Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

It is so nice to get to speak. It is nice to be able to debate the issues once again.

Part 3 is concerned with the transitional arrangements that must be made in order for the Auckland Council to be ready to assume its role in late 2010, which is something that we understand Labour is keen on but is not prepared to support. Accordingly, this part commences on the day after this bill receives the Royal assent, with the exception of clauses 27 and 28 and Subpart 3 of Part 3, which come into force on the close of 31 October 2010.

This bill enables the reorganisation process to commence, but it does not contain all the legislative provisions that will need to apply to the change on 1 November 2010. Further policy work by officials, and investigation and analysis by the Auckland Transition Agency, are needed to identify what other provisions will be needed at that time. Additional provisions will therefore be included in a third bill to be introduced around October of this year and enacted by May 2010.

Part 3 covers a range of matters, including establishing the Auckland Transition Agency, which is responsible for developing and establishing arrangements to enable the Auckland Council to operate once it is established. Part 3 also sets out the specific functions of the Auckland Transition Agency, such as the appointment of an interim chief executive officer of the Auckland Council. Part 3 also sets out the accountability and reporting requirements of the Auckland Transition Agency. However, it disestablishes the Auckland Transition Agency once the Auckland Council comes into existence.

Part 3 requires that in certain situations the existing Auckland local authorities and their subsidiaries must obtain the consent of the Auckland Transition Agency before implementing decisions. That is in order to prevent the councils from making decisions that would compromise the Auckland Council. Part 3 also provides for the expenditure and recovery of costs for the Auckland Transition Agency, and it requires that existing local government organisations cooperate with the Auckland Transition Agency in responding to requests for information and for the secondment of staff.

We also have some amendments.

Hon Darren Hughes: So do we!

Hon RODNEY HIDE: These amendments include clarifications and responses to concerns raised by the councils and by Ports of Auckland Ltd. I say to Mr Darren Hughes that I am conscious that Labour may well have some amendments, but our amendments are in response to concerns that the councils have raised.

The first amendment corrects a cross-reference error in clause 13. Then there are three amendments proposed to clause 31. The first provides that subclause (2) does not apply to Ports of Auckland or its subsidiaries. This responds to concerns from Ports of Auckland that the application of that provision might prejudice its commercial operations. Ports of Auckland will still be subject to high-level oversight by the Auckland Transition Agency, and to the oversight of its owners, Auckland Regional Holdings and the Auckland Regional Council.

The second amendment amends subclause (3) of clause 31 to respond to council concerns that the $5,000 threshold for the councils is too low. The threshold is raised to $20,000, and the requirement that the provision apply only to contracts extending past June 2011 is clarified.

The third amendment is to subclause (4). It makes similar changes to the threshold for contracts by council-controlled organisations and similar entities. It is acknowledged that these provisions will catch legitimate contracts that are sensible, business-as-usual decisions made by the councils and other organisations, and, accordingly, most decisions will be confirmed by the Auckland Transition Agency. However, the provisions are necessary to safeguard the future of the Auckland Council.

I commend Part 3 to the Committee.

I will begin by saying that we should not necessarily be here now. If Gerry Brownlee had brought in urgency on Tuesday, things may have progressed a bit more. But, then again, if the Hon Rodney Hide had been more democratic and given Aucklanders the chance to have a say on this, we would not be here trying to delay matters. I think this is very important—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have waited a long time for this debate, and the requirement is that members address Part 3.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 3, the transition provisions. I ask the member to focus on those.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am now going to ask for some even-handedness. The first 2 minutes of Rodney Hide’s speech, which he read, were a first reading, or possibly a second reading, speech. It dealt with other bills that will be coming into the House. It dealt with other parts of this bill. This member is—well, first of all, I see that the clock has not stopped for the point of order. This member was about half a minute into his speech when he was interrupted. I think he should be allowed at least as much time as the Minister had before he got on to this part—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for those comments. Although some introductory remarks are OK, it is important that we move back to the substance of the part we are on. I apologise to the member because while the points of order were being raised I did not stop the clock, so I will ask the member to start again.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The difficulty is that the Hon Trevor Mallard did not raise a point of order; all that he did was contest a ruling that you had already given.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I made a mistake in not turning the clock off, and I apologise for that. I am inviting the Hon George Hawkins to start his speech again, bearing in mind the points I have just made. We are on Part 3.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: What I really want to say is that we should not be here at the moment. It is because the Government has mucked it up. The Hon Gerry Brownlee should have taken urgency on Tuesday. If he had, then we would not be here, but, of course, he did not. That means that we are now addressing Part 3, “Transitional arrangements”, and, of course, we will not finish that for a long, long time.

The transitional arrangements are very, very important. But did the Auckland local bodies get a say? No, they did not. I say that they should have had a say. This morning I spoke to the Mayor of Papakura and I mentioned the transitional arrangements. Of course, when one talks to people, one finds that they are feeling quite angry.

Let us have a look at clause 13, “Functions and duties of Transition Agency”, and in particular at subclause (e), which states: “to provide information to the public of Auckland, or any section of that public, as it thinks fit, in relation to the reorganisation:”. There is the demand that they have to say something to the people of Auckland and give them some information, but what does this Government do? It completely ignores the people of Auckland, and it has a different set of rules lined up in the bill. I have sat here and watched Sir Roger Douglas, and I now know why he came back to Parliament—it is so that he can push things through without giving Aucklanders a chance to have a say. I think it is tragic that someone who has been such an important person over years gone by has to get up and say “Five against.”, all the time.

The next clause I want to talk about is clause 13(1)(f), which states: “to second employees from any existing local government organisation to the Transition Agency:”. What powers has it been given? You see, what happens is that as soon as this bill is passed, the councils of Auckland lose most of their powers. They have gone around and consulted their 10-year plans, and talked to their communities. But all that has been for nought—absolutely nothing—because they lose all their powers, and the Auckland Transition Agency has all the power it wants.

Where are the protections for ordinary people in the Auckland area? Where are they? I do not see people getting up. I listened to Trevor Mallard yesterday saying that in another local body the burial records got lost—that is very important. We must be absolutely aware that hand-picked people are being given a huge amount of power, which I think is very interesting, for them to develop an organisational structure for the Auckland Council so that it can operate effectively and efficiently from 1 November 2010. We want to see something operating effectively. What we are saying is that the road that leads to it is not a smooth road. It is a road where so many people are put on the side—on the footpath—they cannot make progress, because this transition agency has all the power. We have to ask why the Government is not prepared to let people have a say on this. Why is it not saying to the people that it wants their opinions on Part 3? Will it do that? No, it will not. It will not give people the opportunity for a say. It has been a bad week for the Government, a very bad week, and it is getting worse.

I point out to the Committee that the previous speaker is the Opposition’s lead speaker; that is the best it can do. That must be a disappointment for everybody, for a start. I draw the Committee’s attention to two points. There are a couple of things we need to tell the Committee that are actually quite important. This silly issue of all the Auckland councils suddenly losing their power is just nonsense. Nothing changes; nothing changes there. The first point is that the powers exist until they go out of existence after the local body elections in 2010. The second point to remember is that if members care to read the bill, they will see that the Auckland Transition Agency may review, if it wishes to. But the fact is that, provided local government in Auckland has gone through its long-term council community plans, put in the things that it intends to do, told the public and consulted them, and raised the rates to fund it, then it will be permitted to carry on doing it, because that is exactly what it is expected to do.

As I was explaining to one of Labour’s former colleagues, Richard Northey, this morning, we are not worried about the councils continuing to spend money as they have in the past and as the people expect them to. What we do not want is the Auckland City Council suddenly deciding it will spend $1 million on putting up a statue for Richard Northey. We do not think that would be a wise expenditure of ratepayers’ money. Therefore, the transition committee will be vetting that sort of decision, if it is made. Quite honestly, it is unlikely that the local authorities in Auckland will make that sort of decision. It is very likely that there will be very little interference from the Auckland Transition Agency; nevertheless we do need to make sure that, for example, local authorities are not out there using ratepayers’ money to ensure that they were not misleading the public on issues in relation to this bill, as they have been doing up to date. The transition agency is there just to ensure the ratepayers are protected. Surely even the Opposition would want that to happen.

The second point I want to draw to the Committee’s attention, which I think is quite important and I thought the Opposition might think so too, is clause 36, which relates to employees. I would have thought that one of the points of concern of members on that side of the Chamber—because the members on this side of the Chamber do care—would be the 6,000 people who will be affected by this. We are concerned, because it will be an unsettling time for them. We do actually care, although the Opposition does not. One of the reasons why we want to get this bill through as rapidly as we can is so that they can find out exactly what will happen, and then they can get on with their lives. I would have thought that is not a bad thing to do. I would have thought that looking after somebody, and saying that although we know it is an unsettling time we will give them some certainty as rapidly as we can—we want to move this through as quickly as possible so that they can look to their future, and make decisions around what happens to them as individual employees. Of course, we do care about that sort of thing. Clause 36 is in the bill to make sure that happens.

I would have thought that everyone in New Zealand, and particularly the Opposition, with its socialist background, would be worried about individuals, but obviously those members are not. Members do not seem to be worried about them. It is quite strange that Rodney Hide and I and others have to be the ones expressing concern on behalf of the employees of the existing councils. The things that do matter are that we are putting in place this transition, so that when the new council is elected in 2010 it will not walk into something and then have to set it up. We will have something that will be able to function immediately. Obviously, there will still be some decisions for it to make, but the transition committee will put a lot of that structure in place before the 2010 local body elections. It will ensure that there is no misuse of ratepayers’ money between now and those elections. Surely to goodness, on behalf of the ratepayers, the Opposition should think that is not a bad idea. I would have thought that looking after the employees of those organisations was pretty important. Those are the things that this transition agency, which is provided for in Part 3, does.

I am pleased to report to the Committee that in the case of the Auckland Transition Agency that will be set up under Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, there has been a little leak. I do not know whether the leak was a Copperfields leak, a friendly staffer in a Minister’s office, or an Auckland leak, because it has come to me second-hand. But I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee a hypothetical list of names of members of the transition agency board. I understand that it will be headed by Christine Rankin, ably assisted by Michael Bassett, Gareth Morgan, Richard Prebble, and Douglas Myers, who will fly back especially from his chateau in Geneva to sort out the peasants.

Hon Member: What about Melissa?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Melissa Lee will be providing communications advice on the side.

I have in my hand another piece of paper, leaked from the Labour Party research unit, which shows an earlier draft list composed of Professor Bryan Gould; Brian Easton, an economist; and Stephen Tindall. The question before the Committee is whether the boards comprised of these two different sets of names would come out with the same decisions. Of course they would not. This board, of course, is hypothetical. The point is that we do not know who will be on the board, but we do know that under the structure of this legislation the board will be responsible for almost every decision that matters.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: We are debating Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. Part 3 is the transitional part; it sets up the transitional agency board, which comprises a shadowy group of appointed—not elected—individuals. They will be the ones who decide the future structure and shape of Auckland governance. For that reason, the Labour Opposition has come up with a number of amendments that will more accurately describe the name of this board, such as the “Auckland Regional Politburo”, or the “Auckland General Directorate for Government Reorganisation”.

The point is that whatever we call this body, it is not an elected body; it is a body of mates from the Northern Club who will be appointed by the Minister of Local Government. Not only is this body appointed but it, in turn, appoints a chief executive, who appoints staff to make decisions for the people of Auckland. In other words, there are three layers of vested interests to get through before we can connect a citizen with a decision. Members can just imagine that group, headed up by the new chair, Christine Rankin, with “Melissa Lee Inc.” providing cut-price media advice on the side, having community consultations with the poor people down the hill from the Northern Club at the Auckland Club on Shortland Street—where the poor people gather. Or they will go into the wilds of suburbia to places like Victoria Avenue in Remuera, where people who live hundreds of metres from the centre of town reside in ramshackle shacks. That is what I call outreach: taking on the rebels of Remuera—people like Victoria Carter and Christine Caughey, or the hotheads of the city like Alex Swney. This politburo will deal to those radical and subversive elements, and make a real proper job of Auckland!

Let us look at the functions of this august group. The group will do what Tau Henare could never do: it will advise the Minister, it will report regularly to the Minister, and it will inform the public. I love this bit of Part 3 about informing the public, because as members will recall—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. It is always lovely to see members engaged in the debate, but it would be more helpful if the public could hear what is going on. Mr Chairperson, you might want to rein in Mr Henare.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): This debate, as it was last night, is a robust debate. There has been a lot of noise backwards and forwards across the Chamber, and I think it adds to the quality of the debate. I would prefer to see the debate flow, rather than see ourselves get caught up on points of order. This matter is about robustness. I will not challenge anybody on this, because we are all moving down here. This debate is a time when members speak their minds and do not read speeches—debate is from the heart.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: This body has so far spent half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money on the propaganda machine for Rodney Hide. Rodney Hide had the gall to criticise Waitakere City for spending $100,000 on informing its citizens about the super-city proposal, yet this group has already spent five times as much. These shadowy bureaucrats—these denizens of the Northern Club—will be the people making the decisions.

[Interruption] I can see that it is going to be a long, long night. Kia ora tātou. Nō reira, greetings to you all. From the people of Manukau I say kia orana, talofa lava, mālō lelei, fakalofa lahi atu, and warm Pacific greetings. The proposal in Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is an insult to Manukau—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I ask the technicians to check whether Mr Robertson’s microphone is turned on. National members are complaining to me that they cannot hear the speech, and I would like them to avail themselves of it.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. To follow up on an earlier point of order, I say that there have been several rounds of discussions in this House about the possibility of reinvestigating whether the audio speakers behind our chairs might be reactivated. I think there has been a general tendency that members have found it difficult to hear members speaking, even when they are also in the House. Following on from your ruling about a good, open, and robust debate, I ask that you report back to the House on progress with your investigation of this matter, pursuant to your previous ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): If the member thinks the sound system requires changing, I invite him to write a letter directly to the Speaker of the House on that matter. It is not a matter for tonight.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: This proposal is an insult to Manukau, to Papakura, to Franklin, to the North Shore, to Waitakere, and to Rodney, and it is an assault on democracy and on the rule of law. I am not convinced that bigger is better. I worked for 15 years in the field of change management before coming to Parliament, and I am not the only one who believes it will not work. I have a report that states: “Expert slams Supercity plans”.

Hon Tau Henare: Who?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I tell Mr Henare that that expert is the director of the Institute of Public Policy at the Auckland University of Technology, David Wilson. He knows that bigger is not better. One of the things I am really worried about is the power of the super-council. Members who have been here for some time will remember the Hon Judith Tizard. Judith Tizard told this House that if Auckland got its act together, then it could threaten central government. This proposal is too big, and we need to do something about it.

The only National member who has actually spoken about productivity so far is Gerry Brownlee. If we look at clause 13(2)(a) we see that it is all about productivity. It is about developing an “organisational structure for the Auckland Council so that it can operate efficiently and effectively …”. Clause 13(2)(b) goes on to state that the transition agency must “develop a change management plan that includes protocols and processes for managing the transition of—(i) assets from existing local government organisations to the Council structure referred to in paragraph (a);”. It is all about doing something better, and I am not convinced that bigger is necessarily better.

Although the proposal of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance was not perfect, it looked after the social well-being of Aucklanders. The proposal gave more power to more people, and it gave them more say. It gave Auckland the efficiencies and the effectiveness that it needed to have to run its organisation. I know that, although a bigger council may bring economies of scale—

Hon Tau Henare: That’s right.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: —and I absolutely agree with that, I say to Mr Henare—it does not necessarily take effect at the lower levels of any structure. Unless those levels are efficient, the benefits of the economies of scale can be lost. That is why we need to make sure that there is sufficient organisation at the second-tier level in this restructuring of Auckland.

We in Manukau feel that we have been neglected. But I am not speaking just for Manukau; I am sure that all other councils in Auckland feel the same way—that they have been gutted. Will this super-city make a difference to the people whom I represent? I am not convinced that it will. As I wonder whether it will bring benefits to my people in Manukau City, I wonder also whether it will bring benefits to the people of Ōtāhuhu, who even today cannot get the things done that they need to be done. They cannot get themselves a swimming pool. They suffer the indignity of having drunks in their parks, who are not good examples for the young people and the young children who see them when they go to school each day. When I took that issue up with the Auckland City Council, I was told there was no legislation.

I would like to start by drawing attention to some of the more insidious provisions in Part 3. In case the people of Auckland have not had the opportunity to look at the fine print of this legislation, I draw their attention to a couple of provisions that I think they ought to be very concerned about.

