Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3226] 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I said last night that I did not often get angry about issues in this House. I have been here 10 years now and I am angry about this one. But I think I need to clarify—[ 
Interruption 
] 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a cellphone being used in the House and that is totally out of order. This is a place for debate not for taking telephone calls and the member should switch it off. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member is correct. Would the member with the offending—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has apologised. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I do not often get angry in this House but I am angry about this issue and I think members need to know why. It is not the hot anger of the night before; it is not even I guess the cold anger of the morning after. It is a long slow anger. It is a slow anger on behalf of the people of Waitakere City who are not going to forget the people who stole their identity the people who stole their city. They will remember after this debate is over they will remember until 2011 and they will remember as they go into the polling booth on election day to throw out the Government that brought in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and is seeking to ram it through the House. 
Let me say what we are not arguing about. I do not think anybody in this House let alone any Aucklander would argue that there did not need to be better coordination within the Auckland region. Let us take that as a given. Let us also take as a given the idea that regional services—things like public transport or arguably sewerage or water—deserve to have regional governance. There is little argument about that. And arguably there did need to be even further strengthening of the regional government layer. Labour started it; Labour set up the royal commission to examine how to do that. That is not the issue. But there was nothing in the report of the royal commission there was nothing in the National Party’s manifesto there is nothing in logic and there was nothing in the submissions of the thousands of Aucklanders who bothered to talk to the royal commission that leads us to the result that we have before the House today. 
So what exactly are we upset about? Well firstly as a Waitakere City resident as a proud Waitakere representative I mourn the loss of our city. Nobody needed to take away our city in order to strengthen regional governance. They are not at odds; in fact they are complementary. West Auckland as it was called way back when used to be a place known for drag racing black T-shirts and way too much alcohol consumption. Under Waitakere City it has changed. I give Bob Harvey a lot of credit for that. It has changed because its council has painstakingly built it up. It has become the eco-city a place where our nature is treasured and uplifted. It is a place where the arts flourish. It is a place where smart business like value-added wine and boatbuilding flourishes. It is in short a place that Waitakere residents are proud of. It is a place that—and the Government has not noticed—its residents do not want to lose. 
We are also hugely upset about the idea of at-large councillors. I acknowledge that the royal commission was the first to tread in that particular cowpat. But it could not have been better expressed than it was by John Carter last night when he said that the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is a bill to fix Auckland for 50 or 100 years. You bet it is! It is fixing the voting on the Auckland mega-city council. It is fixing that voting by putting the balance of power in the hands of eight white men from Remuera who can afford a $250000 mail drop to half a million homes. If one is neither really rich like John Banks nor really famous like Paul Holmes one should not bother stepping up to that plate. Only the rich—or arguably the famous—need apply to be an at-large councillor. 
Let us turn to the idea of local boards. This was a piece of footwork by the Government. John Key—God bless him—said that we need more local democracy and that we should put the “local” back in. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: They stripped it out. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Government cunningly stripped the “local” out and put in the façade of local democracy with sub-scale little boards that are too small and too powerless. They cannot buy a pencil they cannot hire a staff member and they certainly cannot make a strategic decision. They are a joke and they are an expensive joke. That is why the “Little Emperor” Rodney Hide will not name the cost savings—because he knows there are no cost savings. The transition costs outweigh the running-cost reduction and the ratepayers will pay for this charade via their rates bill. As if it is not injury enough to lose their democracy they pay more to guarantee the power of the white men of Remuera. 
So we are angry. But we are most angry about the lies. The member may laugh but he will not be laughing in 2011 when he is the former member for Epsom. He will not be laughing when his blue friends cut him off because he is expendable. He is expendable. This measure will be presented in 2011 as a piece of ACT enthusiasm: “Rodney got a bit carried away don’t you know? He does that after the gym sometimes. But look he is not really with us; he is not really one of our Northern Club and he never will be. He was born on the wrong side of the tracks. He tries hard but he is not quite one of us and he never will be no matter how hard he tries.” The Government could have consulted on the royal commission’s report it could have taken it back to the public but it said no. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will respond to the comments of the previous speaker David Cunliffe shortly. Before I do it is appropriate to put on record a couple of comments. The first is to acknowledge the contribution that the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has made with regard to the Government’s response to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and to the direction that we are taking. In the time that I have worked with Rodney I have found it very interesting I must say. The ability he has to assess issues and make decisions and to give leadership is something that we should all commend. The progress we are making with this bill is due significantly to the ability and the contribution that he has made. So I acknowledge that. 
I also thank the officials who have been involved because I know that the Hon Rodney Hide and I both acknowledge the contribution that officials from the Department of Internal Affairs have made to getting us to this stage. They have worked endless hours. With the fear of missing people out who should be acknowledged I put on the record the contributions of the likes of Brendan Boyle Anne Carter Marilyn Little John Sutton Deborah James and Josh Mitchell—amongst many others who come to mind like Leeanne O’Brien. Many others have made a contribution to this legislation. I acknowledge their contribution and thank them on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide and myself. 
