Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

Before we were temporarily diverted by the interesting case of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, I was saying how important the creation of the Auckland Council is to our vision for the future of Auckland. There is no doubt on this side of the Chamber that we believe in a unitary authority; we believe that Auckland needs to speak with one voice. That is the area where we agree with the Government, but there are many areas where we disagree.

It is a shame that in this important constitutional process the National - ACT Government is in the process of gerrymandering the electoral format in order to permanently install its mates and its cronies in Auckland government. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government is going about gutting local democracy for one-third of this country’s population. It is completely, blindly, and wilfully ignoring the thoughtful recommendations of the royal commission about the second tier, and is putting in place a cacophony of community boards with no real powers and no real resources. It is a shame that no thought is being given to the protection of local assets like the Port of Auckland, the transport infrastructure, and the water company. They are there like jewels in the crown, ready for picking off by some future administration. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government has shafted its partner the Māori Party by completely ignoring the recommendations of the royal commission for Māori representation.

But, more than that, there is the undemocratic way that this whole process has been managed by the National Government. It is bulldozing this bill through the House under urgency with no significant consultation, which is in breach of the National Party’s campaign promise to consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the royal commission. Aucklanders’ democratic rights are being confiscated. This legislation is basically a coup against democracy. It is stripping the powers of dozens and dozens of officials who only 18 months ago were elected by Aucklanders. Now they will have to go cap in hand to Rodney Hide’s appointed mates and cronies on the Auckland Transition Agency, if they want so much as a pencil sharpener. It is shame that the Auckland Council councillors, eight of whom will be elected at large—[Interruption] The “Little Emperor” from Epsom is telling 1.4 million Aucklanders where they can shove their democratic rights. When an Auckland citizen wants to get an audience—

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Kia ora tātou; nō reira, te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā.

[And so greetings to us, the House, the people, the languages, and the four winds.]

It was a long night, and it is certainly a short morning this morning. I want to raise the issue of, and debate, Part 2. I want to address clause 9, because some very good amendments have been put forward. They have already been debated last night by several of my colleagues. Part 2 establishes the territorial authority for Auckland, to be known as the Auckland Council. What it does is gut Manukau, Papakura, Franklin, North Shore, Waitakere, and Rodney. Worse, it is an insult to democracy and the rule of law. Right from the outset Labour members have supported a unitary authority for Auckland, but we disagree strongly with a number of key provisions of the Government’s proposal. That is why today we will continue this fight in Parliament, in the name of democracy. We have to ask ourselves whether clause 9 is a good thing. What about the relationships with the other councils? How will this new council be able to work cohesively and to draw the other people in, to make sure that it runs smoothly? What are the right functions of this proposed council?

I want to know what the Auckland members on the other side of the Chamber have to say about it. I want to hear a call from Paula Bennett. I want to hear a call from Murray McCully, from Maurice Williamson, from Jackie Blue, from Pansy Wong, Nikki Kaye, Judith Collins, Wayne Mapp, and Richard Worth. Where are they? I ask them to get off their hind legs. I say to Dr Paul Hutchison that Bill Birch, the author of Think Big, is opposed to this think-big city. I tell Paul Hutchison to get off his hind legs, take a call, and tell this Committee what he really thinks about this legislation, which is going to gut the Franklin District Council.

Does this proposed district regional council have the power to do the job? How will it do it? We have had none of those questions answered yet. When will it do it and who will actually do this job? What are the responsibilities and powers? They are not outlined in this legislation. I understand that this legislation replaces the Auckland Regional Council and the six city councils—Manukau, Papakura, Franklin, North Shore, Waitakere, and Rodney. In fact, what is does is take the power away from local people. It guts our local democracy.

I know that I speak for the people of Manukau when I say that we are concerned. I represent part of Auckland City and, now, Manukau City. I know, having represented part of Auckland City, that it has neglected its southern suburbs. I am looking at the New Zealand Herald for 29 April where there is quote from John Key, the Prime Minister—“Super city will think small”. The article says: “Prime Minister John Key has given an assurance that small grass-roots projects will not fall victim to the Auckland Super City structure.” Well, I say to the Committee that it has already happened. Auckland City has slashed funding for two free community events in Onehunga, which have been cancelled: $24,000 was cut from the Onehunga Festival, and $20,000 from That Thing in the Park. Those cuts are totally contradictory to what was promised by the Prime Minister. Local democracy is being gutted.

Clause 9(3) repeals section 23 of the Local Government Act, which states: “(1) A territorial authority must be either a city council or a district council. (2) A territorial authority that is a city council must be described as the ‘[name of city] City Council’.”, and it goes on.

I move, That the question be now put.

If the Government thought it was having a bad week, it should believe me when I say that it is not over yet.

Some issues around clause 9 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which we are debating at the moment, go to the very heart of the question of how a city the size of the wider Auckland region should be run. Those issues are epitomised in the way that this Government has brought this legislation to the House. The arrogance that has been displayed in this urgent measure, which does not require urgency, at all—and, in fact, would be better served by a more measured, careful approach that involved the people of Auckland—is testimony to the character of this Government. You know, Labour was accused at the end of its 9 years in Government of having become arrogant, but if ever we were arrogant, it took us 9 years to get there. This Government has taken 6 months to get there, and Rodney Hide has taken a nanosecond to get there.

In fact, Rodney Hide’s comments even this morning indicate how little he understands the need for consultation, and how much he relies on executive power to push through unpalatable and ultimately unworkable measures in local government. Mr Hide this morning on Radio New Zealand National said that it does not matter, because the Government has the numbers and it just has to sit it out—it just has to sit out the Labour Party’s filibustering. There is a difference between filibustering and recognising that the Labour Opposition is the only line between the people of New Zealand—and, in this case, the people of Auckland—and the executive power of Government. The Opposition provides the only defence between executive power and the people, and we are exercising that defence on behalf of the people of Auckland.

Having lived nearly 30 years of my life in Auckland, I care about how Aucklanders are responding to this issue. Of course Auckland needs more efficient and more effective governance—that is not at issue. That is why the Labour Government called the royal commission. And it called a royal commission because the issues are complex; these issues are never simple, and a royal commission was deemed to be the best way of addressing the inadequacies, the friction, the dysfunction, and the complexity that have occurred in the operation of local government across numerous district councils and city councils in that region. But the Government has come to this House with a half-baked proposal, and without consultation, despite its protestations that it intends to engage in or is engaging in consultation; it is clear that it is not, because of the supreme arrogance attached to the urgency given to this measure.

This Government needs to recognise that the people of Auckland have an opinion, and that that opinion will be expressed. It will be expressed in 2010, and, further to that, it will be expressed in 2011, when the mess that this Government is proposing for the governance structure of Auckland proves to be unworkable and dysfunctional. Having a dysfunctional local government arrangement across a city as large and as important to the economy as Auckland is a travesty. It is a terrible mistake. This Government did not need to ram this legislation through under urgency. This measure required more consideration, more consultation, and more opportunity for the people of Auckland to have their say.

I wish to address in particular two amendments to this clause. The first amendment, in the name of George Hawkins, amends Part 2 by inserting a new clause 9(4): “The changes in this part will not take effect until a poll of electors has approved the changes in line with schedule 3, Section 49, of the Local Government Act 2002”. That should have been done at the outset. Why is the Government so frightened of a poll of political opinion? Why is it so frightened of that? The answer is simply that it probably is not frightened; it just cannot be bothered. It is using arrogance as a constitutional device here. This is an outrage. It is an outrage in process. It is an offence to the people of Auckland.

I shall address my comments to the amendment that inserts a new clause 9(4): “The changes in this part will not take effect until a poll of electors has approved the changes in line with schedule 3, Section 49, of the Local Government Act 2002”.

