 regional and 7 territorial authorities) at the close of the preceding day;”. I think Labour also agrees with that.

The third purpose, in clause 3(7)(c), is “to establish an entity to facilitate the transition to the new local government arrangements;”. That is necessary because someone has to do the transition, and, of course, as soon as the change is announced there is something of a hiatus for the existing councils. They are quite keen to get a transition agency up and running that they can interact with, and that can provide for the smooth and orderly movement to one council. The fourth purpose, in clause 3(7)(d), is “to require the existing local authorities and local government organisations to support the reorganisation”. Again, that is a necessity if we are to achieve the reorganisation for Auckland. There are also some consequential changes that we need to make. Part 1 outlines the clauses and the parts of the bill, defines the terms used in the bill, sets out the relationship between this bill and the other local government legislation, provides that the legislation properly binds the Crown, and, most important, provides for the Act to be repealed on 1 November 2010, with the good work of the transition agency having been done.

This is an important day because we have agreement in the Chamber and, I think, in Auckland that something needs to be done. Of course there will be debate about the best way forward. We look forward to the Opposition holding the Government to account and looking for any gaps or mistakes we make so they can be fixed. The important thing, and I think we share this view, is that we get the best result that we can for the people of Auckland following on from the work of the royal commission. I make the point that not everyone, and I look at Labour members here too, has agreed with everything in the royal commission report. I am interested that Labour members say they do not like the at-large councillors. That was a heavy-duty recommendation from the royal commission; they wanted 10. So when we make that decision, it is also a decision to step aside from what the royal commission proposed.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Define heavy-duty recommendation!

It is a heavy-duty recommendation to have 10 at-large councillors.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Are the other recommendations not heavy-duty?

Of course they are.

💬 Chris Hipkins: But why are you ignoring some but not the others?

No, I am pointing out to Labour members, who are saying we have not followed exactly what the royal commission is saying, that the Labour Party is not following those recommendations either. I ask Labour members to understand the process here. We need a transition agency now to provide a process for the councils to interact, and we are sending to the select committee the very issues that Labour and, indeed, others have concerns about. Why—because the proper process is to consider those issues through the select committee process. I look forward to Labour members coming up with a consistent position on what they would do for Auckland that all members can latch on to.

The Labour Party supports new governance in Auckland. We do not support the way the process has been hijacked. Members talk about a select committee going out and getting Aucklanders’ opinions, but Aucklanders are not being asked what they think about the setting up of a unitary council. They will not have a say about that. I understand that things must progress fairly rapidly, but this Government could have allowed a select committee to hear the concerns of the Auckland councils. That process would not have had to be long. The select committee could have then reported back to the House. That would have been a far better process.

💬 Paul Quinn: We’ve already had 18 months of it, George.

Mr Quinn has not read the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. All he reads is the menu at Bellamy’s. That is the absolute truth: he has not read the report. Sitting next to him is Nikki Kaye, who has read only 80 percent of it. That is not acceptable nowadays.

The member for Maungakiekie is a councillor and a member of Parliament. The trouble is that he does not attend council meetings, so he does not have any idea. We have to be better than this in this Committee. We should make sure that the Government is prepared to listen to the Auckland councils’ views on the transition. But no—it has decided to pass the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in urgency and not give them that chance. That is quite a pity. I say that when members do not listen, they lose their seats. I think we should talk to the Hon Richard Worth. What happened to him? He did not listen.

💬 Paul Quinn: Ha, ha!

The member may laugh at that, but it is very true. He lost the Epsom seat.

This legislation also deals with the jobs of Aucklanders. Six thousand Aucklanders will have to put their faith in the Auckland Transition Agency. Those workers are not getting a say, either. Councils are not getting a say; the workers are not getting a say. The process is being hijacked by the Government. I have seen the situation. I have been around here for some time, and I see what Governments do from time to time. But this is the most important thing that has happened to local government in Auckland for 50 years or more. It is very important.

I was Mayor of Papakura at the time of the last reorganisation of local governance. Papakura survived and its people quite like it now. But they will not be able to have a say. The other day the Mayor of Papakura was at Mansell Senior School, a decile 1 school. Just over 200 pupils go to the school. One kid asked whether they were going to have a mayor any more. They will not. But that is a part of the second bill that is coming up—the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill.

In respect of the first bill, it is very important that we make sure things are under control. Everything is not sweet at the moment. Chief executives in the Auckland area are getting pay rises of $60,000 per year. That is $1,100 per week. I think that is disgusting. It has been reported in the media that people like Jarrod Moyle, who works for Sheffield Consulting Group, have said that chief executives should get $1 million salaries. There was no comment about the workers at the coalface; this is all about looking after the big, rich, fat friends of the National Government. It is disturbing that ordinary people who clean toilets, empty rubbish bins, and get playing fields right will not be able to have a say on the transition. I think that matter is very important.

I was going to start my speech by referring to the first of the many amendments that Labour will be introducing, but first I will address the comments just made by the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide. I thank him for taking a call. All too often when we go into urgency, we see National Government Ministers sitting in that chair like a dried arrangement—not getting up, not saying anything, and not doing anything. It is good to have a Minister in the chair who is prepared to take a call, and to address the concerns.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Get on with your speech!

This is my speech.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s rubbish. Get on with the good bit.

Mr Brownlee can say that it is rubbish; he has just come into the Chamber. He is obviously very keen to get out of here tonight. He is reading the newspaper. I say to Mr Brownlee that if he wants to keep interjecting on me, I will keep responding to him. I am quite happy to do that. But he is obviously very upset that we pointed out that Rodney Hide is prepared to take a call. I hope that he will stand up and address the issues of concern that are being raised. Once again we have—

💬 Paul Quinn: Have you only got two sentences? You’ve already said that.

I say it because I believe it.

💬 Paul Quinn: So you go round and round?

Yes; that is fine. We can keep having this conversation.

💬 Paul Quinn: If you say it long enough, you will convince yourself.

That is fine. We can keep having this conversation, I say to Mr Quinn. I am quite happy. Anyway, I restate how happy we are that the Minister in the chair is prepared to take a call. We hope he will take more calls on this.

Once again, here we are in urgency, and the Government is ramming through a piece of legislation that will not be going to a select committee and will not have a public process associated with it. Let us remind ourselves that during the election campaign the National Party promised Aucklanders that it would consult on the royal commission’s report. But National has not done that, so I hope the Minister will take a call on that issue.

My colleague Chris Hipkins referred to the comments made by the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, that the royal commission report contained heavy-duty recommendations that were carried through. I think it is important that we understand how the Minister came to decide which regulations were heavy-duty, and which could be dispensed with.

Clearly, Labour members have stated that we support the unitary council, but we believe that Aucklanders have the right to be consulted on that issue. When the Minister in the chair took his call he also referred to the fact that the select committee process is the consultation that Government members have been referring to. But maybe the Minister in the chair is not aware of the fact that this legislation will not be referred to a select committee. He should have been alerted to that by the fact that we moved to the second reading right after the first reading. That would have been his first clue that this piece of legislation had not been referred to a select committee. But, clearly, that did not tip him off, so perhaps the Minister in the chair might want to take a call and clarify what he meant when he said that the consultation on this bill was the select committee process when in fact there will be no select committee process. That is a shameful thing. I note also that there is no regulatory impact statement with this legislation. I wonder what the Minister for Regulatory Reform would say about that. I look forward to the Minister in the chair, who, I believe, has a close personal relationship with the Minister for Regulatory Reform, actually addressing that issue. We find ourselves once again in urgency, with no select committee process for a bill that is being rammed through. The people of Auckland are not having their say.

💬 Nikki Kaye: They have had their say.

How have they had their say? [Interruption] Nikki Kaye says that the fact that there were 500 oral submissions and 3,500 written submissions means 1.4 million Aucklanders have had their say. I ask Nikki Kaye to stand up and take a call—and stop yelling at me—and tell this Committee why she promised, along with the National Party during the election campaign, that National would consult Aucklanders on the royal commission report before it did anything. I ask Nikki Kaye when she did that. Those members cannot answer that, because the fact is that they did not consult. It is a broken election promise. Nikki Kaye can keep interjecting on me, and I will keep responding to her, but the fact is that she is a lion in Wellington and a mouse in Auckland. I challenge her to go and make those comments in Auckland. She should go to South Auckland and repair some of the damage done by Melissa Lee last night. She should go to South Auckland and give the speech she is giving in this Committee, with the comments she is making, in Auckland, because Auckland members from National are big and brave when they are in the confines of Parliament, in Wellington—big and brave. The fact is that Aucklanders were promised—

💬 Paul Quinn: You’re a bit of a mouse in Gisborne.

I am not a mouse in Gisborne, and I am happy to stand according to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call the Hon David Carter—sorry, John Carter.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He’s much better than David Carter.

💬 Moana Mackey: It’s the great Hon John Carter.

That is very kind of the members to say so, but I think that David Carter is a remarkable member of Parliament, actually.

I just listened with wonder to the input to this debate from Opposition members. I am actually quite staggered and disappointed by the lack of effort they are putting into this issue. If they are genuinely opposed to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, then they should fight it word for word, paragraph for paragraph, and clause by clause. But all we are getting from Opposition members is rhetoric saying that they like the suggestion of having one city, one system of roading authorities and water supply, and one plan, and they think there should be a unitary authority across Auckland, but they oppose the bill. Well, what sort of nonsense is that? You know, the Opposition spokesperson on local government is even recorded in the local paper as saying he thinks there should be one city for Auckland across the whole area. Labour members support that idea and they support the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Incidentally, they keep asking how many of us have read the report of the royal commission. They keep asking us, but I would like to ask those members how many of them have read it.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: I have.

Really?

💬 Hon George Hawkins: Yes.

