Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

The assets involved in the entities to which the bill refers are worth about $27.2 billion. They provide annual revenue of about $2.3 billion. The royal commission report and the explanatory note of the bill reveal that those assets, which are currently owned by the people of Auckland, are central concerns of this reform. One has only to turn to the general policy statement in the explanatory note to see that that is so. The need for safeguards and constraints in decision making by local authorities and their subsidiaries during the transition period is also identified as a central matter of the concerns being dealt with by the Committee today.

That is why it is unusual, in my view, that there is nothing in this legislation to ensure that those $27.2 billion worth of public assets are protected during the transition period. An extremely powerful authority is being created by the legislation. It has all the powers of the entities that it replaces, yet nowhere is there any safeguard to guarantee that those assets owned by the people of Auckland—which are listed in my proposed new schedule 2—will be protected and kept in public ownership during the transition period. The people of Auckland and, indeed, the people of New Zealand deserve an assurance that that will occur, They deserve an assurance that this reform is not all about privatisation, as many of us suspect, either in the short term or in the long term, but, in fact, there will be a guarantee that those assets are kept in the ownership of the ratepayers of Auckland.

That is what my Part 9 would ensure. It requires that the Auckland Transition Agency should not sell or otherwise dispose of, or sell any equity securities, or surrender any voting rights in, or relinquish any right to appoint trustees, directors, or managers of any asset or organisation listed in schedule 2 during the transition period. Obviously, because of the scope of the bill, the amendment deals only with the transition period, but members on this side hope that no assets will ever be alienated in Auckland as a result of this reform. The protected assets that are set out in schedule 2 are the parks of the people of Auckland, the swimming pools of the people of Auckland, and the public libraries of the region, and the assets of the region such as those held by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority.

💬 Simon Bridges: Stop reading!

That member might benefit from actually reading the schedule, instead of interjecting, and deciding what his position is. It would be nice if National were to commit once and for all to public ownership of these assets, rather than using mealy-mouthed weasel words about whether it has any commitment to the ownership of public assets. Make no mistake, members on this side of the Chamber strongly believe in retaining these assets in public ownership. That is what my Part 9 is about and that is what my schedule 2 will bring about. It will forbid this shadowy appointed agency from selling these assets during the transition period without any public scrutiny and without any ability for the public of Auckland to have a say on it. I would like to hear the Minister in the chair, John Carter, take a call and commit that side of the Chamber to the position that is set out in this part. It would be great to hear a commitment not to sell Ports of Auckland Ltd, Metro Water, Auckland International Airport Ltd, or Watercare Services. Those fantastic assets have delivered a great return to the people of Auckland. They are strategic to the future of the region, and they must be kept in public ownership, not alienated by the shadowy body of appointed cronies who will be running Auckland for the time it takes to deal with the transition.

I would like to talk in particular about the assets in South Auckland, because they are of real concern. Members on this side of the Chamber have been to meetings in South Auckland and have heard from ordinary people in that part of the region that they are worried that they might lose access to their free swimming pools as a result of this reform. They might lose access to the fantastic services that are currently provided by the excellent Manukau City Council, of which my colleague Su’a William Sio was formerly the deputy mayor, and of which Len Brown is currently doing a fine job as mayor. That city has made a real effort to reach out to its people and provide them with excellent services, as have Waitakere City, Auckland City, and the other entities dealt with by this legislation. But nowhere in this bill is there any interdiction against the selling of those assets, and that is a major omission. It is just like the absence of any decent personnel provisions, which was the deficit that my colleague Darien Fenton sought to remedy earlier. This deficit must be remedied, because the people of Auckland must be assured that there will not be any alienation of assets, either during the transition period or afterwards.

I spoke about the quantum of the assets involved, and I said that the value of the assets was $27.2 billion, with annual revenue of $2.3 billion. There must be an assurance—we must hear it today from members on the opposite side—that the assets will be kept in public ownership.

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chair—

💬 Hon Member: Unbelievable!

That was unbelievable from Todd McClay, as my colleague said, because we have not had one speech from him in this debate. It is interesting that the debate on the retention of public assets is the debate that the National Government wants to shut down the quickest. Is it not interesting that the one thing National does not want us to talk about in this Chamber today is the retention of public assets? We on this side of the Chamber know that the real agenda of the Minister in charge of this bill, Rodney Hide, is privatisation. That is the real agenda. Roger Douglas will not deny it. He knows that that is the real agenda of the ACT Party and of the Minister who is responsible for this bill.