Firstly, I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins, the Opposition spokesperson on local government. He has introduced to the Committee on behalf of Labour a number of amendments that reflect our determination as the Opposition to hold this Government to account. They also reflect our determination to ensure that this Government takes the time to consider asking Aucklanders to have a say on this legislation. After all, it is Aucklanders—the people throughout the Auckland region—who will be affected by it.

Part 2—clause 9—is the core focus of this entire debate. This particular clause sets in motion what is the most significant and fundamental change in local government for not just the Auckland region but the rest of New Zealand as well. It is also the clause that gives life to a new creature: the monster that we now call the super-city. But at the same time it extinguishes the life of eight other living entities. It extinguishes the life of the Franklin District Council, and we have heard in this Chamber that one of National’s own, Sir William Birch, does not want it to die; he wants the Franklin District Council to continue living, and has sought from National and Mr Hide that it be allowed to continue to live. This part of the bill extinguishes the life of Manukau City, extinguishes the life of the Rodney District Council, and extinguishes the life of Papakura, of Waitakere, of Auckland City, and the Auckland Regional Council.

Ordinarily, when we create a new creature, most people would celebrate the new life. But in this particular case the life is being imposed; it is being shoved down the throats of Aucklanders, whether or not they like it. In fact, Aucklanders feel that they have had no consensual participation in the creation of this life. That is why this amendment is so important. According to some Aucklanders, it would not be so bad if the Government had come and asked them, but it had not. That is despite Mr Key declaring before the election that when the royal commission’s recommendations were made known he would go out and talk to Aucklanders. That has not happened.

In Part 2 the Government also gives a name to this new creature. It calls it the Auckland Council. I ask the Minister of Local Government whether he consulted with the eight local territorial authorities in Auckland, with the mayors and the councillors, about the name of this super-city creature. Did he ask the mayors what name this new creature ought to be called? I doubt that very much. People might ask what is in a name. A name is so important that in this Chamber we are quite strict about the names we use. [Interruption] I cannot call that member opposite a “big fella”, and I cannot call other members a “brown fella”, a “boldie”, a “grumpy”, or an “ugly fella”. I have to call those members by their names. That is how important names are.

I ask whether the Government asked tangata whenua. I ask Mr Hide whether he consulted Ngāti Whātua or Ngāi Tai about what the name should be. According to Māori legend, the name ”Tāmaki-makau-rau” refers to a city of a hundred lovers. I invite members of the Māori Party to comment on that name, because it is an important name; I am hopeful that my rangatira on the other side of the Chamber will speak to the name “Tāmaki-makau-rau”.

But there is another name, and that is Greater Auckland Council. Why could the proposed body not be called the Greater Auckland Council? I am determined to ask the Minister to tell us whether he consulted people on the name, because Auckland—

I move, That the question be now put.

It is important that I take a call on Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, because this part mentions the Chatham Islands—a very important part of my electorate. I am absolutely delighted that with the establishment of the Auckland Council, it will be on the same footing as the Chatham Islands Council, which is part of the Rongotai electorate. The Chatham Islands Council is already a territorial authority, and Auckland will now be a similar authority, but there has not been the same consultation or representation in Auckland that the Chatham Islands have had over decades in this country. I thank the Minister of Local Government for remembering the Chatham Islands.

I listened to the Minister’s dulcet tones this morning as I woke up at the early hour of 6 o’clock. I heard Mr Hide tell the people of New Zealand how outrageous it is that we are wasting taxpayers’ money by debating this bill. I have a message for Mr Hide: if he had referred the bill to a select committee, we would not be wasting Parliament’s time; we would be giving the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have a say. This is the man who, when in Opposition, would rail against anything the previous Labour Government did. He would say that it was not democratic, that it was not long enough, that it was too fast, and that we should be sitting longer. I ask Mr Hide what happened. I think that what happened is that he now has a very thick hide. He is now able to pretend—or perhaps he always believed—that when he gets his hands on the lever of power, anything is possible.

This bill proves that anything is possible under a National-ACT Government. That Government is ramming this bill through under urgency on a Friday, and moaning about the time it is taking and about the Opposition debating it.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: No.

Oh, yes he is. I do not know what time of night Mr Hide gave his interview, but I assure him that he was moaning about the time it is taking to get through this bill. I ask whether the Minister could not just pause, take a little breath, and allow democracy to work at least in Parliament, given that he has denied it to the people of New Zealand.

This bill is very typical of the arrogance that we now get from the National Government. The Ministers think that they are bulletproof. They think that nothing will happen to them. I have to share with the Committee evidence of just how arrogant the National Government has become, as is portrayed in this bill. The “Diary” section of the Dominion Post of 15 May states that the National Government’s Ministers do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of political correctness. It says that at an award ceremony just recently, Minister Maurice Williamson decided to present an award to himself. He started off by giving himself a Mother’s Day award, suggesting that Mr Key calls members of the party “mother-somethings”. He then went on to attempt a joke by talking about disabled people stealing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I am talking about the arrogance of this Government in ramming through this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are actually on Part 2, “Auckland Council”. The member has had a fair go on that subject; I ask her to come back to Part 2 for her remaining time.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Government has chosen to start moving closure motions. I think the deputy leader of the Labour Party is well within her rights to cover the fact that the Government has made that choice, and why she wants to see the debate continue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you should draw the attention of the Hon Sir Roger Douglas to the fact that his cellphone has been going off during the course of the morning. I do not think he is aware of what the little machine is that is making the noise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Cellphones are not allowed to be rung in the Chamber, so if that is what is happening, I ask the member to turn it off.

This part of the bill is a demonstration of the arrogance of a Government that does not believe it needs to consult. It is an example of the arrogance of a Government that thinks it can go out in public and say anything and do anything, and of the arrogance of a Government that gets rid of a city that the Minister in the chair actually represents. This process has been done with no recourse to the people of New Zealand, at all. They have no opportunity to have a say. It is not good enough. We oppose this whole process.

Let me take just a couple of minutes to respond to the comments of the deputy leader of the Labour Party. She must have been a bit groggy when she woke up this morning after her late night. In my interview I was clear about the fact that the Government is more than happy to debate the issues; what we are struggling with is to discover from the Opposition what its issues are. I was concerned—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Why are you moving closure motions, then?

Members opposite ask for the answer, then they do not want to hear it. That is the Labour Opposition’s approach to debate. When other people try to speak, members of the Opposition try to use the force of the law or their loud voices to shut them down.

I say to the deputy leader of the Labour Party that I am happy for the debate to take place, but the concern I had, and still have, is that the Opposition has spent 8 or 9 hours of precious parliamentary time on putting up amendments that Opposition members themselves do not want to pass. That was my concern. I wanted to clear that up, because it was clear that at 6 a.m. the deputy leader of the Labour Party, just back from her run, was still a bit groggy. Thank you.

Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I have been reflecting on the issues around the set-up of the unitary council called the Auckland Council, and I am very concerned about the impact on all the local authorities in Auckland. I stand up to support especially my Labour leader, Phil Goff, and all the other Labour MPs who actually come from Auckland.

The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is, fundamentally, an attack on democracy, but also, more important, an attack on the spirit of being a Kiwi. Auckland has built its foundations on the commitment and contribution of tangata whenua, of New Zealanders, and of many, many immigrant populations. Within those local territorial authorities there are communities that are passionate about their local rugby league clubs, passionate about their cultural organisations, and passionate about their identity. This bill is a fundamental insult to the people and citizens of Auckland. To bring in this legislation and ram it through the House in this way is an absolute undermining of the foundations of what it is to be a Kiwi. All those communities and all those cultures are strong because they build nationhood. The impact of this legislation on all those groups and communities will be to fundamentally undermine the diversity—including the Pacific community—that makes us beautiful New Zealand.