All the volumes?

💬 Hon George Hawkins: Yes.

George Hawkins says that he has read all the volumes. I ask how many volumes there are.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: One.

One? There are actually four volumes. You see, he says that he has read it—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: One is the executive summary.

There is one executive summary and there are four volumes, actually. The volumes are there on the back desk, and there are actually four volumes—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: You’re counting the executive summary as a volume.

No, no, not at all—the executive summary and four volumes. The fact is that those members obviously do not know and have not read the report.

But the point is that we are here today to talk about this bill going through the House. Those members are saying that it is dreadful that we are putting it through under urgency. But the fact is that this starts the process, as we and the Minister of Local Government have said before, and it gets the legislation into a position where we can go to the people and say that there will be one city—we do not need any confusion about that—and we are interested in ensuring that there is consultation on the things needed from a local perspective. That is exactly what the Opposition is asking us to do, as well. Again, the only argument those members have is that we are starting this process by putting this bill through under urgency. They say that if we had not done that, they would have had to support it. Well, somebody had to start the process. If it had been the Labour Opposition, we would have seen another 50 years go by before any action was taken. Those members stand up—

💬 Paul Quinn: Oh, they want to stand up in the Committee.

—yes, of course they would—and say that they are worried about the waste. George Hawkins just stood up and said that it was dreadful that some chief executive was getting a $60,000 pay increase. Well, if he is worried about that sort of stuff, surely he wants to support a system that allows us to address those issues. I would have thought that the Opposition would be quite keen to see a system that allowed those things to be looked at and reformed. Surely that is the sort of stuff we want.

I cannot imagine that George Hawkins enjoys the traffic congestion he has to drive through, day after day, when he is in Auckland. Surely he wants that sort of stuff fixed—one would think so. Why would he not want to support that sort of stuff? Why would he not want the Government to actually try to fix the cost that Auckland brings upon the people of this nation because of all the difficulties it has? Why would that member—who is a former mayor—not want a system that allowed decisions to be taken across the region? Why would that member not want that sort of stuff? Well, the Minister of Local Government, the Prime Minister of this country, and this Government will provide for that to happen. It is very difficult to argue about.

Most important, while we fix those things that are problems for Auckland, and while we fix the structure to allow decisions to be taken affecting infrastructure and the issues that matter on a high scale for Auckland, we are also going to allow local people to have their voice, in order to allow local democracy to prevail. We will ensure that the functions Waiheke Island residents want will be there. They can tell us what they want, and we will put it in there. People can tell us how many wards they want and how many councillors should be elected at large.

A previous speaker, Nikki Kaye, said that she knew people in Auckland who were excited about this super-city model, and I am sure there are some. I am sure that many of Rodney Hide’s mates and many business people are rubbing their hands together with glee about this super-city, because they can see that this legislation will mean they will end up getting their hands on $28 billion worth of assets. They know that the hidden agenda is to set up the council in such a way that they can siphon off all of the major commercial activities of the council into corporate boards, then contract them out and privatise as much as possible. So they are rubbing their hands together with glee; I tell Nikki Kaye that yes, they are excited about the super-city proposal.

I am quite sure that the Citizens and Ratepayers are absolutely excited about this super-city proposal, because they know that if they get their man, John Banks, into power as mayor, he will be effectively the “Tsar of Auckland”. Under the proposed new model in this bill he will have almost total control of the council. He will be able to choose all his chairs and his deputy chair, and he will then have complete control of the council and its agenda. He will set the budget, he will set the long-term plan, and he will then be able to unleash his agenda for Auckland. This is the hidden agenda here, which is why those people are rubbing their hands together with glee. They know that under this new model of local governance, with this incredible concentration of power in the executive and the mayor, they will be able to unleash their agenda for Auckland without opposition.

I was a Wellington city councillor for 8 years, and I know that once the mayor gets control of the council and control of all the chairs, he or she can just ram things through, in exactly the same way we are ramming through this legislation today. The mayor will be able to control the new council, and unleash his or her agenda on Auckland, but I am worried that Aucklanders will realise this only when it is too late. They will wake up in 3 years’ time—if this legislation is rammed through using Rodney Hide’s shock tactics—and realise they now have a “Tsar of Auckland” and a bloated, huge super-city, a mega-city, that is inaccessible to ordinary Aucklanders. They will not be able to access it or influence it. Whole communities will be disenfranchised and powerless. The people on the local boards—whatever few powers might be tossed their way—will be utterly frustrated, and they will ask how this happened: “How did it happen that our very effective eight Auckland city councils were wiped out overnight?”. What is the problem with the Waitakere City Council, the North Shore City Council, and the Manukau City Council? What is the great evil that they have done? Their satisfaction surveys show an 80 or 90 percent satisfaction rate.

We want to make it absolutely clear that the Green Party is utterly opposed to the proposed super-city model. Apparently there is some uncertainty about where Labour stands, so I want to make it absolutely clear that the Green Party is implacably opposed to the proposed super-city model.

The ACT members were yelling out that the councils were wasting money. I tell those members to wait until ratepayers work out how much this radical restructuring is going to cost, how much will be foisted on them, and how much their rates bill will go up just so those members can wipe out local democracy in Auckland. I also point out it is a complete myth that the Government is adopting the royal commission’s plan. What nonsense! A public policy director of the Auckland University of Technology launched a broadside today against the Government’s plans. He said that what the Government is proposing is a shadow of the royal commission’s report. He said further that the Government has taken just a few headlines out of the royal commission’s report, and removed most of its other mechanisms. Let us remember that the royal commission said that its report should be taken as an integrated whole. But all the Government has taken is a few headlines that suit it, and scrapped the rest of the report. Then it has tried to pretend that because people were consulted on the royal commission, somehow they do not need to be consulted on this bill or on anything else.

I support Sue Kedgley, the member who has just resumed her seat. Of course the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is not an end in itself; it is the start of a very, very slippery slope. She is absolutely right to point out that the $28 billion worth of assets that will all go into council-controlled organisations will all be subject to the majority on the new council, which, of course, will be dominated by the at-large councillors elected across the city using the bank balances of the good people of Remuera.

It is OK for Nikki Kaye that the gulf islands have their community boards, but is it not a shame that so early in her term she has slipped from what she could have been. She could have been a good MP. She could have risen above the nimby factor and said “Because my gulf islands are OK … ”. It does not take long until we get to Melissa Lee and start worrying about brown people coming up the motorway and invading the good white suburbs of Mt Albert. It is a slippery slope from the gulf islands to brown people on the motorway, and that is what those Nats stand for.

I tell New Zealanders to be very afraid when the Government concentrates power. John Carter asked: “Have you read all the volumes?”. Well, there are three volumes and an executive summary. In a sleight of hand, the Government managed to turn 6 inches of integrated research and 3,000 submissions into this report. There is a misprint on it; it should say “Making Auckland Bluer”. It is in blue print. I remember when Mr Carter handed it out, and I remember the look on his face. He knew he was giving the people of Auckland a permanent right-of-centre local government. The Government took those four volumes, put them in the rubbish bin, and replaced them with this report. Members will notice that it is not the same thickness. It is not as thick as the Minister of Local Government. This is not even an executive summary.

What does the bill do? I will get back to the content of the bill. Part 1 is called “Preliminary provisions”, and one would think there is nothing much in it. But when we check the fine print, we see that it completely overrides section 49 of the Local Government Act. That section requires a poll or a referendum on reorganisation. National members used to be big on referenda, were they not, on the anti-smacking bill. They are very big on crime and punishment, but they are not very big on referenda about local government, for some strange reason. I do not know why that is. They said they would consult on those volumes that they have now put it in the bin. They said they would consult on making Auckland bluer, but they did not. Then they said “Well, you’ll get your say in the select committee.” That is fine. Here is the bill that overrides the Local Government Act, and there is no select committee. It is being rammed through the House in urgency, which is why we are here, to take away the right of Aucklanders to have their say. Those members are doing it by stealth.

It is intriguing that Roger Douglas was here, because this is the Roger Douglas model of change management. It was used in Baghdad; it is called “shock and awe”—crash it through before the people line up. Why are those members so frightened? They are frightened that the people of Auckland will rise up like the thousand people who marched in Henderson at a day’s notice. The hīkoi is coming from the north, the south, and the west. It is coming with the disempowered people, the brown people, the poor white people, and the people of colour and ethnicity like Mr Bakshi. The people will rise up and will not be silenced by this bill now or in 2011. They will rise up and they will have their say because they do not want to make Auckland bluer—not now, not in 2011, not in 2014, not in 2017, and not in 2020. The people want to have their say; this Government is taking that away.

Labour stands for the people. We stand with the people, and we stand for democracy. This bill is an outrage. The Government has spent a million bucks, got a thorough report, put it in the bin, replaced it with something wafer-thin like the Minister, has not consulted on it, has rammed through a bill with no select committee process, and has overridden the law.

It is a somewhat daunting prospect to make a contribution in this debate after hearing “Martin Luther Cunliffe” give such a wonderful dissertation. I think it was a Martin Luther King impersonation of John F Kennedy. However, I think the absurdity of that contribution perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of the Labour Party’s opposition to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill.

This part is integral to the entire bill. It simply means that we have had a royal commission spend some 18 months considering this issue. The royal commission, interestingly, was established by the Rt Hon Helen Clark after her public expressions of concern about the “dysfunctional” nature of Auckland local governance. The royal commission spoke to literally hundreds of Aucklanders, and it came down with some recommendations for how things might progress. At that point Labour would think the job has been done—that it has had the committee and got the report, so the job is done. That is exactly what “Martin Luther Cunliffe” just told the Committee. We have a great pile of documents here—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order is an obvious one: members have to be referred to by their correct name or title. There is no end of possibilities as to the names we could use for the Leader of the House, who made the transgression. We do not do that, because we respect the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The point is well made; the member well knows that. He should address members respectfully and in keeping with the tradition of the House.