The issue that we have today—and I am afraid the debate will be like this all day—is about scaremongering. I listened to the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon David Cunliffe and the speech made by the member from the Greens yesterday and the sad and unfortunate thing is that they continue to exaggerate what is happening and that is the real problem. They say that they support one Auckland and that they believe there should be one authority across Auckland. Many of the Labour people who have spoken have said that. Even some of the Green members have commented that there are some advantages in having one system of roading in having one plan and in having one water delivery system. They acknowledge that there are advantages in taking the steps the Government has taken and in taking the direction laid down by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. 
I will comment on what the previous speaker said about Waitakere City. He said that this Government is going to absolutely take away what the royal commission said. It makes one wonder whether the member actually read the royal commission’s report on the effect of the six councils that it has suggested. The House should understand that the local boards will have more powers will be more able to make decisions and will be more involved with their communities than the six councils would have that the royal commission suggested setting up. I want to make it clear to members opposite that Rodney Hide the Government and I have determined that the local boards will have a higher authority than the royal commission recommended that the six councils should have. Let us make that very clear. 
Phil Twyford 
: That’s not true. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: It is absolutely true. If the member goes back and reads the royal commission report if he has a look at what is intended in this second bill and if he considers the outcome of that he will see that the local boards are being given more authority than what was recommended in the royal commission’s report. It is important that people understand that. So rather than Waitakere having less it could well end up with more depending on what it asks us to put in the legislation on its behalf. We are waiting— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What about Manukau? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I say to Ross Robertson that it is exactly the same for Manukau. It is entirely over to the people of Manukau and that is the very point. We are out there consulting. One of the things I will say for the Minister is that he has ideas he enunciates them well but he also listens to debate on them and then he will make a decision. That is the very point. The Minister who is in charge of this legislation does want to consult and debate out there. It is part of how he is. He wants to listen to what the people of Auckland have to say. So do I and so does this Government. That is the very reason for the legislation going to a select committee. It is the very reason that this bill does just one thing. It sets up what it seems that everybody in this House agrees with—that is that there should be one authority. That is all this bill does. It sets up a transition committee to allow that to take place by 2010 to give a smooth flow into the new council when it is set up. I have not heard one Opposition member argue about that particular point. The argument has been about the detail in the second bill. Not one argument has been made that we should not have one unitary authority that we should not have one roading system that we should not have one water system or that we should not have one plan. I have not heard any— 
Phil Twyford 
: We have always agreed with that. That’s not the point. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Indeed it has been the reverse. Opposition members all say that they think it is actually a good thing. Well so do we. So I cannot understand the argument in that regard. We are talking about the detail around what we propose and what the royal commission proposed in relation to the six councils. I say again that we will end up with the local boards having more authority than what the royal commission recommended for the six councils that it recommended. We will ensure that it is prescribed in law that the functions that those communities want—Manukau which Ross Robertson talks about Waitakere Waiheke Island Papakura or wherever it might be—will be accommodated. That is the problem; the Opposition does not like it because actually we are listening and we will be able to accommodate most sensible reasonable requests by the community. 
That is why we have not gone out and made decisions. It would have been very easy for us to put a whole list of functions in the second bill and then put it through in urgency. We did not do that. We decided that we would go out and consult the community. The funny thing is that that is what the Opposition asked us to do it said that should happen. Lo and behold when the Government did it the Opposition members sat there and thought: “How do we argue against that now?”. They are getting exactly what they asked for. We are giving to Auckland those things that they are asking for. The public the likes of Mayor Bob Harvey are saying they want to be consulted. Well Mayor Bob Harvey we will consult. Len Brown from Manukau City said he wants to be involved in the process. Well Mayor Len Brown can be involved in the process. We welcome the involvement. In fact we encourage that involvement from the public of Auckland and from the leaders of Auckland because we want to make sure we get this right and we will get it right. 
It is important for the Opposition and for the people who are anxious about this issue to understand that this Government is about consulting. We will be listening to the wishes of the community. We will be prescribing functions once we have discussed those with the people from the community and there are ways in which we can do it. The previous speaker talked about wards and members at large. Again we are not hard and fast about that. The royal commission suggested a ratio of 10:10. We have put in the bill 12:8 but if somebody comes up and says it should be 15:5 or who knows maybe 20:0 that might be where we end up because we are open for submissions on it. The Minister of Local Government has made that clear and the Prime Minister has made that clear. We are not hard and fast on it. We want submissions on it because we want to make sure there is fair representation and that the communities get the local back into local government as the Opposition keep telling us they should. That is exactly what will happen. This Government is consulting. This Government will hear submissions. We will accept the recommendations of the majority of the people of Auckland. We will be able to accommodate the wishes of the majority of the people and the submissions they make. 
I am absolutely certain that at the end of this process—bearing in mind that we have a second bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill which involves the Local Government Commission and a third bill—there will be a huge amount of understanding and support for the legislation as we progress. This Government is all about consultation. We respect the wishes of the people and we will respond to them. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The member who just spoke the Hon John Carter said that his Government is all about consultation. I remind the member that prior to the election the Hon Mr Key who is now the Prime Minister said that when the royal commission had completed its work National would consult Aucklanders. Where has that consultation taken place? Is the member talking about consultation at the select committee consideration of the second bill and the third bill? But this bill—the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation Bill)—is the key bill that sets up the super-city and puts an end to all local governments in the Auckland region. That is what this bill is about. The Government has not consulted the people of Auckland. 