New Part 9, proposed by my colleague Charles Chauvel, will protect public assets for Auckland people at least for the time of the transition agency—because that is what this bill deals with. If we could put forward something that could protect those assets beyond that, then we would, because we know that the agenda of Rodney Hide and the National - ACT Government is to privatise those assets. We know that is the agenda.

💬 Simon Bridges: Give me the evidence.

Simon Bridges wants some evidence. The evidence is the Minister in the chair—at the moment it is John Carter, although usually it is Rodney Hide. The Minister responsible for the bill and the Minister in the chair are the evidence for the privatisation agenda. Rodney Hide said that the transition agency would be responsible for the rationalisation of governance arrangements. We know what rationalisation means to people in the ACT Party. It means selling off public assets that have been built up over generations in Auckland. Generations of Aucklanders have contributed to the growth of the services and assets in their region. The parks, the swimming pools, and all the securities they now have in that region are the result of generations of hard-working Aucklanders, who are now having all that trashed by the National Government.

National and ACT should be ashamed that they will not support this new part, because it would give at least a scrap of reassurance to people in Auckland that their assets are safe. The powers of the transition agency are so broad and so wide that anything is possible under it. Every single decision of the existing councils is under review. The wide-ranging powers of this agency need some kind of control, and that is what New Part 9 does. It ensures that for the time of the transition agency the list of public assets in schedule 2 will be protected.

We know that the people who Rodney Hide will appoint to the transition agency will not be the kind of people who are interested in the protection of public assets. We know that the agency will be made up of Rodney Hide’s friends. Mr Hide will be the only person who decides who will be on the transition agency. What kind of democratic approach is that? Here is an agency that is taking on the powers of councils right across Auckland, and one man—Rodney Hide—is deciding who is on that agency.

As my colleague Darren Hughes said earlier this morning, Rodney Hide has been playing National for years, and its members have fallen in right behind him. Rodney Hide will decide who is on the transition agency and who will control the assets of Auckland. We on this side of the Chamber have absolutely no confidence that the transition agency will not seek to sell off public assets.

We have no confidence, because we know the background. It is the reason that Roger Douglas is back here. He has returned from the political grave to come back into this Parliament and force on that party over there the agenda of privatisation. That is why he is here. He tried it in the 1980s, but he did not quite get there in the end. He was foiled, so he is back now to run this agenda through the National Government. He and Rodney Hide will make sure that those assets can be sold off in time, and they will bring their cronies in to run the transition agency.

We on this side of the Chamber are saying no. We are here on a Saturday morning trying to protect the public assets of Auckland, which were built up over generations of hard-working Aucklanders who have said that they want assets they can all share in. They want swimming pools. They want parks that their children can play in. So here we are today, on a Saturday morning, saying that we will not let Rodney Hide run his agenda through this Parliament—we will not do that.

National had the option to send this bill to a select committee. It could have done that. Why has it not done that? I want to see a member of National get up and say why the people of Auckland do not deserve a chance to make submissions on this bill. Why do they not have the opportunity to say they believe their public assets are important and that they want to ensure their children have parks to play in? That is the opportunity National should be giving Aucklanders today, and it has taken that right away.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take the opportunity that Charles Chauvel’s amendment presents to bring home again why we are here today. The point about this whole debate is that the people of Auckland have not been given a chance to have a say on things that will affect their daily lives—things that will intimately affect the way their lives are governed in the wider Auckland region. That is why we are here. I am delighted that members of the public have taken the opportunity of the Committee sitting on a Saturday—in outside terms; in temporal terms—to come and see why we are doing this.

Let me be completely explicit and transparent about this. The Government worries that our amendments are frivolous and vexatious, and that we are wasting the time of the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that this Government is trying to railroad issues through this House that the people of Auckland have not had a chance to examine through the usual democratic process of making a submission to a select committee. That is why we are challenging the faults, the deficits, and the liabilities in the legislation that is in front of us.