I most certainly will. I offer the reflection that after almost 13 years in this place, I am well aware that the expletives used to describe me certainly are not exhausted when it comes to the Opposition’s imagination.

Mr Cunliffe gave us exactly that information when he spoke before. He said there was a great pile of documents here, and it was terrible that it has been synthesised down to its essence and presented in a readable, understandable form to back up a Government that is actually doing something that is totally foreign to the Labour Party, in taking some action on information provided to it on issues that have been discovered and considered by the people who are most affected by them. That is all that this bill does. It sets up a transition agency, so that all those people who have responsibilities in local government at the moment know where they are heading.

The interesting thing is that we have not heard one Labour speaker admit that he or she is going to vote against the super-city proposal and vote down any concept of there being a united situation for local governance in Auckland. That is Labour’s serious agenda. Those members have said that even though Helen Clark expressed concern about Auckland governance, she is gone and so is the idea. They are going back to the 1960s if they say they will vote against the proposal to unite local governance in Auckland. That is irrelevant, and the Labour Party is pretty irrelevant in this argument through its actions. Talk about wanting to be consulted, consultative, and constructive means absolutely nothing when we get this sort of opposition to a bill that essentially protects the people who have an obligation to make this thing work.

💬 Hon Members: Rubbish!

Opposition members suggest that I am talking absolute rubbish. That means they have not read the bill. They do not understand that without the protections of this bill, and without the transitional authority having the backing of the law, then there can be no progress towards a super-city.

The interesting thing is that there is no argument here about how many people might be on the council and how many local boards there might be. That is in another bill, which is going to a select committee and it will be decided on by that committee after representations have been made to it. There are no pre-decisions about that. I think it is incredibly disingenuous of the Labour Opposition to filibuster in the House today on what should be very, very simple legislation designed to protect the people in employment at the present time. [Interruption] There we go! Members opposite are suddenly saying I should not be speaking, because I am somehow interfering with their right to speak. That shows the arrogance of the Labour Party. Labour was absolutely whipped at the last election. No concept of humility was ever expressed, and here we see the same arrogance today—it is Labour’s way or no way.

This process was started by a Labour Party in Government that knew what it was doing, and it will be opposed by a Labour Party in Opposition that has no idea where it is heading. I feel sorry for Phil Goff. It is no good being a train engine out the front if all the carriages are several metres behind and off the hook. That is about where he is at. The Labour Party, rather than supporting its leader, is having a cup of tea down the back in the guard’s van—utterly hopeless.

When one looks at Part 1, one sees that it sets out the background and purposes of the bill. In that respect there are a number of questions that I wish to put to Her Majesty’s Government. What is the purpose of the bill? We are told that it is to improve public services, overall organisation, overall efficiency, staffing, and everything else that goes with improving organisations. I hope, for the people of Manukau City whom I represent and, since the last election, also the people of Auckland City, that that is correct. My experience, having now served in the part of Auckland City that covers my electorate, Ōtāhuhu, is that that is not the case. Let me put on the record today that as an Opposition we, broadly speaking, support a unitary council.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I do not know why members opposite are so surprised. We have said that for a number of days now, and we have been quite frank and quite open about it. We support it, but I tell the Government that we strongly disagree with a number of the key provisions of this legislation. That is where we—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Name one.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: The member wants one. I will give him one. In respect of the number of members who will be elected at large, we do not agree that there should be eight; we believe that it should be open, and that each person should be able to represent his or her ward.

We broadly support a unitary council, but as a local member of Parliament in Manukau, I say there is a concern at the constituency level and how it will impact on the people. I have already had meetings with the Ōtāhuhu steering committee group. I have already had meetings with the Papatoetoe community safety group, and met with residents in Ōtara. We have also attended a number of mayoral forums on this issue. So here is our question to the Government: is the purpose of this bill to run the Auckland region like a business, by business, and for business? That is not the purpose of local government; local government is there to represent the concerns of the local people. So I call on the Prime Minister to stand up on his hind legs, take a call, and tell us exactly what he thinks. I call on other Auckland members of Parliament. Let us go through them—I ask them to get up on their hind legs and tell us what they think. What about Paula Bennett? What about Jonathan Coleman, Murray McCully, Maurice Williamson, Jackie Blue, Pansy Wong, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Nikki Kaye, Judith Collins, Wayne Mapp, Tim Groser, Richard Worth, Tau Henare, Melissa Lee, and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? Why will those members not take a call and tell us that the purpose of this legislation is not to run the Auckland region like a business, for business, and by business?

Can those members also tell us whether this legislation is about an asset grab of $28 billion worth of public assets? I know that in Manukau we have a considerable number of assets—Manukau City Investments Ltd, Manukau Water Ltd, Tomorrow’s Manukau, Waste Disposal Services, Manukau Building Consultants, our city investments, our leisure services, and our education and employment trust. We have the Pakuranga Arts and Cultural Trust, the Highbrook Park Trust Board, the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust, the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust, not to mention, of course, the airport shares. We want to be reassured that Manukau will be treated fairly when it comes to the creation of the super-city.

As a local member I am concerned about the loss of local representation in the area of Manukau. I come back to Ōtāhuhu. I now represent Ōtāhuhu. I was amazed, when I went to Ōtāhuhu, that it did not even have a swimming pool, yet in Manukau every single ward has a swimming pool.

I have had the opportunity to go through the somewhat numerous amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins, and I am afraid to say that this Government will not be able to support them. His first amendment is to the title of Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”. Sadly, it goes against the drafting conventions that we have had in this House for some time. His numerous amendments to clause 3 essentially seek to rewrite history. I know that that is something Labour is always keen on doing, but it is not something we consider to be important in this bill. In particular, it beats this Government as to quite why Labour wants to add to the bill “Volcanic activity has shaped Auckland for millennia and will continue to do so”. George Hawkins wants to take up the time of the Committee to make a note about volcanic activity. I am a bit disappointed that he has not stood up on this important bill and explained why he wants to add that in.

A further amendment is to clause 4. Those amendments are just inappropriate, because if one reads clause 4, one will see that it is a descriptive clause, and the member is trying to change it. I would be interested to know whether the other members of the Labour caucus support the amendments put in by George Hawkins. The next amendment is an interesting one, and I would be very interested to hear Labour members speak to it. George is proposing to rename the Auckland Council the “Auckland Super Council”. We know that Labour supports having one council for Auckland, so it supports the concept of an Auckland Council. Now what it is trying to do is to pass legislation that would rename it the “Auckland Super Council”.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: That’s the Minister’s language; the Minister calls it that.

Darren Hughes is yelling out. No, I am sorry, this is the amendment in the name of the spokesperson on local government, George Hawkins, to rename the Auckland Council the “Auckland Super Council”.

We have learnt two things from Labour members this morning. The first is that they support one council. The second is that they have learnt that volcanoes have shaped Auckland, and they want that duly noted by Parliament. The third is that they want the Auckland Council named the “Auckland Super Council”. Why else would they move that amendment?

Finally, I am afraid the Government cannot support the amendment to clause 8, because that would repeal the Act before the restructuring occurs. Quite why George Hawkins and Labour would want to do that beats the Government. I am afraid the Government cannot support any of these amendments. They have been poorly thought through, and I do not believe they actually have the support of Chris Hipkins and others, because I do not believe that Chris wants to name the Auckland Council—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Simkins.

What is his name?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Simkins.

Simkins. I do not believe that the proposal to have—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member was referring to Mr Simkins. I am sure he meant Hipkins.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is correct. This is the second time we have had this. Members know that there is a proper manner of address for people in the House. I have asked members previous to this to address people consistent with the Standing Orders and the respect due to this House. Members are honourable members, and we treat each other with respect.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is an interesting position. The Minister, Rodney Hide, did actually get my name correct, and was corrected by the Leader of the House to make the pronunciation incorrect. So it was a deliberate attempt by the Leader of the House to make Rodney Hide make a mistake. I suggest that you bring him to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have dealt with the matter.

I apologise, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry, but we cannot support these amendments. I look forward to members taking the call to explain why on earth Mr Hawkins wants to name the Auckland Council the “Auckland Super Council”, and why he wants Parliament to note, on this particular day, that volcanic activity shaped Auckland.

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill should be renamed the “Removal of Democracy in Auckland Bill”. This bill removes the opportunity for Aucklanders to say whether they want their councils replaced. The Local Government Act provides a chance for them to have their say in a referendum. That is how the Act is supposed to work: someone puts up a proposal, and the people vote it up or down. If this super-city structure for Auckland is such a good idea, then Aucklanders would vote for it. If it did not get majority approval and pass, the Government would have to fix it and keep fixing it until Aucklanders would or could vote for it. But Aucklanders will never get that chance under this bill.

We know that the next bill to be debated will put in a fix in the way the Auckland super-city council is to be elected. The super-city council will be effectively stacked. It will be back to the days when 21 out of the 22 councillors in Auckland City lived east of Queen Street. I know because I was on that council, and I was one of them. Auckland ran into huge problems because it was stacked with conservative right-wing councillors for generations—that is why a ward system was introduced. That is why the National Government is going back to the failed structures of the past—only it is worse, because they are making it an even bigger potential disaster. One would think that most Aucklanders would want to have a say in that, and one would think the Government would acknowledge that.