We are very, very disappointed in this Government. When one thinks about the philosophies of National and ACT, one understands that they are about opposing nanny State—yet they are behaving like the nanny State—they are about individual choice, about freedom of opportunity, and about having a voice. There also are all the residents’ associations that make up those local authorities. It is an insult that Government members have not thought very deeply about what the impact of this bill will be on the fundamental Kiwi spirit. In New Zealand everyone likes to have a say and have a voice.

The legislation is an absolute attack on the royal commission report. The royal commission undertook consultation. It consulted all the many diverse communities of Auckland, and the many organisations. What does the Government do? It rams this legislation through. It is a very, very sad day indeed for New Zealand but also, more important, for Auckland, which is the heart of our country.

I think that historians will look back in a few years’ time and ask how this happened. How did eight councils in New Zealand get obliterated by Parliament, get expunged from the face of the earth in 24 hours, without one of the 1.4 million Aucklanders being consulted or being asked whether they wanted to get rid of their council and their democratically elected councillors? Where is the mandate for Part 2 of this bill? The mandate does not come from the royal commission. The royal commission recommended that the councils continue to exist. So the mandate does not come from the royal commission. Where is the mandate? It does not come from the people of Auckland. Aucklanders have never been asked whether they want their local councils obliterated from the face of this earth. This is absolutely extraordinary.

We have the Local Government Act 2002, which solemnly enshrines, as it should, that if we are going to do a reorganisation—or in this case a massacre—we have to ask the people who are governed, and they have to agree by a majority to the abolition of their councils. This is enshrined in legislation. So what is this Government doing? It is doing what it did with the royal commission’s report; it is ripping it up. The Government put the royal commission’s report into the bin, then it put the Local Government Act 2002 into the bin, and totally ignored all of its requirements for consultation. Aucklanders will have their democratically elected councils wiped off the face of this earth without their ever being consulted.

I think that the reason we are having what amounts to a protest in Parliament today is that the legislation is an example of utter undemocratic proceedings in this House. Democracy is being wiped out by the stroke of a pen with the ramming through of the legislation. Not only will Aucklanders not be given a poll as to whether their councils should be obliterated, which is what will happen with this legislation, but they are not even being given a chance to be consulted on this legislation. Rodney Hide goes on that all Aucklanders will be able to be consulted later on, in 3 months’ time, when we will have the nice little committee, but by then it is too late—the die is cast; the super-city has begun. Five of Rodney’s cronies, who will be appointed directly by Rodney—they will not even have to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee—will be overseeing everything in Auckland. They will even oversee toilet paper supplies. Rodney’s mates will be in total and complete control. They will paralyse Auckland councils and Auckland governance for the next 18 months.

Aucklanders will wake up and ask how this happened. Historians will ask how this happened. This is what happens in a dictatorship. Rodney Hide’s goal, first of all—mark my words—is to shrink democracy. He is using Orwellian double-speak. He is saying that it is all about bringing the local back into local government, but it is not. It is about shrinking democracy, destroying eight well-functioning councils overnight, eliminating all of that democracy, and replacing it with this incredible concentration of executive power in the Auckland Council. The pitiful little crumbs called local boards, which will not even be in statute—

💬 Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Toothless!

They will be absolutely toothless, and are, frankly, a joke, as others have said. Mr Hide thinks that he can ram through this agenda of shrinking and wiping out democracy in Auckland, without protest. The second hidden agenda is that once this new structure of local government is in place, with the executive control of the strong mayor—the tsar of Auckland—once the tsar of Auckland is completely in control, dominating the Auckland Council—

Kia ora tātou i tēnei ata, tātou kua rauika mai ki roto i te Whare nei ki te wānanga i te take nei.

[Greetings to us assembled here this morning to debate this matter in this Parliament.]

Since the Māori Party has been in the relationship with the National Party since the last election, there has been a heap of positives and, from time to time, a few little hiccups. I suppose when one considers the way in which politics happen, one has to say that that is just how it rolls. I have appreciated the openness and willingness of Ministers to seek advice and guidance from us in the Māori Party. I have appreciated the relationships that have been built up with members like Mr Finlayson, Mr Power, Mr Brownlee, and Anne Tolley. They are Ministers whom we have been working with on a number of projects. I think the scene was set by John Key in opening the door to the Māori Party. He did not have to do that. He chose to allow us to contribute. He believed in a strong, independent voice having something to offer.

On Waitangi Day, Ministers met with iwi leaders from throughout the country, and the iwi leaders, on their part, have come back to the Prime Minister to offer some guidance, some assistance, and some discussion. At Ratana, Ministers again turned up, acknowledging the importance of a Māori view. I understand that Treaty settlements are premised on the relationship between the Crown and Māori, and I note that many of the settlements include that statement. The relationship between the Crown and Māori is, clearly, important. Mr Hide, the Prime Minister, and other colleagues acknowledge that the Māori Party has made, and continues to make, a valuable contribution to the parliamentary process, as an independent party.

In those circumstances I am struggling—as is the Māori Party, I think—to understand why the recommendation from the royal commission that there be Māori seats has not been adopted, and, more important, why Māori, and, most important, mana whenua, may not be a part of the decision-making process. This bill has huge ramifications for the country, because, like the banning of gang patches from the central business district of Wanganui by my colleague Chester Borrow’s legislation, the pattern of leaving Māori aside may well move throughout the country. That is the fear.

Why should Māori be at the decision-making table? Firstly, we would argue that the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—provides a starting point. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—and we hope that in the near future we might have a statement about Aotearoa’s position on it—provides an international view. Can Māori contribute? Hell, yeah! But Māori advisories do not work, in our estimation. They are toothless animals who are well-intentioned, who want to do some good, but in the end they simply cannot, because a process that provides for majority rule on councils, and excludes a Māori voice, does not provide us with that platform.

I find that some New Zealanders, even some in this House, struggle to come to grips with the Māori view; thus, many of the discussions in this House have sought a Māori view from a Māori party.

Is it likely that those who will get elected to the Auckland Council have any understanding about a Māori view? I doubt it. Will the Māori voice be marginalised, with only two or three Māori on a larger council? Some have stated that Māori would be marginalised if there were dedicated seats. I put it to members that that is what happens right now, in any way, shape, or form—perhaps even in this Parliament. Does it stop us from contributing? I do not think so. Does it stop us from advocating? No.

Above all, if there is one compelling reason why it is important for Māori to be involved at a council level, with dedicated seats, it is mana whenua. Mana whenua are people of that land—not Christchurch, not Rotorua, but Tāmaki-makau-rau. Their tūpuna lie there, their tūpuna arrived there, and if there is any reason why Māori should be at the table, with dedicated seats, surely the issue of mana whenua gives us cause to think about that.

I urge the Minister to keep an open ear. I urge the Minister to keep the discussions going, right through to the end of the process. I am hoping that throughout the discussion, provided that people are able to engage in honourable discussion and debate, the notion about the importance of Māori having seats on the council is taken up with some fervour and is listened to by the Ministers in charge of this particular bill. Kia ora tātou.

Let me take a call to respond to Mr Flavell. First of all, I thank him and his party for their patience and goodwill, and for the time they have taken to help us understand these complex issues. Let me respond to the vexed issue he mentioned. First of all, let us see the problem for what it is. How do we live in a Western society with the benefits of—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: What a load of rubbish, Rodney! Western society?

Yes.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: What about the other cultures?