My colleague Charles Chauvel has introduced an amendment here that goes to the heart of the matter. It is about the protection of public assets. There is no protection for public assets in the bill before us on the whole super-city structure that is being promoted by the Government, against the recommendations of the royal commission. There is no protection for public assets to remain as public assets. Let me just be clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about assets that people in local communities have agitated for, campaigned about, petitioned on, donated money towards, and been rated for, for years and years. They are places like the Long Bay Regional Park. They are places like Little Shoal Bay Foreshore Reserve in Northcote. They might be places like Rocket Park in Mount Albert. They might be places like Mountford Park in Manurewa—a very fine park named after a very fine Labour councillor, in fact. They might be places like the regional botanical gardens in Manurewa.

Those kinds of local assets, regionally and locally held on behalf of the people for the public’s enjoyment, are many of the things that make our local communities as rich as they are. If we go to libraries and swimming pools—and if the members opposite would care to read the amendment, they would see those facilities are listed on it—we will realise this is a question of equity. This is a question about who gets access to books and sporting facilities unless they are held in the public domain for the use of the public. Those assets must be protected. It must be possible for poor families who do not have facilities on their doorsteps and swimming pools in their backyards to have access to the local facilities that have been built up over time, after having been petitioned for, argued for, and funded by local people.

It is that richness of facility and asset that my colleague Charles Chauvel is trying to protect in his amendment. There is no protection in the bill currently before the House for those assets. Why would the members opposite not expect the Labour Opposition to get up and defend those things? They are public assets, and there is no guarantee that the kinds of transitional arrangements that the Government is putting up will protect these assets.

I will say one more thing about this amendment. It is a modest proposal. It is only about the transition period; it is not even in perpetuity—although goodness knows we could do with that kind of protection, as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Colin King—[Interruption] I have called Colin King. The member has not been able to get a word out so far, and I have a constant barrage coming from the other side of the Chamber. Can we just please hear what Mr King wants to tell us.

I move, That the question be now put.

My colleague Maryan Street has noted that new Part 9 is a temporary measure, if you will, in respect of the Auckland Transition Agency. But I just point out a couple of things, as well. The National Party pledged in its election campaign that it would not sell any public assets at least in its first term. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill sets up a transition agency of which all assets—including those that Manukau, for instance, retained—fall under the purview and the power. Effectively, then, those assets have been nationalised to the Government, because that agency is appointed by and reports directly to the tsar of local government, Mr Hide. Mr Hide will appoint his asset-stripping, villainous mates to that agency, so one could quite logically say that Mr Hide—and therefore, since he is a Government Minister, the Government—will control all assets brought into the agency from Greater Auckland. Yet not one clause in this bill guarantees that any of those assets will not be sold.

I ask the Minister—or perhaps a National member, because it was National’s promise—to get up today. If National is not prepared to accept Mr Chauvel’s new part that would guarantee that those assets would be retained at least during the transition, then I invite a National Minister, perhaps Mr Brownlee, to get up and provide us with that guarantee, therefore fulfilling his and his Government’s election promise.

💬 Hon Member: An Auckland member.

Yes, an Auckland member, as my colleague says; an Auckland member would do. I look around. Maybe an Auckland member is hovering around here—Mr Hide is the Minister in the chair.

This is important. We have to ask what the motivation is for not giving such a guarantee. We know that Mr Hide’s whole life has been one of attempting to strip out public assets and public ownership. His whole purpose for being, he tells us, is to asset-strip from the public purse. There is no guarantee in this legislation that he will not appoint his villainous mates to this agency—because he will. He will appoint those people who have a motivation to strip out assets. I know I am right, and do members know why? Why would Rodney Hide appoint people who did not agree with him? Of course he would appoint those who agree with his philosophy—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: And they’ll get a gong!

And, as my colleague says, they will probably get a gong. Mr Hide is on record many times as saying in respect of this super-city proposal—and I am sure he will not disagree with me—that he wants more private enterprise in local government. We know what “private enterprise in local government” is code for. The good people of Manukau—and of other places, in other local authorities—who chose to keep their assets, build them up, retain them, and gain revenue from them, will now have those assets completely stripped away under an agency that Mr Hide will appoint his mates to, and that is absolutely answerable in all ways to him. His policy is to sell off assets.