One would think that voters who live west of Queen Street—the ones who are less likely to vote for the National Party in local government drag—would want to say whether they agree with their representation being dramatically reduced or even eliminated entirely before it happens. One would think that the voters of South Auckland would want a say before they lose free entry to their swimming pools. Were any other members on the Manukau City Council that introduced free entry to swimming pools in Manukau City? Members are looking at one of the original members of that council. Will the Auckland super-city council’s self-appointed mayor John Banks follow Manukau City’s example and eliminate all fees for swimming pools in Auckland City, or will he make Manukau City charge for swimming pools in the new super-city? I say we know exactly the answer to that question.

That is what this bill actually does—it removes free entry to swimming pools in South Auckland, and any effective say that local communities will have in the future about the way they are run. How does it do this? Well, at the moment, entry to public swimming pools in Manukau City is free. That is a good thing, because the kids in South Auckland, unlike a lot of kids in Remuera or Herne Bay, do not have swimming pools in their backyards. That is how the kids in South Auckland get the chance to learn to swim. It is how they get a fair chance to have the childhood that a New Zealand kid should have. But across the rest of Auckland there is a charge for entry to swimming pools—in Auckland City, out in west Auckland, and on the North Shore. So what do members think will happen to the free entry to pools in South Auckland? It will be abolished, and the people who are least able to afford to pay will have to start paying.

I can already hear the presumptive super-city mayor John Banks giving speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City should not be subsidising the swimming pools of South Auckland. Well, there is a point about that, you know, because the ratepayers of South Auckland now subsidise their own pools, and they choose to do it. What choice will they get under this bill to continue to do that? I submit: none.

There are literally hundreds of issues like this that the bill does not even begin to address or to propose consulting Aucklanders on. That is one result of having Auckland’s councils historically elected the way the Government wants them elected. It is only going to get worse. If the Government wants an at-large election across Auckland City, it will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who will never be able to stand for office in a public election. The Government cannot tell me that the 30 voluntary councils around the place, like community boards and committees, will have any power. I know they do not. They used to have, in Auckland, and they were emasculated. They used to have, in Christchurch City, where I live now, and they have been emasculated there, too. Their budgets have virtually been taken away and their authority to talk to local authority councils has gone. That is what will happen to those councils in Auckland, too.

I support a strong regional government. I was on the Auckland Regional Authority when it bought all the regional parks in Auckland. I was on the authority when it purchased the whole of the bus fleet, and that was a good thing to do.

I am very pleased to take the advice of the honourable member, Mr Ross Robertson, and get up on my hind legs to defend the Government’s position on Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. In particular, I want to address the purpose of the bill, but before I do I want to issue a blunt, clear warning to the Labour Opposition members. I hinted at it last night; I will now deliver it. The people of Auckland are not listening to them. They made it very, very clear in the 2008 election that they had stopped listening, and that Labour had let Auckland down once too often. I note with interest the warning of another fine member, Mr George Hawkins, that members will lose their seats over this. I can only assume that he had in mind—[Interruption] In your dreams, George!—members like Mr Cunliffe, who really must be nervous. What the people of Auckland wanted and expected this morning was a clear, rational, reasonable debate on Part 1 of this bill—on the purpose of this bill. The Labour Opposition actually agrees with the critical purpose. It agrees that there should be a unitary governance authority in Auckland. Member after member has got up and said that. So why is it that so many of the members opposite choose not to debate the purpose of the bill, but instead, as they did last night in the first and second readings, prefer to engage in personal attacks on members on this side of the Chamber?

That is one of the reasons why Auckland is not listening. What the people of Auckland want to hear from us, and what they are hearing from the Minister—and I compliment the Minister for the clarity and the precision that he has brought to proceedings—and from this side of the Chamber, is this very simple purpose: will a unitary Auckland governance system set up the framework for the prosperity of that region, and therefore the prosperity of New Zealand, for the next 50 to 100 years? That is what the people of Auckland want to hear about. That is what they want us to debate. They want the assurance that we can—

💬 Phil Twyford: They want democracy.

They exercised democracy in 2008—unlike the way the Labour Party treated that member’s ambitions for Mt Albert.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What did they do?

I say to Mr Brownlee that Labour did not nominate that member for the Mt Albert seat that he thought he had an absolute right to. That is what it did. If Phil Twyford thinks that insulting the Prime Minister in this House builds his image or his reputation in any way, I tell him to forget it—just forget it. The critical point is how the new structure contained in the purpose—in Part 1 of this bill—will develop Auckland to become the driver of prosperity for the region, and not just for tomorrow or next year, but for the next 50 to 100 years. That is the purpose, as set out in Part 1. I invite subsequent Opposition speakers to get up, put the personal insults aside, respect what the people of Auckland want, and get on and debate that simple point, and debate the issue around the transition authority, which I believe holds the key to making this all work in the next 18 months.

I would like to address clause 3 and propose an amendment to it that would insert new subclause (4A) after subclause (4). The subclause would read: “The Royal Commission recommended the establishment of six councils beneath the Auckland Council. This recommendation of the commission was dismissed by the Government.”

Labour proposes this amendment because it recognises, despite the efforts of the National Government to rewrite history, that the National Government has swept away some of the most important work of the royal commission in dealing to and dispatching the royal commission’s proposals around the second tier of Auckland governance. The royal commission spent 18 months thinking, analysing, consulting, and researching, and focused its attention on this dilemma, this problem, that underlies the entire exercise of restructuring Auckland local government. Everybody acknowledges—as my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have said today and on other days—and accepts that Auckland needs strengthened regional governance. We need the ability as a city to speak with one voice. We need the ability to make the really big decisions and investments in a timely way.

Auckland is exceptional; it is unlike any other part of the country. It is our biggest city, and it is more complex and has challenges and demands that no other part of the country faces. That is the case for making an exception for Auckland: we are carving out space in our local government legislative framework so that Auckland can deal with its special challenges. Part of the recipe for dealing with those challenges is centralising power and pushing regional functions up to the super-city. That makes sense, and nobody denies that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Except your colleagues.

No. I say to Mr Brownlee that if he takes this seriously and listens to what we are saying, he will have to acknowledge that everyone on this side of the Chamber recognises that creating the top tier—giving it real powers and real resources to deal with the challenges that Auckland faces—is critical; nobody disputes that. But if we are to centralise power in 20 or more councillors on the Auckland Council, then it is essential that we address the need for a strong second tier. The royal commission acknowledged this; it spent a lot of its time—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The wrong bill—that is the next bill.

I say to Mr Brownlee that I am talking about an amendment to Part 1 that acknowledges that this National Government swept off the table in fewer than 18 days the crucial recommendations that the royal commission took 18 months to formulate.

I want to talk about what the royal commission proposed. The royal commission proposed six councils, roughly along the lines of the existing territorial authorities. Part of the analysis of the royal commission was based on a cost-benefit analysis, and I will talk about that.

💬 Paul Quinn: Do you understand what that is, Phil?

I say to Mr Quinn that the royal commission’s proposals estimated that the net present value would be $425 million—that is the present value of future savings. The many local boards, like the 20 to 30 local boards that the National Government and Mr Hide have proposed, would cost $225 million. So the royal commission estimates it would cost $200 million extra to set up a proliferation of local boards.

💬 Nikki Kaye: You don’t support them.

If the member for Auckland Central reads the report of the royal commission, she will see that after 18 months it came to the decision that it could not possibly justify trashing the existing local councils. It could not justify getting rid of Manukau City Council, North Shore City Council, and Waitakere City Council.

I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I would like to speak to an amendment that has been put forward by the Labour Opposition. The amendment that I will to speak to amends the title of Part 1 by deleting the words “Preliminary provisions” and inserting the words “Background, purposes, interpretation-related matters”. The reasons we have put forward this amendment are twofold. I think it responds to some of the issues raised by Mr Hide about our amendments generally. We are trying to match the rhetoric of the Government with the reality. We are taking it upon ourselves to insert some reality into this bill, making it honest and making sure that it is well understood by the people of New Zealand—Aucklanders in particular—and by all members of this House. We have taken it upon ourselves, through our amendments, to put more reality into this bill and to match the Government’s rhetoric with that reality.

I will begin with our suggestion around the amendment to the title of Part 1. My colleagues, I am sure, will speak to the many other amendments that have been suggested. They are not just the ones that have been highlighted by Mr Hide; there are many more and we look forward to speaking to those. The current title of Part 1 is misleading. Parliamentary procedure has long defined that the title and commencement clauses are traditionally the preliminary clauses. To call Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” runs the risk of confusing not only the good members of this House but also members of the public once this bill progresses further.

Let me just reflect on some of the reasons why calling the entire Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” could be considered misleading. Well, one would think that this bill were preliminary by the vain attempt at a regulatory impact statement. That statement would imply that this is the kind of legislation that will be in place for 1 month, and not, as Ms Kaye pointed out, the most significant change to local government “since forever”—I think those might have been the words she used. We will come to an amendment on that later.

When the regulatory impact analysis team considered the proposals in this bill relating to Auckland’s future governance arrangements, it called them economically significant. For those members who want further clarification of “significant”, it means “likely to have a major effect”. Given that, I would have thought we would have quite a hefty regulatory impact statement. I know that this is an issue dear to Mr Hide’s heart. He holds a ministerial portfolio on this issue. In fact, he has had exchanges with visitors from abroad on the importance of thorough regulatory impact statements. New Zealand used to have a reputation of being praised on the way it conducted its regulatory impact statements, yet I refer to the response made by the regulatory impact analysis team when it stated that it has not assessed the regulatory impact statement because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decision. A decision was made, then the statement was put together. How could Cabinet feasibly have considered the impact of the most major change to local government “since forever” without having had a regulatory impact statement to consider?

This just points to the farce of the Government proposing such significant changes without knowing the economic impact of those changes not only for Auckland but also for the entire country. Based on that regulatory impact statement we might assume that all the provisions of Part 1 and, in fact, the major changes that come from that, are preliminary ones. Again I think that is misleading, so we are willing to put forward to the Government a proposal to change that title and to put some more honesty into the bill.

