Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3661] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We most certainly have a view. If one thinks about the substantial bill one will find that it is about the transitional arrangements that are to exist beyond the passing of this bill for the integration of the various Auckland local authorities into one entity. I am pleased to hear the Opposition agree that there will be many assets across the city of Auckland it is certain that will come under some structure directly accountable to the Auckland Council which will be the much wider body to look at these things. 
This amendment attempts to suggest that certain residents in certain roads—I believe that some 500 roads are nominated—have a greater interest in those council-owned assets than any other person in Auckland. That is simply not the case. The Auckland Council is there for the residents of the Greater Auckland City whatever that configuration may end up being—that is yet to be determined. It would be quite inappropriate to suggest that the interests of one street or these 500 streets are greater than any others. I think the suggestion that we need to protect these particular streets because of a particularly special interest is quite wrong. 
I suppose these are attempts to call attention to the part that Labour is attempting to insert in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which in National’s view is an unnecessary part. We most certainly think that it goes back to a single point: are the interests of any one resident in any of these streets identified in successive amendments any greater than the interests of another? That would on its own suggest that this is an utterly frivolous way to go about considering these matters. 
The protections of Aucklanders are intrinsic in the transitional arrangements that have been dealt with by the Committee so far. For Labour members to come along and suggest that they are doing some great and good work for particular residents is an extreme stretch. Putting up amendments in the names of a mere 500 streets inside the Greater Auckland area does indicate an act of trivial pursuit in this particular debate. A Parliament cannot be made to look stupid by things like this. We cannot be put in a position where having dealt with the substantive part of a bill we then insert some part or amendments that tend to second-guess the intention of Part 3. 
It is also interesting to note that these are amendments to one of the extra parts that Labour itself wishes to submit. I would have thought that in the consideration that clearly would have gone on during the preparation of this particular part that reference might have been raised about the need to protect particular streets. I cannot believe that the preparation of these 500-odd amendments was a last-minute thing which leads me back to the point that Labour members are very much engaged in a trivial pursuit. 
If members go back to Part 3 which has been dealt with by the Committee the interests of the people in Auckland and the assets that will be part of the new Auckland City are extremely well-protected as far as transitional arrangements are concerned. This Committee cannot pre-empt what might be in the bill that is expected in September and where some of these matters may be made more clear. The reason for having a transitional agency is so there can be consideration about how things will go forward. 
I think three points are relevant. The first point is that this is an amendment to Labour’s own proposed amendment to the bill by way of a new part and is therefore very poorly considered at this late point. The second point is that the transitional arrangements in Part 3 already make the protections for all Aucklanders and the Committee has dealt with that matter. The third point—and it must be upheld—is that in a bill dealing with an entire region to single out individual streets as apparently having some greater interest for no reason other than that they are a street inside the proposed Auckland Council area cannot be allowed to stand. It is a great effort in trivialising the activities of the Committee and I think it would be appropriate if these amendments were ruled out of order.