I ask Mr Brownlee whether he will take a call. Will he respond, perhaps by interjection, and say that he will guarantee that Mr Hide will not be able to strip, through his mates on this agency, the assets of the super-city? Or perhaps Georgina te Heuheu will respond. There is silence. Silence means they have answered the question. I say to those who ask why we are sitting here today that today, if this bill passes, the Government will have nationalised unto itself—yea, nationalised to Mr Hide—all the assets of the Greater Auckland region. Then I tell those people who are listening to hold their breath.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: New Zealand’s not listening.

What an arrogant little new member that member is. He said: “New Zealand’s not listening.” I suspect that in that member’s electorate, and in Epsom and in other places, they are listening and they will be listening if asset stripping takes place.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Michael Woodhouse.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Mr Chairperson—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I point you to Speaker’s ruling 16/1 in regard to the use of cellphones. I ask you to ask Mr Quinn to remove the blockage from his ear. He has been using his cellphone for about the last half an hour.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not really a point of order. Members know the rules about cellphones. They are not to be used in the Chamber, although, having said that, there is some inconsistency because the Chamber is littered with other sorts of phones. I am not sure how we justify the distinction, but we do.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My colleague Mr Roger Douglas pointed out to me that he wondered whether you had noticed that we were here and were trying to take a call. He thought that maybe you had not noticed us. I just wanted to make the point that we are here and we are very, very anxious to take a call on this matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that I am well aware that she and the Green Party are here.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this proposed new part, because this actually gets to the heart of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I have already said that what we are seeing here, with this bill, is “Rogernomics Part 2”. Suddenly all of New Zealand can understand why Roger Douglas took himself out of retirement to come back to Parliament, and why Rodney Hide chose to be Minister of Local Government. At the time some people were a bit perplexed. Why would Rodney Hide want to be Minister of Local Government? But now the reasons are all unfolding.

We need to be clear that ACT and the new right have realised that they have been thwarted in this term of Government from selling off assets—further State-owned enterprises—at the national level. The Prime Minister has made that clear. I can imagine a breakfast where they all got together and contemplated “What are we going to do to advance our agenda in this term of Government, because unfortunately we will not be able to achieve our objective of selling off the remaining publicly owned, State-owned, enterprises in New Zealand?”. They said: “Ah, I know what we’ll do. There is $28 billion worth of assets in local government.” I can imagine them sitting around at a breakfast meeting, saying “I know what we will do. First of all, we will get rid of those annoying, irritating eight city councils and that whole layer of democracy, because they have really been quite irritating and they have not yet fallen into corporate hands. We will get rid of them. Then we will set up a completely new local government structure”—which this bill is doing—“that concentrates power in the hands of the executive and the hands of the mayor.”

This is what academics call “the new strong mayor model”. Basically it means that the mayor can have complete control of the Auckland Council by picking the deputy mayor and the chairs, and by coming up with the agenda and the long-term plan. Then the mayor can unleash the agenda on to the unsuspecting voters of Auckland. And they are unsuspecting, because none of this was mentioned in the ACT Party or National Party manifestos before the last election. What will the agenda be? We know that the agenda is to sell off local government assets. Someone on the Government benches yelled out “What’s your proof?”. Can I suggest that National Government members read the ACT Party’s local government policy. It is on the website, and it is plain and clear for everyone to see.

At least ACT is honest about its policies. It does not try to hide them. ACT is quite up front. ACT says in its local government policy that it wants to privatise effectively all of the commercial assets that these councils own, such as the Ports of Auckland, the airport, and so forth, and it wants the roads to be privatised, and water to be privatised. The rest of that $28 billion worth of assets will be put into corporate boards and then those corporate boards will be at arm’s length from the council. The councillors, those who are not in the control of John Banks and his merry men—even if there were some left-wing members who were able to find themselves elected on to the Auckland Council—will have no control because all of these assets will be put into these corporate boards, at arm’s length, and of course they will all meet in secret, and they will then begin to unleash this agenda of privatising the assets of Auckland; assets that have been built up for many years.

This is the second part of the agenda. It was plotted out. It is the reason they have all come together and got Roger Douglas back into Parliament and why we have Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government. I am worried that Aucklanders will realise this when it is too late.

💬 Hon Member: That’s what happens.

It is what happens. There was another piece of legislation that slipped through last year. Nobody cared much about it. The Green Party tried frantically to alert New Zealanders to this legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

This amendment, to insert a new Part 9, goes to the heart of this debate. If the inevitable happens and the National Government succeeds, with the assistance of Rodney Hide—

💬 Hon Member: And Peter Dunne.