Chris Tremain 
: You have not read the bill really. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Well I have read it. Part 2 establishes a super-city like it or not. That is the message that has been sent by this Government: that whether Aucklanders like it or not the Government is doing away with their local governments as they know them today and it will impose a super-city on them. That is what is happening. 
I want to say that at times such as this I feel that I am grieving for the loss of Manukau City. I am reminded of an old Maori saying: ask me what is the most important thing in this world and I will say it is people it is people it is people. If this Government had any care for the people of Auckland it would be out there face to face with every community throughout Manukau Waitakere Auckland City North Shore Franklin District and Rodney District telling them what it intends to do. But it has not because it does not trust the Auckland people. It does not trust them and it is so intent on ramming through this legislation in urgency. Ramming through this legislation in urgency means that Aucklanders will not have a voice on whether they want the super-city. The Government is doing so despite the polls that indicate that people do not want a super-city; people want to be consulted. Yes perhaps there are benefits of having a super-city and of having a plan—perhaps there are. But the decision to rush through the legislation in urgency indicates to the people that the Government does not care—that is what this Government is saying. 
When the Minister of Local Government through a stroke of the pen signs off this legislation it means the death of Manukau City as we know it. The mayor will no longer exist as the mayor the 18 councillors will no longer exist in Manukau City the community boards throughout Manukau City will no longer exist the powers of that council— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes they do. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: If members look at Part 3 of the bill they will see that those things will exist in name only while the Auckland Transition Authority essentially takes over the running of those cities. This means that it is a sad day for Manukau City; it is a sad day for local governance. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s a great day! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It is not. The concern I have is that— 
Hon John Carter 
: You don’t want the city to function better. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: No. If the super-city is there to benefit all people I ask how ordinary workers will benefit from the super-city. How will the residents of Mangere benefit from the super-city? How will the residents of Otara benefit from the super-city? I do not believe that the Minister can answer those questions truthfully because frankly from the perspective of the people in Manukau City it is difficult to see the benefits. They want to keep their city. Members should talk to the people of Franklin who are saying that they want to stay as Franklin; they do not want to be part of this city. Has anybody spoken to Mr Bill Birch a former Minister of the National Government? He does not want to be part of the super-city; he wants to keep Franklin. Members should talk to the people of Rodney. They do not want to be part of the super-city; they want to maintain their own identity. 
In Manukau City we want to be able to maintain our council’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi committee—a committee set up with elected councillors and appointed representatives from tangata and mana whenua. Where will that committee be placed in the super-city that Mr Hide and Mr Key are setting up? Concerns are coming from people on fixed incomes and old people who currently live in pensioner flats. We know what has happened in Auckland City under Mr John Banks. He sold off those flats. Will that happen with Manukau City’s pensioner flats? We have a rating system in Manukau City that acknowledges that not all of our people are at the same economic level. What will happen when we come under a new rating system? What sort of rating system will it be? We proudly promote a social philosophy in Manukau City. What will happen with the social well-being of the people of the new super-city? 
This Government does not even intend to put forward the recommendation of the royal commission to have a social policy forum. Where will that forum be? We talk about local democracy. Where will the representatives of Mangere be on the Auckland Council which will have only 20 councillors—eight of which this Government is proposing will be elected at large? How many councillors from the ward of Otara will be on that super-city council? How many representatives from the ward of Manurewa will be on that super-city council? How many representatives from Botany Howick and Pakuranga will be on that super-city council? 
The answer is zilch. There will be none. I am not sure that this is the way to go. If this Government was intent on acknowledging and showing some care for the people of Auckland it would have taken the time to confront and engage them face to face and would be able to discuss the proposal that has gone through. Unfortunately having consistently shown a pattern of arrogance over the past 6 months this Government does not want to listen one iota to the voices of Manukau. 
Some of my constituents are saying that this super-city will make the rich richer and the poor even poorer. I again ask the Minister of Local Government to please tell the ordinary workers and those on fixed incomes what the benefits of the super-city will be for low socio-economic communities. That is the question that needs to be answered. Sure we will have a brand that goes out to the rest of the world and says that we have one Auckland City but we in Manukau City are proud of the fact that we have a population that is quite diverse with 182 different ethnic groups. We are proud of the fact that we are able to acknowledge the existence of these people. Wards like Manurewa have diverse representation on their community boards. Representatives include small-business people Maori people Pacific people our kaumatua and professional people. In a similar league there is diversity in the wards of Otara as well as in Botany and Howick. I ask what will happen under this super-city governance arrangement which will have only 20 members on the council of whom six or eight will be elected at large. Only those who have enough money to campaign across the whole of Auckland will be elected. 