The first one is that clause 11(1) provides that the Auckland Transition Agency must have a chairperson and no fewer than 2 people on it. So the agency that is going to run Auckland for the next 18 months need only have a “gang of three”, plus Rodney Hide, which makes a “gang of four”—and that seems to me entirely appropriate. The previous speaker, Mr Cunliffe, was suggesting various names for the agency but I think “Gang of Four” is appropriate. Three men accountable only to Rodney Hide, will—with Rodney Hide—be running Auckland for the next 4 years. As somebody said earlier, it is no wonder Roger Douglas has come back to Parliament. It was a mystery why Roger Douglas suddenly came out of retirement to come back to Parliament. Now we understand, because the hand of Roger Douglas is all over this; he and Rodney will be able to have their “gang of three” running Auckland. Obviously, that is exactly what they have been planning. One of the odd things about the detail of this is that ordinarily appointments are made by a Cabinet committee, but in this case the appointment is directly made by Rodney Hide and the members are accountable only to Rodney Hide. So he and his “gang of three” will be running Auckland.

The second one is that under clause 13(1)(e) this agency will “provide information to the public of Auckland, or any section of that public, as it thinks fit,”. Has anyone ever seen those last four words in legislation before our Parliament? The agency will divulge information “as it thinks fit”—when it can be bothered, when it suits it. Those four little words—that the agency will divulge information “as it thinks fit”—that are slipped in there mean that those running the agency can conceal and keep secret everything that they are up to, including the budget of this entity.

The next thing that should alarm Aucklanders, and, actually, all New Zealanders, is the fact that under clause 20(1)(b)—and I think many people would not believe it—the agency, the “gang of four”, can review any item on the agenda for any meeting of any organisation. So for any meeting of any of the eight councils of Auckland, or any meeting of any committee or any subsidiary, the agency can review the agenda, and if the agency decides that an item might have a significant negative impact on the governance of Auckland, the agency can tell the organisation not to have that agenda item. What is the point of this if not to suppress any dissent that may arise in Auckland over the next 18 months? I have to say that this attempt by the “gang of four” to suppress agenda items is not going to work. There will be so much dissent in the next 18 months by Aucklanders that that provision will not be able to suppress it.

The next alarming thing concerns the costs of this transition. The Labour Party has estimated that it will cost every ratepayer in Auckland about $750 each to implement it. Initially, the legislation makes it look as though as the cost will be paid for by the Crown as a debt, but then we come to a little clause, clause 27, which states that all the debt—all the money that the transition will cost—will become a liability of the Auckland Council once the Auckland Transition Agency has been wound up. Once the “gang of four” has wound up its work, it will leave the people of Auckland and future generations an enormous debt. Aucklanders will incur this debt for having had democracy taken away from them and destroyed.

Then we have the laundry list—the long list of things that the “gang of four” can review.

Kia ora anō tātou. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for providing those of us from the far north in this Chamber with the opportunity to enrich democracy and remind the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau, as they return to their homes and abodes tonight, that they can sleep soundly knowing that the Labour Party has at heart their interests, in view of the fact that their rights and interests are being swept aside by an arrogant, supercilious, and uncaring Government.

I fear for the relationship that exists within Auckland, which supposedly will be enriched by Part 3. Nothing in Part 3 will turn Auckland into the super-city. All it will do is create a politburo, create some sort of cast of tsars, while the people worry about trees in Auckland. [Interruption] That is right. They will go to bed tonight knowing that Darren Hughes and his team of supporters, Mr Twyford and others, are here to fight for Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Māori will know that the Government has trifled with Tariana Turia’s emotions and affections, and has driven the Māori Party to such an extent that Hone Harawira is away practising a salute with a Melanesian feel about it.

All these things are traceable back to the very harsh, ugly, thoughtless attitude that the Government is taking towards Auckland. It is just as well that members on this side of the Chamber are positive. We are prepared to tell those in our homes, our whānau, that this bill is so important that this Committee should sit right to the weaker hours of the evening so that every whānau and every child—

Hon Trevor Mallard: And all next week!

Hon SHANE JONES: As far as the rainbow stretches! People of all types in Tāmaki-makau-rau will know that Trevor Mallard and his junior supporters came to this Chamber and said: “We will not stand silent while the jackboots thump away and the bulldozers demolish the houses.” Of course, people do not have to worry just about houses; they have to worry about the trees, as well. It is good to know that the fields of democracy in Tāmaki-makau-rau will be soaked with the sweat and toil of the Opposition members as they seek to enrich and create a mana-enhancing arrangement—something that our friends over there in Te Rōpū Māori have been incapable of putting together.

But let us come back to Part 3. It is pathetic that the chief executive of the transition authority will no doubt be handpicked from the ranks of either the Job Summit, the cycleway, the “Earring Clinic”, or any such place where members who are politically comatose are found, such as those who chose that woman Christine Rankin. Who will occupy the civic space that she currently occupies in the social space? And what will they be paid? They should not be paid more than the parliamentarians who are sweating this evening. Parliamentarians are sweating this evening to make sure that Aucklanders know that they fought for their rights to ensure that local government is founded on the principles of informed consent, legitimacy, friendliness, thoughtfulness, and creativity—forces that are completely absent from the Government side of the Chamber.

Members on that side of the Chamber think about dinner, or about catching flights. They think about racing off. They think about pheasant shooting, duck shooting, perfumes, earrings, changing body type, and changing location. We know that the Committee stage demands that we stay here. Mr Carter was going to go back up to Te Tai Tokerau. He knows no one else has been in his position, on trainer wheels, longer than he has. However, he said last night to Mr Mallard that there are some areas where he has never been on trainer wheels, and I say to Mr Mallard that he was wrong to say that Mr Austin was my friend John Carter’s father-in-law. That was not correct. John Carter, a fellow member of the rugby team, may actually play in the area to be managed by the transitional committee of Tāmaki-makau-rau, and he may need a hip replacement, a bone replacement, or a replacement for other parts of the anatomy as a consequence of having three fathers-in-law, but he seems to be doing fairly well.

We have talked about this transitional authority as being a massive power grab. We have used those words because that is exactly what it is. Under this draft legislation, the transitional agency will get immediate and effective control of Auckland’s assets. The $28 billion worth of assets owned by Auckland ratepayers will be in the hands of Rodney Hide and a coterie of his hand-picked appointees. Rodney Hide, the “Little Emperor of Epsom”, has 3 percent of the vote and he is telling 1.4 million Aucklanders what to do with their democratic rights. This legislation extinguishes the mandate of all the elected officials—the mayors, the councillors, the regional councils—who are only 18 months into their term of office. It is a coup against democracy.

I want to talk briefly about the Draconian powers that this draft legislation confers on the transition agency. Clause 31 sets out some very, very reasonable things that the transition agency should be expected to do. No reasonable person would quibble with the idea that the existing councils in Auckland should not be able to do things that significantly prejudice the reorganisation, and so on. But if we look again at clause 20, we will see that the transition agency is effectively given complete control over the affairs of local government in the Auckland region. The councils in Auckland, elected only 18 months ago, cannot so much as discuss anything on their agenda without the transition agency having the ability to check it, confirm it, or overrule it.

I want to talk briefly about the costs of the transition. We have been very frustrated on this side of the Chamber for the last 3 weeks because we have repeatedly asked John Key and Rodney Hide to tell us how much the transition will cost. They have both been unable or unwilling to tell Aucklanders what it will cost them. We commissioned some research by Dr Rhema Vaithianathan, an economist at Auckland University, who specialises in public economics. We asked her to do the numbers—to go back and look at the royal commission’s modelling on the costs of transition. She found that the transition costs will sting Auckland ratepayers for $750 each. That is 30 percent more than the royal commission’s own model would have cost them. In doing so, job losses under the Government’s distorted and flawed model for the super-city are up to 817. That is more than 300 extra jobs lost, under the Government’s model. When we look at the transition costs, we see that the Government’s plan will cost ratepayers between $574 and $753 each. As well as foisting a flawed and undemocratic model of the super-city on the ratepayers of Auckland, it will also cost them more, and more people will lose their jobs. The Government is not consulting on it, and at the end of the day Aucklanders will have to pick up the tab.

This is a pig in a poke. It is not what it should have been. Aucklanders do not want it. They are not getting a chance to consult on it, yet they will have to pick up the tab. Of course the efficiency savings will be greater, and that is because so many jobs are being lost and because the Government has trashed the second tier of local government. It will be cheaper to run, year on year, but there is plenty of international evidence that the efficiency savings of these big organisational mergers often do not pan out. Auckland ratepayers are having to shell out up front $750 on their rates bill for a flawed, undemocratic super-city, thanks to Rodney Hide, the “Minister of Ratepayers”. He is the man who believes that no local government in this country should be able to put its rates up by more than the rate of inflation without holding a referendum. Does he want to hold a referendum for Auckland ratepayers now? That is the last thing he wants to do. He does not even want to send this bill to a select committee. This is a travesty. It is an outrage for democracy. It should not be allowed. That is why members on this side of the Chamber are fighting it clause by clause.

It is good to be able to take a call on Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. We talked about Part 2 being the death knell for the democratically elected councils of Auckland; Part 3 is the stake in the heart for Manukau City, for Waitakere City, for Auckland City, for North Shore City, for Rodney, for Papakura, and for Franklin. When we go through the transition provisions I am sure people will understand that.

I want to talk to a couple of things. I would like to address clause 11, in terms of the transition agency, and to speak in support of the amendment to clause 11(1) that adds the words “and one Public Service Association representative chosen by the Public Service Association” after the words “by the Minister”. Why would we want workers’ representation on the transition agency? Why is it important? Well, we are talking about 6,300 jobs in Auckland. That is a lot of jobs. We are talking about a lot of people.

Phil Twyford: They don’t care about jobs.

DARIEN FENTON: That is true. We can tell, because those members have their heads down, they do not really care about that.

Louise Upston: We are very interested.

DARIEN FENTON: In that case National will be—

Hon Member: In their own jobs.

DARIEN FENTON: That is right.

National will be supporting the amendment being proposed on this side of the Chamber. This is really important. The Public Service Association is the representative of the workers, and the association should be represented on the transition agency. As it stands, the Minister can appoint his own cronies to the governing authority. He can appoint his own cronies to the transition agency.

I am really concerned, because it is absolutely critical that the workers in the transition authority in the Auckland Council embryo also get a say. Why should they not have a say? There are 6,300 workers who carry out the work of all of the councils right across Auckland—Manukau City, Waitakere City, Auckland City, North Shore City, Rodney, and Papakura. They are expected to carry on doing the work they do now until October 2010. Of course they should have a say. I think that National needs to prove, by supporting this amendment, that it does not want to keep kicking workers in the guts. That is what National is doing with this transition provision. It is kicking workers in the guts. If National is serious, as I heard one of the Ministers saying before, about supporting workers and about protecting them during these very, very difficult times, it will support this provision.

I will speak to another amendment that has been proposed by members on this side of the Chamber. The proposed amendment is that we should have one member from the Council of Trade Unions, and that that representative should be chosen by the Council of Trade Unions—not by the Minister, but by the Council of Trade Unions. Who are the members of the Council of Trade Unions? They are the representatives of workers across all parts of the country, including local government. This would ensure that workers are represented on the transition agency. As we have said, the Minister can appoint his own cronies to the governing authority. We want to ensure that workers who are represented by the Public Service Association are also represented by the Council of Trade Unions.

After all, we are talking about social partnership here. I keep hearing from members on the other side that we should support social partnership, but they really do not want workers to have a say. It is really important that we hear from members opposite that they are not just paying lip-service to social partnership. Maybe they do not understand what social partnership means. It means sitting down, listening to the representatives of workers, allowing them to have a say, allowing them to make a contribution, and allowing them to contribute to, and give their ideas for, the future of our cities.

Further, I would like to speak to another amendment, which is to ensure that there is a Service and Food Workers Union representative, chosen by the Service and Food Workers Union. Why is that? Why would we want someone from the Service and Food Workers Union? We need to ensure, in this city of Auckland, for the future of Auckland, that low-income workers are represented in this transition agency. Who are we talking about? We are talking about the people in Manukau City, in Waitakere City, and in many other areas—all of the councils—who do the cleaning and the catering.

Labour has consistently advocated throughout the past few days that Aucklanders need to have a say on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. We said it at the beginning, we said it in the debate on Part 2, and we say it again in the debate on Part 3, because it is Aucklanders who will be affected by the changes that this bill brings about.

Clause 10 establishes the Auckland Transition Agency whether Aucklanders like it or not. Labour will be looking to amend the name of that agency, because, believe it or not, people ought to be given the right to choose for themselves the appropriate name for this Auckland agency. There are many different possible names, and we will convey to this Committee, through our amendments, important names that have historical linkages to the Auckland region at large. But we will also give the Committee different names just to get up the nose of the Minister of Local Government, who has kept us here so late and is trying to ram this bill down the throats of Aucklanders.

Clause 11 establishes that the governing body of the Auckland Transition Agency will have only three or four people, and it gives it all of the power, privileges, and authority of the transition agency, which it can use for whatever it likes. The public of Manukau—and, I suspect, much of the public throughout Auckland—are very worried about this agency and the powers and authority being given to it, and they are particularly worried that its governing body will be made up of only three or four people. We heard earlier the suspicion that Christine Rankin might chair the governing body, but I read in the National Business Review that it is possible that Mark Ford, the chief executive officer of Watercare Services, will be the chair. There are some concerns if that is to be the case, and I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, to declare to the Committee what his relationship with Mr Mark Ford is, whether he would have any conflict of interest if Mr Mark Ford were appointed to chair the governing body, and whether Mr Mark Ford, if he is appointed the chair, will relinquish his role with Watercare Services. That issue is of concern, and Labour will introduce to the Committee some amendments that would ensure that other stakeholders were part of the governing body.

It is of concern to us not only that supreme authority and power are being given to a small group of people but also that clause 22 requires that the agency report only to Mr Hide and Mr English. To me that smacks of central government trying to impose its will on local government. When we look at the personalities involved in this agency, we see that it seems to be a jack-up by the business elite, who are looking at ways to sell off the $28 billion worth of assets that have been built up throughout the 44 years of Manukau’s existence. People like Sir Barry Curtis and the late Sir Lloyd Elsmore have spent their lives, hearts, and passion building up those assets so that ordinary workers right throughout our city could get the benefits of them. I refer to assets like the airport shares and our undeveloped land. Manukau is one of the last areas of the Auckland region that has numerous land tracts that have not yet been developed—land tracts like Ambury Park in Māngere Bridge, and Sir Barry Curtis Park out in Flat Bush. What will happen to those land tracts if the agency is run by a small group of elitist business people—wealthy people—who do not care about ordinary workers? They will be looking to sell off those areas as quickly as possible.

In the olden days in Samoa, when people would go to war, the winning side was referred to as itu-malo. After the winning side had killed off the people, it destroyed all the plantations. Part 3 seems to me to do the same thing.

Before I start my speech I acknowledge my colleague Su’a William Sio, who spoke before me. He is not only now an MP but also a former Deputy Mayor of Manukau City. He therefore has a very good insight into how the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill might affect people in Auckland, particularly in Manukau City.

The National Government is again showing its true colours by failing to consult with the people who will be directly affected by the legislation it attempts to push through. I say “attempts”, because obviously it is not doing a very good job. We are here on a Friday night at 7.40 because National’s attempt to push through legislation is not really working. Given that we have only about another 500,000 amendments to go, we should not be here too much longer!

Tonight I will talk about, clause 11, “Governing body of Transition Agency”; clause 12, “Chief executive of Transition Agency”; and clause 13, “Functions and duties of Transition Agency”, and I have several questions for the Government. The first is around the appointment of the Auckland Transition Agency. We have already heard David Cunliffe speak, and we know that this process will not be fair and transparent. I have questions around how this agency might reflect Greater Auckland. My second question is with regard to the chief executive: whether the process of appointing the chief executive will be fair and transparent. My third question is around the governing board. If my assumption is right, and the board is not reflective of Greater Auckland, then how can we expect the board to carry out the functions and duties of the transition agency in the best interests of Aucklanders? Those are the questions I want to discuss.

Going back to the question of the transparency of the selection of the board, we already heard earlier that there is a huge possibility that people like Christine Rankin will be on this transition agency. In my mind I cannot even comprehend how Christine Rankin could be a reflection of the wider Auckland community. Carrying on from what Su’a William Sio was saying with regard to Manukau, one thing that I think the National Government and Rodney Hide have overlooked is that, currently, 14 percent of the population in Auckland is Pacific, and 11 percent is Māori. That means that a quarter of Auckland is Māori or Pacific. Will the board reflect that percentage? I doubt it very much. Let us say there will be four board members. That would mean that, in all fairness, one should be Māori or Pacific. As a Pacific person, we would say that person should be Māori.