—and Peter Dunne, thank you—in ramming through this legislation, then this day will go down in history for Aucklanders as the day when National and ACT stole their democracy. The day will also go down in history as the day when National and ACT stole $28 billion of public assets and put them on the auction block for future administrations to flog off.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

38A Interpretation

In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—

sell has the meaning it has in the Sale of Goods Act 1908

voting has the meaning it has in the Electoral Act 1993.

That brings us to the substantive amendment—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know there is quite a lot of movement going on to your left and to your right, but many more amendments were tabled before the question on the first amendment was put. Those amendments have been tabled to the Clerk’s Office; they are on this part. It may take a few seconds for your staff to catch up with you, but I think it is fair to say that there are hundreds of questions for you to deal with before you get to the substantive question on the part.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. I cannot wait. It is always good for people to try to catch up with me; it is not usual. I will ask the Clerk to check the veracity of what the member has said, and to ensure that all the amendments to the amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel are being considered, before I put the question on the Charles Chauvel amendment to insert a new Part 9. We will just pause for a moment in silence, unless someone has a very good story or a humorous yarn to amuse us with while we sort this out.

Members, I will do something unusual here. The amendments to proposed new Part 9 that were moved by Moana Mackey follow a very similar form, which is: “Notwithstanding any other provision the residents of [Dominion Road] in [North Shore City] shall be understood to have a public interest in any Auckland Council owned assets.” The test for relevance of an amendment is that it has to be serious, has to stand in law, and has to be accurately described. The Clerk and I have been backwards and forwards across this issue, and it seems that a judgment call needs to be made. I invite someone from the Opposition, which has put forward these amendments, to put the case for why the amendments should stand. I also invite Government members to make a submission on whether they think the amendments should stand—I will not prejudge what they think. Following those submissions, I will make a decision.

Before I make a decision and we have some discussion about it afterwards, I want members to make a submission as to why they believe that these amendments meet the requirements not only of the Standing Orders but also of the interpretation of Dave McGee, who wrote Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand and is well known to members.

Can you give us the reference?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Page 379. [Interruption] Just to answer the question by Gerry Brownlee, when I make a ruling on this matter there will no doubt be some controversy, because people put a lot of time and effort into these amendments. I thought it would be better to have some discussion about them before I ruled than to have a continuous stream of points of order after I rule. I thought we should get the issues on the table and have a bit of a discussion about them before I make a ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Speaking on your course of action, I think you are doing the right thing. There needs to be some consideration of this matter. Certainly, on the face of it, this side of the Committee will have an opinion. I wonder how you feel about putting yourself in this position. I do not want to be in the position of recalling the Speaker because we are questioning your course of action; we are not. I just wonder, given the nature of this particular ruling—you are not in a position to recall the Speaker; that is not how it works—how you feel about it. Are you comfortable progressing with this course of action? If you are, then I think we would leave it there at this point. Otherwise, if you indicate you wish to have the Speaker back, then we will cooperate with that course of action, as well. That statement is not meant in any way to detract from the course of action you have proposed; I think it is probably the right way to go about things.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just say to the member that it is a line call. I have outlined the criteria for amendments, and I have outlined that I am about to rule, but I thought that before I make a decision I would invite opinions from either side of the Committee. I have indicated where the terms of McGee and the Standing Orders are in relation to what I am interested in. I know from past experience that when I make a decision—as I will do—it will be litigated, so I am just turning it round and suggesting that we have some litigation in front, and then the issues will be a bit clearer, rather than having endless points of order after the ruling. If, at the end of that discussion, members are unhappy with my decision, I accept that you can recall the Speaker, but at that point the issues will have been much better clarified. I do not have any ego about this; if you want to challenge my ruling, I am OK about that. I presume that Mr Mallard will put forward a case as to why these amendments should stand.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Yes, Mr Chair. I am working on the assumption that the consideration is not whether the amendments are vague or lacking form. I just want to test that with you—that the question before you, I presume, is not a question of vagueness, because the amendments are not vague; they are quite clear. I think they are in the proper form for amendments and for incorporation into law, and I want to make sure before I start this discussion that that is accepted. If that is not accepted, then we could come back again with more discussion.