There is an alternative, though. If the Government wishes, it could change the word “preliminary” and perhaps put some dates into Part 1. The most significant change in Part 1 is the removal of the provision enabling individual Aucklanders to be polled on this reorganisation. That is one of the most significant parts of Part 1. Is that or is it not a preliminary measure? I ask the Minister to address that question. Is the removal of the democratic right of the people of Auckland to vote on this reorganisation a preliminary matter? If it is not preliminary, does that mean they will eventually have their say? Does it mean that eventually they will have a chance to vote on this matter?

I move, That the question be now put.

One of the concerns that the Green Party has is that these measures take away the rights of Māori people in this country, particularly the rights of the tangata whenua. This is a denial of the rights of people under the Treaty of Waitangi to exercise their tino rangatiratanga. In fact, a case was lodged in the court just this morning by one of the Auckland tribes—Te Waiōhua—to seek an urgent discussion by the Waitangi Tribunal of the claim by local Auckland Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a very detailed claim. It refers to the fact that the royal commission gave three seats to the tangata whenua. This proposal completely scrubs the consideration of the royal commission of the rights of Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The claim states not only that but also that the other thing that is not part of the arrangement is any proportional system. At least in this House we have a form of a proportional MMP system that allows significant Māori representation. Unfortunately no such proportional or single transferable vote system is proposed in the bill before us that would allow greater Māori representation. So it may be that this whole process is tripped up, and rightly so, by the hearings that will take place on this matter in the Waitangi Tribunal—at least, I hope they are.

I received an email from Mayor Andrew Williams of North Shore City and it relates to the question Phil Twyford raised before. He said that people in the second tier that has been abolished feel disenfranchised. People consider themselves to be westies, or to be from the North Shore or South Auckland. That identity is being stripped from them. Mayor Andrew Williams is very harsh about the transitional authority. He said that these bills effectively shut down elected local government in Greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of hand-picked, unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months until the deeply flawed super-city takes over and, worse still, all the costs for this unnecessary upheaval will land directly on the ratepayers even though the Government does not have the faintest clue about what it all will cost it.

The mayor says that the replacement of the second tier by these 20 to 30 local boards is no answer because they will have no powers, no resources, will not be able to borrow money, and cannot develop annual plans, etc. All that they will be is bodies that can make recommendations. It is a hopeless situation. He said that the Government seems hell-bent on bulldozing ahead with its super-city plan, regardless of the legitimate fears of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens that the super-city plan spells the end of meaningful local democracy and local decision-making.

That is the concern of the Green Party, and, even more, we were worried to read on the ACT website the ACT policy, which is to get local government to shed its commercial activity—roads and piped water are to be supplied on a fully commercial basis, the local government power of general competency is to be abolished, etc, etc. That is the agenda. It is a privatisation agenda that not only takes away the powers of Aucklanders in terms of the real involvement and decision making of local boards but also it passes over many of the current functions of local boards and councils to the private sector to make them commercial and to turn local bodies into local commercial enterprises. The Green Party is very much against that. We frequently stand in this House discussing Treaty settlements.

I would like to try to explain to National members, if I may, why we are so opposed to this bill. I do not agree that it is a simple bill, at all. It has a number of purposes, one of which is of course to set up the Auckland Transition Agency, and we will have a lot more to say about that as we go on. Another purpose, in clause 3(7)(b), is “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region … at the close of the preceding day;”. That is a huge thing—that is an enormous thing—and I think that Aucklanders are so opposed to this bill because of the cynical way in which this Government is going about it.

My colleague David Cunliffe referred to the great pile of well-considered documents that came from the royal commission, which involved years of work and lots of consultation. But all that was gutted down to a tiny little document and, what is more, made even worse by the distribution of a leaflet. So not only have we gone from 6 inches of documents to a tiny little document; we have also gone to a leaflet that was distributed throughout Auckland. It is so offensive. Under one of the headings, “Representation”, it states that the 20 councillors on the Auckland Council will be made up of eight councillors elected at large, and 12 councillors elected from wards, and that the local boards will advocate for their local communities and set policy for local issues, such as dog control. How cynical, how offensive is that: dog control, graffiti—what was the rest of it—prostitutes, other things?

💬 Hon Member: Brothels.

That is right. Those members should go and talk to those communities, and talk to them about the work that is done through local councils and how utterly offensive this proposal is.

As I said, this bill is a very important bill, and it should not be rushed through under urgency—absolutely should not be. It deserves a lot of consideration, and that is why this party is moving a number of amendments. I want to speak in support of the amendment in the name of George Hawkins that amends clause 3(1) by omitting the words “50 years” and substituting the words “80 years”. The reason for that is that this bill is a total denial of the history of Auckland. It completely ignores the fact that local government—

💬 David Garrett: Sounds like a press release, not an amendment.

That is fine; I am happy to put out a press release. I will take the member’s advice and keep doing it—that is right. I invite the member to put his views on the history of Auckland. Perhaps he can talk about the views of the people in Rodney where he lives, and what they think. I invite the member to take a call. Tell us what the people in Helensville are saying. Tell us what their vote is on the super-city. Tell us how many meetings the member has been to about that, and what the member has been listening to.

As I have said, this bill is a denial of the history of Auckland. It is an insult to the people of Auckland. This is what we are seeing. We are seeing people on the march, people attending meetings, and people who are very, very concerned about it. Actually, it is unnecessary to rush this bill through the House under urgency. In fact, as I said, it is an insult to the people of Auckland. The amendment that I am speaking to is to extend the term of 50 years to 80 years, because that is how long we have had local government and issues in Auckland.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: A lifetime!

It is more than a lifetime; it is my parents’ lifetime, as well. They are also Aucklanders. Going back to the cynicism of National, I want to say that I also found the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s accusations of arrogance pretty offensive. That man comes from Christchurch. I have lived in Auckland for 30 years. I have raised my family there, I have paid rates there, and I am a good citizen of west Auckland. But with this bill I am totally offended, and I know my neighbours are, my friends are, and my family is. Everywhere we go people are opposed to this bill and to the proposals that are being rushed through quite unnecessarily. So I am speaking in support of that particular amendment because I want Parliament to acknowledge that there is a history in Auckland, that the people of Auckland deserve to have a say, and that they deserve to have input into the plans the Government is rushing through, which the Government has reduced from 6 inches of a wonderful report from the royal commission—

Mr Chair, I felt the need to make a call because I think it is astonishing that the most interesting thing has happened. Ten minutes ago we finally got a position from Labour; we finally got a position from Labour members. They support the royal commission, but only in certain aspects. What was astonishing is that Phil Twyford admitted to this House that Labour is opposed to local boards. That is right! So every Auckland MP will be able to go around Auckland and be very clear that Labour is opposed to local boards. [Interruption] If Labour is not opposed to local boards, then I want Labour members to make very clear their position on them. Labour needs to make its position very clear, because otherwise Auckland members of Parliament will be making it very clear to the people of Auckland.

It is very ironic that Labour members are getting up and talking about gutting local democracy when they may be opposed to the very unit of democracy that can deliver good democracy for Auckland. I ask Phil Twyford and the Labour members to be very clear about where they stand in regard to local boards, because local boards have the potential to offer real local representation in communities like Waiheke and Great Barrier. Labour needs to set out its position very clearly. Is it opposed, or is it not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Can I say, before the member Clayton Cosgrove commences, that as Chairperson I am enjoying the acknowledgments, facial expressions, and winks, but I am trying to be fair about this.

It is because I am a Cantabrian, Mr Chair. They are jealous. I just say that this is very interesting legislation; from a Cantabrian’s point of view, it is interesting, because if this gets through without any consultation, and if the people of Auckland are not allowed to have their say in a democratic way, then the question I have, and the question I will put to my constituents, is: who is next? I say to Mr Brownlee, a fellow Cantabrian, will Christchurch and Canterbury be next to have legislation like this rammed through so that we have Selwyn and Waimakariri combined without any consultation? If that is the case, then I wait with interest to hear Mr Brownlee, whom Dave Henderson in a brilliant article about him, described as a nice guy, but “absolutely useless”, in the Christchurch Press. I look forward to his speech if Canterbury is to be next, or perhaps it is Wellington, or perhaps Dunedin.

I make a point that when we look at the regulatory impact statement—my colleague Ms Ardern made this point—this legislation has been so well scrutinised by the Government that the regulatory impact analysis team “has not assessed the regulatory impact statement because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decisions were made.” Mr Hide is the person who told us that he would cut through red tape, and have everything scrutinised so that it was absolutely correct. His definition of cutting through red tape is not doing the appropriate checking of legislation. That is now what his view and version of what cutting down red tape is. Here is legislation that is being rammed through on the people of Auckland, without the people of Auckland having their say, without the proper regulatory checks and balances, and I am sure that Mr Hide, or Mr Garrett—his sort of prototype, or whatever it is—will take a call, and tell us why that was not done.

This is one of the most important pieces of legislation with the greatest impact on the largest provincial area in the country—commercial impacts, social impacts, business impacts, and democratic impacts. The Minister in charge of the bill has not managed to get out from under the tanning machine long enough to actually do his job, as he said on Close Up he would do, when he first became a Minister. He said that he would scrutinise every piece of legislation, that every regulatory impact statement would go under his microscope, that he challenged the people of New Zealand to send their problems to him, and that he, Rodney Hide, and presumably Mr Garrett, would go through them, line by line, and have them fixed. And here we stand today with mega-legislation that will have a mega-impact on Auckland and on other parts of New Zealand. They have not even gone through the appropriate process to have the regulatory impact statement done, looked at, and checked. That is a disgrace. That is either laziness, either incompetence, or it is either arrogance, or a combination of all three.