This Government says it is listening. If it means what it says and if it is intent on saying that local democracy is important then it needs to consider that power should be given to local councils community boards or whatever name they will be given by this Government under the new structure. Local government is not simply a name on legislation; it needs to be given powers irrespective of how many boards or people are involved—whether it is six 12 15 20 or 30. The real issue for local communities is that they should be given the power to make decisions for themselves on local issues. 
Hon John Carter 
: That’s right—exactly. We agree. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Well I ask why that is not reflected in this legislation. The Government is giving the public the opportunity to have a say on the second and third bills but that is a fait accompli. The people have a super-city whether they like it or not. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Well we have heard all sorts of soothing reassuring words from the National Government and the Act Party. They have been so soothing. For example Mr John Carter said that this Government is all about consultation but he also said that by the way there will no consultation on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—none whatsoever. It is the critical bill. It sets up the Auckland Transition Agency which will set the whole new governance arrangement in place and basically wipe out local government in Auckland but there will be no consultation on it. The Government will ram the bill through the House in 24 hours. It is using the Rogernomics shock tactic of ramming things through. There will be no consultation on the bill but the Government says it is very keen to consult. 
The other thing is that once this legislation has been rammed through the House what will be left to consult about? The only thing I have heard that the people of Auckland will be consulted about is the powers of the local boards. That is all that the members of the Government have come up with. They say that there will be a lot of consultation and that there will be a special select committee. But what will people be consulted about? They will be consulted about the details of the powers of the local boards. Everything else will have already been set in stone. Mr Hide’s hand-picked cabal on the Auckland Transition Agency will be in place as of the end of this week or perhaps early next week and it will have the powers. It will start setting up the whole super-city and it will get ready to demolish the eight democratically elected councils which represent 1.4 million Aucklanders. The super-city will be effectively set up over the next few months. By the time we have this wonderful consultation taking place in the select committee there will really in truth be nothing left to consult about apart from what the powers of the local boards will be. 
Let us face it: the local boards would have to get a lot more power to be anything other than a complete joke. These local boards will not even be enshrined in law. At least community boards have a statutory basis; they are enshrined in law. These local boards will have no statutory basis. They will exist completely at the whim of the Auckland mega-city. They will comprise only four to nine members. We have been told that the members will be paid the princely sum that community board members are paid which is about $10000 a year. So the lucky members on these local boards will receive $10000 a year. Under this bill the local board members will have absolutely no resources and no power. They will not be able to hire staff own anything levy rates borrow money make by-laws or develop plans. So what can they do? These local boards are the only counterpoint to this huge Auckland super-city which will have approximately 20 elected members and will have control—complete total control—over everything that takes place in Auckland. 
The other thing I would like to point out is that the Minister of Local Government has been going all around New Zealand talking about his concerns about local government. One of the things that he has said is that he wants to bring openness and transparency to local government. But when we look at clause 13(1)(e) of this Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill we notice that far from being open and transparent the Auckland Transition Agency that Mr Hide is setting up his band of merry men—five of them who will basically have complete control draconian powers and who will review everything that takes place in the next 18 months—will be required only “to provide information to the public of Auckland or any section of that public as it thinks fit in relation to the organisation”. So if the Auckland Transition Agency does not see fit to divulge information about what it is up to it will not have to. I ask Mr Hide whether that is openness and transparency which is what he has been going around the country saying he wants to bring in. The first thing we find is that Mr Hide is setting up an agency that will not have to be open or transparent and will provide information to Aucklanders only as it sees fit. 
The second thing we note is that Mr Hide will be able to appoint his five cronies without even going through the normal processes of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. This committee has been in the news recently because it approved the nomination of Christine Rankin as a Families Commissioner. At least her appointment had to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. But it turns out that the appointments to the Auckland Transition Agency—which will have draconian powers to neuter the eight councils of Auckland to obliterate them in November of next year and to oversee every single thing that happens in Auckland in the next few years—will not even have to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. The Greens will put forward an amendment to require that the appointments go through that process because we think it is absurd that one man—namely Rodney Hide—without any oversight can appoint five others who will rule Auckland making decisions that affect 1.4 million Aucklanders. 
Mr Hide has been very keen on saying that central government should not impose costs on local government. He has been going right around New Zealand saying that. But it turns out that this issue is hidden in the bill. When we read the fine print we find out that central government—Rodney Hide’s Government—is imposing all the costs of the transition on the ratepayers of Auckland. They will have to pay to have their local democracy wiped out which 45 percent of Aucklanders already oppose. I suspect that once they start to understand the implications of what is happening in this bill even more Aucklanders will oppose it. Nevertheless those ratepayers will have to pay for it. It will be a Crown debt and it will be handed over to the Auckland ratepayers when the Auckland Transition Agency winds up. 
It is also extraordinary that Mr Hide said we must not do anything in terms of government unless we know that the benefits will outweigh the costs. But he will not tell us the cost of this restructuring. We learn from reading this bill that there has not even been a regulatory impact analysis. Mr Hide has been floating around a regulatory impact bill which says we must have regulatory impact analyses of everything done by our Government. But his bill—this draconian bill—states that the regulatory impact analysis team has not assessed the regulatory impact statement because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decisions were made not before. There should have been a regulatory impact statement before Cabinet considered this bill but there was not one. The regulatory impact analysis team has not even done a cost-benefit analysis. This is shocking. It undermines everything that Rodney Hide has been running around the country and saying about his priorities for local government. 