We then go to the question of whether the proposed amendments are frivolous. That is an important question, and I accept that there could be a discussion on the question. The particular amendment we are talking about concerns Dominion Road in North Shore City, and whether the residents of that particular road have a public interest in the Auckland Council - owned assets. I am working on the assumption again that there is not a lot of debate around the Auckland Council and that it owns assets, that they are public assets, and that the public has an interest in them.

We then go to the definition of “frivolous”—and a number of people will be looking in their different dictionaries. A key part of the definition goes to the words “not serious”, “trifling”, and “futile”. I want to make it clear that Opposition members are absolutely serious on this particular issue. There is a fundamental debate to be had here about the assets and about who has an interest in them—whether it is the residents, including the residents of particular areas, who have an interest in the assets, or whether the assets should be available for transfer away from the residents of those particular areas to others.

That is my view, and it is certainly the view of the Opposition. I am not suggesting that it is automatic that the Committee will necessarily agree with this amendment. It is a question of whether the Opposition should have the right to test the will of the Committee on this amendment. It is my view that the amendment is a serious amendment, and one that deserves the attention of the Committee. It is something on which the Committee can express its view, and it should be allowed to do so.

We most certainly have a view. If one thinks about the substantial bill, one will find that it is about the transitional arrangements that are to exist beyond the passing of this bill, for the integration of the various Auckland local authorities into one entity. I am pleased to hear the Opposition agree that there will be many assets across the city of Auckland, it is certain, that will come under some structure directly accountable to the Auckland Council, which will be the much wider body to look at these things.

This amendment attempts to suggest that certain residents in certain roads—I believe that some 500 roads are nominated—have a greater interest in those council-owned assets than any other person in Auckland. That is simply not the case. The Auckland Council is there for the residents of the Greater Auckland City, whatever that configuration may end up being—that is yet to be determined. It would be quite inappropriate to suggest that the interests of one street, or these 500 streets, are greater than any others. I think the suggestion that we need to protect these particular streets because of a particularly special interest is quite wrong.

I suppose these are attempts to call attention to the part that Labour is attempting to insert in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which, in National’s view, is an unnecessary part. We most certainly think that it goes back to a single point: are the interests of any one resident, in any of these streets, identified in successive amendments, any greater than the interests of another? That would, on its own, suggest that this is an utterly frivolous way to go about considering these matters.

The protections of Aucklanders are intrinsic in the transitional arrangements that have been dealt with by the Committee so far. For Labour members to come along and suggest that they are doing some great and good work for particular residents is an extreme stretch. Putting up amendments in the names of a mere 500 streets inside the Greater Auckland area does indicate an act of trivial pursuit in this particular debate. A Parliament cannot be made to look stupid by things like this. We cannot be put in a position where, having dealt with the substantive part of a bill, we then insert some part or amendments that tend to second-guess the intention of Part 3.

It is also interesting to note that these are amendments to one of the extra parts that Labour itself wishes to submit. I would have thought that, in the consideration that clearly would have gone on during the preparation of this particular part, that reference might have been raised about the need to protect particular streets. I cannot believe that the preparation of these 500-odd amendments was a last-minute thing, which leads me back to the point that Labour members are very much engaged in a trivial pursuit.

If members go back to Part 3, which has been dealt with by the Committee, the interests of the people in Auckland and the assets that will be part of the new Auckland City are extremely well-protected as far as transitional arrangements are concerned. This Committee cannot pre-empt what might be in the bill that is expected in September, and where some of these matters may be made more clear. The reason for having a transitional agency is so there can be consideration about how things will go forward.

I think three points are relevant. The first point is that this is an amendment to Labour’s own proposed amendment to the bill by way of a new part, and is therefore very poorly considered at this late point. The second point is that the transitional arrangements in Part 3 already make the protections for all Aucklanders, and the Committee has dealt with that matter. The third point—and it must be upheld—is that in a bill dealing with an entire region, to single out individual streets as apparently having some greater interest for no reason other than that they are a street inside the proposed Auckland Council area, cannot be allowed to stand. It is a great effort in trivialising the activities of the Committee, and I think it would be appropriate if these amendments were ruled out of order.