💬 David Garrett: You cannot use “either” when you have—

Well, I do not know whether the member is lazy, arrogant, or incompetent, but I would say that the member is a living example of all three, over there, all of the above. The member might want to just pipe down, or at least take a call, and on behalf of his leader tell us why his leader does not do his job; tell us why his leader earns his pay, has the warrant, has the car, but will not do what he promised New Zealanders he would do, and actually do his job and sort out regulations. The only thing I think Mr Hide has worked out is that the little bit of red tape that he can do is that he takes himself out of it, does not do his job, and does not check legislation.

This is a hash job. I speak as a Cantabrian, and I will wait for Mr Brownlee to rise like a piece of leavened bread from the other side, and tell us what happens if Canterbury is next—or maybe it is unleavened bread, going by his Catholic roots—because if this gets through on Auckland, then which province is next? Will it be Christchurch? Will it be Canterbury? Will the member answer? Hello, no, empty vessel! The bellows that normally blow on the front row have run out of air, so he will not say whether Canterbury will be next, or Dunedin, or Wellington. But I ask some member to get up and explain to us why the Minister in charge of the bill did not even have the decency or the intellect to make sure the regulatory impact statement went through and was appropriate. Maybe it was because they were afraid of the content of that statement.

Mr Chairman, I think you may have to get some lights for this part of the Chamber. I have been calling out for the opportunity to speak and you have had difficulty seeing me. I am not sure whether it is the colour of my skin or the light here, but certainly we have to do something about this side of the Chamber.

Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and I want to address my remarks to four amendments—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: But the member does support reorganising Auckland!

—if the member holds his horses. The first amendment is to amend clause 3(7) by inserting a new subclause (aa) after subclause (a): “to remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on any reorganisation of Auckland Local Government as currently provided for in the Local Government Act 2002.” Clause 3(7) states: “the purpose of this Act, therefore, is—(a) to establish a single unitary authority to govern the entire Auckland region” and the question that needs to be asked of the Minister is where he got his mandate. Where did the Minister get the mandate to establish one unitary authority? The Minister, hopefully, will take a call, or the Associate Minister ought to take a call, and answer that question. If the answer is that National won the election, then I need to also ask whether National declared prior to the election that it would set up a super-city once it was elected as Government. I have not seen anything that indicates that that is what it was going to do, but I have heard Mr John Key say that once the royal commission’s report was made known he would go out and consult Aucklanders. That consultation has not taken place, and here we are with clause 3(7) establishing a unitary authority.

If the Government also says that its mandate comes from the royal commission having consulted 3,500 people, then I have to ask whether that is a sufficient number when we consider 1.8 million people live in Auckland. In Manukau alone I think there were only 160 submitters. Do 160 submitters give the mandate for us to establish a unitary authority without consulting the people widely? I also say that the process of making submissions to royal commissions or select committees is generally a foreign one for most ordinary workers—workers who have a voice and who have been speaking out at recent meetings at the TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre. About several hundred people turned up there, and all of them spoke against the establishment of a super-city.

But it is also about the way that this is being done. I think people are hearing that Mr Key, who, with the greatest respect, has been referred to as the smiling assassin—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will withdraw that. We are sticking to the way in which the House operates, which is by using proper names; just withdraw it.

I withdraw that. I did say “with the greatest respect”. Although Mr Key has been saying to Aucklanders that he is listening, Mr Hide, on the other hand, has been pretty determined to rush this bill through under urgency.

Under the Local Government Act, Aucklanders have a right to have a vote whenever there is a reorganisation of local government. I ask the Minister whether he received any advice regarding his obligations under the Local Government Act 2002. If he did receive that advice, what was the Minister’s response to it? I would like to hear the answer. Polls have been taken throughout the city, meetings have been held, and a hīkoi is coming up on Monday, 25 May. All of those polls and meetings are passionately saying that this Government is doing the wrong thing by ramming in legislation, under urgency, that takes away local government as they know it, and takes away their right to have a voice.

The Government is saying that yes, people will have a voice on the second and third pieces of legislation, but they are having a voice on what the Government has set up—this unitary authority. Clause 3(7)(b) states: “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region”.

I move, That the question be now put.

They say an unexamined life is not worth living; I say an unexamined bill is not worth reading. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which is now being rammed through all stages in this House under urgency, is such a bill. In this Committee stage it is very important for me to reiterate that I oppose this bill for three main reasons: it is procedurally unfair, it is constitutionally flawed, and it creates huge uncertainty.

Part 1 is a good—or should I say a bad—example. Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, sets out the so-called purpose of the bill and defines “Auckland”. The current title of Part 1 is misleading. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern mentioned earlier, parliamentary procedure has long defined the title and commencement clauses as the preliminary clauses. To call Part 1 the preliminary provisions runs the risk of confusing members and readers of the legislation. Labour would like to propose an amendment to the title of Part 1 by deleting the words “Preliminary provisions” and inserting the words “Background, purposes, interpretation, and related matters”. Why has the National Government failed to insert the words “Background, purposes, interpretation, and related matters”? Because it completely lacks confidence that the people of Auckland agree with these radical proposals. Why does the Government completely lack confidence? Because the Government’s agenda on the super-city poses the biggest challenge that Auckland has faced in its entire history, and its 1.4 million people are not able to have a say on it.

Why is the bill an unexamined bill? Because the Government could not be bothered to listen to the concerns of Aucklanders and other New Zealanders. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance did a good job. Its 800-page report took 18 months to prepare, cost millions of dollars, and followed months of investigation and 3,537 public submissions. But the Government’s sham version, which is now being rammed through the House and being forced on Auckland, was thrown together in just 3 days. Technically, today in the House it is still 13 May 2009; 13 May 2009 is a sad day for Auckland and a sad day for New Zealand.

Let me quote what the Mayor of North Shore, Andrew Williams, said on this bill and other related bills: “These Bills effectively shut down elected local government in greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of hand-picked, unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months, until the deeply flawed super city takes over. And worse still, all the costs of all this unnecessary upheaval will land directly on the ratepayers, even though the government has not the faintest clue what it all will cost them.” It is procedurally unfair because the Government’s sham version of the super-city poses the biggest challenge that Auckland has faced in its entire history, and its 1.4 million people are not able to have a say on it. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. First of all, I thank Su’a William Sio for his contribution earlier this morning. Of all the speakers today, his speech touched most closely on the sorts of people who will be completely missed out under the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. So mihi atu ki a koe e Su’a mō tēnā kōrero.

[I acknowledge you for that statement, Su’a.]

A bill that will directly affect one-third of the population of this country and 50 percent of the Māori population of this country should not be rushed through the House under urgency. There is no rationale whatsoever for this bill going through the House in that way, particularly given that the next stage is for the special select committee to go to Auckland, where its business will drag out for weeks and weeks. It makes no sense to rush the bill through the House now.

I also note that as we get closer and closer to the anniversary of the Bastion Point protest and to the possibility of a hīkoi, I have heard that word coming from nearly every speaker on the Labour benches in the last couple of hours. Yet, when Ngāti Whātua first called for a hui to talk about the possibility of taking action and announcing a hīkoi, nobody from the Labour Party was there, at all. Not one of Labour’s MPs was there. It is not that only Māori Party MPs were there; National Government MPs were there as well—and this is a bill they support.

💬 Hon Member: The Green Party was there.

The Green Party was there, yet still the Labour Party did not turn up. In fact, at that time Labour did not even have a position on Māori representation. It has come to a position since that time, because, I suspect, it is trying to maximise the opposition to this bill.

The Māori Party opposes the bill because Māori representation is missing completely from it. We oppose it because mana whenua do not have seats at the top table under this legislation. I do not need to put up an amendment to this bill, because my whanaunga Shane Jones will put one up. He and I have already discussed it, and I will be happy to support his amendment.

The reason we support the mana whenua and the hīkoi—and it is not a Māori Party hīkoi—is that mana whenua themselves believe that it is important that Auckland, the jewel of the Pacific, the city with the greatest Polynesian population in the whole world, deserves the opportunity for the tangata whenua to be represented at the top table. The people of Tāmaki-makau-rau have been giving land for the development of the Auckland settlement for more than 200 years. For those members who do not know, when Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei got back the last little bit of land they owned, Bastion Point, they offered to share the management of that land with the Auckland City Council. For that reason, because of the willingness of the tangata whenua of Auckland to continue to share that city and to give land to that city, we believe that Māori seats should be mandatory and should be part and parcel of the make-up of the new Auckland City arrangements. Whether Auckland becomes a super-city is another story, but if the hīkoi provides the opportunity for mana whenua to have representation at the top table, we will support it all of the way.

I congratulate Rodney Hide and the National Government on at least trying to do something about Auckland. It has been talked about for a long, long time. I suspect that the previous Labour Government did not do anything about it because it was not up to copping the flak that would come with it. Our position in opposing this bill is a matter of principle, not a matter of money. We support the right of mana whenua to have seats at the top table. We support the right of all citizens of Auckland to make a choice as to what their city will look like.

I move, That the question be now put.

We have just seen from this National Government one of the most outrageous attempts to shut down debate on a very significant bill, the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. After only 1½ hours of debate, the Government wants to shut down the debate. This is a huge bill and it will not be referred to a select committee, yet the Government wants to shut down the debate, because it is so embarrassed by it. It is absolutely disgraceful.