But if we look a little bit deeper and think about what is happening in Auckland long term, and at the demographic shift that is taking place, we know that the demographic for Māori and Pacific is young, and that, in Auckland, 10 or 20 years from now, Māori and Pacific people will make up an ever bigger proportion of the population. So it is only fair that the board represents what will happen in the long term for Auckland, as well as what it looks like now. I do not know the exact numbers off the top of my head for the numbers of Pacific and Māori youth, but I do know that just in the Mt Albert electorate 28 percent of all school pupils are Pacific. That is not in Ōtara or Māngere; that is in Mt Albert. Will the board reflect the interests of those people? I do not think so.

In terms of transparency and fairness, I ask how we can expect this process to be transparent and fair when the consultation that has taken place so far has been anything but transparent and fair. We have already heard from Su’a that on Monday night a Pacific regional fono was held at the TelstraClear Pacific stadium. That Pacific regional fono was not just for Pacific people in Manukau; it was for Pacific people across the Greater Auckland region. They came to that one place to discuss their concerns about what the National Government and Rodney Hide are proposing for Auckland. Were they happy with what is going on? They were furious! These people were not just a little bit angry—they were furious. Do members know who was at that meeting? Su’a William Sio, H V Ross Robertson, Carol Beaumont, and I were there. Where was Rodney Hide? This was a Pacific regional fono. Where was Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga?

Hon Member: At the council.

CARMEL SEPULONI: That is right. On the same night as this Pacific regional fono about the super-city was taking place, Sam Lotu-Iiga was holding—

The last time we had a reorganisation of anything resembling this size and speed was 18 years ago when the then National Government decided to introduce urgent legislation during the post-Budget period to redo the health system, without sending off the legislation to the people of New Zealand through the select committee process. The then Government took out all of the area health boards, just like this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill takes out eight local government councils.

That Government said a small number of people would be arranged to manage the transition period, and it put in commissioners—usually one commissioner per area health board. Then the Government moved to a more corporate model, which went down badly. It meant that in the course of the 9 years that followed, the National Government got through five health Ministers, seven associate health Ministers, and three Crown health enterprise Ministers. That is how serious that reorganisation was. That is how much it backfired.

I will be very clear to the Committee that there are two reasons why Labour members, with assistance from the Greens, the Māori Party, and other parties, are determinedly making sure that this legislation is delayed for as long as we are able to delay it. The first reason is that the legislation was not sent to a select committee. This legislation could have been sent to a select committee, because it does not come into force until November. It is not as if there is any urgency to pass the legislation. It is not as if there is some sort of pandemic or war arriving. This legislation does not come into force until November 2009. We are in May 2009, and the Government has decided not to put out the legislation for consultation via the standard select committee process.

The second reason is that this legislation does not put in place the recommendations of the royal commission that was established to answer the question of what is best for Auckland. The royal commission was consultative—there were hundreds, indeed thousands, of submissions—and it came to a considered view. If the Government had done one of two things, then we would not be here tonight. If the Government had decided that the legislation as suggested by the royal commission was to be put through the House, then the consultation would already have taken place. The Government could have decided that it was going to change its mind—it has radically changed the structure from what the royal commission suggested, and has certainly changed the balance of power from what it suggested—and decided that it thought the royal commission got it wrong. If the Government had decided that it wanted to do it some other way, and had put the legislation out for consultation in the select committee process, then we would not be here tonight.

But the Government has done neither of those things. It has said that the royal commission is wrong, that the Government is right, and that it will not consult on the legislation. That is an outrage. It is an outrage that is rarely seen in this Chamber. It is rarely seen for a Government to move in such a blitzkrieg manner. That is what we are dealing with: a blitzkrieg set of tactics that are not needed and that destroy confidence in this House and, I am sorry to say, in the Government. The reason I am sorry to say that is that Auckland will suffer as a result of the lack of confidence in the National Government as the disquiet grows, as the discontent mounts, as the transition procedures are seen to be less than people had hoped they might be, and as we move to the triennial elections and we see people touting for the position of lord mayor of Auckland. As we see all that playing out, Aucklanders will be reflecting on the fact that they are losing something valuable that is being replaced by something that was forced upon them in the dead of night by a Government that is too arrogant to say that it might be able to learn from the public, or, if not too arrogant, then perhaps too scared of going into the public arena and testing its ideas.

The Government did not test its ideas. It said that the royal commission was wrong. It decided to use urgency to pass the legislation, and therefore the Opposition on this side of the Chamber will be unrelenting. It has to be unrelenting. As Clayton Cosgrove said yesterday, this debate is the last line of defence for a third of New Zealanders. They need to have a say. They might agree with the contents of this legislation. They might think it is wildly helpful. That is fair enough, but let us ask them.

My colleague Hone Harawira and I have been talking in the media about the possibility of helping this Government, perhaps by going to Fiji on a little trip to talk in our own very humble way to the different political forces there about a transition to democracy. But I am having second thoughts now, because one of the people I would have to talk to—and I would have to handle it very gently—is a chap called Commodore Bainimarama. I am a bit worried that if I went and talked to him now, the first thing he would say is that we have a fantastic Government over here, and that it has just provided him with the blueprint for exactly where he wants to go. That blueprint is the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill.

He would then point out clause 13(1)(g)(v), which allows the body set up by, in our case, the equivalent of the commodore, Mr Rodney Hide, to review any item on the agenda of any committee of a local body. The commodore would say that clause was fantastic, because it would mean that Fiji’s 3,200 military people could easily monitor the agenda items of every little committee in Fiji, and they could put on the agenda items like having a picture of the commodore hanging in every public building in Fiji. That would be a great agenda item! In our case it would be a picture of Rodney Hide.

I think the parallel is there. Fiji’s big armed force—3,200 people armed with guns—has taken over a country of 750,000 people; Rodney Hide, with only 3 point something percent of the party vote, seems to be taking over all the local bodies in New Zealand. Then Commodore Bainimarama would point out clause 13(1)(e), which states that Rodney Hide and his appointed group have to provide the public with information only as the agency “thinks fit”. The commodore would say that he could do that a bit more, but he is really doing it already: he has just started up his own TV station, and he is making sure the local papers have pages that he provides the copy for. The New Zealand Government could go down that track as well with its special select committee. It might add a little bit to the $750 per Aucklander restructuring cost, but there is a great democracy called China that could provide the money for New Zealand at a reasonable rate!

My concern is that this bill provides a blueprint that moves in slightly the wrong direction. One of the reasons I am worried about going to see Commodore Bainimarama is that he will say that we Greens might be a little bit into negotiations and democracy and all that sort of stuff, but he wants to go where the New Zealand Government is going, and that he is very worried about Sue Kedgley, as she is moving amendments that will strip away the sorts of powers that he sees as a model for his rule in Fiji today. I think the good people of New Zealand are a bit worried about where we are going with this bill, and are very worried about where Commodore Bainimarama is taking his people, and the influence it might have on the Pacific. They will be very concerned, and hopefully will be ringing up National and ACT members tonight to ask them to please support Sue Kedgley’s amendments, as they do not want a Bainimarama-type Government for Auckland.

It is interesting that in respect of Fiji’s constitution there are possibly some good elements to Commodore Bainimarama’s proposal, but he is trying to strip away any indigenous representation in that country. That situation has a few parallels with the Auckland local body proposal, where all of the recommended seats for the tangata whenua are now being cancelled. The Green Party has a whole pile of amendments.

It is a tenet of this place that being in Parliament is a privilege. We hold power, in our electorates, or as a Government, or as an Opposition, at the whim of the people. I do recall that before the election Mr Hide was fond of saying that people know best how to spend their own money. Do members remember that? I remember him standing outside Mt Eden Prison, I think it was, and railing against the previous Government. He was saying that we did not listen to people, that he would bring in a new era of politics to Parliament, and that he was a man who would represent the people and listen to the people of Epsom.

Hon David Cunliffe: Perk-buster!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The perk-buster. Last night I read out a very interesting comment he made at the local government conference in February. I think that Mr Hide was in another part of the Chamber; maybe he could not hear me. I am sure that with his awesome intellect he will remember it. He said: “It’s always a good idea before a spend-up to get the agreement of the people who are going to pay for it.” It is really interesting that Mr Hide has been in power for not 5 minutes—well, a few months—and that ideology is all gone. This was the man who was going to be the great bastion, representing the people. Do the members remember the controversy over the Electoral Finance Act? It was Mr Hide and Mr Boscawen who said that we must have freedom of speech, and that we must allow the people to have their say. Oh well! Here we are—

David Garrett: Now you’ve admitted it was a bad idea!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:—as the old walrus down here has a go—not 6 months into the parliamentary term, and we are seeing Rodney Hide’s big head, because this bill is about his ego. I say to Mr Hide, in all sincerity, that it would be very interesting for the people of Epsom, and for members of Parliament, if he rose to his full height and he told the people why they have been double-crossed. It would be interesting if he told them why he went out on the campaign trail and said that he would be the politician to unshackle them from the regime of the previous Government, which he did not like, and that he was going to listen to people because they know best how to spend their own money.

I say to Mr Hide as he cowers down there, looks at his paper, and laughs away like Kermit the Frog with a big grin, that the problem with the big grin is that it does not cover up what he said before the election. It does not cover up his lack of justification for what he is saying now, which is that he does not trust the people. He does not trust even the people in his electorate of Epsom. I wonder whether they are listening tonight. I wonder whether they remember that he went around in his little boogie car, or whatever it was, with his little jacket, looking like the chief entertainment officer from Hi-de-Hi!. He paraded, like a little cock sparrow, up and down the streets of Epsom and Newmarket and said he would give the people of Epsom a voice.

Well, I ask Mr Hide where the voice of Epsom is tonight. It does not exist. There is a word for that Minister. In fact, there are many words for that Minister, none of which the Chairperson, Mr Barker, would allow me to use—and given that my mother would disown me if I used them, I will not. But as Mr Hide sits in the Minister’s chair and fails to look people in the eye, he knows what he said before the election. He knows, and I challenge him to actually do his job as an electorate member—instead of grinning—and stand up to tell the people of Epsom why he sold them out. I ask him to tell those people why, according to him, they are not intelligent enough and do not have the intellect to have their say on this bill.

I ask Mr Hide what he is afraid of. I suspect that what he is afraid of, as he scuttles around like a little possum in the night, is that the people of Epsom might say that they have been betrayed. I think he is scared of that. Do members remember that Mr Hide used to have referendums? He would go out and ask the people all sorts of questions. Well, I wonder whether he has run one of his little polls and asked the people of Epsom whether they agree with his decision on the royal commission report.

The royal commission rendered a verdict, and Mr Hide led the charge to change it. The royal commission thought that the people of Epsom were good enough to consult, and that they were intelligent enough to make a contribution. But once he got the report, of course, he decided, dictatorially, that he would change it. Then he said that because the royal commission had its go, the people have been consulted and he will not refer the bill to a select committee. So I invite him to get up and tell the people why he betrayed them.

I say to members of the Committee that we are actually now here unnecessarily. I think all can be revealed now to the National Party backbench and to the world. The operative part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill does not come in until November this year. There is an offer from the Labour Party for the House to not sit tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, or Saturday of next week.

As members know, the Opposition has about 7,000 amendments to put on this part so far; that number will come down gradually. The Opposition has further new parts available also. I say that maybe 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 of the 7,000 amendments could be knocked out, but there are still thousands of amendments to put forward, and then we will get to the suggested new parts of this bill. I say without breaking any confidences that I understand that the Greens have about half a dozen new parts; we have roughly that number, as well.

I want to make it clear that we have made an offer to the Government: it does not have to sit all next week until Saturday from 9 a.m. to midnight. We have an alternative, and that is to send the bill to a select committee for about 3 weeks and have some hearings in Auckland during House sitting time. I ask the Government to listen to the people and let the people of Auckland have their say. Maybe there could be a week, or 3 or 4 days, of hearings in Auckland, so that the people in Auckland can have their say on this bill. A small group of members could do that, and the National Government could then say that it has listened, and it has decided not to sit right through the adjournment week from 9 a.m. to midnight—that it has learnt. The Government could say that, and we could say we have a minor victory.

I think the people of Auckland would be able to make this bill better. They would be able to make improvements to the bill. It would be a win for the National Government, a win for the Opposition parties, and a win for the people of Auckland. But Gerry Brownlee—that master of House matters; the person who is so good—says no.

This legislation is actually relatively simple. It should be easy to get through, and I am sure that if Simon Power were the Leader of the House, we would have started urgency on Tuesday. Tonight we would have been—well, not snuggled up in bed, but at least in the local RSA, back in our homes, or working hard in our electorates. I say to National members that it is not too late: the offer will last all day tomorrow, and they can make the call.

I say to those members—like the member for Tauranga, the one with the hots for Christine Rankin, so we are told—that there is an offer to be taken up here, and they should take it. I say to the member for Taupō, Louise Upston, that she should think about this offer very, very carefully. Does she want to spend all next week in the Chamber and deny the people of Auckland their opportunity to have a say? I say to Nikki Kaye, member for Auckland Central, that she will have a real battle with Phil Twyford next election. It would be a major advantage to her—in fact, we should just about withdraw the offer—to be able to say that she got Gerry Brownlee to listen on the Auckland issue and have a select committee hearing. I do not think Allan Peachey cares; he likes being here. He likes watching how Anne Tolley is performing and having a bit of a giggle.

When considering Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which establishes the Auckland Transition Agency, it is alarming that there is no provision for mana whenua on the Auckland Transition Agency. It is a shame this bill will not be going to a select committee, and I hope the National Government will take up that offer from the Labour Party of sending the bill to a select committee to avoid sitting next week. It is really important that the people have a chance to speak to a select committee and put their views on Part 3 regarding the make-up of the Auckland Transition Agency—people such as Raewyn Bennett, the first and present member for the Māori constituency of Mauao Maori on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. She was first elected to that position in 2004 and was returned unopposed in 2007.

Hon Mita Ririnui: “Who done that?”.

RAHUI KATENE: That was Raewyn Bennett.

Hon Mita Ririnui: “Who done that?”.

RAHUI KATENE: Very good! Ms Bennett was able to make a submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, and I am sure she would love to make a submission on the bill, particularly on Part 3. In her submission to the royal commission she said she supported “a governance arrangement for Auckland that ensures that the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002: Section 10 is ethically and properly carried out: (a) to enable democratic local decision-making and action, by and on behalf, of communities and (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and for the future.”

Hon Darren Hughes: Who said that?

RAHUI KATENE: Ms Raewyn Bennett. I am reading from her submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, which, I am sure she would love to be able to give to the select committee. She also said: “3) I believe that these purposes can only be properly met by the establishment of designated Maori seats within any Governance arrangements for Auckland, proportionate to the number of Maori voters, using the same formula as set out in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Bill.”—Good one!—“4) “Maori have a treaty arrangement with the Crown, and there are other valid reasons why their representation on institutions in Aotearoa as indigenous peoples, should be accommodated. … 5) Maori feature in all the negative social indicators in any part of New Zealand. Over half of Maori in Aotearoa fall into the three highest deprivation deciles. The UN Human Development reports, from 1990 to the present, which have, among other things, influenced the development of the Local Govt Act 2002, have made clear links between peoples’ lack of political power and poverty. 6) Being able to freely choose from a choice of candidates who have relevance to you, amounts to political freedom. The numerous conflicts around the world say that people do not want to settle for anything less. This ability to choose political representatives who have relevance to you is a basic human right. This is not available to Maori in Auckland at present.”—and it is not available under Part 3 of this bill—“People of the majority culture are advantaged over Maori, because they can choose political candidates without having to make compromises. 7) Addressing wellbeings for Maori, (and, in the process, dealing effectively with the low social, economic and cultural outcomes) as required in the Local Govt Act, clearly requires people whose lives are so affected to be politically empowered in order to properly operationalise the Act. A start to properly addressing their low-socio-economic status (and thus meet the well-being outcomes in the Local Govt Act 2002), should be made by establishing designated Maori seats. … 8) In his report as hearings commissioner on the proposal to establish a Maori constituency in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Judge Trapski considered 760 written submissions for the proposal and 252 against the proposal. He made a special mention of how people interpreted “democracy”. 9) In addition to Judge Trapski’s reasons for rejecting that claim, I believe that the “one man, one vote” version of democracy is often a reflection of the insecurity people have about themselves and their place in the world.”

I noticed the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, gave me the thumbs up. But he has a problem in Auckland—it is the thumbs down. All around him people give him the thumbs down. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is one of the silliest things that has been done in contemporary times. Any transition has to be well managed, and there are some simple things that we have to remind ourselves about.

David Bennett: Like what?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Like the fact that the Minister of Local Government is the only person—and he alone—who chooses the “no fewer than 2 but no more than 4 other members” who will sit on the governing body of the Auckland Transition Agency. Where else has that happened in this country?