In respect of mega-cities overseas I would point out that virtually every study that has ever been done has shown that the costs of amalgamation have been far more significant than the costs that would have been incurred if amalgamation had not taken place. Also when we have what is effectively forced amalgamation—and that is what we are talking about here—it results in deep unhappiness particularly among the communities that will be disenfranchised by this legislation. No study has ever shown that people think they are better off with a mega-city because when they end up with a huge bloated inaccessible super-city they quickly discover that they cannot access or influence it. They are disenfranchised and disempowered. That of course is the agenda of Rogernomics. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill as part of the team on this side of the House that is for Auckland. We want Auckland to have the opportunity to move ahead and be an international city. That opportunity has been denied Auckland for the past 50 years. For far too long time has been spent discussing and debating what the manner of governance in Auckland should be. But the team under the leadership of the Prime Minister the Hon John Key will give Auckland that opportunity. 
There used to be a few Labour MPs—not many—who were passionate for Auckland and wanted Auckland to go ahead. What did Labour do to them? It got rid of them. Let me give members some examples. One is the Rt Hon Helen Clark the previous Prime Minister. On 4 November 2007 Ms Helen Clark spoke to the Labour Party conference and she said that Auckland “has to be a major driver of New Zealand’s economic development. But it can’t drive if it’s gridlocked and dysfunctional. That’s why we want a fresh look taken at Auckland’s governance. That’s an idea whose time has come too.” and “Labour has led by setting up the serious and weighty Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. … I look forward to their report—and to change which can be implemented before the 2010 local elections to help make Auckland a truly great international city.” Ms Clark cared and New Zealanders realised she cared which is why in the opinion polls New Zealanders still put her ahead of the current leader of Labour—what is his name? She is still ahead because Aucklanders know that Ms Clark cared for Auckland. At least she cared for Auckland in wanting to give Auckland that opportunity. 
Another one of the few Labour MPs who used to be here who cared for Auckland and who wanted to give Auckland that opportunity was the Hon Mark Burton. He used to be the local government Minister for Labour. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was under the impression that we were speaking to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and I am unable to discern any of that from the current member’s— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure I need your help Mr Brownlee but I will take your point of order. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I was also of the view that we were talking about a bill to set up a transition committee but then I heard the speech of Su’a William Sio and realised that we must be on something entirely different. This is a broad and wide-ranging debate; if it is not then Labour members will have very little to say. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: All right. I think it is probably time that we have a little think about the process of this bill. Debate has by its nature from both sides been a little more wide-ranging. We also accept from time to time a broader argument and sometimes that is brought back into the debate as well. But a second reading is a little broader than a confined one. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I was giving the history of why we are here and the royal commission. That member Phil Twyford was denied an opportunity to stand for Mt Albert; his leader did not believe that he was good enough to stand for Mt Albert. Wow! If the member can give a passionate speech for this bill he should take a call. I was just reminding people that another of the few Labour MPs who used to care for Auckland was the Hon Mark Burton and this is what he had to say: “Transforming New Zealand into an economically successful and sustainable nation is a high priority for the Labour-led Government.” 
During the recent reshuffle the mini-reshuffle of Labour’s Opposition party one of the fresh new faces brought back to be the spokesperson for local government was the Hon George Hawkins. He certainly has some fresh ideas. We know he is at least passionate for Auckland because he supports the unitary Auckland Council. But what did they do to him? Was he allowed to take a call under the first or second readings of this bill? No. Anybody who is passionate for Auckland who cares for Auckland and who wants to give Auckland an opportunity to go ahead has been denied an opportunity to speak for the bill. They have been sidelined got rid of and that is why Labour will continue to take a bloodbath in Auckland when the general election comes around. 
For far too long for the last 50 years there has been too much debate and discussion on the governance of Auckland. It is holding Auckland back—a city of 1.3 million people. This hard-working MP has been poring through the royal commission’s inquiry—800 pages—which said that the commission received 3564 submissions from various organisations and individuals who are passionate about Auckland. The ones who supplied addresses amounted to 3080. There were standard forms of submission—1475—and 450 submitters or groups took the trouble to front up and speak to the royal commission. They were well consulted. In the royal commission’s report the summary of submissions talks about leadership. Many submitters chose to comment in person or in writing about leadership. They want decisive strong leadership to take Auckland ahead. Eventually the royal commission recommended the unitary council and we agree with that. We agree with one Auckland one plan and one mayor supported by one council with strongly contested local body elections. We agree with one council that will not hold back Auckland because at the moment we have local bodies disagreeing with each other. 
Aucklanders have spoken out. They have had that opportunity since 2007. In addition they have the very hard-working local government team the Minister of Local Government and the Associate Minister of Local Government going around the country and listening to people. As the hard-working MP for Botany I continue to knock on doors in my electorate and I listen to the people at their homes and on their doorsteps. Most people agree with the idea of one Auckland but they want to have further say. Individuals want to have a further say as to how those councillors are going to be elected. This Government is listening to them and a special Auckland select committee will be set up because it is important that the public has a voice. That select committee will listen to the people and to how they want to elect their councillors. More than that the National-led Government believes in local democracy. We say that six councils are not adequate. The people can have a say on how many local boards they want. 
