Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

We are now making rapid progress on this bill, and we are up to the title clause and the commencement clause. I am sure that Opposition members will have some further suggestions on what the title might be, but the title, as it stands, and as recommended by the Government, is the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which actually captures what the bill is about.

I know that the commencement date has been contentious, because all the way through yesterday and today we heard no less a person than the deputy Leader of the Opposition, Annette King, tell us that the bill does not come into force until November next year. I am afraid that the Labour Opposition is wrong about that. This bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, and I know there has been a bit of confusion about that.

However, Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010, because that concerns the Auckland Council. Clauses 27 and 28 in Subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31 October 2010. I commend the title and commencement of this bill to the Committee.

The Minister has pointed to a very important issue. He is quite right that, except for Part 2, which comes into force on 1 November 2010, this legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Of course, therein lies the problem, because by the date that this bill receives its Royal assent there will have been no proper consultation with the people of Auckland as to its effect.

One of the amendments that will be put forward by members on this side of the Chamber is to delay the date of that Royal assent to a date that is substantially later, so that the normal processes that precede legislation coming into force can, in some other process outside this Parliament, take place in order to protect the citizens of Auckland and to give the fourth estate the time to properly identify the effects of the provisions contained in this bill.

Let us consider that issue. The provisions of this bill were not available to the media or to the Opposition until shortly before this debate began. We have not had much time to properly get into the implications of this bill. It is true that Parliament has been sitting very long hours. We have been embroiled in the detail of each provision as it has come before us, but we have had to do that under the pressure of urgency, sequentially one issue after another, and we have not had the time to consider other issues that may be there but which we have not thought of in the limited time we have had to deal with this bill.

But that does not apply just to Parliament. It applies to everyone in Auckland. They have been prevented from having the time they would normally have to look at these things. These are very technical matters. They involve the interrelationship of the Local Government Act 2002, the various Acts of Parliament that cover Watercare Services and the like, and the various Acts of Parliament that control local assets and the environment, such as the volcanic cones and the lovely marine environment around Auckland. In order to get our heads around the complexities of all of those interrelationships, it is very important that we give ourselves the time to reflect on these issues, and the time to take the appropriate advice.

Some of these issues are so technical that a lot of laypeople are not able to get their heads around them in a short period of time. They need time to be able to talk to non-governmental organisations that have expertise in these areas, to their lawyers, and to their local body politicians. Those local body politicians themselves have not had the time to get their heads around these issues, so they are not yet in a position to inform their ratepayers and citizens as to where the hooks in this lie. Some of those hooks have been well identified by the Opposition, including Labour and the Greens, but a lot of them still lie untested because the process has been rushed. So one of the important and necessary changes to the bill would reverse the provision that currently states that the bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent—which could be next week—and puts it out to some later date.

Labour members are open as to the range of dates. The date has to be substantially later than now, but I do not have an unreasonable view as to what that date might be. If we could have a date that was similar to the date that would have been achieved after a full select committee process, followed by a second and a third reading debate in this House, then that would be an appropriate period of time to consider the date by which this bill ought to come into effect. Although the process by which we could have some decent scrutiny would not have the advantage of the officials’ advice, would not have the advice of parliamentary services to the select committee, and would not have the input of many politicians, at least we would have something. Members of the fourth estate, non-governmental organisations, councils, their lawyers, and all the people who have a very strong interest in this issue would have the time to consider the implications of this, and they would then have the time to take the other political steps that one can take when one does not like legislation.

A case in point of recent occurrence is the foreshore and seabed legislation, which was highly controversial and incendiary. There are people who say that we did not get that right. What we did not do was rush it through in such a short process as is being done to the 1.4 million people in Auckland, and stop people from having their say. Indeed, we allowed sufficient time for people to—

The debate on the title clause of a bill is an opportunity to take stock of the various arguments that have been made during the Committee stage and to reflect those through the title. So it is absolutely appropriate that we reflect on the key arguments that have been made throughout the debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill.