We know that 56 percent of Māori live in Auckland. There is nothing in Part 3 about them. I really want to join with the Māori Party and support Rahui Katene, who spoke before me. The Māori Party members have been ignored by their mana-enhancing partner, the National Party. National has just tossed them aside. Hone Harawira gets up in the Chamber, gives a mihi to Rodney Hide and then a mihi to National, and talks about Bainimarama. The situation reminds me of that great historical assumption of people with dual roles: one was a doctor—Dr Jekyll—and the other was Mr Hyde. They had totally different natures. During the day this Mr Hyde would smile and share his charisma so that it would prevail upon all the cultured of the town of London, but at night the other side of his dual nature would come out and he would run through London stalking everybody else. [Interruption] This is my story, not the member’s. He should be quiet. This bill is a cool stalking horse to distort democracy in Auckland. It is shameful. It is arrogant.

On the radio Mr Brownlee said he is considering what Māori are saying. He has a very interesting view. His statement tells us Gerry’s views on Māori people.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Use the member’s full name.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: On the radio, Mr Brownlee said “I find it amazing that New Zealanders who travel overseas and who want to identify themselves as being different to Australians will inevitably start doing mickey mouse, half-baked hakas. No disrespect for trying, but, on the one hand, you get them saying they don’t want that stuff when they’re in the country, and when they’re out they can’t get hold of it quick enough.” Mr Brownlee and his cohorts do not want any cultural aspirations or the tangata whenua or Pacific people in Auckland to be recognised. That is shameful.

One of my colleagues mentioned that nearly 35 percent of the population in Auckland are a mix of cultures—Māori and Pacific peoples. In the 1950s and 1960s one did not need a passport to come to Auckland, because the labour market was so short. Then we had those mongrel things called the dawn raids, after the unemployed numbers started to rise. Some members are a bit young and cannot remember the dawn raids, but I can. We had the dawn raids then, and this bill is another raid. This bill is a terrible raid on the democratic rights of people in Auckland. We have collapsed down other councils just to build a fiefdom that Mr Hide is going to manage.

Hon Tau Henare: Disgraceful!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: It is disgraceful, and that member should know it because he is a Māori who lives in Auckland. He is one of the people who left home, went there in the urban drift, and has stayed there all his life. He knows a fair few of our urban people there.

In Part 3, clause 13(3)(c) states that the Transition Agency must ensure that “key local government projects in Auckland are not hindered or interrupted.” The Government has hindered and interrupted everything, so much so that Melissa Lee suggests—I will not carry on. Members know what she suggested. She did not know where the off-ramp was. Part 3 carries on to state that the expenses of the Transition Agency have to be sustainable.

One of the real issues during this transition is that the workers miss out. Their rights are removed. The unemployment rate is rising. I was talking to people who have been kicked out of the Inland Revenue Department. That is right—the whānau. We care about the workers. National does not care about the workers.

Hon Tau Henare: Who laid off the freezing workers?

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: Who laid off the freezing workers? Why are we seeing the unemployment rate in this country tracking at 5.6 percent? It is a disgrace.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am delighted to take a call in the Committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I rise to speak in support of amendments to Part 3, particularly the amendment to clause 11 to insert new subclause (1)(a), which states the Minister must consult with stakeholders and interested parties on the appointment of members of the transitional agency.

This part shows, again, arrogance coming through from the Government, which is sitting under urgency with no recourse to a select committee, despite the offer made by the Opposition to the Government. This Government simply thinks it can treat Parliament and the people of Auckland like it can treat the people of Mt Albert: with a bulldozer. It is like the way Melissa Lee treats South Aucklanders: with disdain and disregard. Now we know that Bill English must begin to feel this way, after the Prime Minister has asserted who is boss and insisted he will get the $50 million for the cycleway, and has even suggested that if Bill does not like it, he can go and open a tearoom in Dipton and serve lattes to the cycling tourists—a good option, some might say. Some members on the other side of the Committee are beginning to understand what Aucklanders are beginning to understand, which is that this Government will do what it likes to achieve its own ends.

Part 3 would allow the Government to form the new transition agency, and then from Monday onwards, after this bill is passed—or maybe next Monday week—the consultation will start. We have seen advertisements from National MPs that state that from Monday they will go out and seek consultation with their constituents on this bill. That is too late. National MPs will go to meet their constituents, from Franklin in the south to Rodney in the north, but nobody within the rohe of the Auckland Council has been asked what he or she actually thinks about this bill. We even have the former Minister of Finance, Bill Birch—“Mr Think Big”—apparently coming out against the loss of his former Franklin constituency into Auckland City. This bill represents think big 2009. It was be as disastrous as Think Big was in the 1980s. Sir William Birch is no different from anybody else in Auckland or in this Parliament; he will not have any say on issues such as who should form the transition agency or what its functions should be. Aucklanders will just not get any real say on the functions of the council under this bill. There will be consultation after the fact, and after Parliament has seen this bill forced through under urgency. The only chance for members of the public to have their say will be next week and beyond.

This situation has some hallmarks of, and reminds me of an approach taken under, a previous Government. Yes, it was a Labour Government. The blitzkrieg approach was taken in the mid-1980s of ramming changes through before people realised what was happening, because they might not have liked it if they had known. People do not like being “Rogered” in that way in the cause of economic dogmatism.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The speaker who is on his feet has been going for some 3½ minutes. We are in the Committee stage, and he has not begun to get to Part 3. We have heard all about Sir William Birch and Think Big. The member is new, but I think he should follow the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I do not need any help. You have a minute and 25 seconds left, Mr Burns. How about we just hear a bit about Part 3?

BRENDON BURNS: We want to see under Part 3—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it was at least implicit in what you said that the member had not been talking about Part 3. At least 2 minutes of his speech—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order. I invite the member to continue on Part 3.

BRENDON BURNS: Under Part 3 of this bill, where we see a clause around the membership of the transitional authority, as an Opposition we want to see some checks and balances in the appointment of members of that transitional authority. The royal commission proposed that by keeping the existing councils across Manukau, Waitakere, Franklin, the North Shore, Auckland, Rodney, and Papakura, there would, in fact, be some checks and balances against the power of the Auckland Council. I am particularly fearful that by closing off consultation and by not having any scrutiny, then the agenda begins to line up against the assets of the Auckland Council. I note suggestions that one Mark Ford of Watercare is reportedly Mr Hide’s pick as the head of the transitional agency, to be established under Part 3 of the bill. Mr Hide, of course, is not known for caring very much about access to good-quality drinking water; he has described the health standards as “ridiculous”.

I ask the Minister what he will do to ensure that the transitional agency will be doing all it can to ensure that Auckland-owned assets, such as Ports of Auckland, Auckland International Airport shares, and the water agencies, are actually kept in public ownership. Even if there are protections in the Local Government Act, my suspicion is that this bill—through this Part, even if this is not stated here—will begin the process of—

I rise to speak on the amendments to Part 3, and specifically the amendments that talk about redundancies. Today I should have been in my electorate, because 60 people were made redundant when Bright Wood Sawmill announced it was closing down its factory in Ōtautau, which has a population of 700. The previous speaker, Brendon Burns, should have been in Christchurch dealing with the prospective redundancies from Lane Walker Rudkin.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think we are talking about Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I have not heard any mention of that, just some bitter vitriol from the Deputy Prime Minister, who could have got leave to be out of here tonight.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. The member is making some introductory remarks before he moves on. I will be watching closely. He has spoken for—

Hon Annette King: Why didn’t you ask for leave?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. He has spoken for 35 seconds so far. They are introductory remarks and I am sure he will come back to Part 3. He heard what I said before to the previous speaker, and he knows we are on Part 3. Introductory remarks are permitted. I invite the Hon Bill English to resume.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I started by referring directly to the amendments to Part 3—directly. I am raising the issue that hundreds of these amendments—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that member is a relatively senior member of Parliament, and he knows that he cannot refer to your ruling as he is now doing.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a robust debate, and I am inviting the member to continue.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Part 3 includes hundreds of amendments relating to the redundancies of workers. I was reminding the Committee that today 60 workers in my electorate received a redundancy notice. MPs who want to understand the reality of the recession should be dealing with that issue. The member for Christchurch Central, who spoke before me, should be in Christchurch dealing with the reality of redundancy today for workers at Lane Walker Rudkin. But what does Labour think is more important than people being made redundant? It thinks that stupid amendments about redundancies in relation to the Auckland Council that have not happened are more important. Fortunately, the public now know what matters to the Labour Party. What matters to the Labour Party is Trevor Mallard proving that Dr Cullen knew what he was doing. What matters to the Labour Party is engaging in some kind of pathetic point-scoring in Parliament, at the cost of thousands of dollars a minute, when, as we speak, hundreds of New Zealand workers have been made redundant.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a very robust debate. I am sure we are all keen to hear what the Minister has to say. Although I expect and enjoy interjections, and they may be fairly robust, they need to be terse, and I do not want a shouting match. I ask members to tone it down. I invite the member to continue.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The workers’ party should go and explain to the workers why it does not care about them. That is what I want to hear. I want the next speaker from the workers’ party to get up and explain why Parliament is sitting here, dealing with this pathetic nonsense, which is the product of the political hacks who have captured the Labour Party, instead of dealing with the issues that matter—the redundancies of hundreds of workers today, and the prospect of the same happening to thousands of workers over the coming months. The amendments to Part 3 show that the Labour Party is now the creature of game-playing political hacks who have lost their focus on the issues that really matter in New Zealand today. Every member of Parliament should have been in his or her electorate today, and should be there tomorrow.

Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take deep offence at the line of debate the member opposite is running. We are talking about 6,300 workers in Auckland; that is not an insignificant number.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order; it is a debating point. If the member wants to seek a call later on, the member can bring up those sorts of points at the time.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Dr Cullen knew about stopping when one had had one’s say; he knew when it was time to accept that the public would think that having one’s say had gone on for a bit long. [Interruption] I am happy for the Labour members to be here, because this behaviour will damage their brand for the rest of the year.

I will first deal very briefly with the issue the Hon Bill English raised. He could be in his electorate today if the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill had been referred to a select committee. Labour has not offered just an ordinary select committee period; we have gone the extra yard and said we would truncate that select committee process to a very unusually short period in order to facilitate the passage of this legislation. The National Government will not agree to that. This forum is the only one in which we can protect the interests of New Zealanders—those in Auckland and those elsewhere—against this legislation.

I will deal with the powers contained in Part 3 of the legislation, which sets out the functions of the transitional authority, the Auckland Transition Agency. But it is not explicit yet that the transition agency has any function in respect of advising on the form, function, and organisation of community boards or local councils.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Missing in action!

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is missing. The Minister has said he wants to have community boards. The Minister has said he wants the transition agency to reorganise things, including those community boards. The provisions of the bill, at present, are silent on that matter, in respect of community boards. If those provisions are absent in respect of community boards but those powers of the transition agency extend to community boards, then it must be within the scope of amendments that Labour is putting forward to clear up that matter, not just for community boards but also for local councils.

What the legislation omits compared with what was recommended by the royal commission is any reference to local councils. So one of the amendments that Labour will be putting forward is to make it clear that the transition agency has the authority to deal with these issues both in respect of community boards—if the Government wants to go that way—and local councils. That authority is not currently mentioned in the legislation, but I am interested to hear from the Government; from the Minister in the chair, Mr Finlayson; or from members opposite whether they think that these transitional powers include the ability to make arrangements for the new community boards that are intended to sit under the Auckland Council. This is not yet clear, but it is absolutely central to this bill. This bill takes the existing structure of Auckland’s governance, does away with all the existing councils, and creates the Auckland Council and the things that sit under it, but it is not clear that the transition agency has the powers it needs. Labour will be putting forward amendments to that effect.

I mention also what else needs to be controlled. At the moment, Part 3 is unclear as to what the transition agency cannot do. That worries me. We are creating a new vehicle here that has 1.4 million voters. We are creating an Auckland Council that has a mayor with executive powers. This unprecedented concentration of powers—of the regional council, the old district council, the territorial authority, plus executive powers—is being conferred through the new office of mayor, who has executive powers. This organisation and the mayor—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. A lot of interjections are going on that have nothing to do with the speech. Members should give their colleague a fair go.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Chair. These powers need to be made clear so that future Governments—be they National-led Governments or Labour-led Governments—do not face the undesirable prospect of the Mayor of Auckland having so much power that he or she can effectively change the course of central government, can cause Governments to fall, and can cause Governments not to win elections, and can do that along party political lines based on the prior affiliations of this new super-mayor.

At present, the powers of the transition agency are not so constrained as to create the office of the mayor with that breadth of powers, and we in this Parliament ought to be concerned about it. That is one of the reasons why we as an Opposition are putting forward amendments to this Part of the bill in order to limit the powers of the transition agency, but also to make it clear that it has powers in respect of community boards. The Government says it wants community boards, but it is not yet clear under clause 13 of the bill that the transition agency has those functions. If it is implicit that the transition agency has that power, then it must also be implicit that it can look at local councils, I say to officials.

One of the other problems we have with the clause is that there is no process for scrutiny or the involvement of others when it comes to the appointment of staff to the transition agency.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Deputy Prime Minister came down to the Chamber this evening as a man with a purpose—a man who is very, very angry, indeed. He would have us believe that he is angry because he could not return to his constituency to put up a fight for jobs that were lost today—such is his commitment to his electorate. Well, we know that that is a lot of hogwash, because the deputy leader of the National Party could have had leave from this Parliament any time he liked. He could have walked out of this Parliament, caught the plane—and it would have been a rare experience for him to go back down home—gone home, and dealt with those redundancies. You see, he did not really care enough to go down home about those redundancies. He wanted to come in here—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is consistent with the point of order raised by Labour—the member has made no mention whatsoever of Part 3. At least I mentioned the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. I am looking at the clock, and I have given the member about the same latitude I gave the Minister. So how about looking at Part 3.

Hon ANNETTE KING: I certainly will talk to Part 3, in the same way that the Deputy Prime Minister did. You see, this part of the bill is where the Government is setting up the real guts of what it is doing to Auckland. In this part we have the real cost of the plan. The cost on Auckland will be $350 million, and I say to Bill English that that is an unfunded commitment.

Mr English has talked about unfunded commitments for months in relation to the previous Government. I say to Mr English that perhaps he could have put $50 million into this unfunded commitment from the money he was not going to put into a cycleway. The money he was not going to put into a cycleway could have gone into this unfunded commitment for this part of the legislation. But the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, was a lame duck when it came to helping Auckland. He was a lame duck, because he could not stop the Prime Minister from taking $50 million that could have gone into Auckland and giving it instead to his pet project—a cycleway. There was going to be no money for a cycleway, Bill English had said, and $50 million was not on the table.

I say that Mr English is a lame duck, because he could have been helping the people of Auckland. He does not care about the people of Auckland, because tonight he could have had a deal that would give the people of Auckland an opportunity to have a say on this important bill. They could have had 1 week, 2 weeks, or 3 weeks at the most of submissions. They could have had a say, and they could have felt that they were being listened to.

Bill English has led the tactics on this bill. He has been responsible, along with Rodney Hide and John Key, for shutting up the people of Auckland and closing off their opportunities to have a say on a bill that affects every single one of them. Aucklanders will pay $750 per person for this change in Auckland. Do they know that? Has Bill English told them that? No, he came in here crying crocodile tears about redundancies he could not care less about, but he would not allow the people of Auckland to have just a few weeks to have a say on such an important bill. That is shameful.

What are those members afraid of? I ask the Minister why he would not let the people of Auckland have a say. You have an offer on the table. It is not too late. I say to Gerry Brownlee that you can pick up the offer; otherwise I am saying to you that we will put forward amendments until you do listen. Until the National Government listens to the people, we will be making the case for them. We will make the case for the people of Auckland, because National has not had the fortitude to go out to the people and give them the facts. It has taken out half-page advertisements in the newspaper—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member keeps bringing me into the debate. I indicated earlier, by pointing to myself, that she should not use the word “you”.

Hon ANNETTE KING: This is a robust debate, the robust debate of the year—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No—the member knows what the rule is. Members do not bring the Speaker—the Chairperson, in this case—into the debate. I indicated that earlier on.

Hon ANNETTE KING: This is a robust debate, and we will robustly debate it, because we are getting nothing from National except closure motions and angry speeches from the Minister of Finance. He would have us believe that he cares about others. But he does not care about the people of Auckland. We will be fighting this, I say to the Minister, and I do not know why he has lost his fortitude to go back out to the people of Auckland and at least give them a few days’ say on a bill that will cost them dearly.