I want to talk about one of the amendments put forward by my colleague George Hawkins to amend clause 3 by inserting a new—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague the member for Rimutaka, but the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rodney Hide, is present in the Chamber, so he should be sitting in the chair. The bill is in his name. Mr Chairperson, he should be sitting in the chair alongside you, so that the amendments can be debated.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I did not notice the Minister come into the Chamber. We will effect that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thank the Hon Darren Hughes for that contribution. I wonder whether he could indicate whether any other members might need to move seats at the present time, given that he seems to be interesting himself in such important details.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Sorry, I missed what that was about.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That is a constant state for all of us, in regard to Mr Brownlee. I point out that it is expressly stated in the Standing Orders that if the Minister in charge of a bill is present, he or she must sit in the chair during the Committee of the whole House stage. That is “Standing Orders 101”—by which I mean a course in the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): We will now move on.

The amendment that I intend to speak to would insert a new paragraph under clause 3(7)(a) to remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on any reorganisation of Auckland local government, which is currently provided for in the Local Government Act 2002. This is very important, because we should be transparent about this bill. It effectively removes the right of Aucklanders to have a say in the reorganisation of their local government, so we should put a provision in the bill to be very transparent about the fact that this bill does exactly that.

As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove pointed out, people up and down the country will be wondering who is next. I tell members that we have already heard rumours around the Hutt Valley that Paul Quinn, the member who was not elected to represent the Hutt Valley but claims to do so, has been going up and down saying that he supports a merger of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils. We know that this bill is part of the National Government’s wider agenda to merge local authorities around the country to create super-councils all over the country. We should be very clear that this bill establishes a precedent that says that local people should not get a say on local authority reorganisation, because that is exactly what this bill does.

Hone Harawira talked a few moments ago about the fact that this bill affects 50 percent of the Māori population. That is a good point, and I am very pleased that the Māori Party is opposing this bill. But I am a little confused, because the Māori Party voted in favour of the urgency motion to push this bill through all of its stages without it being referred to a select committee. So I am a little bit confused about the Māori Party’s position.

A few other comments have been made about this bill. It is a sad day for democracy that this bill is being rammed through the House and already the National Government is trying to shut down debate on it. That comes after the outrageous abuse of parliamentary process that we saw from the National Government yesterday over the Waterview Connection in Mt Albert.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Shameful!

It was absolutely shameful. The Government deliberately released the announcement on the Waterview Connection seconds after the Speaker had ruled that an urgent debate was out of the question. It was a matter of seconds. The Government deliberately timed the release of that information to avoid any parliamentary scrutiny. Now it is trying to shut down parliamentary scrutiny of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, and I think it is absolutely outrageous.

I return to my comments on the Hutt Valley, and the fact that Government member Paul Quinn appears to be in favour of the merger of the two local authorities in the Hutt Valley. It is part of the National Government’s wider agenda to do away with local representation, local community organisations, and local government agencies within the Hutt Valley. The Government is trying to merge the Upper Hutt Police District and the Lower Hutt Police District. That does not require legislation, so the Commissioner of Police is allowed to go ahead and try to merge those districts, without any transparency. In spite of National’s claim prior to the election that it was going to concentrate on front-line police resourcing, it is trying to strip senior police resources out of the Hutt Valley.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This bill has nothing to do with the rearrangement of police services. Mr Hipkins has spent at least 3 minutes discussing that particular issue. It is very hard to see how the debate can continue if such extraordinarily extraneous matters are being brought into it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry. My focus has been on putting the amendments in order, so I have not been paying the degree of attention that I should have been. I apologise to the Committee. Members know that in the debate on a part of a bill they are required to speak to that part. It is not a wide-ranging debate. I ask the member to continue, and to refer his comments to the part under debate.

Speaking to the point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have already dealt with the point of order.

I will continue my speech. I clarify that I was referring specifically to the amendment put forward in the name of George Hawkins to amend clause 3(7) by inserting a new provision in the Local Government Act. I was making brief reference to the National Government’s proposal to merge the Upper Hutt Police District and the Lower Hutt Police District, to illustrate the point that this Government is interested in merging things in local areas without giving the people a chance to have their say. The Government should be transparent about that and should not try to hide behind a procedure that allows it to shut down debate, as it has been trying to do today. But that is another example of the born-to-rule Tory arrogance that we see from the National Government. Government members have stood up and said that the people of Auckland had a chance to have their say in November last year, they elected a National Government, and therefore National can do whatever it likes.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Who?

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY:—Iain Lees-Galloway—Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I will speak on clause 3, “Background and purpose of Act”, and, in particular, subclause (2). The reason that I will get down to that specific detail is that the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, invited the Opposition to speak on the amendments that have been proposed, and, as well, the Hon John Carter invited us to speak to specific parts of the bill. We are very pleased to accept that invitation, and I know that many of my colleagues intend to take up the invitation, as well.

Specifically, this subclause states that “Over the next 100 years, it is expected that the Auckland region will face enormous change brought about by global economic, environmental, and political forces. Local trends, including high population growth, add to the challenges and opportunities the region faces. To meet these challenges and opportunities, Auckland requires local and regional governance of the highest standard”. That is a laudable aim. But if this measure is the model that we will be using for governance of the highest standard, then Auckland is in deep trouble. We have seen arrogant behaviour from the Government this morning. We have seen utter disrespect for process. We have seen deliberate name-calling and the misuse of names of members of the Opposition. There will be no select committee process. We have had questioning from Government members as to why we are voting against this legislation, without any effort whatsoever by them to listen to the arguments that the Opposition is putting forward. Is this how the Auckland super-city council will operate—with no interest whatsoever in any opposition to what it is doing? Will the council ram through its proposals and legislation in the same way as this Government is doing? Is that governance of the highest order? I do not think so. Is that governance of the highest standard? It certainly is not.

My colleague the Hon David Cunliffe earlier on referred to the whittling down of the royal commission report from three volumes plus an executive summary to just a few small pages. He called that a stomach stapling of the legislation. What an apt and excellent description of this process! Stomach stapling is a very good metaphor for what we are getting, because stomach stapling is the cheat’s way. It is the easy way out. If one wants to lose some weight, the best way to go about it is to get some exercise, maybe take up dancing lessons—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member will come back to the question.

I am talking about governance of the highest standard. We are seeing today a circumventing of the best way to go about governance. This is a skirting round, just like stomach stapling is a way of skirting round getting some exercise, taking some dancing lessons, or doing whatever it takes to get one’s weight down. Another thing that often happens with stomach stapling is that the speed of the weight loss means that an additional operation is needed later on. That is what we will see with this bill, because of the speed with which it is being passed through the House, and the absolute ignorance of clause 3(2), which refers to “governance of the highest standard”. We will need to revisit this legislation later on. We will need another operation to deal with the mess that will be left because of the speed with which this legislation is being rammed through.

We on this side of the Chamber are absolutely in support of the Auckland super-city—or whatever it will end up being called—getting a governance system that is in its best interest. That is exactly what clause 3 is about. It talks about meeting future challenges through governance of the very highest standard. However, we cannot have faith in this Government that the structure it will create has governance of the highest standard, because the model will be what we are seeing here today, with the Opposition being shut out and shut down. The Minister asked us to address the bill clause by clause, as did the members opposite, yet the Government whips and members of the Government are trying to shut the debate down early, without giving the Opposition the opportunity to go through the bill clause by clause.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will just pause members a little bit here. I know that everybody is anxious, but I do not need a barrage at me. If members stand up, call “Mr Chair” once, and stay on their feet, I will make the appropriate decision. In fact, anybody barraging me is not likely to get a call. I ask members to put that into their process of taking a call, please.

I am glad that we have had that clarification from you now, Mr Chairperson. It is just a sign of our respect for you, and our attention to you, that we have been calling in this way.

I would like specifically to speak to an amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3(1), which is to add a number of words after the words “50 years”. I will run through the amendment so that members are clear about what I am speaking on. So after “50 years”, the subclause will read: “In particular a number of issues have held back the advancement of the Auckland region. These issues include—(a) an infrastructure deficit; and (b) a lack of cohesion between governing bodies; and (c) the lack of a single vision for the future of Auckland; and (d) duplication of services; and (e) duplication of laws and compliance obligations; and (f) lack of consensus concerning the development of the waterfront area; and (g) lack of consensus around the development of a stadium; and (h) variance in rate levels between different councils; and (i) competing interests between different governing bodies; and (j) stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.”

This amendment is important if this bill truly is the serious bill that the Government leads us to believe. On this side of the Chamber we agree that the bill is a serious matter. Nikki Kaye, the member for Auckland Central, said earlier today that it is the most serious thing since “forever”, so I think that makes it a particularly serious matter. If it is indeed the most serious thing since “forever”, then Part 1 in particular should not be called “Preliminary provisions”, because the matters contained in that part—and the amendment to clause 3(1) that I have just mentioned—are far more than preliminary provisions; they are a serious background to a serious issue.

Given the historic nature of the changes, I believe that it is important we outline some of the issues that make up the reasoning behind the setting up of the royal commission. I will work through some of those issues, and perhaps I will start at the end of the amendments to clause 3, with new subclause (1)(j), which we are attempting to add. It states: “stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.” We know that this issue has been an issue in Auckland for some time. A variety of different councils and different communities have attempted to come together over a number of issues, and have found it difficult. It struck me this morning, when I was listening to the radio and heard Melissa Lee, the National candidate for the Mt Albert by-election, who was illustrating the very point that we make here in respect of new subclause (1)(j). She was stigmatising the people of South Auckland in a way that I believe was shameful and outrageous. That shows the very need for bringing this new paragraph into the legislation. It is quite clear that Melissa Lee—

It is time to put the question. We have a significant number of amendments. I will deal them as best I can in the order in which they were tabled. I will try to clearly state which ones they are so members can stay with me.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to the heading of Part 1 be agreed to:

to omit “Preliminary provisions” and substitute “Background, purposes, interpretation and related matters”.