This is the day that separates the team that is for Auckland and wants to give it opportunity and Labour members who want to continue to hold back Auckland. Those members do not support Auckland and Aucklanders will remember this day as the demise of the once-great Labour Party for good. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 I move  
That the motion be amended by omitting all words following “That” and adding: “Auckland reorganisation be decided by a referendum”. 
 Kia ora tatou. No reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
I speak on this legislation in this House today for more than 180 different ethnic groups who reside in the city of Manukau. It is a city that will be gutted by this legislation so kia orana talofa lava malo lelei fakalofa lahi atu taloha ni bula vinaka namaste; warm Pacific and South-east Asian greetings to all members. 
Yesterday when the Hon Gerry Brownlee took the call in this House he talked about productivity and so he should have done. But I say to Mr Brownlee: “Yeah right!”. Before coming into this Parliament I spent 15 years in the field of change management productivity reorganisation and restructuring. Although I know that economies of scale are great for productivity I also know from my vast experience that unless the efficiencies are down at the lower level then all of those so-called efficiencies from economies of scale are wasted. I ask myself as a South Auckland member of Parliament whether this super-city will make local government any better. My experience as a member of Parliament in South Auckland makes me doubt it. Bigger is not always better. But members should not take just my word for it; they should look at what Mr Rodney Hide had to say. The  
Taranaki Daily News 
 of 24 April stated: “Mr Hide said he didn’t necessarily believe amalgamation was the answer to any particular problem.” Mr Hide was then reported as saying: “You can actually take four reasonably sized councils make a big one and make a mess so it doesn’t automatically follow that bigger is better.” And he is right—bigger is not always better. 
In 2008 at the last election for the first time I took on the ward of Otahuhu which is inside Auckland City. I was astounded by what I found and I wonder whether we in Manukau City will be better off in a huge Auckland City. I also wonder whether my electors in Otahuhu will be better off in an Auckland City. What about the drinking in our parks in Otahuhu? What about our swimming pool? I have discovered by representing both Manukau City and now Auckland City that Otahuhu has been sadly neglected. I am told that by being part of a larger city we can have better amenities and better facilities but I say: “Better facilities for whom?”. The constituencies that I represent do not get better facilities. 
Otahuhu has no swimming pool—I was stunned to hear that. In the city of Manukau we have swimming pools through all our wards and guess what? They are free—but not so in Auckland City. I made representations and I found out that Auckland City had agreed that there should be a public swimming pool in Otahuhu and that it was on the capital works programme. Then all of a sudden with no consultation it was off—it was axed from the programme. That is not local government; that is “big city” government. If my constituents in Otahuhu are treated like that under the current arrangements what will happen under a big super-city? 
Yesterday I received a media statement from Richard Northey and a few others about what had happened with the Auckland City Council: “At today’s Auckland City Council Arts Culture and Recreation Committee … councillors consigned two more free community events to the scrap heap.” They were consigned to the scrap heap. There was a $24000 cut to the Onehunga Festival and a $20000 cut to That Thing in the Park. If those sorts of things are happening to our local communities now under Auckland City what will happen to them under a super-city? What we are finding is that local wards are being unfairly treated. 
I now represent three communities in my electorate—Otahuhu Otara and Papatoetoe. All three of them will tell you that they are different—very very different. If this Government really wants to give local communities a voice then let us elect people in our areas who will be a voice for our communities. These community boards that are being called toothless boards that lump all the different communities together will be exactly that—toothless. That is not local government. Otahuhu should be able to decide whether it wants a swimming pool. It should be able to decide whether it has to have drunks in its park. But it cannot. 
Hon John Carter 
: Why not? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: It cannot because of the Auckland City Council I say to Mr Carter which will not do a thing about it. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: Well it will not do a thing about the drunks in the park and the member for Maungakiekie knows that only too well. 
If my voters in Papatoetoe had the opportunity for local control there would be some by-laws about soliciting at Hunters Corner. Otara would love to have more say in how it is run. Local government should be about just that: local decisions made by local people for local people—but that is not happening. Along with my colleagues George Hawkins and Willie Sio I carried out a survey about consultation. Let me share it with the House. It was a referendum; here is the first question: “Do you agree with the royal commission’s plan to have a super-city?”. A staggering 78 percent said no. The second question was: “Do you think there has been enough consultation with you by the Government about the future of local government?”. A staggering 92 percent said no. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: How many? 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: It was 92 percent I tell Mr Hawkins—92 percent. The third question was: “Do you think there has been enough consultation with you by the local city council?”. A staggering 76 percent said no but that is still better than the verdict by local people on the Government. The fourth question was: “Do you think the royal commission’s plan for a super-city will lead to an increase in rates?”. What do members think people said? A staggering 85 percent said yes they believed there would be an increase in rates and only 4 percent said no. 