I would like to introduce a number of extremely constructive amendments to Part 3—amendments relating to transparency and openness, which I suspect that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Local Government should relish and should welcome. But before I do that, I want to respond to Mr English. National has sent down its heavy hitter, Mr English, to come and inject some remarks into this debate, and I would like to make some brief comments about that heavy hitter’s remarks. The first remark Mr English made was “What about the workers?”, referring to some workers who had been made redundant. But I ask Mr English, “Mr Heavy Hitter” of the National Government, what about the 6,300 workers who are employed in the eight councils that you are about to expunge and get rid of? Those workers, I can tell you, are utterly demoralised. They are utterly demoralised, because they know that their futures are on the line. What about the uncertainty you have created for them?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is twice in about 20 seconds that the member has brought the Chair into the debate.

SUE KEDGLEY: What about the 6,300 employees of the eight councils whom the Government is expunging, with this legislation? They know that their jobs are on the line, just as the workers Bill English was talking about know their jobs are on the line. The council workers are utterly demoralised and insecure. The Government has thrown all of those local councils into uncertainty. It has created a climate of uncertainty, and this uncertainty will paralyse Auckland governance over the next 18 months.

Next, Mr English asked why we were wasting our time here with these amendments. First of all, I took offence at that, because I have three extremely constructive amendments I am about to introduce, which would greatly enhance this part of the bill. But if Mr English wanted to stop the wasting of time in this Committee—and after all, this is the only way we can protest at the travesty that is taking place in this Parliament—all he has to do is agree to hear submissions that would allow Aucklanders to have a say on this bill. The question remains unanswered: why is the Government so afraid of allowing Aucklanders to have their say on this bill?

The third thing Mr English tried to suggest—the heavy hitter who came down to inject some sort of sense into this debate—was that the matters we were discussing here were trivial. Well, I can tell him that we are talking about expunging democracy—nothing trivial about that. We are also talking about matters of transparency and openness—and that brings me to my amendments. I believe that the Minister of Finance will surely support these amendments, and so will the Minister of Local Government, because the latter has been running around New Zealand telling everyone who would listen that he wants to bring transparency and openness to local government. But when we look at this bill, we find there is no transparency and there is no openness. In fact, there has not been even a regulatory impact statement—one of Mr Hide’s passions—on this bill, and Aucklanders are not being told, because he refuses to tell them, how much it will cost.

So my amendment about transparency and expenditure recovery, which is the sort of amendment that Bill English would love, will require the transition agency—the “gang of four”, Mr Hide and his three merry men on that board—to prepare a transition budget to cover the period, with the provision that that budget and all supporting documents must be made publicly available. So all we are saying there is that the transition agency must make a realistic budget and stick to it, and if there are any budget blowouts, the Crown must be liable for them.

Mr Chairperson—

Simon Bridges: Oh, not again.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am allowed this call and two more, and that is the democratic approach. Members opposite might not like it, but the Opposition is here to oppose. But as I said earlier, we need not be here opposing. I heard Bill English bleating about not being able to get to his electorate. He should talk to Gerry Brownlee, because Gerry Brownlee will be stopping him from getting to his electorate all next week during the adjournment. If one looks at Darren Hughes’ desk, one will see Labour’s amendments to Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I tell Mr English that we can write new parts quicker than this Parliament can vote on them. So I say to Mr Brownlee that unless we can reach a deal, we will be here until midnight tonight and midnight on Saturday, and undoubtedly we will be back here on Monday until midnight, then until midnight on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and next Saturday.

I reiterate to Government members that there are members on this side who are bright enough to write probably two new parts in the time it takes to vote on one new part. The question we have is how long it will take to debate Part 3 or new Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12—we are already up to 16 new parts that are ready to go from Labour and the Greens. I ask National members when they will wake up, smell the coffee, and give up the contest about who can get higher up a wall. When will they give up that contest and agree that the people of Auckland should have a say on Part 3 of this bill? We are not saying it should be a big say. We are not saying that the bill should go to a select committee for 6 months; we are saying that it should go to a select committee for maybe 3 or 4 weeks. We are saying that maybe we should have 4 or 5 days of hearings in Auckland and 1 or 2 days here in Wellington.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a robust debate and that is great, but this member is now 3 minutes into his 5-minute speech and he has not mentioned Part 3. He has talked about parts that do not exist. He has talked about amendments that may or may not be in the pile of papers in front of Darren Hughes; we suspect that most of it is just unread paper on his desk. The member really does need to be brought back to relevance.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member might like to mention some of the content of Part 3.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Part 3, “Transitional arrangements”, is the most substantive part of this bill. It is the bit that sets it all up. It is the operative part, and that is why we want to debate this part. But, more important, this part—and probably the new parts that we will put in later on—is the part that the people of Auckland want to have a say on. Every person in Auckland has an interest in this part. Part 3 will mean that the rates go up by $750 per ratepayer. That increase will be a result of the implementation charges only.

I ask members opposite why they are so chicken. Why are they so scared? Why has there been a judgment that they will not let the people of Auckland—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The bully-boy tactics from across the Chamber are interesting, but we have really had enough. The member said that he wants to debate the bill; he needs to get back to this part of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member cannot question somebody’s courage. We are on Part 3 and the member has a minute to go.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I make it clear that the effect of this bill is to put 6,300 jobs in Auckland on the line. Maybe some of those workers, the people who represent them, the people from the private sector organisations who want to take their jobs—because that is part of Rodney Hide’s plan for this new council—or even the people whose pockets will be lined as a result of this legislation in the name of Rodney Hide should be allowed to have a say on this bill. The Business Roundtable should be able to have a say; the Employers and Manufacturers’ Association (Northern) should be allowed to have a say; and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions should be allowed to have a say. Even John Banks should be allowed to make a submission on this bill. Even Christine Rankin, who will chair this group—

Hon Steve Chadwick: What about Jason Gunn?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, a whole pile of people should be allowed to have a say on this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am pleased to follow on from the very short call taken by Shane Ardern, my third cousin by marriage— distantly related. I am pleased to take a call on this bill. The Government will be pleased to hear that I will be speaking to Part 3, and specifically to clause 11. I am very happy to read out aspects of that clause, given that Government members have not read it. However, before I do so I want to reflect on the provocative speech made by the Deputy Prime Minister. All that I can take from it is that it was a classic transfer of anger towards the Opposition that should more rightly have been directed towards the Leader of the House. The last time I checked, he was the one who could end this now. It is the Leader of the House who can decide that this bill should go to a select committee immediately, in which case this would all be over. What we saw from Bill English was a classic transfer of anger. Labour members have already stated that we will be here until the bitter end. It is Gerry Brownlee’s call. All complaints should be directed to Gerry Brownlee. I can see Simon Bridges glaring in anger. He might be looking at us or he might be looking at the back of the Leader of the House.

Clause 11 of Part 3, which I would like to address—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are now having successive calls that do not address Part 3. Instead, this speech is just an explanation for the Labour Party trying to back down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member might like to start on Part 3 now. I have given some leeway to other speakers for the first minute or so, but I ask her to now come to Part 3. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you for the lead-in to the substantive part of my speech. I would like to share with Government members aspects of the bill that I would like to refer to, and our substantive amendments to clause 11, “Governing body of Transition Agency”. It states: “(1) The Transition Agency must have a governing body consisting of a chairperson and no fewer than 2 but no more than 4 other members appointed by the Minister.” If I am correct, this is the most significant transition body that we have seen in the history of New Zealand law—or for some time, at least. It will consist of four appointed members, or as few as two.

Let us be clear about the scale of what this transition body will be dealing with. It will be dealing with the replacement of eight democratically elected authorities, 6,300 staff, $27.2 billion in assets, and $2.3 billion in revenue. How many people are sufficient to deal with the transitional arrangements around those assets, people, and workers? Two people; two people appointed by the Minister of Local Government.

I think it is only right that the Labour Opposition has put forward substantive amendments to this clause. We have set out that clause 11(1) should be amended by omitting “4” and substituting “20”. Surely, for the budget we are talking about and for the number of assets we are talking about, there should be an appointed body of at least 20—the size of Cabinet. Surely that would be reasonable. That is the proposition we have put forward. We have a number of other propositions. We have suggested that the Government could omit “4” and substitute “19”. We have gone all the way through to suggesting substituting “5”. Anything is better than having four members. I ask the Minister to rise and give a submission—or at least his view—on why four members are enough to deal with the massive, substantial amendment we are seeing. Perhaps he might even like to suggest that we substitute “1” with “4”, given that the Minister has even suggested that we do not need to have a select committee decide what we do in terms of this significant change. If the Minister thinks that one member of the governing body is sufficient, I would like to hear that, as well.

What about the powers of the Auckland Transition Agency? What will these four eminent members be dealing with? If one reads clause 10, one sees that “(3) For the purpose of performing its functions and duties, the Transition Agency has—(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction;”.

Hon Member: Boring!

JACINDA ARDERN: I believe that one of the members from across the other side of the Chamber just said “Boring!”. This is those members’ bill. This is the most significant change that Auckland and the Auckland region has seen, and that member has called it boring. I do not think the people in Auckland or the 6,300 workers who are about to lose their jobs as a consequence of National’s changes would call this bill boring.

We have in front of us Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I cannot understand what Labour’s problem is. I cannot understand what Labour’s problem is with protecting the livelihoods and interests of the 6,000-plus workers in local government in Auckland. That is what this particular part of the bill does. Labour members are sitting over there and saying they have 22,000 amendments to this bill, and that those amendments will give greater say to the people of Auckland. Let us be very, very clear about this situation. The councils in Auckland do not disappear because of this bill. That is the myth that Labour members are trying to perpetrate. It is abundantly clear that the Auckland Transition Agency will work in conjunction with those councils to set up the arrangements that will exist from 1 November 2010. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with trying to give some surety to the bureaucrats who run those councils up there right now, and who are trying to put together these arrangements?

One of the fascinating things we have observed is that just about everybody in the Chamber, except for the Green Party members, is saying that there should be one Auckland, one arrangement, and one unit of local governance.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There are very strict rules about movement around the Chamber. Only one or two MPs in the Chamber are given the authority to move around. We are seeing at the moment all sorts of little discussions going on. Oh, hang on; they have gone back down their burrows.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. The point is a valid one, in terms of members walking around and talking. The whips are the people who have that discretion, but it has been happening on both sides of the Chamber. It is not unusual; we have been seeing quite a bit of that today. I invite the member to continue.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Clause 13 of the bill makes it very clear what the functions and duties of the transition agency are, which are to organise all of those councils in order that they might move towards the most—[Interruption]

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to indicate that I take offence, as a Mallard, to anyone else being described in the way that that member is.

Hon David Cunliffe: I would like to withdraw and apologise to my colleague, Mr Mallard.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Members see there a perfect example of how disorganised the Opposition is—how hopelessly disorganised the Opposition is. Do not start paddling that great pile of unread papers off Darren Hughes’ desk. When he exited the Beehive, sacked as a Minister, he took with him cartons full of correspondence that he had never bothered to read, let alone respond to. It is a joke for Labour members to be here at this time of the night, saying it is putting up these 10,000, or 20,000, or whatever it is—

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not think the comments being made by Mr Brownlee have anything to do with the bill at all. You have been very strict tonight, particularly on me, making me stay in line with the bill. I would like you to apply the same rule to Mr Brownlee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is a fair point. We are on Part 3, Mr Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Certainly, Mr Chairperson. My point simply is that the amendments to Part 3 that I have seen so far have nothing really to do with making the bill any better whatsoever. They are the usual sort of one-word twists here and there that make no difference to the effect that we are trying to put in place here at the moment.

I go back to my original question. What is wrong with Labour when it cannot support arrangements that would give surety and certainty to the workers of Auckland?

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have been very generous in allowing members some leeway, typically 30 seconds to a minute at the start of their speeches, to range widely over the issues surrounding the bill before getting to the clause. You have warned that member several times, and he has not drawn himself to the clause, let alone the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. That is another point, and I will ask the member, with a minute to go, to speak on Part 3.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I know that every time I mention the fact that clause 13—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is not the first time, following a point of order, that you have ruled that the member must come to the point or—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what you are saying, but the member was coming to the point, because he did refer to the bill. I invite him to continue, although he does not have much time left.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mr Chairperson, I know that every time I get to discussing clause 13 of Part 3, which talks about the transitional arrangements with which the transitional authority will work with the various councils up there, the Opposition gets upset, because essentially it is the surety that is given to chief executives through this process that the jobs of those Aucklanders who do a great job in local government up there at the moment, but who will do an even better job when they work under one umbrella, are protected. I think it is disingenuous for Labour Opposition members to rave on in the way they are, and particularly the member Ms Ardern, who was talking about our lack of care in these situations. It is interesting that Labour members have broken up my speech tonight. We have had speech after speech about nothing but utter rubbish from the Opposition.

I see that Ms Sue Kedgley has put in an amendment—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that you will not reverse your ruling, but I just want to know whether the tradition of calls going from side to side has been broken, because my colleague has certainly—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, the Minister always has the opportunity to speak at any time, and I have given him that call.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Sue Kedgley has put in some amendments, and I would just like to go through them and explain the reason why the Government will not be voting for them, because I think these are serious amendments that are attempting a policy outcome. Ms Kedgley has put in three Supplementary Order Papers. Supplementary Order Paper 19 proposes changes to clauses 13 and 20 to remove the power of the Auckland Transition Agency to review or determine agendas for forthcoming meetings of existing Auckland local authorities and other local government organisations.

I am sorry, but Ms Kedgley has misread these clauses. The provision for the Auckland Transition Agency to review agendas is intended to allow the transition agency to identify and give notice to organisations if it considers that decisions on a particular matter may impact on the reorganisation or on the future capacity or assets of the Auckland Council. Such decisions must be reviewed and confirmed in writing by the transition agency before they are implemented. If we remove that power to review items, that would leave the transition agency able only to identify such decisions after they have been made, under clause 20(3). It will be far less disruptive if local authorities are aware of the need to seek confirmation before decisions are taken rather than retrospectively. The reason for being able to see the agendas is just to know which decisions are in front of the councils. What Ms Kedgley would do is allow the councils to make decisions that the transition agency would not know about. Also, I should point out that Ms Kedgley has misread the bill. A careful read of the bill would show there is no power anywhere in this bill for the Auckland Transition Agency to “determine” local government agendas. That is a complete fabrication, I am sorry.

The powers to review both the decisions and the agenda items are necessary safeguards to cover decisions not already covered by the confirmation requirements in clause 31, or not recognised as covered by these provisions. The requirement that the Auckland Transition Agency confirm decisions does not mean that those decisions will be blocked in any way. It is recognised that existing councils will need to make some decisions that have consequences for the Auckland Council in order to take opportunities when they arise or address identified needs in a timely way. The process merely allows the Auckland Transition Agency to be satisfied that the impacts of those decisions are justified by the benefits. In the debate in relation to the establishment of the select committee, that member commented that this provision would prevent councils putting particular matters on the agendas. Let me assure members in the Chamber, and particularly Ms Kedgley, that the bill does not do that at all. I am afraid Ms Kedgley has misread it.

The second set of proposed amendments that Ms Kedgley put up in Supplementary Order Paper 20 seeks to require explicitly the approval of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee for ministerial appointments to the Auckland Transition Agency. That amendment relates to confusion about the operation of Cabinet and the role of Ministers. I can understand the Greens being confused on this issue, because Labour has never allowed them to be Ministers or to be in Cabinet, unlike National, which has been a bit more generous with its potential coalition and support partners. If Ms Kedgley had had that experience, the Greens would realise that it is contrary to legislative conventions to refer to Cabinet and Cabinet committees in this way in statute. The convention is that Cabinet arrangements, and the way in which Ministers exercise their statutory powers, are the prerogative of the Prime Minister to determine, and are not subject to constraint by Parliament. So what the Greens would be doing with this amendment—and I am sure the Labour Party will not be voting for it—is to set up in statute a means of dictating the mechanisms of Cabinet committees, and therefore undermining future prime ministerial power and setting a very, very different convention to the way Cabinet and Parliament would understand it—I am sure Labour would accept that. It is also worth noting that no other statute provides for ministerial appointments to be referred to the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. No party in power has ever done that; that does not exist anywhere in statute.

Hon Member: That’s amazing.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: It is amazing, but I can understand Ms Kedgley’s confusion—she is always the bridesmaid and never the bride.

If we go to Supplementary Order Paper 21, which is in Ms Sue Kedgley’s name, we see that an amendment proposes to insert a new clause 23A in respect of the transition agency. I want members to focus on this with particular care, because this is from the Green Party, which is actually complaining about the Government imposing its will on Auckland and through the councils. I want people to focus on this, because it will be very interesting to see whether Labour will support this. The amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 21 requires that the transition agency, before commencing any changes, prepare a transition budget to cover the period until—wait for it—the 2016 triennial elections. So the transition agency would be preparing the budget for the new Auckland Council right through to the 2016 elections. The budget would be required to be publicly available prior to the approval being sought, when variations are sought at 6-monthly intervals. The proposal lists the individual components of the transition, and the budgeted costs of each. The amendments propose that any variations or cost overruns from the budget be met by the Crown.