Further amendments to clause 3(1) to omit the words “50 years” and substitute another period are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The next amendment is to clause 3(2) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you read out the whole of that amendment for us, please.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (2) “(particularly climate change)” after “environmental”.

Further amendments to clause 3(2) to omit the words “100 years” and substitute another period are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of this Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into, investigate, and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future (Gazette 2007, p 3110)” and substitute “to sort out Auckland governance”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you please read out the next amendment in full before we vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am happy to do that.

Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into, investigate, and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future (Gazette 2007, p 3110)” and substitute “to cost its proposal before presenting its recommendation to the Government and the public”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just for the purposes of clarification, could we have the next amendment read out in full so that we can make sure we are voting on the correct amendment, please.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into, investigate, and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future (Gazette 2007, p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what ownership, governance, and institutional arrangements and funding responsibilities are required to ensure the effective, efficient, and sustainable provision of public infrastructure, services, and facilities to support and enhance the performance of the Auckland region as a growth engine in the New Zealand economy and in its role as a key transport hub for New Zealand and the Pacific region”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I get you to read out the amendment, so we can keep track of which amendment it is we are voting on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is unusual to read out the whole amendment.

We had a request from the chief Government whip earlier for an amendment to be read out, and the member who was previously in the Chair helpfully obliged, given the significant number of amendments and the need to keep track of which ones we are voting on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is true. It is not the rule for the Chairperson to read out every amendment but I am happy to check read out this one.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations, including the creation, through legislation, of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “ignored many of the recommendations contained in the report and continued on”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could tell us which date we are up to so that we can keep track on the voting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I can, but members should be following that on their own schedules of proposed amendments. We are talking about the amendment referring to 30 December 2010.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It has been a longstanding practice in this House for the Chair to read the nature of the amendment as well as the number of the amendment. It is certainly very helpful to members who may not have all of the papers with them all of the time. We would certainly commend the practice of the previous Chair, and others, and we seek your assistance in that regard.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 111/5: “It has never been the custom in the committee of the whole House for the chairperson to read out every amendment …”. It has occurred from time to time, but has never been the custom. I will repeat the amendment, because we have had some points of order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 December 2010”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It appears the Minister has fallen asleep in the chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 December 2010”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a longstanding tradition, as I understand it, that when people use language they should use it properly. The current use of the Māori language by the member currently purporting to be the whip is prostituting the language, in my view.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That may well be that member’s view, but the Chair has no experience in these matters, and I rely on members to do their best in these things.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you were going to rule. There is no question of a member purporting to be any other member in the House. I think you should have disciplined the member for making that comment as part of his point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings around the use of another language, particularly te reo, are that the member who uses the language is the sole judge of accuracy. That is the rule in Speakers’ rulings. We will move on.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 November 2010”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not sure a party vote was called for at that stage. I think you were asking whether there was a call for a party vote and I am not sure that there has been. Before you move to it I think you probably have to wait to see if anyone is calling for a party vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): What I have been doing when there is opposition is that I have probably truncated the process a little bit. The member is perhaps going to indicate that he may not be calling for one—I will observe.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 November 2010”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is just a question of order. I think it is our role to call for a party vote. I think it is your responsibility to indicate the result. It is up to us to call for a party vote, rather than you.

My understanding of Speakers’ rulings is that it is actually at the discretion of the Chairperson as to whether he or she takes a party vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are right; it is. I offered a party vote to the Labour Party, and you accepted it.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 February 2011”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Addressing the issue of the Chair’s discretion to take a party vote, given the trend towards party voting over the last number of hours I wonder whether we are at a point in time when the Chair’s discretion could be used to not take a party vote, given that it is quite clear the order in which the voting will take place and how the votes will end up. I put it to you that I believe it is no longer necessary to take party votes.

I think that is a particularly interesting question. I think it is one on which it would be good to recall the Speaker to get his opinion on it. I think, in my view, you do not have that discretion, but if there is doubt in the Committee—and it has been indicated by the junior Government whip that there is doubt about your discretion to do that—I think that getting the Speaker back to give a considered ruling would be useful to the Committee. If the Government is in agreement, I am happy to give leave for the Speaker to be recalled.

I am more than comfortable to take the Chairman’s ruling on this matter, without recalling the Speaker.

I am seeking some advice at this stage. Where a vote has been put, and a party has voted either for or against, I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 67/4, which states: “When the Speaker declares the result on the voices, that, unless challenged, is final and may not be disputed. The right to challenge does not lie with those whom the Speaker has declared to be the majority. The right to challenge the result lies with the minority who believes that the decision of the House would be different if it were tested by a vote.” That is why, in my interpretation, I have asked whether there was a call for a party vote. I did so out of courtesy. It is not out of order to ask that question, but obviously the member does not believe I should be asking whether a party vote is required.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. With respect, I think that was not quite the point that Chris Tremain was making. I think he was trying to ask the Committee whether votes could be taken more or less as read, rather than having party votes each time. I think that is an interesting approach to democracy, but it is a view that I do not share. I am one of the old-fashioned types who think it probably would be better for this Parliament, and better for colleagues and parties, if we voted properly through the lobbies. I can see that time has moved on, on that particular issue. But I think the right to a vote and the right to call for a party vote is something that is well established.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You have made your point. I will not in future ask whether a party vote is called for.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 January 2011”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think I can anticipate what the member is going to say. When votes are being cast there is silence. Two members spoke during the vote. It is not on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note that there was a little bit of confusion around the Labour vote on that occasion. I have on one previous vote voted “e whā tekau mā tahi e whakaae ana”, and I just want to make sure that that was correctly recorded at the time.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Clerk assures me that that was picked up at the time. Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 January 2011”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As the amendment we have just voted on refers to Christmas, and as the honourable Sir Roger Douglas has been scoffing as the party votes have been going on, I am sure that all parties would agree to his using a language more appropriate to him, such as Latin, to count the ACT party vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member knows that that is not a point of order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 December 2010”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been watching the Clerk at the Table and it is obvious that she understands what we say in Māori when the vote is given. I wonder whether it is possible to stop the interpretation at this point and to have interpretation only when there is a change in the vote.

The Standing Orders do not provide for that. If the member speaks in either official language then, by default, if it is in Māori it has to be interpreted for the Committee. I anticipate that as the evening goes on there will be changes in the votes given by different parties. I think it is most useful for the sake of clarity on such a big and important bill to continue using the services of the interpreter.

The question here is an interesting one—

💬 Chris Tremain: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Excuse me, I am ruling. The interesting matter here is that if an interpretation is not given for those who do not speak Māori, they will not know that there has been a change. It is a dilemma.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, may I say that the interpreter is still present and if he picks up that there is a change he may note that.

I regret to advise the member that the interpreter is not to be an active participant in this. To interpret members’ words is one thing; to make judgments about what people have said is a different thing. I think we will continue with the current arrangement.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 November 2010”.

I say to the member Rahui Katene that another point about this voting procedure is that I suspect that some of the members are improving their Māori pronunciation, and others are improving their ear for Māori language. These are the benefits of this, if there is to be a benefit.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 4 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (6) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 November 2010”.

We have a series of amendments to clause 5(1) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute other dates. These amendments are not in the proper form, as the expression “1 November 2010” does not occur in clause 5(1). These amendments are out of order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 5 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Super Council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that we have three different presiding officers across the Committee of the whole House, but the practice of the other two Chairs is to ask whether a party vote is called for when the vote is contested. When you declare that the Noes have it—as you are required to do, to side with the majority—we contest that by saying the Ayes have it. The other Chairs have been saying “Party vote called for.”, and we say: “Yes, party vote is called for.” It is just that the different styles are making it hard to keep up.

I thank the member for that. There is no requirement on the Chair to ask for a party vote. It is incumbent on a party to go for the party vote at the time when it is called. It is not incumbent on the Chair to ask whether members want a party vote. We discussed that ruling with one of the Labour members when I was last in the Chair. That is the procedure that I am following.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can we take it then from your comments that you are ruling out of order your predecessors, as my colleague Darren Hughes has said, who adopt a different position from you? Are you therefore ruling their conduct out of order, and do we therefore have to recycle the process again?

Not at all. I am quoting from Standing Order 137, which states: “Where a further vote is called for, a party vote is held unless the subject of the vote is to be treated as a conscience issue”. It is really up to members. I have actually called for the vote both ways. If no one goes for the call I can move on to the next amendment, and that is how we have been practising it. The interpretation, Mr Cosgrove, that you are suggesting is that I should ask whether there is a party vote. There is no requirement to do that. A presiding officer may, in fact, do that, but with previous discussions prior to the dinner break, I followed this procedure.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I, in fact, was not making the interpretation that you say. I was simply asking for your advice, because you have made a ruling as you are entitled to do. But, for clarity, are you saying that your colleagues who have occupied the Chair have actively—

No. When the member asked me that before, I said that that is not the case. This is the way that I interpret it, this is the way that I am doing it, and we will proceed from there.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Thanks, Lindsay.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Mr Tisch, or Lindsay Tisch will do. I am standing, as well.

I remind members that when a vote is taken it is done in silence.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to:

to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 January 2011”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As a new member I am a little reluctant to raise a point of order, but I notice that the Labour members in the Chamber appear to be eating lollies, which would seem to be in breach of Speakers’ rulings 16/6.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for bringing that matter to my attention. If members discreetly eat lollies, lozenges, mints, or Strepsils after long debates—I am sure we all need those at some stage—I think that is normal. They are not flouting the Speakers’ rulings. I am sure that all members of the House do it. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention, but I will rule it out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It might be more bearable if they chewed with their mouths closed.

Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am not accepting any more comment. We have had a bit of a laugh, and I think we can take it in the spirit in which it was given. Time is pressing on, so let us continue with the votes.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 8 be agreed to:

to omit “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 January 2011”.