I said at the start of this debate some days ago that I do not often get angry about matters before this Committee, but that I am deeply, deeply angry about this bill. Let me remind the Committee why. The first more appropriate title for this bill is the “They Stole Our City (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill”. I speak here as a passionate representative of Waitakere City. It is a city of which I, like the 200,000 people of west Auckland, am proud. I am proud because we have built a city that treasures its environment. It is a city that treasures the arts and promotes smart business. The role of the territorial authority, the Waitakere City Council, has been crucial in achieving that. The member Sam Lotu-Iiga is a councillor as well as an MP and he should not trash his other employer. The same is true of Manukau, the North Shore, central Auckland, and east Auckland. We are made stronger by our diversity. We do not need to be homogenised by some top-down, business baron - driven council for the few in a smoke-filled room. That is what we are arguing about today.

The second reason we are arguing is that this bill should be called the “They Stacked the Deck to Keep Auckland Bluer Bill”. It is not about making Auckland greater; we do not need eight at-large councillors to do that. There will be eight at-large councillors because someone wants the right wing to be in control. That is because if people want to run an at-large campaign across Auckland, they need $250,000 to send one letter to every household. The poor need not run. If people are not rich or famous, they can forget it; they cannot be an at-large councillor. They cannot get their name recognition up, so they should forget it. That is why historically 19 out of 20 at-large councillors in Auckland used to come from east Auckland. That was no surprise, as that is where the money and power was. That is why we had a ward system in the first place. The royal commission got that one wrong, and the Government has got it way wrong.

Thirdly, the bill could be called the “Complete and Dishonest Waste of Money Bill”. The transition costs of this legislation have been calculated by independent analysis at Auckland University at $750 per ratepayer—not per household; per ratepayer. There are four people in my household; that is $3,000 of transition costs, and for what? To take away the city I am proud of, and to homogenise us and bring us under the control of the barons of Remuera.

What about the “No Proper Consultation Bill”? It is bad enough to do all that, but provided the Government goes through a proper parliamentary process, Parliament is sovereign. We accept that, but listen to the lies that have been told about this bill. The Government said it would consult once it got the royal commission report. Then it said that, no, it would consult when it had made policy decisions. Parliament has a select committee process, but the Government said it was sorry, but there would be no select committee, because it is ramming the bill through. We are here on a Saturday because the Committee of the whole House is the last line of defence. We are the last line of defence against something fundamentally wrong happening to democracy in New Zealand.

I tell those members to be careful what they wish for, because sometimes the previous Government got that a bit wrong. Others have said the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the Electoral Finance Act, or even the child discipline bill were examples of something that was maybe not as bad as this, but was sort of similar because we did not carry public opinion. This legislation is the worst constitutional outrage I have seen in 10 years in this Chamber, and I am ashamed that the Minister of Local Government, Mr Hide, is so afraid of public opinion.

If that is not bad enough, how is this for gall? He has put fully paid ads in the newspapers and will have a sham consultation after this bill is already passed.

I have an amendment to the title, and I would initially like to speak to that amendment. My amendment states “to omit the words (Auckland Reorganisation) and replace them with (Gutting of Auckland Local Democracy)”. I think that sums up what this bill is about. Another possible suggestion would be to call it “Rogernomics Part 2”, because that would also encapsulate what the bill is about. It is almost breathtaking that we could expunge eight democratically elected city councils overnight with the passage of this bill, without ever asking one of the almost 1.5 million Aucklanders whom the councils represent whether they wish their councils to be obliterated off the face of the earth, as they will be on 1 November next year.

It is also extraordinary that there is absolutely no mandate for this bill, because neither National nor ACT said in its manifesto that it was intending to eliminate the eight city councils of Auckland. Those parties did not tell Aucklanders that, and they did not put it in their manifestos. This is shades of Rogernomics, 1984. There is no mandate from the royal commission, which wanted to retain the eight city councils. The people of Auckland have not been consulted. They are not even allowed consultation on this bill. It is extraordinary. I think it will take a while for Aucklanders to fully understand the implications of what has happened over the last few days—namely, that democracy in Auckland has been drastically shrunk. Democracy has been shrunk and eight councils have been obliterated.

But, even worse than that, the Government has come up with a completely new type of local democracy in New Zealand. That is why I am glad that people from Wellington have been sitting here watching; they understand what is going on. Everyone else in New Zealand needs to wake up to what is going on, because it is going to happen all over New Zealand once this reform has been rammed though. The Government has come up with a new model of local democracy that gives unprecedented powers to the mayor—the so-called strong mayor model. Members opposite are hoping that John Banks will be the mayor. Someone like John Banks could be voted in by a minority—by, arguably, 30 percent of Aucklanders—take control of the Auckland Council, pick his cohorts, his inner cabal, control the council agenda, and ram through his agenda for Auckland. I think some Aucklanders do not realise that that is what will happen. We are trying to warn people about it now.

The only things to counterbalance the new, unprecedented executive powers of the mayor are these pitiful little local boards. The Government is setting up this funny little committee for Auckland, but what will it consult on? Everything has been set in motion; everything is done. The only thing that I have heard anyone say we can consult on is the powers of the local boards, which are not even set in statute. We are going to have huge consultation, but what about? The powers of the local boards.

In response to my question in the House, the Prime Minister assured Aucklanders that every single Aucklander would be able to be heard by the committee that is being set up. I am sure Aucklanders will want to be heard, if only to protest at the atrocious way in which this measure is being rammed through Parliament using shock tactics, as Naomi Klein called them; the Government is using the blitzkrieg tactics of Rogernomics, which are not to give people a minute to breathe but just to keep ramming it through.

The other thing I want to say is that I am disappointed that the media ignored a very significant clause in this bill that will help to expunge local democracy from Auckland.

I move, That the Committee report progress.

It is unbelievable. The Opposition is attempting to assist Government members who have been complaining and complaining that we have been dragging it out, and when we say “OK, why don’t we move on?”, they vote against it. It is absolutely unbelievable. Maybe we could call this the “Absolute Shambles and What the Hell is the Leader of the House Doing Bill”, because Government members do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha.

I have a lot of suggestions for alternative titles for this legislation. The first would be the “Why Should Aucklanders Get a Say When Tories Know Best Bill”. I think that really sums up this legislation, being rammed through all stages under urgency with no select committee, which obliterates eight democratically elected councils overnight. It is unbelievable; maybe we could just call it the “Democracy is So Tiring Bill” because I think that is how National members feel about it. For them it is tiring having to stay here at Parliament to vote on things, even though that is what we are paid to do. It is tiring to go out and talk to people. Democracy makes us really, really quite tired and we can see the bags under Mr Brownlee’s eyes.

My next name is a very important one, because it relates to the amendment Labour tried to put up to secure paid parental leave for the employees of local authorities. We could probably call it the “Gerry Brownlee Does Not Understand How Paid Parental Leave Works Bill”. We tried to explain to him that when we move to this transition agency the women working there will effectively have a new employer, which means that their paid parental leave entitlement does not carry over. Mr Brownlee said that we should not put a provision about that in the bill, because we do not need to put in a provision to say that the residential speed limit is 50 kilometres an hour. I not sure whether Mr Brownlee knows that the residential speed limit does not change when someone changes employer. That is a crucial difference between the speed limit and paid parental leave. He might want to go and talk to the Minister of Transport about that, get a briefing, and have it explained to him.

The bill could be called the “Gerry Brownlee (Trust Me I Know What I Am Doing) Bill”. He said the paid parental leave provisions were going to go to a select committee. But the fact is we are passing this legislation now. It will come into force whenever this sitting of Parliament lifts. We were asking him why he did not put in a really simple clause that clarifies what, apparently, the Government members claim—that they do not expect the entitlement to go. Let us just put that in the bill to clarify it. Mr Brownlee says that that part does not come in until November 2010 anyway, and by then we will have passed the other legislation. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House, given his control of the House this week I am not entirely convinced that those other pieces of legislation can be expected to be passed by November 2010. I think it is a great leap of faith for the women who work for the Auckland City Council to say: “That’s all right. Mr Brownlee is so much in control of the House that this will not be a problem and the legislation fixing it up will be passed.”

The next very important amendment Labour put up was to ensure Māori representation on the transition agency. Maybe, since the Māori Party opposed it, we could call this bill the “Iwi Versus Kiwi Bill” because we are seeing the same old National Party. I just want to point out to my colleagues in the Māori Party and the Green Party that Labour did try to make that part stand alone. We tried to make that part for Māori representation stand on its own without the other representation for Pacific and Asian people, but the Clerk told us we could not do it and that the only way we could get it up was to combine it. I want to say, because we are criticised by Māori Party colleagues for putting the others in with Māori, that we tried.

At least Labour did try, because I did not see other amendments on the Table from parties that were accusing us of not doing enough for Māori representation; only Labour put up amendments on the Table to ensure Māori representation. I think it is important that that goes on the record.

Labour also put up an amendment to make sure that public assets could not be sold by this transition agency. National opposed that, so let us call the bill the “Sell the Family Silver Bill”. One of the assets we are talking about is Auckland Airport. Do members remember what the National Party said about Auckland Airport when Labour stepped in to ensure that it stayed in New Zealand hands? National members were up in arms, and then they sit here in this Chamber and expect us to believe that they care about the public retention of assets. The situation we find ourselves in is absolutely incredible. It is rotten, rotten legislation by a rotten-to-the-core Government that is showing its true colours.

I move, That the question be now put.

We are 5 minutes into the debate—maybe 10—and National members are already trying to shut it down. We should call this bill the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill” because this bill gives Rodney Hide ultimate and total control of Auckland. It establishes a transition agency whose members he can hand-pick. The bill says that that transition agency has to have all of its expenditure approved by the Minister, and it gives that transition agency the ultimate control over all the decision making of all the democratically elected existing authorities in Auckland. It hands ultimate and total control to the ACT Party and to people like Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas. Rodney Hide can now appoint whomever he likes to this transition agency. That is why we should call this the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill”. He could appoint, if he so chose, Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble to this agency, because even though Roger Douglas is a member of the House, we know that National members do not have any problem with double-dipping. They do not have any problem with double-dipping; they do not have any problem with anyone being involved in local government politics at the same time as being in this House.

We should call this the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”, because we know this is the first step in the plans of National and the ACT Party to merge all local authorities into super-councils up and down the country. I took an interest in this particular issue because I know that Paul Quinn and his mate John Terris have been going around the Hutt Valley saying they are in favour of merging Wellington local authorities.

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I put to you that we are getting repetition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Chris Hipkins to continue.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I asked Rodney Hide whether he had received any advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils, and he has. He has already received advice on the potential merger of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils. He answered that in parliamentary written question No. 05571, where he confirmed that he had received advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils on 24 April 2009.

I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call and give the people of the Hutt Valley an absolute reassurance that they are not going to lose their local governance as well, as part 2 of this reorganisation that National and the ACT Party are pushing. We know that Hutt Valley people cannot be certain that they would even get a say in that reorganisation, because National and the ACT Party would ram through more legislation in this House. That is why we should call this bill the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”—because we know that there is more to come.

We should call this the “National Party Knows Best Bill” because we heard from members opposite that the people had their say on 8 November last year. It is all over from then on in; National has 3 years when it can do whatever it likes under parliamentary urgency, and it does not have to go back and consult the people. It does not even have to send legislation to a select committee. It can do just whatever it likes. That is why we should call this bill the “National Party Knows Best Bill”.

We should call it the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill” because after 3 days of debating amendments Gerry Brownlee finally worked out how to get them ruled out of order—not on his own; in fact he probably had quite a bit of help from Rodney Hide to do that. Gerry Brownlee sat through 3 days of voting on amendments before he thought it might be a good idea to pick up the Standing Orders and maybe have a bit of a read. The Leader of the House has finally read the Standing Orders! That is a cause for celebration. So we should call this bill the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill”.

We could call it the “Where is Melissa Lee Bill”, because, despite wanting to be the next MP for Mt Albert, she has not taken one single call on this debate. She wants to be the next member of Parliament for a seat in the centre of Auckland, yet she has absolutely nothing to say on the reorganisation of Auckland’s local governance.

We could call this the “Privatisation is Back on the Agenda Bill”. National members may have gone around the country saying they would not sell State-owned enterprises like Kiwibank, but they have suddenly discovered there are a whole lot of State assets in local government that they can get their hands on and hock off. They voted against the amendment put forward by Labour that would have saved that.

I move, That the question be now put.

This bill is being rammed through with no select committee consideration. Two parts of the bill will be in effect very shortly. Part 3 has some of the most significant implications for Aucklanders that one could imagine. Around $28 billion worth of assets, 6,300 workers, and local government representation and services for over a million people will all be affected by the work of the transitional agency that is being established, and that agency is under no obligation to consult anybody, other than the Minister Rodney Hide.

Some of my colleagues have already suggested that we should be calling this bill after Rodney Hide. That seems very appropriate, given how much power he has to control this agency. This agency is made up of somewhere between three and five people. There are no requirements here to determine any criteria for selecting them. There is no need for that agency or its board to be representative of anybody. In fact, it could be made up of five of Rodney’s best friends or, as somebody said, five members of the ACT Party, for example. This is entirely possible under this bill. Let us call it the “Centralised Power in the Hands of a Rich Few Bill”, shall we? Let us do that. Let us call it the “Centralised in the Hands of the ACT Party Bill” or indeed the “Centralise it in the Hands of Rodney Hide Bill”.

Will Rodney Hide bother to talk to anybody about any of the important matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with? I think it is highly unlikely, given there was no consultation on the recommendations of the royal commission, given that developing the Government’s proposal after the royal commission did not seem to involve consultation with anyone other than the Government, and given that no effort was made to cost it or to take a regulatory impact analysis before pushing this bill through Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely that he will consult people about the implications of some of the matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with.

Despite our best efforts over the last few days to scrutinise this bill, in the absence of a select committee process there will undoubtedly be things that have not been able to be checked in this Parliament. We have done our very best. We have raised issues concerning representation and making sure that people are represented—that the diverse and large population of Auckland is represented appropriately. We have put in place amendments concerning assets in order to make sure not only that they are not privatised but also that our elected representatives do not lose control of them—that they have the right to control those assets. We have made a number of amendments concerning workers and the treatment of the 6,300 council workers. But none of that has been taken into account by the Government. Its members are far too arrogant to think that any of those things have merit.

I think that Aucklanders, and in fact New Zealanders, will be highly resentful of the fact that the Government has not bothered to pick up a number of very important matters that Labour has raised with it. Labour members know that those issues matter to New Zealanders. The public control of public assets and the fair treatment of workers matter to New Zealanders. We have raised our concerns about unintended consequences, such as the paid parental leave provisions, which Gerry Brownlee considers to be a silly matter. If we are right, then a lot of women will be very concerned—and a lot of families, in fact—about Mr Brownlee’s attitude to this important matter of paid parental leave.

There are a number of matters that we have not even been able to consider. One of those matters concerns clause 33. This clause has not had any consideration by the Committee, but again we could call clause 33 the “Let Councillor Lotu-Iiga off the Hook” clause because that clause, which we have not considered yet, is all about filling extraordinary vacancies during the transition period. This now provides councillor Lotu-Iiga with the opportunity to resign—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member, but I would like some advice. It is highly irregular and deeply offensive for a member, as he is wandering around the Chamber, to be screaming—not interjecting—at the speaker on her feet. He is not even bothering to sit in his seat. I ask you to enforce the relevant Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is unfortunate that the member has interrupted the speech being made by a member of his own party. This is how I recall it, as I heard it. The member speaking was making reference to the member who was moving across the Chamber. The member who was moving across the Chamber heard his name mentioned and felt that it had been mispronounced. The member decided to try to correct the pronunciation of the member’s name. That is how I heard the exchange. We could get picky about it and interrupt all members’ speeches, but I would prefer not to. I thought that was the matter. The member is still speaking and making her points, but I invite members when they are speaking to do their best to pronounce people’s names properly.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Councillor Lotu-Iiga is missing in action, according to The Aucklander in two articles now. We have not even had a chance to consider the fact that this clause enables him to deal with the heat that he is under.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to support the amendment of my colleague Sue Kedgley that states this bill should more appropriately be called the “Gutting of Local Democracy Bill”. We have heard from Rodney Hide that the bill will take effect, for the most part, on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I think many Aucklanders will be very concerned that that will be the beginning of the stripping away of their local democracy and their ability to participate properly in civic affairs. I think they will be looking to another commencement date—the commencement date of the hīkoi in Auckland. The hīkoi has been initiated by Māori and will be led by them, but no doubt it will bring in a lot of Aucklanders who want to protest. People will be coming from the south, the north, and the west, and from the Ōrākei Marae, into the centre of town for a big march up Queen Street to Aotea Square. I think that will be a very important commencement date.

One thing that worries me is that when this bill takes effect and the Minister appoints the members of the transitional agency—

Sue Kedgley: The gang of four.

KEITH LOCKE: It is called the gang of four by my colleague. It is the gang of four if we include Rodney Hide. The agency needs to have only three members—a chair and two others. If we look at the schedules, which unfortunately we did not get time to debate in some detail, we see they state that the quorum can be two members. If there are three members—the chair and two others—and the chair is empowered under the provision in the schedules to call meetings at times and in places that its chairman appoints, he can call a meeting of just himself and one of the other members who turns up. They can have a vote but if it is divided, then the chair has the casting vote, so we have one person who can effectively direct everything in Auckland for that whole transitional period. When we think that there are all those other provisions that any agenda items can be interfered with and anything can be changed, basically that puts huge power particularly in the hands of the chair of the board.

We can contrast that with the powers under the associated bill, where the local community boards—20 or 30 of them—do not have any powers at all, other than what is delegated by the larger Auckland Council. The larger Auckland Council might say “We’re not going to delegate anything. Get stuffed.”, and that would be it, under this legislation.

So members can see how the name “Gutting of Local Democracy Bill” is very appropriate. Why could it not have gone to a select committee? I was on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. We had less than a month to consider that bill. Perhaps we should have had longer, but it shows that we can have short periods, medium periods, or long periods of select committee consideration.

What was the Government scared about when it said that this transition bill could not go through a select committee process? It is outrageous, but it sort of fits in with what the Government did not long after it came to power, which was to rush a whole lot of important bills through Parliament under urgency so that there was no proper consideration. It is becoming a pattern—a very bad pattern.

As Chris Hipkins said, this process could be a blueprint for what will happen across the country, including to the Wellington region. It is something that every New Zealander should shake in their boots about, and not just think it is something that concerns only Auckland. It concerns the very democracy of this country. We do not want democracy to be cut out at the local level and have democracy—even limited democracy, as we have seen over this urgency period—only in this Parliament. The limitations on the Government in our unicameral parliamentary system are bad enough—things can be rushed through very fast despite the resistance, in particular, of the Māori Party, the Greens, and Labour—without stripping away the powers of the people in terms of their local democracy. So the Greens are very supportive of Sue Kedgley’s amendment and very much against this bill as a whole.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry that this point of order is slightly late, but I have only just come back into the Chamber.

Hon Member: So we suffer.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think I know what the member is going to raise. I just say to members that it is helpful if we keep our comments down while a point of order is being raised. I do not mind small muttering, but that comment was a bit excessive.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: My point of order is about the stage we are now at in Committee, which is the debate on the title and commencement clauses. As you are probably all too painfully aware, this bill has not been to a select committee; this is not the first time that has been said by the Opposition. There is a longstanding convention that, as a result, firstly, a slightly wider scope is given to members for their speeches, and, secondly, the debate goes for longer than a normal debate on the title and commencement clauses. I understand that the Government has repeatedly moved closure motions on these clauses, so I just wanted to formally raise with you whether you will be taking into account the fact that this bill has not had the select committee scrutiny that it would normally have had.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that the Chair will take all matters into account. It is a long and complex algorithm, parts of which will be relevancy, repetition, the quality of the debate, the fact that the bill has not gone to a select committee, and the fact that it is a wide-ranging debate. All those elements will be judiciously weighed up, and the balance of the argument will be sought. At that point the Chair will decide whether we are going to take closure. I thank the member for his effort.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I was listening very carefully to your criteria for judging the length of this particular part of the debate. In reference to the point you mentioned about the quality of the debate, I think this debate—particularly from Labour, the Greens, and the Māori Party—has been of an extraordinarily high quality. I think that should be taken into consideration, because I am sure that that quality will continue.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Well, I am sure that the quality of the debate has been such that the member will take the oral record and replay it on a continuous loop to himself when he is home at the weekends.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to take your ruling to mean, then, that you are reflecting Speaker’s ruling 110/7, which says: “members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.”? Of course, this bill has been considered for 3 days, and although none of the Opposition’s amendments have been accepted, a very wide range of issues have been raised, many of which deserve to be touched on in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member can be assured that the Chair has that very point weightily in his mind, and will consider it very carefully.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill could be quite properly named the “Rodney Hide - ACT Party Double-cross Their Constituents Bill”. If members recall, some time ago in an earlier debate Mr Hide said that he would come into this Parliament and, if he was a Minister, he would listen to people. Mr Boscawen, of course, led marches all over the country—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Only Mt Albert.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, in Mt Albert. He was calling for people to be listened to over various issues. Yet when those members get into Government, no one is listened to. The people of Epsom—Mr Hide’s electorate—apparently are not intelligent enough to be listened to. The people in Heather Roy’s part of the world that she purports to represent—she does not have any constituents—apparently are not intelligent enough to be listened to.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Or to bother.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Or to bother. As other speakers have said, it is interesting that once the bill is passed, National will take out half-page ads in the paper and have public meetings in order to consult with folk—after the horse has bolted. I think that is pretty reprehensible. This is one of the biggest changes to the biggest city in our country, and it will have huge commercial, social, and logistical impacts for a whole host of New Zealanders. I believe that that is absolutely wrong, and I invite Mr Hide and others to reflect on their conduct and on that of the Government throughout this debate.

I move, That the question be now put.

As a consequence of that amendment to the Minister’s amendment, Sue Kedgley’s amendment is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision. Secondly, there are two amendments in the name of the Hon David Parker that are inconsistent with the previous decision, and, therefore, are ruled out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to take it that my third amendment is within order, notwithstanding the prior vote, and that it could be put?

I wonder whether the Hon David Parker could explain for us what his third amendment is. It is a bit confusing with so many amendments.

My first amendment was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “concentration of power”; my second was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “democratic deficiency”; and my third was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “facilitating the privatisation of council assets”.

I have considered the three amendments, and I wish to change my ruling to say that not just two amendments are out of order, but all three are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit subclauses (1) to (3) and to substitute the following new subclauses:

Subject to subsections (2) and (3) this Act comes into force 2 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010.

Sections 27 and 28 and subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31 December 2010.

There are a number of amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern. I have to confess that I have not personally read each of them, but I have been told by the Clerk’s Office, which has worked through each of the amendments, that they are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your assurance that you have sought the assurance of the Clerk’s Office that that is the case, and that all of the amendments have been read by the Clerk’s Office. My view is that it would be very hard for that assurance to be given considering the time that has been involved.

It is not for me to speak, of course, but I know that the Clerk’s Office has done an outstanding job in regard to the whole issue of these bills. I have had the opportunity to notice that the staff peruse these things thoroughly. I would feel confident that they will have vetted the amendments submitted by the member, and if the staff say the amendments are out of order then I would accept that is so. At the end of the day, the important thing is that the Chairperson has sought advice from the Clerk’s Office, and it has provided advice. Finally, the decision comes down to you, Mr Chairperson. If you rule that the amendments are out of order, then we have to accept your ruling and that they are out of order. We have already had rulings from the Speaker, who has been called back on that very point.

I ask you, Mr Chairperson, to advise the Committee, because, obviously, a lot of amendments are involved. We acknowledge that the Committee has passed two amendments in the Minister’s name—the second one being to clause 2 to omit the words “on the day” and to substitute the words “2 days”. A number of the amendments in front of you refer not only to the date on which the bill comes into effect, but also to what has to happen before the Royal assent can be given, and particularly to some consultation with specified individuals. I think that even though we can accept that the actual day the bill becomes an Act has changed because of Mr Hide’s amendments, there are a number of amendments for the period leading up to that point. I think that some advice from you to the Committee would be quite helpful.

You, Mr Chairperson, have given a clear ruling to the Committee that these amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern have been ruled out of order. I think it is unfair of the Opposition to directly attack the Clerk’s Office. I think the staff have done a fantastic job. You have ruled, and the Committee, therefore, should not challenge your ruling.

I will start by saying that the Opposition also agrees that Office of the Clerk has done a wonderful job, and there is no criticism at all of the office. The staff have worked under considerable pressure. There has been an enormous number of amendments brought about by the process that the Government is running. The point that Mr Hughes makes is quite a valid one, and one on which we seek a ruling. His point is that the effect of some of the Opposition amendments is not covered by the amendments that have been put by the Minister, because they relate not to the date on which the Act comes into force following the Royal assent, but to what must happen prior to the bill going for the Royal assent. That is a different question.

I say to members that I am happy to rule. I have now personally perused for myself half of the amendments—they are all in the same form—and I find the amendments are out of order on two counts: firstly, the date issue is well taken care of in Rodney Hide’s amendment; and, secondly, I would rule them out on the basis that they are not serious amendments. I intend no disrespect to the very important office of the chief Opposition whip, but I do not think that it is a serious amendment to say that things cannot happen until the chief Opposition whip has signed them off. The member may disagree, and I must tell members that there are lots of things for which the chief Opposition whip’s sign-off is very important—one of them being leave, amongst other things—and we all hang on his word. However, in this particular circumstance, I do not believe that is a serious amendment. The second role whose sign-off is required is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It then goes on to the president of the Law Commission, the Chief Ombudsman—I could go on—there is the Mayor of North Shore City, etc.

Hon Member: A good fellow.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Yes, as the member interjects, I have no doubt that the mayor is a very good person, but it would be inappropriate for the Chief Ombudsman, for example, to be involved in signing off anything to do with statutes. That is not the role that the person has. So the first reason I think the amendments are out of order is that they are inconsistent with the amendment put forward by Rodney Hide, and the second reason is that I do not think they are particularly serious.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think two points need to be made. They probably both go to questions of substance. I take very serious issue with your ruling on frivolity. I do not accept the idea that reorganisation cannot be done with a sense of unanimity and a sense of Parliament, the country, and the local authorities coming together. I think it is appropriate for the Committee to make that decision. A process that involves other people who guard the country’s processes, such as the president of the Law Commission and the Chief Ombudsman, might raise argument as to their roles, but I think an argument can be made that it is appropriate for those people to be involved. On the question of dates, it is certainly my view that the date issue, notwithstanding Rodney Hide’s amendment, when put together with the other substance could rule out some of the amendments, but not all of them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the date issue, I say that the Committee, having made an amendment on the issue, has set the date that the bill comes into force. The Committee has determined what the date is, and any other date is then inconsistent with that decision. The date amendments have gone.

On the substance issue, Mr Mallard makes a very good point, but I have heard no justification as to what role the Mayor of Carterton could possibly have in this legislation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I can give you that one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I ask the member to let me finish. Carterton is a long way from Auckland, I grant you. I have ruled the amendments out. The member might like to make some closing comments, but I do not think I am persuadable.

On the question of the Mayor of Carterton, I think that it has already been made clear from the evidence in the Committee this afternoon—although you might not have been in the Chair—from Mr Hipkins that the Minister of Local Government has called for, and received, a report on reorganisation in the Wellington region. Carterton is part of that region. The concern of the Opposition is that this process not only is being set up for Auckland but will be carried throughout the country. It is undemocratic reform: there is a lack of referenda, as required under the Local Government Act; and there is the lack of a select committee process, which should apply to this area. Although not all of us think that the Mayor of Carterton at the present time is the best character in the world, and that Ron Mark could well do a better job, the mayors of the Wellington region could well have a view as to processes for the country generally.

Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I think that we have had enough. I say to Trevor Mallard that I listened to Chris Hipkins. He talked about Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt, but he did not mention Carterton. The last point that I make to the member is that the title of the bill is a give-away. It was Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill; we now have the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill. Tāmaki-makau-rau is a long way from the Wairarapa.

I move, That the report be adopted.