I know from my experience as a member in Manukau for over 20 years and now in representing Otahuhu that the Otahuhu community in its present form has been neglected under Auckland City. Otahuhu has no swimming pool and has drunks in the park—that is not good enough. There has been a lack of facilities and a lack of resources. We need more consultation but now we are seeing the jack-boot of the National Government being put on the throats of the people in Manukau City in the way in which that Government is imposing its will on this issue of a super-city. 
I have a number of letters here that I would like to share with colleagues. Here is one: “Ross as Manukau City ratepayers we say ‘No no no no’ to super-city. Suggest you listen to radio talkback and hear what the people say—as if the Government listens to us the people and your employers anyway. You all down there just seem to do what you want. Why go making these changes when times are hard and people are struggling? About time we were listened to.” It was signed “Megan and Dave”. That is just one; there are many others. Here is another one: “Mr Robertson please do not support the National Government’s present proposal as it allows Aucklanders no control over local decisions. Please use the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance report as a basis for legislation.” Government members should front up and take a call. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I join other members on this side of the House who are Auckland MPs committed to Auckland and the advancement of New Zealand. We are not being treated to a pretty sight by members opposite in the arguments they advance in the course of debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was of course Labour then in Government which commissioned the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. After the careful and considered work of the commission we now hear from the Opposition a series of statements that are substantially political in nature and often in conflict with each other. 
I instance the comments of the previous speaker Mr Robertson. He made it very clear in a newspaper report of 8 May 2009 what his true position was. His true position is not the position he has been advocating in Parliament just now. This is what he said: “We all realise there are some Auckland-wide issues. Many such as water and sewage already have citywide solutions.” Then the crunch sentence comes: “I think a supercity to deal with citywide issues is needed.” That of course is what we see in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is only part of a suite of legislative instruments to implement the plan that the royal commission so determinedly decided upon. Another bill which we will come to later today the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill deals with the issues that a Green speaker adverted to in the context of the comments she made. That bill of course will go to a select committee where a lot of the issues that will be the subject of comment today can be the subject of public submissions. 
Paul Quinn 
: Democracy in action. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: As Mr Quinn says it is very much democracy in action. 
I turn to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which is now in its second reading. Of course the bill sits in a historical context where a number of steps have been taken over many years to grapple with the issue of Auckland governance. They started with the Auckland Regional Authority being established in 1963. Then in 1989 there was widespread amalgamation and the establishment of the Auckland Regional Council—principally driven by the then Minister of Local Government the Hon Michael Bassett. Those of us who have been involved in the Auckland community for a number of years will know exactly what the impact of those changes was. We saw a number of local authorities—that as a matter of history had basically started as road boards—forged together. In the area that I have a particular interest in in Auckland those authorities included the Newmarket Borough Council the Mount Albert Borough Council the Mount Roskill Borough Council and the One Tree Hill Borough Council. And the prognostications of doom that were then uttered were never—never—translated into reality. 
It seems to me that a useful starting point in looking at the impact of this legislation is to recognise that Auckland is a unique city in the Pacific: it is able to compete successfully with Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane for people and investment and is able to achieve world-class standards in quality of life. There is no doubt that high liveability factors will remain Auckland’s most valued assets as it is the quality of life that differentiates Auckland from other major cities and is actually central to Auckland’s ability to attract and retain talented people and to deliver significant investment and prosperity to New Zealand. 
The report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance comes in a number of volumes. It has an executive summary and on the front of that document is a quote from Professor Richard Florida who is a director associated with the Rotman School of Management in the University of Toronto. He says what matters now is quality of place. I think that is a great starting point as we look at this particular legislation. When the commission carried out its work it noted three things. 
First it considered it important that Auckland define itself and its distinguishing characteristics in relation to the rest of the world because it is a reality that given Auckland’s geographical location and its small size relative to many international cities being noticed on the global stage will always be a challenge. So we need to define in a clear and positive way the identity of Auckland and we need to be able to convey that identity in a way that is consistent and effective as the best way to differentiate the city and to compete. There is no doubt that we are in direct competition with other international cities for talent and investment. The world is becoming more urbanised and as a consequence of globalisation it is becoming smaller—more connected. So these attributes of quality of place become more and more significant if we are to secure our position as a leading city. 
The second point that the commission made is that it is necessary to understand the connections between the urban challenges that Auckland faces. Environmental and social goals can no longer be seen as being in competition with economic goals; we need to look at all of these issues in an integrated way. The four strands of well-being identified in the Local Government Act 2002—social environmental cultural and economic—are inextricably linked and are of course highly interdependent. Outcomes in each of these areas will impact on outcomes in others. For instance a growing economy creates employment but it also depends on a healthy and skilled workforce and a healthy and skilled workforce depends in turn upon a range of factors that are boosted by a growing economy such as stable and affordable housing efficient and accessible transport options a safe environment and access to health care and education. 
The third point that the commission made is that the disconnect between Auckland and the rest of the country needs to be recognised and addressed. Auckland is New Zealand’s only city of scale and it is New Zealand’s main gateway to the world. The region is now home to about one-third of New Zealand’s population and it is forecast to have a population of 2 million people by 2050. So Auckland as a large and outward-looking city needs to be able to contribute more to national prosperity and productivity than it does now. 