Well, that is my point: how do we live with the benefits of a Western society and a democratic tradition while respecting other values and beliefs? For myself, I cannot begin to get there, and that is what is so hard. Māori have spiritual views and beliefs that the majority of people cannot grasp and can easily override. We have this difficulty in local government, in central government, and through the Resource Management Act and its processes. We have a variety of suggestions for dealing with it, such as the proposal for co-management in the Waikato.

The royal commission came up with a proposal, which was to have two ward seats and one mana whenua seat. That was problematic and complex because it did not recognise the other major tribe represented in Auckland. There was also concern about the general electoral roll being used for local body politics. Also, the royal commission did not provide for Māori representation on the local councils.

We looked very hard at the issue—and Pita Sharples was on the Cabinet committee and made an enormous contribution—but the difficulty with what the royal commission proposed was that it would not solve the problem. We felt that there is an ongoing issue that successive Governments have struggled with, and that is how to adequately take into account the views of hapū, iwi, and tangata whenua, and, particularly, spiritual values relating to history and to natural resources. Many of us see natural resources just as things to use, not as something that is part of our history—[Interruption] Labour members do not want to hear, do they?

I have appreciated working with Mr Flavell. I have accepted his point. I have a clear understanding that a special advisory group will not cut it with Māori. I also believe that if the Auckland Council is to succeed, we have to provide a mechanism by which Māori views, and particularly mana whenua views, can be properly heard and taken into consideration. That is the challenge for us, the challenge for councils, and the challenge for Parliament. I look forward to hearing Labour’s contribution on how to do that. I am certainly very, very happy to engage with the Māori Party—and with Dr Pita Sharples, in particular—on this issue. I should say that it is a tough issue to consider, and I am interested in hearing whether Labour’s view is that mana whenua seats should become the norm in local government. That would be a big step for local government, and it is a step that would require some consideration. Thank you.

Mr Chair, tēnā koe. E mihi kau ana i a rātou e mau ana te āhua o te mana whenua i Tāmāki-makau-rau. I tino wiriwiri haere te tinana mō te pōhēhē noa iho o te mahi o te Kāwana.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, Mr Chair. I acknowledge those who have authority over the land in Auckland. I am somewhat nervous at the duplicity of what the Government is doing.]

I kite atu tātou mai rānō, mai i te tae o Pākehā i konei i puru atu rātou i tō rātou pou i runga i te whenua i Tāmaki-makau-rau i kite atu te noho tahi e kōrero atu rātou ki a Tainui, ki a Whātua, ki a Hauraki ki a rātou katoa i reira. Since the time of Pākehā arriving here in New Zealand, we have seen them put their pole in the ground in Auckland and continually work their way through issues with local iwi. Each of those boards and councils has made a strong effort to do that.

Nā te mea i roto i wētahi o tātou ngā kanohi Māori i mau kaha te karanga mō te whakatikatika a te mahi o te Kāwana nei ki a rātou mā. The call from all Māori and Kiwis around this country resounds through the valleys and hills of Auckland. It is that this situation should be corrected. The Government should have the courage to stop this madness right now.

I mihi to the Māori Party. Hone was throwing barbs around in relation to what Labour did not do when we were in Government.

When I listened to Mr Hide just then, it really made me wonder what he was up to. Our deputy leader, Annette King, is dead right: at six o’clock yesterday there was a huge charade, another attempted jack-up of the press about Labour wasting taxpayers’ money.

What is this bill about? It does not have the niceness to recognise the basic fundamentals of what happens to taxpayers’ money. Māori, Pacific Island people, and other cultures sweated through the generations to ensure that Auckland was built. It was not built by National’s rich mates; it was not built purely from investment. Issues that are relevant to efficiencies and restructuring do not mean that National should get away with everything else because it is Big Brother. This is low-down, skanky, “Papa State” stuff. That is what “Papa John” and “Papa Rodney” are into. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You cannot bring me in to the debate.

I say to the Māori Party that Rodney Hide has replaced the moko. In Māori culture, as in the Pacific culture, one understands that one’s moko is one’s imprint and one’s territory. It is about rights, surety, and heritage through generations. I ask the Māori Party what Rodney has replaced the moko with. He has replaced it with the hoko. Hoko is about selling off, partitioning off, rights, and ensuring that the purest sense of capitalism prevails.

What are we doing? We have heard all this talk about efficiency of the Public Service. Yesterday—I believe under the drive of this Government—we got rid of 16 regional managers of community development. That is a sin. One reads here about enabling democratic decision-making by and on behalf of communities within the local board area. The Government got rid of them! I want to mihi Deborah Teece, one of the officials who used to work with me. She is a great policy writer and a great manager, and she understands community development. This is a sad day for this State—it really is.

It was very interesting to hear Hone Harawira mihi to Rodney Hide, and say great things about National, but the Māori Party members have voted with Labour against the legislation, because they know that it is wrong. What is that gutlessness about? [Interruption] What is it about?

💬 Hon Members: Shame!

I say to them do not pour shame on us Māori members here. They will not do anything. National has conned the Māori Party and those members know it. They know it full well.

There is a game of ping-pong where everybody is talking about mana whenua. There is mana whenua there. The major population is rāwaho— urban Māori.

💬 Paul Quinn: Have you read it yet?

That member can squawk all he likes, but I have read it inside out, and I understand that councils around the country are shamed by this legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have a number of amendments and I ask your indulgence in that we deal first with the amendments to clause 9 that were tabled yesterday, so those will come ahead of amendments to earlier provisions, as would normally happen. We have a number of amendments and the Clerks are checking them. It is my intention to put the votes on the amendments in the order they were tabled.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 9 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (2) “Subject to subclause 5,” before “The Auckland Council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am aware that the Committee is dealing with a number of amendments designed to encapsulate just how large this new authority will be, but I am interested as to what process you are using to rule out amendments. For example, the previous amendment referenced Māui. Of course, the Māori name for the North Island is Te Ika a Māui, the fish of Maui. Why would that not be considered a serious amendment just because it is a Māori reference? I would like some advice on that. The most recent amendment to clause 9 refers to “North East South and West Council”. This clearly is an authority that directionally takes in the whole city, as the next amendment regarding the compass of Auckland takes into account. These amendments are so designed because Auckland Council has a connotation, like the current Auckland City Council has. Our amendments are designed so that people in Auckland know that this is a new authority, much like when we moved to MMP and there was a very clear reference for new electorate names.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, you have made your point; thank you. An amendment must be drafted with some precision. There is a form of words that may be embodied in law. Its form must offer serious alternative forms of words. An amendment that is merely an attempt to criticise the provision will not be accepted. Amendments that are vague or frivolous are out of order, and I have so ruled.

💬 Hon Member: Which ones were frivolous?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The ones that I have said were ruled out of order. That is my ruling, so we will move on with the other amendments.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not wishing to challenge your ruling, but I would have thought that, given the time that has been spent on the amendments, you need to be able to say to the Committee specifically why you have ruled them out.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging my ruling.

No, I am not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet.

I am seeking clarification.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. The amendments that I have mentioned as being ruled out have fallen into the category of not being serious amendments, and I am able to rule out those amendments. That is a decision that I have made, and it is not debatable.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I just politely suggest through the Chair that the senior Opposition whip speak with his senior Māori MPs when he talks about Te Ika a Maui so he gets an understanding of what it actually means?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to get some clarification from you. As you are not describing which amendments you are ruling out and why, it is then very difficult—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well—

I just want to make my point that it is very difficult then to feel confident that your ruling is correct. I will take your word for it, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You cannot challenge my ruling.

I am not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will answer your question.