I explain again to the Greens and to Labour members how this works, because clearly—and I apologise for this—there has been a misunderstanding. I have done my best through the night, in clear, plain English, to explain how the bill works, but clearly we have been missing it. The bill already requires that the Auckland Transition Agency has to obtain the approval of the responsible Minister and the Minister of Finance for its budget expenditure. This is set out in clause 22, and Mr Horomia can check this out. It also imposes a range of financial reporting and accountability requirements, including the provision of audited financial statements for presentation to Parliament under the Public Finance Act 1989. I am sure that members on this side of the Chamber who are concerned about fiscal prudence and proper accounting—unlike some of the inappropriate shenanigans we have seen in the past—will appreciate that. It provides for a narrative report of the agency’s activities on its dissolution—and I ask Mr Horomia to check—as set out in clause 13(1)(c)(ii).

In the absence of an elected Auckland Council, it is appropriate that the accountability of the Auckland Transition Agency is to Ministers and, through them, to Parliament, which has established its set of duties and powers. That is the proper mechanism for financial accountability, as set out in the Public Finance Act. I want Green members to focus on this, because what they are proposing is to create a binding budget, running through to 2016. That would be hugely problematic, given that the whole point of finalising the reorganisation and bedding down the change is to have the Auckland Council functioning from 1 November 2010.

Somehow, the Greens are trying to get Parliament to dictate the budget for Auckland through to 2016. What does that say about their approach to local democracy? The Government wants to achieve a reorganisation for Auckland—and Labour has said that it wants one mayor, one council, and one plan—so a transition agency is needed, as explained in the royal commission report, which spent $4 million setting that out. However, the Greens are coming along and saying “No, no. We don’t want the Auckland Council or Aucklanders deciding their own budget; we want to decide their budget, not this year, not next year, and not the year after that, but right through to 2016.” I would be astonished if the Labour Party wants to vote for that. I would be astonished if the Labour Party wants to vote for putting Cabinet committees into statute. I would be astonished if the Labour Party—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, put the Executive Council into statute. Do it properly—the Governor-General in Council.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The Hon Trevor Mallard is calling out that we should be doing it properly. I ask him to look at the Labour Party’s own amendments. At least the Greens have made a proper attempt to deal with matters of policy, rather than just raise matters to cause a vote. That is why I am answering the Green’s amendments. I am interested in whether the Labour members will be voting for them.

I start by thanking the Hon Rodney Hide for his response. I understand the point he was making in respect of agendas, although we disagree with some of the points of this legislation. I agree that if the transitional agency did not have that power, then it would be possible for councils to distribute assets and other things in a way that was not in the interests of people in Auckland. I have another question for Mr Hide. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am trying to address Mr Hide on a substantive point. I say to Mr Hide that on page 10 of the bill—I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Oh—I thank Mr Hide; he is listening. I say to Mr Hide that I was acknowledging the point he made fairly in respect of the need to have agendas available to the transitional agency.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not clear whether the Hon David Parker was raising a point of order, but I want to be clear. I am sorry; I did not mean to be disrespectful to the Committee or to the member on his feet. I was just getting clarification from officials on some of the amendments put forward by Labour, to see whether there is any policy in them.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you. I had moved on from that point of order. [Interruption] Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just say that if we are going to be very picky about points of order—and I can be—I can require members who raise a point of order to quote the Standing Order that they are addressing before they begin.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Don’t do it!

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I will not do it. But I say to members that although the member said that Rodney Hide’s point of order was not a point of order, the point of order raised by the Hon David Parker was not a point of order either.

Hon Annette King: He didn’t make one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): He did—the member called for a point of order twice, and neither point was a point of order. I would like to let the debate flow, please, members. Let us get these speeches going.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you, Mr Chair. I was acknowledging the Minister’s point, which I think was correct, that it is necessary for the transitional agency to have powers in respect of agendas. I have an additional question for Mr Hide, the Minister in the chair. In clause 13(2) of the bill—this is a serious point—the transition agency is asked to “(a)—develop an organisational structure for the Auckland Council”. There is no mention as to whether that organisational plan is intended to cover the community boards that lie under the Auckland Council according to the model that is proposed by the Government. I would like the Minister to clarify whether indeed clause 13(2)(a) is intended to cover community boards as well as the Auckland Council itself.

I am very pleased to be able to take a call to speak to Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and, in particular, to address the question of the transition agency that is being set up, with members to be appointed by the Minister, as a statutory body. I must address a practice that has developed in some of the members opposite when they have been speaking to Part 3—it is a practice I hold in contempt. It is the naming of members of the public who are not members of this House, and who do not have the opportunity to respond. I myself was subjected to that sort of behaviour before I came into the House; I find it neither responsible nor respectable.

The critical point, now that we are going to have a unitary authority to be known as the Auckland Council, is to ensure that this Committee puts in place the necessary transitional arrangements to make the council work, and to make it work for the next 50 to 100 years in the life of the Auckland region. The royal commission studied models of implementation overseas and gave the matter very careful thought. The Government and Aucklanders will be looking to the transition agency to get the transition right.

Political decisions are being made in this Chamber tonight, and—goodness gracious—speaking of political decisions, what must the people of Auckland make of the behaviour of the Opposition? How dare those members stand up and talk about defending democracy! That is the last thing their behaviour in this Chamber over the last 2 or 3 days amounts to. All that the Opposition is doing is confirming in the electorate’s mind that it was right to throw Labour out on its ear. When other Auckland members get back to their constituencies, and when I get back to my constituency of Tāmaki, the people will be saying: “What a disgrace! What a disgrace it was that when the Labour Opposition could have been debating the provisions in Part 3 on the setting up and the working of the transition agency, instead it chose to play games.” The Opposition is playing games with taxpayers’ money. The Opposition members do not get that point. It is not their money that is being spent tonight; it is taxpayers’ money. That is going to come home to roost on the streets of Auckland tomorrow, Sunday, next week, next month, next year, and at the next election.

The organisational structure for the work that the transition agency will be called on to perform is vital. I have every confidence that the Minister, who has spoken with such clarity and such command of the details of the bill, will get the appointment of that agency right. That agency’s motivation and obligation will be to ensure that come the local body elections in October 2010, the new Auckland Council will be up and running, and to be sure that all aspects of the organisation have been got right. Members should make no mistake about this: the new council, on day one, must be up and running. The urgency in that is that it only as far away as October 2010.

I thank the Hon David Parker for his remarks. Maybe he could take another call, because his amendments do not appear to follow logically or to have correct syntax or English. We are struggling to grasp them. If we add to clause 13(2)(a) the amendment he is proposing—“after 1 November 2010” to add “including for Local Councils”—then the sentence does not seem to follow in any logical way. I know that the member has some legal background—certainly, more than I do—and he may care to make another amendment that gets the English right and the syntax correct in terms of what he is trying to achieve. As it stands, the amendment will not work; it just does not follow.

Also, the Hon David Parker’s second amendment, which amends clause 13(b), states “and on any other matter including on any issues relating to community boards”. The difficulty I have with that is I am not sure what clause 13(b) is. Maybe Mr Parker is meaning clause 13(1)(b)?

Hon David Parker: Yes.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Could the Clerk amend it to read clause 13(1)(b), because it is not clear what it amends. For the benefit of the Committee, the amendment would mean that the Auckland Transition Agency would “advise the Minister on any matter associated with the reorganisation, including in relation to existing or proposed legislation and on any other matter including on any issues relating to community boards”. It is a bit clumsy, but basically it is saying that the transition agency should be required to report on any implications for community boards. We can fix that for the member. There is an amendment to clause 13(2)(a), and this amendment is an addition. Am I correct? The amendment to clause 13(2)(a) adds “including for local councils”, and this one adds community boards.

Hon David Parker: The order is wrong.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The order is wrong. So it would go “including for community boards” then “including for local councils”?

Hon David Parker: Yes.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: But then the English would not work. Why would the member not make it one amendment?

Hon David Parker: I put it as two separate amendments.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: But if one gets in, the other one does not make sense.

Hon David Parker: “including” and “including”.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Well, if the member drafted an amendment that would work for both of them and would replace those two, then we could have a look at it. At present, they do not work, and I think the member appreciates that.

There is an amendment to clause 13(b). This is where it gets a bit hard. What was the Minister in the previous Government? Was he the Attorney-General?

Shane Ardern: At one stage.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The former Attorney-General has made an amendment to clause 13(b), but I am sorry to tell him that there is no clause 13(b). I am afraid that that one has to be struck out, because there is no clause 13(b), I say to Mr Parker. Does the member accept that?

Hon David Parker: Yes.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The member accepts that. Maybe the member could have another crack at it. I do apologise, because when the member was speaking I was reading the amendment and I was a little confused; I turned to my officials and said: “I don’t think there is a clause 13(b).”, and they came back “No, there isn’t.” That was why I was confused when the member was talking—because he was talking about nothing. I apologise. It is easy to make a mistake when we get a bit tired.

I will turn to the Greens. Ms Kedgley has an amendment that requires the Auckland Transition Agency to spend levy moneys. Here is an amendment from Parliament that would require the Auckland Transition Agency to spend money. Of course, that money is ratepayers’ money, so I am quite interested in this amendment, particularly when we are hearing concerns about cost. If the Auckland Transition Agency is going to be spending money, I am very interested to find out on what. So I read the amendment further. This is important, because we are seeing a lot of inconsistency between what people are saying and what they are proposing for the legislation. We are hearing a great deal of concern about the cost to ratepayers and the cost of the transition, particularly from Labour—and it will be interesting to see whether it will vote for this amendment—and from the Greens. Ms Kedgley went to some lengths to complain about it.

This amendment would have Parliament make the agency spend money raised through the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 “in a manner that enhances the environmental integrity of the Auckland Region.” The difficulty is that the agency only has oversight of the existing local councils. The Greens are not satisfied with the councils’ spending money; no, they want the agency to come over the top of that, take money, and spend it. If the Greens think about it for a moment, this is—

Hon Pete Hodgson: Please take us through it again.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: OK, sure. I understand; it is getting late, so I will take it slowly. [Interruption] They are folding their cards. I will explain it, for the benefit of the hardy souls in the Labour caucus. This amendment requires the Auckland Transition Agency to spend levy moneys raised through the Waste Minimisation Act of 2008 “in a manner that enhances the environmental integrity of the Auckland Region.” The difficulty with that is it fails to comprehend the role of the Auckland Transition Agency and, indeed, the role of the councils. The Auckland Transition Agency only has an oversight role over council decisions, so the spending of levies raised through the Waste Minimisation Act—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice as to whether there is any provision in the Standing Orders to prevent a Minister from filibustering his own bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member knows that that is not a point of order. The member knows that the Minister has unlimited calls. I do not appreciate points of order that seek to interrupt a member’s speech. I want to protect members so that they can have a fair go. I invite the Minister to continue.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Thank you for that. The Labour caucus wants to debate it, and we are debating it.

The Auckland Transition Authority has an oversight role over the councils’ decisions, and the spending of money raised through levies is a mechanism for the existing councils to decide. They are democratically elected councils, which is one of the points that have been raised throughout the debate tonight. I will explain what we want, for the benefit of Jeanette Fitzsimons, because I think she will get it. Yes, we need a transition agency, as was explained by the royal commission, to set up the reorganisation, but we want the local councils to get on with business as usual and to get on with being councils. Yes, we have to have regard to some of the decisions they are making, because we must have a relatively smooth transition to the new council, but the Auckland Transition Agency is not going to be willy-nilly making spending decisions, particularly not on day one. The councils will be making business-as-usual decisions as expected and as set out in statute, and the decisions that they make will need to go past and be confirmed by the Auckland Transition Agency, but we are not going to have Parliament direct the agency to take that money and spend it in a particular way. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

I want to go back to what I was discussing previously, in relation to clauses 11, 12, and 13 of Part 3, and carry on from there. Mr Peachey said earlier that Labour was playing games with regard to the transition agency. I can assure Mr Peachey that Labour is not playing games with regard to Part 3; it is representing the view of Aucklanders. That is why it is taking us so long. It is a view that is felt all across Auckland. The issue is who is going to be on the Auckland Transition Agency. I return to that point because that is a concern that Aucklanders have. They are worried that they will not be represented, and of course they have that concern because, who is appointing the members of the board? It is Mr Rodney Hide. As a Pacific person, would I trust Mr Rodney Hide to reflect my community’s interests or to represent my community? I do not think so. Mr Rodney Hide cannot represent my community. He will appoint people to that board who are of like mind—like minds such as Christine Rankin and fellow National MPs, people of that nature; Bill Birch, even.

If we reflect on the people who are of like mind with Mr Rodney Hide, we can see a recent example of why that is not a good representation of Pacific people. They are people like Miss Melissa Lee, who says that all people from South Auckland are criminals who stop by in Mt Albert to rob homes and commit crimes. She says also that people do not commit crimes in their own neighbourhoods; they go elsewhere—from South Auckland all the way to Mt Albert. With that in mind, as a side note, if that is the case—that people leave their own neighbourhoods to commit crimes elsewhere—then I ask Mr Hide to tell those people from Epsom to stop going to South Auckland and committing crimes there.

I will get back to the transition agency. The concern in the community—especially the Pacific community, which we consulted with on Monday night—is that they will not be heard with regard to the legislation that National is trying to push through and with regard to the transitional agency that it is setting up. As I asked before, why would they be heard when they cannot even be consulted? National cannot even get out there and consult them. National is saying now—I saw an advertisement in the paper—that it is going to have public meetings with the community to talk about this issue. It will have public meetings, but let us just reflect on where those public meetings will be. There will be eight public meetings in Auckland City, but only one in Manukau. I thank National! There will be only one in Waitakere. I thank National! Let us just talk again about that Pacific regional fono on Monday night. Mr Lotu-Iiga, where were you on the night of that Pacific regional fono? You were holding a 10-year funding plan—

Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is bringing you into the debate, and I suggest that you ask her to refrain from bringing you into the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): In response to that point of order, I say that the sentence started off by naming a member: “Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, where were you on the night …”. The “you” was quite obviously tied in the same sentence to the name; it was not directed at the Chair. To be fair, “you” is not totally excluded from members’ usage. If the member had been directing that comment at me, I certainly would have taken offence, but she was not. I invite the member to continue.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you, Mr Chair. Where was Mr Lotu-Iiga on the night of that Pacific regional fono on the super-city? He was holding a fono in Auckland City on Auckland City’s 10-year funding plan, when that Auckland City will soon cease to exist. What was the point of that? While there were several hundred Pacific people at the regional Pacific fono on the super-city, I heard there were about 10 people at Mr Lotu-Iiga’s meeting, and they were all his family members.

The issue with the transition agency is that our people will not be reflected. Members of the agency will be people of like mind with Mr Rodney Hide. They will supposedly be there to make decisions for our future as Aucklanders. I say “our future” because I live in Auckland, too. Personally, I am quite fearful when I think of the fact that Mr Rodney Hide and people who think like him will be making decisions on my behalf and on behalf of our Pacific community, which makes up 14 percent of the region, and our Māori community, which makes up 11 percent of the region.

It is something to be able to stand up and speak to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which I obviously think is an outstanding bill that will make a positive difference to Auckland City, and will actually—

Hon Steve Chadwick: That member voted against the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry, what was that?

Hon Steve Chadwick: That member voted against the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What is that, sorry? The members opposite are still a bit uptight about it, are they not? They are still a bit uptight about it all.

I would like to talk about—if I might speak to the Minister in the chair—the important role of the chief executive. It is an important role. The powers of the chief executive—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): We want to hear the member. I am getting a lot of aural graffiti at the moment. Interjections are OK—rare, reasonable, and hopefully witty—but I just cannot hear the member at this point. I invite the member to continue.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It is important that we talk about the Auckland Transition Agency: exactly what it looks like, what the make-up is, what its functions and purposes are—which, of course, is what Part 3 does—and how important it really is.

I say that in Waitakere there is just about universal approval for having one Auckland. People want to see a city that works, that works for them, and that actually gets them to the place where they want to be. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say equally to members on either side of the Chamber that both my ears are ringing. I cannot hear the member. I think it is fair enough to have some interjections. I say to one interjector, who was saying: “… sold you … you … you …”, that that is out of order. I invite the Hon Paula Bennett to continue.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Chair. A heated debate is going on right now on this bill—there are no two ways about it. The people of Waitakere are debating this bill at the moment, and they are debating what it means to be one city. I think that that debate is a good thing, and we certainly encourage them to have it. I am delighted to live in that electorate—the electorate that I serve. I take great pleasure in living there; I find it is one of the most beautiful places in the world to live in, quite frankly. I choose to live there; it is my home. I do not stand up and express platitudes, like members from the other side of the Chamber do; I stand up because I really believe what I say, and I want to walk the talk.