I have taken some time, because we have been directed to page 379 of McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. The point of that particular reference is that the Chair or Speaker has the power to rule out amendments that are frivolous, vague, or lack legislative form—that is to say, they lack precision. Amendments must be in a form of words that may be embodied in law.

I suggest there is no other course of action but to rule these amendments out, because when one goes through them, one can see that a map of Auckland has been used, and that each clause picks out a street name at random and says that particular street is understood to have a public interest in Auckland Council - owned assets. That has to be regarded as frivolous, because street after street is named. When taken in the context of the amendments that have been put up, that has to be frivolous, and it would cause this Committee to become a laughing stock.

The proposed amendments are also vague. It is not quite clear how it is possible for one street to have a particular interest over and above that of any other street. I say that what that would mean is a mystery to all and sundry. The proposed amendments are vague and therefore lack legislative form. Of course, there is the final problem: no one street in the Auckland Council area has any greater interest than that of any other street. That in itself makes the amendments a nonsense. The primary bill that members are here debating does not threaten anyone’s interest in publicly owned property.

I submit that there is no option but for the Chair to rule these amendments out of order.

I have three points to make. The first point, Mr Chairperson, is where your call, on balance, should go. It is my firm view that generally it is the right of Oppositions to put amendments. It is the democratic right of all members of Parliament to put amendments. If there is any doubt at all, then it should be the House that decides whether an amendment is put. The second point I would make is that the arguments we have heard from both Mr Brownlee and Mr Hide are arguments—which some members might find compelling—on the substance of the amendments. They think that the amendments are bad, that they are wrong, and that people should not vote for them. There is a pretty clear answer to that, and it is to vote against the amendments when they come up. This is not a debate about whether they are good amendments or bad amendments, or whether the propositions that are put are right or wrong; the question is whether the House has the right to consider to them. It is my submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that they are serious, relevant, in the right form, and serve to emphasise a point that is very important to all Opposition members. They were lodged properly—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s covered. The matters are covered in Part 3.

Mr Chairperson, is the member allowed to make a running commentary?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the member is quite right. I want to hear just Mr Mallard.

So, in summary, your discretion should be exercised very sparingly. These amendments are substantive, and if members disagree with them, they have the right to vote against them.

I thank members. That has clarified matters quite considerably for me. The first point I make is in response to the point raised by Mr Brownlee about the House looking stupid. That is a fair point, but it is not entirely for the Speaker to prevent the House from looking stupid—that is up to members and how they deal with things. The second point I make to Mr Mallard is that members do have the right to move, and that is what has been exercised here. Mr Mallard said that the Committee should decide whether these amendments are right or wrong. The question before us is whether we will do this collectively or individually. If we were going to make this decision collectively, then I could put it to the Committee, to test the will of the Committee, as to whether we accept these amendments. However, that is abrogating the role and responsibility of the Chair, and I am not about to do that.

Regarding the issue raised by Mr Brownlee about fairness to Aucklanders, I think it is almost like a bill of rights test as to whether this should be a consideration. I think that gets closer to the point. There is no doubt that the amendments as they stand are in the legislative form. There is no doubt that they could be written into legislation. The Clerk said to me that one of the considerations I should have as a Chair is about consistency. There are many examples in legislation of inconsistent bills and Acts. I ask the members to look at the smoke-free legislation. Parliament has not always been consistent, and I do not think that consistency is entirely the right test.

I think that we are getting closer to the point, which was made by Mr Brownlee, that this is a bill about all Aucklanders. That point has been re-emphasised by the Hon Rodney Hide—that one interest group should not be superior to another. The bill we have before us is a public bill about setting public policy for all Aucklanders. It is not about setting policy for the interests of private individuals. I think that the issue here is that these amendments as they stand will be setting policy for private individuals and private interests. It is about individuals who are private residents in particular streets, that is, they are residents in those streets as private individuals. Therefore, I am of the view that these amendments are about private interests and not about the interests of Auckland or about public policy for Auckland. The amendment to insert new Part 9 that has been put up Mr Chauvel was in order, because it was about public policy that treats all Aucklanders in the same way; it was about public interests. But the interests of individual property owners in a street are private interests, and they should be dealt with by way of another bill—a private bill. I therefore rule the amendments out of order.

As you anticipated in your preliminary remarks, this is something that, in my opinion, requires a Speaker’s ruling. I move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the judgment given by the Chairperson.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled