Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3710] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 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 6300 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 6300 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.