The transitional authority will see us becoming able to make the transition to what the Auckland Council truly needs to look like. We will see one city. We will see our city come together in a way that it has not. That fact has not been lost to members on this side of the Chamber. The Government certainly gets that, and gets what is important. What is important is looking at how we pull a city together: how we get the transport working properly, how we get the infrastructure working properly, and how we get our water, most of which will be coming from the beautiful hills of Waitakere, of course. What is important is how we transition into one city, as we move towards having one council. This part looks at the Auckland Transition Agency: what it looks like, what its functions are, what its powers are, and what is actually needed. It was, of course, recommended by the royal commission that a transitional authority be set up. It said there needed to be something between now and then, and it said what the transitional authority should look like. We listened to the royal commission—that is what happened. Hence this authority it to be set up. We saw what actually needed to be done and what was truly important.

I have some big questions around the role of the chief executive. I think that is a prime role. Everyone gets caught up with the issue of who will be on the agency—and I think those are fair concerns and fair questions; I can tell members that decision will not be made lightly. But equally, I think the role of the chief executive is very important. That appointee will actually have a lot of say on how we transition into one city, which, at the end of the day, is what everyone—[Interruption] Sorry, what was that?

Hon David Cunliffe: Could you explain the Christine Rankin decision?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am delighted to talk about Aucklanders and the difference they can make in this country, not just in a city like Auckland. There is no doubt that as soon as a woman with a bit of spunk stands up in this country, people like to wipe her down—they like to knock her down. But the reality is that we are OK with people standing up for what they believe in—making a stand, getting in there, and putting their opinion forward. So I congratulate those Aucklanders who make a difference in our country, who step up into different roles, who actually have an opinion and are not scared to put it forward, and who are not scared to have an opinion that differs from that of other people. I think that that is a fine thing. It is a fine thing for Auckland, and it is a fine thing for our country and for this Parliament. Unlike the Labour Party, I and other members on this side of the Chamber do not have a lot of angst about people having a different opinion from ours, and we do not have a lot of angst about Labour differing from us on a few things. But I am actually struggling to find what it does differ from us on, as far as this bill is concerned.

I am pleased to stand and take a call on Part 3 of the very, very rotten Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who came and gave a speech earlier, bemoaning the fact that he was not able to go home to his electorate and save people from being made redundant, because he was being forced to stay at work in Parliament. This is the man who has been fiddling while Rome burns. This is the man who, more than anyone else in this Parliament, could single-handedly do something to stop people being made redundant, yet he has done nothing. He gave a full third of tax cuts to the top 3 percent of New Zealanders, and in this part of the bill he is trying to give them a council, as well. The Minister is trying to give his mates a council, and Labour says that that is not appropriate. It is anti-democratic, and we will fight it all the way.

We know that National MPs have been leading by example and working a 4-day fortnight, so they are really angry that they have to be here doing some work. However, the fact is that if National members wanted to end this debate now, they could agree to send the bill to a select committee and to let the people of Auckland have their say, and we could all go home to our areas, our appointments, and our work. We are here because they will not do that. National members are scared of the people of Auckland having their say, and they have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that we will be here this week and next week.

Labour is putting forward an amendment that says that when the Minister of Local Government decides whom he will hand-pick and put on to the Auckland Transition Authority, he has to consult with stakeholders and interested parties. Let us face it: this authority will basically be the council for the people of the Auckland region for the next 18 months. It seems only fair that Aucklanders are consulted about who their new councillors will be, because their previous councillors and mayors will effectively be made redundant. The people whom Aucklanders voted in 18 months ago will effectively be made redundant. Those councillors and mayors went through a democratic process. They put themselves through an election campaign. They stood for office thinking that they would get a 3-year term, that they would be able to make funding and spending decisions, and that they would be able to make decisions for their area. This week the National Government said no. It thinks it knows better than them, so it will hand-pick a transitional authority that will run Auckland for the next 18 months.

Members would have seen in the newspaper today that an Auckland council said it would have to get permission from this transitional authority in order to buy toilet paper. That is how ridiculous the arrangement will be.

Hon Member: What if they say no?

MOANA MACKEY: Call us quaint, but the Labour members ask what happens if the authority says no. It is a very good point. We know that Mr Rodney Hide and the National members do not want these councils to have the ability to protect their assets for the next 18 months, or to pass rules that protect their staff and assets. They want to stop all the councils’ powers this week, in this Parliament, so that the councils cannot do those things before Mr Hide and Mr English set up an authority, which their mates will run, to control Auckland. It is absolutely shameful that this is happening.

I point out to members an advertisement in the New Zealand Herald that has a tiny little House of Representatives crest, which means that taxpayer money has been used. Maybe this money could instead have been used to advertise select committee hearings for the people of Auckland so they can actually have their say. I notice that the latest meeting in this advertisement is on 11 June. The Labour Opposition says that it is happy to stay in urgency until 11 June, so that all these advertised meetings can be held while this bill is being debated. We will stay in urgency until 11 June so that when Dr Jackie Blue holds a meeting in Three Kings this bill will not have been rammed through Parliament. It is ridiculous to have public meetings after the legislation has been passed, and to use taxpayers’ money to pay for the advertisement. The National Government thinks that kind of process is fine. The National Government thinks that kind of process is democratic.

Labour members say that National members can whinge all they want about being here and having to work hard to stick up for anti-democratic legislation, but we will hold them to account. This is the only debate in this country on this legislation. The bill is Draconian; Part 3 is anti-democratic. This is the only debate, and we will fight because no one else is being given the opportunity to do so.

As the member of Parliament for Auckland Central who took the seat off the Labour Party, I am delighted to speak on Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. National will continue to win seats in Auckland. I tell members right now that today is the day—[Interruption]

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I trust that the member has a serious point of order.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I simply ask the member to speak up a little; I am not able to hear her.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I say to members that I want to protect them, so that when they are speaking they can use their 5 minutes. I think it is unreasonable for people to take points of order simply to break up a speech. It is unfair. I want to protect those who are speaking. On the other hand, I would have called for a bit more quiet, but I have to say that more noise was coming from the speaker’s supporting group than from others. I ask members to keep it down.

NIKKI KAYE: Today is the day that the New Zealand Labour Party lost the support of workers, because the key part of this bill, Part 3, is designed to protect the 6,000 Aucklanders who are currently really worried about their jobs. The key part of this bill, which forms the Auckland Transitional Authority, is there to protect them, but Labour does not care about those 6,000 people. When Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Jackie Blue, and I go around those public meetings in Auckland, we will make it very clear that Labour members do not care about those 6,000 people; otherwise, they would be voting to put in this transitional authority in order to ensure that those workers have some certainty.

The other key aspect of Part 3 of the bill is the setting up of transitional arrangements for local body elections. Labour members do not care about local body elections; otherwise, they would support putting this bill through. If we do not pass this bill, we will not have local body elections in Auckland. There is a direct contrast here: a party that is interested in action for Auckland versus a party that is interested in time-wasting. Labour members have put forward 7,000 amendments. When I go around my public meetings in Auckland, I will be very clear that Labour is interested in time-wasting, as opposed to National, which is interested in helping those 6,000 people in Auckland through establishing a transition agency.

This evening Labour members have shown that they will lose the support of Auckland in 2011. That is very clear. Sam Lotu-Iiga will win Maungakiekie, and he will increase his majority. Paula Bennett will cruise to victory in Waitakere, because tonight the Labour Party has shown very clearly that it has lost the support of the workers of Auckland. At a key time, when there is a recession and people are coming to my office concerned about their jobs, Labour is interested in wasting taxpayer money, keeping members here, and proposing 7,000 ridiculous amendments.

I tell the people of Auckland that National cares about their jobs, about setting up a transitional agency, and about ensuring that, through a time of uncertainty, Aucklanders have some certainty in their jobs. That is why it is crucial that this part of the bill goes through this evening. It sets up the key arrangements for local body elections, and it ensures that there is some certainty in jobs.

National is the party that cares about the workers; the party opposite does not care about the workers of Auckland. There is a clear contrast between time-wasters and members who are pushing through a bill that will give action for Auckland. After 9 years of inaction under Labour—run-down hospitals and schools—National has achieved in 6 months what the Labour Government could not do in 9 years. Today is about action for Auckland, compared with time-wasting from Labour members. National cares about the people of Auckland. National cares about those 6,000 workers, and we will win Auckland in 2011.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call the Hon David Parker.

Hon Member: That’s the wrong David.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It was my mistake. David Parker did not seek the call, but because he had been referred to extensively by Rodney Hide, in the back of my mind I thought he should have the next call in order to respond. I saw David Cunliffe, but I called David Parker instead of David Cunliffe. The Committee will forgive me; it was my mistake.

With all the views that have been bouncing around the Chamber, I think it is time we heard from some Aucklanders. I would like to bring to the Committee, in the middle of this discussion, the views expressed by Aucklanders and Auckland leaders on what this Government is trying to ram down Auckland’s throat. The surprises are that these might not be the views that members would expect from conservative commentators.

Mayor Andrew Williams from North Shore City pleads—[Interruption] The members opposite laugh. They have just dismissed the elected mayor of over a quarter of a million people. Members opposite think that they know better than the elected mayor of over quarter of a million people. What does Andrew Williams say that they are so afraid of? He says that it is not too late for the Prime Minister to “please step in and bring this costly, disruptive madness to a halt.”

In fact, all the Government members have to do is send the bill to a select committee for 1 week, which is less time than they will be debating these amendments. If those members send the bill to a select committee for 1 week, they can go home. Mr Williams goes on to say that the “future of Auckland must not be railroaded by one man” who is more focused on “cracking heads”. Where is the one man?

How do we like the Trans Tasman—not known as a Labour Party rag—talking about the most terrible week since the Government got elected? It says that the Government is running hard to create a super-city in Auckland, but “John Key risks antagonising many within the constituency that voted him into power. ”

That brings me to the Minister in the chair, Paula Bennett. Here is a message from one of her constituents. It reads as follows: “Great to hear you’re trying delaying this bill passing. I live in the Waitakeres and I want to be represented by the mayor and councillors I voted for. Have emailed my protest to this bill to both John Key and Paula Bennett. Shame on her! ‘Proud to be a westie’—I don’t think so. All those fools who voted for her will be sorry. Anyway, whatever you can do to stop this, New Zealanders have no idea how fast the National Government is changing our country. Please stop them”. That email is from one of the former constituents of “Ms Westie”.

Chris Hipkins: She’s laughing about it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is what she always does. I wonder how it went in the Cabinet committee when she brought the Christine Rankin nomination forward. Some of her colleagues would have said: “Are you serious?”. She would have said: “Yeah, really. Ha, ha!”. John Key said he would back his Minister. Well, what does Trans Tasman say about that? It says that he was not in the country last time Christine Rankin was in power.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are seeing a repeat of what we have seen before. The member is 3 minutes into a speech and there is still no concentration on Part 3. I know that you are being generous in allowing this debate to be robust, but, really, a member with the Hon David Cunliffe’s experience should be able to get to the relevant part of the bill a little more quickly.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I will not have anyone speaking to the point of order. The member makes a fair point. I do want to be generous, but this is not a general debate or any of those other debates. The member should concentrate on Part 3. He may make a wide range of points, as forcibly as he likes, and draw on a wide range of material, but we are on Part 3.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is really just to point out to you that the member has spent his time replying to the comments made on Part 3 by the Minister who spoke previously and is now the Minister in the chair.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Chairman, you have called for a return to the bill. I therefore draw on some other external commentary of a more technical nature, which goes to the operating clauses of the bill, such as those in Part 3.

I will quote from the Auckland University of Technology’s professor of public policy, David Wilson, who said that the Government “had taken one of the headlines of the Royal Commission’s report but removed many of the mechanisms that would have achieved better regional governance … . The Government plan was so flawed it was doubtful it would work.” Mr Wilson said the plan “left too much to chance” and was “but a shadow of the Royal Commission’s report.” Nor was Mr Wilson confident that the Government would listen and change its approach, having “fundamentally misunderstood the problem in Auckland”. He said that Rodney Hide seemed to think he needed to “fight parochialism and crack heads together”, when the real issue was the integration of regional services. That is what this issue started from. That is why the royal commission was set up. There was a relatively straightforward solution, which was stronger regional governance underpinned by better-functioning territorial authorities, with some functions passed upwards. It was not very hard.

It is one thing to get it wrong, but it is another thing to get it wrong and then remove the right of reply. And as my colleague Moana Mackey has said, it even worse to try to dress up that sham by calling for consultation meetings across Auckland, paid for by public funds, just after extinguishing the right of redress. That is why the comment of the night goes to Andrew Williams, mayor of a quarter of a million North Shore-ites, who quotes to his Government the Gettysburg address of November 1863. Mr Wilson said: “when the very notion that power should reside with the people was in question, that ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ is a basic principle worth fighting for.”

I thank the Hon David Parker for his representations tonight. We are talking about Part 3, which is about the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency to oversee the new structure. It is about transferring power to a wider council. It is about putting together a council that will lead and drive Auckland City into the future.

We have heard tonight from a number of our colleagues across the Chamber about public meetings. We are having public meetings, because we listen to the people of Auckland. We listen to the people of Auckland Central. We listen to the people of Maungakiekie. We also listen to the people of Waitakere. We have representatives who live in the cities and the electorates that they represent. They do not live in another city and claim to represent another electorate. The issue is about having public meetings where we will be doing a lot of listening. We will not be filling our public meetings with cronies. We will not fill them with partisan people who wave placards and who ignored their right to have representation and be consulted last year.

The debate about the new city will be about leadership, because, ultimately, it is about people. We have heard the members opposite criticising and putting down the Hon John Banks. That honourable former member served in the House for 18 years. Members opposite should have a bit of respect for that, and show a bit of integrity, when they choose to criticise the Hon John Banks. What the Hon John Banks has done for Auckland City—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders specifically provide a right of redress to members whose integrity has been called into account. Our integrity has just been called into account. I seek your support to have that member withdraw and apologise. It cannot be the case that any human being who objects to John Banks lacks integrity.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order; that is a matter of debate. I say to the member that I want the debate to flow, and if members are going to take points of order, I want them to be about order. I want the debate to flow. I invite the member to continue.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence, as I am allowed to do under the Standing Orders, and I ask for redress.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): This is a robust debate, and I cannot see how that member could have been offended by that. I struggle to see that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I am.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I struggle to see how that could be so. It is my opinion that that was not offensive. That is my decision. The member raised that matter before. I said it was not in order. The member directly challenged my ruling again, and I just say to the member that the matter is closed, so he should not raise it again. I invite the member to continue.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, and I appreciate the respectful way that you are conducting matters—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Although the member may be grateful, he is not allowed to comment on your ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is technically correct, but I say to the member that I am trying to encourage people to let the debate flow, rather than tripping people up over technical things. The point of order is technically correct. When a ruling on a point of order has been made, it is not appropriate to comment on it. That is why I challenged Mr Cunliffe about that. The matter is closed; you then move on. I invite the member to continue with his contribution.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak without interruptions. I was speaking about the Hon John Banks, and I say there could be no better leader to take our city forward next year than him. What he has done, in his transmogrification as the leader of Auckland City, has been to keep council rates increases at the rate of inflation. Keeping rates low is what the people of Auckland have asked for.

The debate is really about how to bring together the various councils. Most people in the city, and most people in the country, accept that Auckland will be one city. Now the debate is really about how we organise the city, going forward. Those who have been involved in mergers and acquisitions, and in putting together different organisations and bodies, will understand that the debate is not just about the financial assets of this city, going forward. It is not just about the liabilities. It is also about the people. It is about, as my learned colleague Nikki Kaye, the member for Auckland Central, rightly alluded to, protecting the people who are employees of the city as at the transition date. This bill quite clearly protects the rights of those workers. I have spoken to some of those workers, who are a little nervous but quite open to the fact that Auckland deserves to have a council that oversees the assets of the whole city.

Let me give the Committee a couple of examples of why a single city is important. The issue really is about putting together consistent regulations, consistent procedures, and consistent systems—for example, payroll systems.

I am proud to take a call on this extremely important issue. I will speak to an amendment to Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which is about “Transitional arrangements” for this undemocratically created new council. I am proud to stand here tonight alongside my colleagues and I am proud of everything that they have had to say. While I am standing here I thank and acknowledge all of the parliamentary staff, who are working long hours during this important discussion, which goes to the heart of our democracy.