I have not finished my point of order yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is saying. The amendments are tabled on the Table here. We are going through them in order. I have mentioned the ones that have been ruled out of order. It is up to the member to look to see which ones I have referred to. That is the position we have been in. Four amendments have been ruled out of order because of the reasons I mentioned and explained earlier.

I would then make the point that I take great exception to any amendment that contains te reo being ruled out of order without an explicit description as to why reo words would be ruled out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is challenging my ruling. I have made a decision and it stands. We want to move forward.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I will make it clear that I am not challenging your ruling; I am asking for your advice. The dilemma I think we find ourselves in, as you rightly pointed out, is that if you rule an amendment out of order for, say, being frivolous—and you have the ability to do that—the question then is one of interpretation by you.

I would suggest to you that if you do not feel it is appropriate to elaborate as to why an amendment may be, for instance, frivolous, then that will leave no option but to recall the Speaker to make a judgment. I do not think that is necessary, but the problem we have as the Opposition is that it is entirely your interpretation. You may view a word as frivolous, but if you do not stand and give us a justification, recalling the Speaker may be the only option we have.

If we could get a sense of where you are heading to at the beginning of the questions on the amendments, it will make it easier down the track, particularly as we will be having a change in personnel. I think the question that Metiria Turei puts to you is in addition to the Standing Orders, which you rightly have to administer. To what extent is a bicultural view being taken? The member has said that in terms of Maui and in terms of sons and daughters, in the very clear Māori context of taonga tuku iho and tūpuna, we are the descendants of those who have gone before. Sons and daughters of Maui is a very clear concept, particularly for such a big city as Auckland. So I am asking about that bicultural aspect.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I mentioned earlier, and I will read the ruling out again: “An amendment must be drafted with some precision. There is a form of words which may be embodied in law.” We have had a number of preceding amendments, and they were given quite a bit of latitude as to different names and what they could encompass. I have made my decision; that is where we stand. We will move on, as there are a lot of amendments to get through. A lot of other amendments cover similar points.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I absolutely accept your ruling. Part of the difficulty was describing those words as frivolous. If you could quote the Standing Order, that will not cause the same offence—although we accept your ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If I said that an amendment was frivolous, then that was only an example. I guess this comment should be directed to Metiria Turei—and I offer my apologies. Frivolous is one of the reasons for ruling an amendment out of order, but in this case it was certainly not that reason. My apologies if I have offended the member.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Heart of the City Council”.

The next amendment is ruled out because it is the same in substance as a previous one.

The next three amendments are ruled out. We now move to—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As you know, I was liaising with the Deputy Leader of the House. Can you tell me which three amendments have been ruled out? I have lost track.

Yes, the ones I have ruled out are the amendments of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 substituting the “John Key Memorial Council”, the “Rodney Hide Memorial Council”, and the “Melissa Lee Memorial Council”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Roads and Tunnels Council”.

The next two amendments have been ruled out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again I seek your advice. I have had a look at McGee, page 379, which talks about “an amendment which is merely an attempt to criticise the contents of the bill will not be accepted.” and about, as you have rightly pointed out, the need for precision, but I ask you to consider the issue of consistency. We have just voted on the amendment that attempted to substitute the words “Neighbourhood Plus Council”, which you presumably ruled in order, because we voted on it. You then ruled out an amendment to insert the words “Monarchy Council”, referring to the sovereign.

Although I accept absolutely that, as you have said, under the Standing Orders you are the sole judge of what is in and what is out, I ask you, so that there is not disorder as we go through these amendments, for some indication of consistency. Where an amendment refers to the sovereign—to the monarchy—you have ruled it out, but where it refers to “neighbourhood” you have ruled it in. In order to assist you with the smooth running and passage of the Committee, we would be grateful for some sort of indication in respect of consistency; otherwise it becomes just an arbitrary process and we will repeatedly have to seek your guidance and, ultimately, recall the Speaker. So without being provocative I simply ask you to give us an indication of how your rulings are proceeding. Thank you.

The “Monarchy Council” amendment is not a serious attempt to set up a council. There have been plenty of amendments previously that describe in better form what is trying to be achieved through the amendments. The “Monarchy Council” amendment is certainly not one of those and I have ruled it out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to get a complete understanding of your ruling. You are saying that in your order of priority, as it were, it is acceptable for us to vote, as we have done, on an amendment to insert words such as “Neighbourhood Plus Council”, but that if a reference is made to the sovereign, which I would have thought would be a higher priority, you are ruling it out on the grounds that you do not believe it is serious. Is that correct?

I think the member quoted page 379 of McGee, which states “Any amendment that is proposed … must be a serious or objective description of its contents.” That is why I have ruled out the “Monarchy Council” amendment.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is challenging my ruling.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, I want to raise a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will call the member on a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I ask for your guidance in respect of consistency, because I still do not get the point that when one makes a reference to “neighbourhood” it is viewed as being serious, but when one makes a reference to “monarchy” it is viewed as not being serious.

The monarchy is not an accurate description of the geographic area about which we are talking. I have made my decision and we will move on.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Supreme Council”.

The next amendment is ruled out of order because it is covered by the previous amendment. It is the same as the amendment we have just voted on. To clarify, we have just voted on the amendments to substitute “Region of Auckland Council” and the “Auckland Regions Council”. The ones that I am ruling out are the next two, to substitute “Auckland and Regions Council” and “Regions and Auckland Council”, because they are the same thing. They are duplications. They have the same effect as the ones that we have just voted on. That is why they are ruled out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I noted your words directly. When you ruled out a number of amendments you said it was because they were not a description of the geographic area of Auckland. Now the words may be similar, but they are different in respect of their order. I do not see how, based on your last ruling about, and I say again, it not being a description of the geographic area of Auckland, there is a justification for not taking a vote on those two.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. These cover the same substance as the one we have already voted on, and that is another reason why I have ruled them out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am reluctant to raise a point of order, but you say that the amendment has the same effect, whereas this is an amendment with reference to the name—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is challenging my ruling. He cannot do that, because I have made a ruling. I have given an explanation for it, and we will move on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is just a question; I am not challenging you. You made reference to documentation. I wonder if you could just advise us exactly where that is.

If the member has Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, it is on page 378: “No amendment may be proposed that is the same in substance as an amendment that is agreed or defeated in the committee …”, and that is the reason I have ruled those out.

The next amendment is ruled out as well as not being serious.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Ngati Whatua and Associates Council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You say these amendments are not serious?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): That is correct.

Can we have an explanation for your ruling on that? A lot of work has gone into these amendments—

💬 Colin King: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 Hon Member: Sit down!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I beseech you to bring that rabble over there under control. They are trifling with you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): That is not a point of order. I will hear the Hon Mita Ririnui. I am sorry I did not realise he had not finished.

Please explain to members on this side of the Chamber what you mean by “not serious”.

It may help the Committee to say that the previous Chairperson has ruled that the title needs to relate to an area and region rather than to individuals or families. In this case amendments using the words “Cousins and Aunts” are actually about individuals or families, as opposed to amendments about Auckland City or an Auckland region, which have been ruled and then voted on. A number of amendments have been ruled out previously. The Chair is just being consistent with the previous rulings and we should continue to be consistent in that regard.

I am sure you will thank the Minister in the Chair for his assistance to you on this matter, but when you say these amendments are not serious we are talking about Māui—Te-Ika-a-Māui—and so, te whānau of Māui. I take from your ruling and the explanation from the Minister in the Chair that this belief essentially does not exist. Maybe it is in the imagination of Ngāti Whātua and other Māori in the district. Well, I can tell you now that that is not the case.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): We will maintain the ruling of the previous Chair. My understanding is that ruling relating to the amendment being not serious does not relate to the expressions concerning the Maui Council but rather to the cousins, aunts, and uncles reference on the one hand and the step-sisters and step-brothers reference on the other. So we will maintain the ruling. [Interruption] No, I have heard enough, thank you. The member will resume his seat.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “City of Boats Council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the last amendment that you ruled out of order. I draw your attention to that one because clause 9 in Part 2 talks about the eight local authorities that will be expunged. Each of those local authorities has a mayor as its head. I put it to you that you may wish to consider that particular amendment as relevant, because it talks about ex-mayors and eight of them will be out of a job as a result of the local authorities mentioned in clause 9 being disposed of. That is particularly relevant. I will not comment on the other clauses you have made your ruling on but I think that does, indeed, have some relevance.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I thank the member for his point of order but I will maintain the ruling of the Chair. The section to which he refers does indeed do what he described, but I do not think it is in order to then go on and expect the new body to be referred to in the way that is contended.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As you are aware, I have just relatively recently come into the Chamber and I am not aware of the earlier rulings. When you indicated that you were maintaining a ruling were you saying that you were maintaining a ruling that you had given or that one of your colleagues in the Chair—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I beg your pardon for the novelty of my position, but what I intended to say was that the previous Chair has given a series of rulings; I am trying to maintain the spirit of those rulings relating to what is serious and what is not. I believe that to rule the words “Auckland ex-Mayoral Council” out of order is consistent with the spirit of the previous rulings.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again I apologise because I was not aware of the circumstances under which you took the Chair. The question I have now is particularly embarrassing, given that you are one of my colleagues, but it goes to the appropriateness of someone who is not elected to the position of Chair making rulings that take away the rights of a minority in this Chamber. With the other Chairs the Committee has taken a decision. I am familiar with the Standing Orders, which indicate that you can take the Chair and you can make the rulings.

I am asking you whether you think it is appropriate for you to exercise the powers yourself—whether, in an acting position that has not been endorsed by the Committee it is appropriate that the rights of the minority be taken away, or whether you should recluse yourself for a period of time until these rulings have been dealt with. I think it is wonderful that you are in the Chair; some of us think you would make a really good Speaker in time. But it is certainly my view that it is not appropriate for you to be ruling out these points of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I do not need any further assistance, thank you, Mr Carter. Thank you, Mr Mallard, for your kind words. They are always appreciated, although I am not sure that best wishes for a future in the Speakership are something I would welcome. I think probably the answer is that, as I have taken on this position temporarily by the leave of the Committee and with its endorsement, and I am very mindful of the fact that I am not an elected officer of the House, I think it is probably incumbent on me all the more in those circumstances to maintain rulings consistent with those who are. So I am going to follow that course of action and maintain the ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I hope it is a new point of order.

It is a new point of order, and it goes to your ruling that, in your opinion, a particular amendment was partly serious and then went into the spurious area that you ruled out. The question I have is whether you have any discretion to rule part of an amendment out of order, rather than the whole amendment out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I am advised that I do not, regrettably, but if that is something the member would like further consideration on, I am sure that I could come back to him on it.

This might be quite opposite to the point of view I put to you before, but you are flexible, and so is the Committee, as far as we are concerned. I invite you to make a new ruling. It may be that you could make Speaker’s rulings relatively early in your career in the Chair.

The member in the Chair, competent as he is, is not a sanctioned officer. He is there by leave, and does not have the authority to make such rulings. Therefore he is bound by the previously established conventions of the House. I also say that the entire series of points of order around this matter are out of order, because Mr Chauvel was at all times, as he has said, obliged to uphold previous rulings.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I am not sure that that is an entirely helpful response, actually. I am reasonably clear in my mind on the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard: it is not for the Chair to attempt to dissect proposed amendments and rule on whether they are either wholly or partially in order—either they are in order or they are not. It is certainly not the role of the Chair to amend proposed amendments to try to bring them into order. I will not take that point any further.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. One of the concerns I have is that as you go through the list of amendments, the use of the word “seriousness” is something that I would like you to think about. The issue is about “Cousins and Aunts and Uncles of Maui Council” and “Step-Sisters and Step-Brothers of Maui Council”. In the sense of the English idiom and English culture, that amendment may not be serious. But in Māori culture it is very, very serious. The concepts of whanaungatanga, of whāngaitanga—of adoption—and of all of that in the cultural context is very, very serious. I do not want to challenge your ruling, but I certainly want to mention that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): No, I do not need any assistance, thank you, Mr Brownlee. I thank the member for his point of order, but unfortunately I have already ruled on those matters, and for that reason I am not going to revisit them. If we come to further amendments proposed—and I do not know whether we will—relating to the whanaungatanga of the Maui Council, I will certainly bear those comments in mind.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very technical point, and it goes to the leave that was sought for you to take the Chair. I am now informed that, in fact, the leave of the House was sought for you to take the Chair. I ask whether that was accurate. In fact, if what I am informed is accurate—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it was leave of the Committee.

No, I am briefed that the leave of the House was sought, rather than the leave of the Committee.

💬 Hon John Carter: We were in Committee when it was taken.

I know we are in Committee.

💬 Hon John Carter: We were in Committee when it was taken.

I absolutely accept the point that Mr Carter has made. He is just reinforcing the point that I have made: the Committee cannot take leave on behalf of the House. My understanding is—I am briefed—that instead of seeking the leave of the Committee, as Mr Brownlee should have done, he sought the leave of the House, when we were, in fact, in Committee. If that is the case, then the leave is incorrect. Mr Chair, I am not saying that you cannot be in the Chair; in fact, you can be in the Chair at the invitation of a Chair without the leave of the Committee. But if we are relying on the leave asked for by Mr Brownlee, then he should have sought the leave of the Committee and not of the House.

Standing Order 168(3) deals with the matter: “At any time during the sitting of a committee of the whole House, and without any formal communication to the committee, any member may, at the request of the chairperson, take the Chair as temporary chairperson.” Leave was sought this morning just to reinforce—virtually to notify Parliament or the Committee that various people would be relieving Mr Tisch throughout the morning. I think that some members are starting to trifle with the Chair in ways that bring the Chair into disrespect. I think some firm action may need to be taken.

Just to finish that point, if Mr Brownlee wanted to correct his “reinforcement” leave, then there would be no objection from this side of the Chamber to him putting us back in the correct position.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): Thanks, Mr Mallard. I do not think we need any further assistance on this matter. The reality is that the Chairperson asked me to assume his responsibilities on a temporary basis. It may have confused the matter to have referred to the issue of leave. I am satisfied that Standing Order 168(3) provides for the position on that basis.

There is no doubt about that, at all. It’s just that Gerry got it wrong.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): Well, I do not think we need to go into the rights and wrongs of that.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Beach to Beach Council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we can follow it?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): Yes, I am working through the list that I think members have in front of them. We come to the amendment proposed by the honourable member to insert the words “Auckland Super City 2009 Council”. That is the amendment that I have ruled duplicative. That brings us to the amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “Auckland Council” and substitute “Super Basin 2009 Council”. I am advised by the Clerk that we have already voted on that amendment, so I will rule that out of order as duplicative.

The next proposed amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “Auckland Council” and substitute “Fast Track 2009 Council” has already been voted on as well, so I rule that out of order as duplicative. The same ruling applies to the amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “Auckland Council” and substitute “Plains and Vents 2009 Council”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Neighbourhood Plus their Neighbourhood Council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Again, I seek some clarification. Although the themes of the previous amendment and this one are similar, the wording is different. It talks about a “Greater Auckland” area. As you will be aware, the previous amendment talked about Auckland itself. This one talks about the “Greater Auckland” area. As we know, clause 9 expunges eight councils, bringing together a series of councils into a greater Auckland city. I put it to you that it is a different amendment. It is not a duplication.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): My ruling on the amendment is that I find it to be substantially duplicative of the previous amendment. I probably ought to have ruled the previous amendment out of order as not serious, but I decided to allow a vote on it. I do not think we will take that matter further.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I hear the vote counts again? I think it was said that there were 64 Ayes and 57 Noes. We voted against the amendment, and we are being counted in with the Ayes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I thank the member for the point of order. We will clarify the vote for the record.

I think it will be for the previous three votes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I will take the honourable member’s word as to the vote of the Māori Party, obviously, on those last three votes. That means the Ayes were 52 and the Noes were 69 on each of those votes. On the amendments relating to the “Auckland Supremo Council”, the “My Neighbourhood Council”, and the “Neighbourhood Plus their Neighbourhood Council” the vote tallies on a corrected basis are 52 for the Ayes, and 69 for the Noes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it is incumbent on you to declare each of those results separately. You cannot group a set of amendments and results. You have to declare each result again separately.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I think I made the rulings and the record sufficiently clear. I read out the particular amendments in full, and I do not think that the record needs further clarification.

I do not think you read them out in full as you corrected them, and you did not associate the votes with each of them as you read them out in full.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): Given that the votes are identical, I do not think there is any requirement to be clearer in substance than I have been.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We had quite a discussion last night, when Mr Tisch was in the Chair, about the suggestion of Mr Tremain that votes could be grouped or taken as read. It was made quite clear by Mr Tisch that that could not happen, and that votes had to be taken individually. My submission to you is that the results have to be declared individually as well.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): The situation was that there was an incorrect recording of the votes. The leader of a party pointed that out, in respect of three votes. I have read out, so that the Committee is very clear, the precise nature of each of the amendments, and I have recorded the corrected tally. I do not think it is the same matter to which the member refers, but I thank him for his point of order.

We come then to the amendment to subclause (2) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My point of order relates to the series of amendments that are proposed here. I submit to you, Mr Chairperson, that this part of the bill has just 150 words in it, but we have in front of us some 825 amendments proposed by our opponents on the opposite side of the Chamber. That is great; they have been hard at work doing it. But to accept these amendments as being reasonable, and to say that this is perfectly acceptable and not vexatious, I think, is a little bit of a stretch. This is particularly the case when one is asking to omit “powers of a regional council” and substitute it with “powers and muscle of a regional council”, “powers and weight of a regional council”, “powers and vigour of a regional council”, “powers and brawn of a regional council”, “powers and sway of a regional council”, “powers and influence of a regional council”, or “powers and dominance of a regional council”.

This is totally misusing the Committee’s time. These are not serious amendments; they do not materially alter the intention of the bill. They are simply vexatious and designed to take up time, and the Labour Party being able to exercise itself in this way adds to the extraordinary cost imposed on taxpayers. Considered amendments are being well treated by the Committee, as was shown by the result yesterday, when some 700 or 800 amendments were put up, and one was accepted.

I make a couple of points to you, Mr Chairperson. As we have gone through this process, your predecessors have built up a body of precedent. In regard to the naming of amendments in respect of geographic areas, they have talked about whether those amendments are serious. Whether a clause has 150 words or 1,500 words in it, we cannot get to a situation in this Chamber where a Government is truncating the process through urgency, and then calls on the Chairperson to truncate or delete the right of the Opposition to put up amendments. If that is upheld, then that creates a huge precedent, whereby members of this Parliament can have amendments ruled out of order holus-bolus. That strikes at the heart of our process. Whether a clause has one word, 150 words, or 1,500 words, it is always the right of members of Parliament to put up amendments.

I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the House, who has got his own way in ramming this legislation through under urgency, would then seek to accelerate the process again by taking away the democratic right of members of Parliament to propose amendments. He is seeking to have whole bodies of amendments ruled out of order because he does not like them. It is inappropriate.

There is a big difference between not allowing amendments and not allowing vexatious amendments such as these. I am opposed to this legislation, but I am opposed to the waste of time in this Committee of vexatious amendments. [Interruption]

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): The member is entitled to speak to the point of order. I called her, and she will be heard in silence.

I want to reinforce what the Hon Tariana Turia has just said to the Committee, and to explain to my colleague on the other side that I am not attempting to shut down the process that allows amendments to be made, but I am imploring the Chair to take a view as to whether a series of amendments that choose to add the words “powers and muscle”, “powers and weight”, “powers and vigour”, “powers and brawn”, “powers and sway”, “powers and influence”, “powers and dominance”, etc., are serious amendments, or whether they are simply vexatious amendments designed to take up the time of the Committee. I submit that they are vexatious, because they do not add anything to the bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I do not think I need any further assistance, but thank you. I think we need to be clear about the fact that there is no arithmetic test just because the relevant part of the bill happens to have so many words. That does not have any sort of bearing on the right or entitlement of members to move the number and type of amendments that they see fit. I assure members that I will look at each of the proposed amendments with regard to the Standing Orders, the Speakers’ rulings, particularly Speaker’s ruling 112/1, and the commentary in McGee at page 379. In fact, I will take just a moment to do that now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I make one other submission to you. I note that you are a lawyer—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I have ruled on this matter. If it is a new point of order, I am happy to hear it.

It is a new point of order. I note that you are a lawyer and the Leader of the House is not, and I just say—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I am not sure that that is relevant.

You will appreciate that the courts, in interpreting legislation, will find a difference in the term “power” as opposed to the term “power and influence”. As a number of these amendments have been put forward, the courts will interpret a difference in those words.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I thank the member for the dissertation on that point. I will take that into account, as the member would imagine.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To further help the consideration that I know you are giving this matter, I refer you to an amendment to clause 9(2) of Part 2, which states: “by omitting the words ‘the responsibilities, duties, and powers of a regional council’ and replacing them with ‘the power to ignore all community input as per the intent of this horrible legislation’.” That is a vexatious amendment and should be treated as such.

If members do not like amendments, which is fair, they can vote against them. The Government is now taking more time complaining about these amendments than would have been taken if it had simply voted them down. I accept that Mrs Turia does not like the amendment; she can vote it down—she can vote against it. She interjects that it is stupid, but she has been voting for these amendments all day today and all day yesterday. We do not need lectures from her about that. In the end, what is open to members is the chance to vote against amendments that they do not like, which is the process that the Parliament has.

Finally, some of these amendments are based on language that the Minister of Local Government has used in describing this legislation. He has described it as “requiring more muscle”. He has described it in these sorts of ways, and our amendments are based on what the Minister himself has said he is trying to achieve by this legislation.

I will talk in two parts. Firstly, I am supportive of the contribution that Mr Cosgrove made recently, and I elaborate a little bit more on that by saying that I am sure that the courts are interested in nuance and that they will look really carefully at any amendment that is passed, and at the intention of Parliament in that way.

The more substantive question goes to what the parliamentary role of the Opposition is. The roles are opposing and proposing. Traditionally, one of the best tools for proper consideration of legislation in the New Zealand Parliament, the House of Commons, the House of Lords on occasion, and certainly in the Senate of the United States has been delay. This is something that Oppositions in democratic countries around the world have used when there have not been good processes—especially when there have not been good processes—or when legislation has not been sent to a select committee, as in the case of New Zealand. One of the fundamental rights of an Opposition is to work to delay legislation. In doing that, testing Parliament around nuances, and having a more intense debate than would otherwise be the case, is a fundamental part of the rights of the Opposition.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I thank the member. I will signal in advance to members—so that, hopefully, we do not have debate on each of the proposed amendments—that on the basis of advice relating to Speaker’s ruling 112/1, and the commentary in McGee at page 379, the intent is to declare the fourth amendment, relating to the “powers and brawn of a regional council”, out of order as being not serious, and to declare the ninth amendment, which is the matter that was referred to by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, as out of order on the ground that it is not serious. I intend to invite members to vote on the other amendments that are proposed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just so I am clear on which amendments you have ruled out, would you please read them out?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel): I have ruled out the amendments to substitute “powers and brawn of a regional council” and “the power to ignore all community input as per the intent of this horrible legislation”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and muscle of a regional council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just ask for clarification. Are you saying that that particular wording has already been voted on?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, it is the same in substance as an amendment already voted on. “Substance” was one of the reasons given earlier as to why we would not proceed with amendments.

If it is the same in substance, which amendment is it the same in substance to?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The meaning of the word is the same.

I perhaps anticipated your ruling on this. The dictionary that was provided to me by one of the messengers talks about “leadership” as a definition of “hegemony”. The definition also talks about “ruling supreme”. I would like you, if you would, to point me to the previous amendment—the one where it is duplicated in substance.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The words “hegemony” and “dominance” mean the same, on my advice, and that is why this amendment has been ruled out. We have already voted on the previous one.

So I am to take it you are saying it is the same, although the definition of “hegemony” that I have is “leadership”, according to the authoritative dictionary I have here, which does not appear to be the same meaning “in substance” as your advice is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I do not need any help. I have made a ruling and that amendment has been ruled out. We now move to the next amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins, an amendment to clause 9(2) to—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to relitigate your ruling, other than to ask you one question. Having made your rulings, which, of course, are the first time that we get any notice of them, are you prepared to entertain discussion on those or additional matters being put?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member knows there is no discussion on the amendments. I have made a decision and we are proceeding as per my advice.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you need to be a little bit careful in that members opposite are starting to trifle with the ruling that you have already set down as Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. It is my authority, and at my discretion, to make the decision, and I have so done. We will proceed. There is to be no further discussion on this point.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is it a new point of order?

Yes, it is. It goes to, in fact, two things that you have said. First, in your last ruling you said that you would—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You are challenging my ruling.

No, I am not challenging your ruling at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask you to sit. I have made a decision and we are proceeding, because, in my view, you are challenging my ruling. We are moving on to the next amendment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think I am now challenging your ruling, on the grounds of my right to make a point of order. That is something that I think is intrinsic to that of a member of Parliament.

I have made a ruling that a decision on whether an amendment is proceeded with is at the discretion of the Chair. I have made that ruling and I have explained why I have made that ruling, and that is the end of the matter. We are now going to proceed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I warn the member that if you are challenging my ruling, then that is a serious offence.

I think what I am doing is maintaining the rights of traditional Chairs in the Chamber to make their own decisions and not to be rubber stamps, as you indicated you were to the Committee—that you would always act on advice. That is not how a Chair should act.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a direct challenge to my role and my authority, and the discretion that I have to rule out an amendment. That is the end of the matter. I have made the ruling. That is where it stands.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a new point. Whilst you were in the process of ruling and Mr Mallard was responding to you, a call from Mr Henare was repeated, on a number of occasions, yelling out: “Sit down.” Whether he was talking to you or Mr Mallard, I do not know. I just ask you, out of respect for your office, whether you could ask him to pull his head in.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to have sort of language. When points of order are taken they must be held in silence, so I would ask members to respect that rule.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and handling of a regional council”.

Could you just clarify for us which one it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is the amendment to clause 9(2) to omit the words “the responsibilities, duties, and powers of a regional council” and replace them with the words “the power to ignore all community input as per the intent of this horrible legislation”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and control of a regional council”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have just ruled those amendments out because the Auckland Council is not now a proposal—and you referred to Part 1, where it says that the Auckland Council is the Auckland Council, and therefore it cannot be a proposal. I put it to you that clause 4(3), which we have now passed, states: “Part 2 establishes the Auckland Council as a unitary authority. This Part does not come into force (and, therefore, the Council does not come into existence) until 1 November 2010,”. Therefore, that means that until that day there is no Auckland Council. I put it to you, therefore, that anything that addresses this issue prior to 1 November 2010 is out of order, because there is no Auckland Council until that day.

We have actually passed Part 1, which states very clearly that the council does not come into existence until 1 November 2010. Therefore I suggest to you that we cannot make any alterations to something that is not in existence until that date of 1 November. These amendments suggest that the Auckland Council is in existence. Therefore, I suggest to you that they, too, should be ruled out of order.

It is relatively simple. There are two points. First, you had called the amendment, so you cannot now reverse that. Secondly, I remind you of the advice that you gave the Committee not very long ago in respect of me, which was that you would not entertain challenges to your rulings. By calling that amendment, you have effectively ruled it in.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. My interpretation is that these amendments are in order. Of course, it is a proposal up until the date that is mentioned in Part 1. I am ruling that these amendments are in order.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(5) The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 October 2010.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was not clear from how that vote was cast whether the National whip was casting a vote on behalf of the Māori Party or United Future, because of the way in which it was put to him. I might be missing something—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. The Māori Party did not exercise its right to take a vote, and the only votes recorded were for National, Labour, the Greens, ACT, and United Future. So that was the vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could I ask that in future there be at least some pause, so that we can tell the difference? Otherwise, it is impossible to tell who is, or who is not, voting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think it is very clear. One has only to look around the Chamber to see who is likely to be taking a vote, so I do not accept that proposition, at all.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to be unhelpful, but I think the problem is simply that as the Clerk at the Table calls—and it is not her problem—before she has the words out, my colleague stands up and votes. It is very difficult to hear which way that is going, because there are two voices. If the member would just pause for a moment so that the Clerk can finish calling, then the issue would be resolved.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): OK. No, I do not need any help. There is a sequence of votes, which is very clear; we have been doing this for much of yesterday and much of today. There is actually a sequence to how we vote; I do not accept the member’s proposition, at all. But the member who is casting the vote for United Future might take just a slight pause before he casts that vote.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(5) The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 28 September 2010.

Before I take the next amendment, it has been drawn to my attention that one has been missed. I shall therefore take that vote now.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(5) The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 6 September 2010.

I seek leave to mihi and welcome the youngsters in the gallery this afternoon.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

It is wonderful to have you in the gallery watching the members of Parliament performing, and it is great that you have turned up here this afternoon. This is the bastion—the Parliament—of our country, and we are certainly getting through our work well this afternoon. It is good to have you here. Kia ora.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(5) The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 23 June 2010.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise this matter very quickly not to interrupt the Committee but to ensure that the Māori Party is aware that the voting on the translation amendments is occurring. The point of this point of order is that if the members of the Māori Party are watching television, they should come down to the Chamber and vote, because these amendments are the ones they wanted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. Members of the Māori Party will be listening, no doubt, to these amendments, and it is up to them as to whether they wish to participate.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(6) The official Māori name for the council is Te Ruunanga o Tāmaki Makaurau.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is not really a point of order, but is this the amendment about Te Kaunihera o Ngāti Whātua? We are a bit lost, if you are saying that that is the same.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is the same as a previous amendment, not the previous amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(6) The official Māori name for the council is Te Kaunihera o nga tangata whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau.

We have as amendment No. 8 Te Ngākau o Ākarana, and the other amendment, the fourth amendment, is the Te Ruunanga o Ākarana. They are not the same; they are quite different.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are talking about the amendment we are referring to as amendment No. 9, which is the same as the second amendment from the top, as well. The second from the top and the one referred to here are exactly the same. Is that all right? Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 9 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(6) The official Māori name for the council is Te Kaunihera o Ākarana.