I take democracy seriously, and I speak from the heart to members in the Chamber tonight. What this Government is doing is not democratic, and many of the people of New Zealand are watching and listening tonight. This issue is about consultation and democracy—or the lack thereof. The people of Auckland have not been consulted about this bill. It is undemocratic. Reform of Auckland governance is needed, but so is proper consultation. Members have heard speaker after speaker on this side of the Chamber talk about that issue.

I will address clause 10 in Part 3, “Auckland Transition Agency established”. The National Government has not asked the people of Auckland what it should call their new local body; it has not asked them anything about it. In fact, this bill should not be called the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill; it should be called the “Local Government (We’ll Do Whatever We Like Because We Can, and We’ll Be Doing It to the Rest of the Country) Bill”. I am afraid for our country, and I fear that the title of this bill does not reflect the Government’s real agenda.

I stand here as the member for Dunedin South. I speak for Dunedin South. Unlike the National Party member Paul Quinn, who spoke last night, I do not pretend to speak for the rest of New Zealand. I am proud to represent every single one of my 59,442 constituents. I take my role very seriously, as I am sure all members of Parliament do. It is a big responsibility to represent 59,442 people. I welcome the fact that in my electorate there is a strong and active local authority, the Dunedin City Council. There are 14 elected councillors, and seven of them directly represent the Dunedin South electorate. Dunedin South is a long way from Auckland. Dunedin is very different from Auckland, but the people of Dunedin South are New Zealanders, just like the people of Auckland. They are united, I believe, on this issue and on what they want and expect from their elected representatives. They want to be listened to, they want to be consulted, and they want to have a voice.

I will tell the Committee how the people of Dunedin South are feeling about this issue. They have been coming into my office and they have been ringing up, and I have been asked about it on radio. They have a big question in their minds right now. As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove referred to yesterday, they are wondering what is next. Are they to be next? Is the merger of more councils on the agenda? Will there be a merger of councils, with no consultation with the people of New Zealand, to create super-councils that remove people’s rights to local representation? The people of Dunedin South whom I have spoken to about this issue are horrified, because a number of them are wondering whether a super-council will be established to cover the whole of the South Island.

I want to paint a picture in the minds of members, and in the minds of all the good New Zealanders who are listening to and watching Parliament tonight with a sense of increasing horror at the trampling of the rights of all New Zealanders. That picture is of a bulldozer—a big bulldozer. This Government is bulldozing the rights of Aucklanders, and, ultimately, the rights of all New Zealanders.

According to Statistics New Zealand the population of the South Island is 1,017,300—about one quarter of the population of New Zealand. In the South Island there is quality, not quantity. But that number is certainly less by quite a lot than the 1.4 million people in Auckland to be covered by this undemocratic super-city. So it is not entirely inconceivable that the Government, given its propensity for arrogant disregard for people’s wishes, could create a single super-council covering the whole of the South Island on a similar basis as the super-council in Auckland. Let us say it had 20 councillors—12 elected ward councillors and eight elected at large. Under that scenario, Dunedin would be likely to get one councillor, with perhaps another one representing Dunedin and Ōāmaru.

What a lot of nonsense I have heard in the Chamber tonight. I say to Nikki Kaye that members opposite have lost not only Auckland Central but the country. Why have they lost the country? Let me tell the people of New Zealand about the quality of these 9,998 amendments from Labour to Part 3. The first amendment states: “amend subclause 11(1) by omitting every word after ‘that’ and before ‘the other’ and adding 101 in its place.” The wisdom of members opposite takes these amendments through in exactly the same manner, until we get to 9,999. What a load of arrogant drivel! You are wasting the money of this community.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sure the member did not mean to bring a very good accountant into the debate by saying you are wasting money. Could you remind the member about the Speaker’s ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. The member is right. Do not bring the Chair into the debate.

JOHN HAYES: Today in Greytown 61 people lost their jobs at a company called LWR Industries and what are we doing here? Those Labour members have brought all of these amendments that are absolute drivel into the Chamber, and they have been doing it all day. I commend the Minister of Local Government for his excellent work. Rodney Hide has done a particularly good job of changing the legislation for the people of Auckland. The only way to drive this country forward is to have greater efficiency than we have now, and I really commend the Minister. I also commend the commissioners from the royal commission—people like Dame Margaret Bazley, who lives in Carterton in my electorate.

As we consider Part 3, I want the Committee to think about how we are moving to a formula where there will be 20 councillors in Auckland. In my electorate of Wairarapa there are three councils covering 40,000 people: Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa. They have 29 councillors rather than the 20 serving 1.4 million people in Auckland. We need that reform, because the councils are too small. In the past week South Wairarapa District Council put out a long-term council community plan with a projected increase of rates of 20.16 percent for the people who have lost their jobs just today at LWR Industries. That is totally unacceptable.

The Labour Party and its acolytes, people like Ron Mark, are out to play games. Ron Mark wants to stand as the next Mayor of Carterton District, but that is only subterfuge. He actually wants to use that as a lever to stand for the Labour Party in the next election. This is just game playing by those members.

I come back to Part 3—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask about relevance.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, I have just indicated to the member that he should to come to Part 3.

JOHN HAYES: The member who raised that point of order is totally irrelevant, but never mind. I am talking about clause 33 of the bill, about extraordinary vacancies that are created when people like Ron Mark pretend to stand for Mayor of Carterton District but are actually standing for the Labour Party.

Auckland needs this amalgamation, and we clearly cannot have an amalgamation of such a big group of separate territorial authorities without having the sort of transitional arrangements that are provided for in Part 3 of this bill. These transitional arrangements are not being put through by the Minister; they are being put in place through boundaries being determined by the Local Government Commission, which will establish 12 wards no later than 1 March next year. They will also include the names of each ward, the local board and its boundaries, and the number of elected members of each board. There will also be 20 to 30 community councils. When those members on the other side of the Chamber say that there is no democracy, I ask them how there can be no democracy if we have another 20 to 30 councils operating beneath the Auckland Council itself? I think this is very good legislation, and I totally commend those who have drafted Part 3 of this bill.

I have some detailed points to raise regarding Part 3. They are to do with the number of people on the governing body of the Auckland Transition Agency.

We know that the legislation states that the number of people on the governing body is to be between two and four, we know that other members can be co-opted on to it if four turns out not to be enough, and if we slip very briefly over to the schedules—which we cannot stay on, because we are not yet debating them—we notice that the quorum is two. So whichever way we look at the Auckland Transition Agency, it is small, and because it is small, on the one hand it will not be remotely democratic—and no one is pretending that it will be—but, more important, it will not be able to be remotely consultative, even in the narrowest sense. You see, eight territorial local authorities will be done over, and two, three, or four people will be put in their stead. We will get rid of 100 to 150 councillors and their ability to talk to, and have consultation with, the people of Auckland, and for a full year the power of the management of Auckland will be put into the hands of three or four people.

We know that the councils will persist, but everyone in Auckland will know that they are not councils in any responsible sense; they will be exercises in irresponsibility in a pure sense of the word, because the transition agency’s governing body is able to determine the agenda. That is what the Greens said. The Minister of Local Government, Mr Hide, said the Greens had got it wrong, but the Greens have not got it wrong. If one can say to a local authority—an extant but foundering local authority—“Let us look at your agenda. No, you cannot have items 3, 5, and 6.” then one is determining the agenda of the local authority.

The public of Auckland will be looking to the transition agency for leadership and progress during the 12-month period, and there will not be anyone to talk to. There will not be anyone to talk to, because there will be hardly anyone on the transition agency’s governing body. It is not just small; it is minimalist. It is smaller than any select committee of the House of Parliament. It is smaller than any Cabinet committee of the House of Parliament. It is smaller than any other council—regional council or territorial local authority—in the land. It is smaller than any board of a State-owned enterprise. It is smaller than any board of a large corporate. It is the size of a board of a small or medium-sized business, yet it attends to the needs of one-third of the country’s population for 12 months, and it has remarkable powers.

I would like the Minister to explain—if he would be kind enough—how he thinks those 12 months might go for the people of Auckland. They will have no ability to go to the members of the governing body, because they will not be able to get hold of them—they will have only the same number of hours in the day as the rest of us—and they will have no reason to go to their existing territorial local authorities. There will not be any community councils set up over those 12 months, so the Minister should not try to fob us off with that idea. I want the Minister to tell us how Auckland can possibly operate in anything resembling a democratic or consultative manner in those 12 months.

It seems to me that Auckland will be left pretty much at the mercy of the wisdom, or otherwise, of these two, three, or four people. That is not allowed to happen anywhere else in our system. It is not allowed to happen in any other local authority. If a major State-owned enterprise or corporate got down to three or four directors, there would be a lot of news about that in the business pages of any newspaper. It would not be something that would be considered reasonable. Of course, State-owned enterprises and major corporates, by their very nature, are not consultative, which public bodies are required to be. We have here the makings of the largest public body in the country outside Parliament, and for 12 months it will be run by four people. How would it be if the Government of New Zealand, because we were transiting to some interim form of Parliament—for example, from first past the post to MMP—decided that for 12 months it should be run by eight people? Would that be remotely tolerable?

I move, That the question be now put.

We have a number of amendments. We will be taking the amendments we have in the order that they have been received. Because there are so many of them, there will be a run of a member’s amendments and then there will be other members’ amendments. We have to put them in the order we receive them because there are so many. W0e think that is probably the best way to handle the matter.

I would like to correct the Green Party vote from 9 votes against to 8 votes against, for the last vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is seeking leave to change the Green Party’s vote. Is there any objection? There is not. We will change the vote of the Green Party to 8 votes opposed. The corrected vote is the Ayes are 64; the Noes are 53.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 10 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph:

(c) an obligation to act in a manner not inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The next amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley, which is a typescript amendment to clause 31(3)(i), is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 31 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (3)(j) after “2011”, “, the consideration for which is, or is equivalent to, $100,000 or more”.

The next amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley, which is an amendment to clause 31(4)(d), is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 31 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (4)(e) after “2011”, “, the consideration for which is, or is equivalent to, $100,000 or more”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I insist that you address those amendments one at a time and rule them out individually, not as a group. That has been the practice in this House previously.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, you cannot insist on that. That is at the discretion of the Chair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a very serious matter. These are important amendments.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a point of order. The member is raising a very serious matter, and we want complete silence.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The problem that members have is that we are not aware which of the amendments you have ruled out. You have told us that a series of amendments has been ruled out. Members are aware of the amendments, so it is important that members are aware of which amendments you have ruled out; otherwise, how could we make any other judgment on that?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am prepared to inform the member that the amendments that are ruled out commence with the amendment to Part 3 to add new clause 10(1)(a), which states: “The Auckland Transition Agency shall also be known as the Auckland Transition Agency responsible for the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 1 January 2011”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you tell us which sheets those are from?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Further to the previous ruling, I say that all other amendments to clause 10(1) that relate to the name of the Auckland Transition Agency are now out of order. The following amendment is a Minister’s amendment to clause 11(1) to omit “4” and substitute “5”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You said “a” Minister’s amendment. Is it “the” Minister’s amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It is the Minister’s amendment.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 11 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “4” and substitute “5”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have now checked on the Table, and unfortunately the amendment in the name of Mr Hide has not been tabled. It is not on the Table. The amendment that is on the Table is the one that was originally in the name of Mr Hide but was changed to being in the name of Mr Carter and was signed by Mr Hide. The one that is sitting on the Table is the one in Mr Carter’s name, and therefore it could not have taken priority.

Originally that was correct—that the amendment submitted to the Clerk at the Table was in my name and signed by Mr Hide. That amendment was subsequently withdrawn, and an amendment was resubmitted in the name of Mr Hide, signed by Mr Hide. I think the Clerk at the Table actually has the original of that amendment, if you care to check.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There was a clear intention that the Minister Rodney Hide had tabled this amendment.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is not a question in the end as to whether there is an intention; it is a question of whether it has occurred. That is something that is vitally important. As I have indicated to you, I have checked the Table. I can accept that there was a clear intention on the part of Mr Carter to replace the amendment signed by Rodney Hide that was in Mr Carter’s name. I accept the member’s word that he had an intention for that replacement to be laid on the Table, but it actually has to be properly considered and properly tabled in this House. We have evidence on the Table, and I am quite willing to walk down the length of the Table with the member to try to find it, and to see whether, in fact, he has done what he said he had done. Of course, I will take the member’s word as soon as I find the replacement, but if that has not occurred, then this amendment could not have taken priority.

The very fact that you have the document in your hand shows that it has been on the Table, and that suffices. When a member tables an amendment, he or she delivers it to the Clerk at the Table; it is not the member’s responsibility to table it in the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The requirement comes under Standing Order 297(2). The amendment is to be signed and six copies are to be delivered to the Clerk at the Table. This requirement has been complied with. The amendment is in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to criticise the Clerk’s Office in any way, because I know it has been very stretched as a result of activities from both sides of the House. We are sitting under urgency and it will take some time, but I ask, through you, that some care be taken so that when there are changes like this, members are made aware of them by the Chairperson and they come into the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member says. Strictly speaking, the requirement under Standing Order 297(2) has been met, as I mentioned. That Standing Order requires only that six copies be delivered to the Clerk at the Table. That was done. It is the prerogative of members to avail themselves of tabled documents, so that provision of the Standing Orders was adhered to.

We have a number of amendments in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. I will refer to the first one. The amendment to clause 11(1) to omit every word after “and” and before “other” and to substitute “101”, and the series of amendments that follow, are ruled out of order because they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is your ruling that the first of the amendments being put is in order but the rest are not?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I used the first amendment as the example, and I said that that amendment and all subsequent amendments were out of order. There are a similar number of amendments in the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did it take 2 days to work this out?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am speaking. A similar number of amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins have been ruled out of order for the same reason. I will read out the first one. The first amendment is to amend clause 11(1) by omitting “4” and substituting “20”. All subsequent amendments have been ruled out of order, because they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 11 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “by the Minister”, “and one Public Service Association representative chosen by the Public Service Association”.

The Green Party is voting seven in favour, not six. I seek leave to amend the vote accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. The result stands at 53 in favour, 64 against.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 11 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “by the Minister”, “, and one Council of Trade Unions representative chosen by the Council of Trade Unions”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a really unusual thing to do, but I invite you to rule that amendment out as having been previously dealt with by the Committee. The Speaker and Ministers of the Crown, of course, are paid the same salary.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): They might be, but I am halfway through the vote, and I am going to continue with it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek your clarification, in terms of the rules of the House, on whether members are supposed to be awake, or whether they are allowed to close their eyes. I am unfamiliar with that rule. Could you just clarify it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order. Members are entitled to have their eyes closed. They may be thinking deeply and contemplating the amendments that are going past; they may be in another place. Can we just carry on with the voting, please.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a relatively brief one. I think on three occasions while you where on your feet ruling, the Leader of the House—the setter of a good example—interjected on you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That may be the case, but while I was standing the member was also standing to take his point of order—another offence. But never mind.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You called me.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I was still on my feet, sir. The member is correct: technically Mr Brownlee made some comments, but he did not pass what I would have thought was the de minimis rule. We cannot expect absolute silence in this Chamber.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to clause 12 be agreed to:

to add the following new subclause:

(3) The salary of the chief executive must not exceed that set by the Remuneration Authority for the Chief District Court Judge.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to check whether it is “the” Minister’s amendment—the Minister in charge of the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, it is the amendment of the Minister in charge of the bill.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “1 November 2009” and substitute “31 October 2009”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Surely that is the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, that is correct. I am afraid my wording here is different. I thank the member; I will put the question on the amendment again.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 11 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (2) “in consultation with the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs”.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member opposite was taking photographs with his telephone.

What is the problem?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I did not see the event. If the member is taking photographs, I ask him to refrain from doing so.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. A very serious allegation has been made by people who are not telling the truth.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I used the word “If”. I do not know whether the member was taking photographs, so I am giving the member the benefit of the doubt.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I insist on an apology. The member has accused me of breaching the rules of the House. I did not. I have taken serious offence at the accusation made by John Hayes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member has taken offence. I ask Mr Hayes to apologise.

John Hayes: I draw your attention, Mr Chairperson—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I asked the member to apologise.

John Hayes: I apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Right.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I said the member “appeared” to be taking photographs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, we do not want to be making accusations, so we will leave it at that. The member has apologised, and we are happy with that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can you advise the Committee of what the rules are around photography in the Chamber. I am sure a lot of us would like to get a photograph of the Deputy Prime Minister in his current state.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a clear ruling on this: the Speaker controls all photography in the House. That is the position.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 11 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (1) “in consultation with the Opposition spokesperson on disarmament and arms control”.