In summary what this bill does is very simple. It really does three things: it establishes structures that are of critical importance—it establishes the Auckland Council as a legal entity—it establishes the Auckland Transition Agency to oversee the move to the new structure and it defines how the region’s existing councils should work during the transition period. It is interesting to see in just the period that I have been in politics how parliamentary drafting has changed. I note in this bill—in Part 1 for example—that under the heading of clause 3 “Background and purpose of Act” are a series of background statements which certainly when I first entered politics would not normally be found. I think that change reflects the way that the courts are now looking more and more to discern the intentions of Parliament by statements such as those contained in “Preliminary provisions”. In addition to that what is found in clause 4—the material that deals with the outline of the Act—would not have been found previously. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Labour opposes the use of urgency to ram the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill through the House. The Government is ramming this bill through because it has lost confidence that Aucklanders would support these provisions if it actually consulted with them and asked them. The bill takes away rights from Aucklanders and sets up a small transitional authority with wide-ranging and unchecked powers. I want to be clear that this is not just a technical bill. It does a number of things including removing the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of Auckland. 
The bill is in fact a massive power grab for total control over Auckland’s assets. Auckland has $27 billion worth of assets—assets that include some very significant things for us Aucklanders—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Auckland Regional Holdings Ports of Auckland Metro Water Watercare Services—I could go on. Those are very very significant assets for Aucklanders. A group that we have not heard much about so far but that I intend to focus on is the 6300 or more staff employed by the various local authorities in Auckland. Those people are Aucklanders. Those people are our neighbours and along with their families and friends they are a very significant group of people indeed. I believe that this bill in this form leaves those $27 billion worth of assets wide open to privatisation. There is no protection for those assets. There is nothing to stop privatisation. The transitional authority will have the power to deal with those assets as it pleases. 
This bill as the previous speaker the Hon Dr Richard Worth said has a number of parts. Part 1 removes the current right under the Local Government Act 2002 to poll Aucklanders on their view. Part 2 creates the Auckland Council as a unitary authority. It also deletes all references to current local authorities from existing legislation. 
There has been a lot of mischief on the other side of the House in relation to what Labour’s view on this issue is. We have been clear all the way through that we support greater regional control. We support greater coordination for Auckland. That is why we set up the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Like other Aucklanders we accept that there was a need for that greater coordination. So despite all the misinformation let me set the record straight. 
The third part of the bill sets up transitional arrangements and they are comprehensive arrangements. First the bill talks about the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency board. It is quite a small group and it is appointed by the Minister. That should give us considerable cause for alarm. Under the transitional authority the chief executive will have significant powers to do a number of things in the next year or so. One of the specific functions under the transitional arrangement will be developing change management plans that include protocols and processes for managing the transition of assets and staff from existing local authorities. I think that the 6300 workers in local government in Auckland—the people whom I spoke about before—are the most important asset of the Auckland local authorities. If this reform of Auckland’s local governance is truly about improving services for Aucklanders—if that is what all of us aim to get out of this—then we must recognise the importance of those who deliver the services that Aucklanders all benefit from. But in contrast to the recommendations of the royal commission that the majority of staff are transferred or rolled over from existing councils without consultation or any process this Government has decided that there will be—that lovely word—“rationalisations”. That equals job losses. 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh get over it. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I remind members of what the royal commission said about staffing. The royal commission expected that current council staff would form the nucleus of the new organisations. I quote from its recommendations: “One of the Commission’s reasons for adopting its proposed model was to maintain stability in the council workforce to minimise both the personal impacts of reorganisation on council staff and the start-up costs for the new organisation and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the transition.” 
One of the Government members said “Get over it.” Frankly I hope I never get over caring about what happens to workers and caring about the services that they provide. They are people with families. They are our neighbours and our friends. They should be an important part of this conversation. Let me say again that without consultation and without any process this Government has decided that there will be a rationalisation of council staff—in other words job losses. That disregards the recommendations from the royal commission I have just read to members about providing stability for local authority staff. Instead of having the stability that the royal commission recommended we now have 6300 workers and their families from throughout Auckland feeling nervous and uncertain. Government members may not be able to consider what that might feel like but those people are nervous and uncertain in the current economic climate in this country of increasing unemployment. It is a very bad time indeed to have one’s job under threat. That uncertainty will damage the effective operation of our council services. If people feel nervous and uncertain they will not be able to do their job as well as they might. 
In case members opposite have not taken the time to find out about this I can tell them I know that this uncertainty exists because I have spoken directly to council workers and I have spoken directly to their representatives—to their union. Well over 50 percent of the workers in local government are unionised workers. The right-wing - dominated councils have been very hostile to unionisation but despite that over 50 percent of workers in the Auckland local authority areas are unionised. Workers in these uncertain economic times need job security—the certainty of being able to transfer their jobs and to know that there will be no redundancies as a result of these changes. They also need to know that they will be treated fairly and that their current terms and conditions of employment will be maintained. 
Paul Quinn 
: Yes they will be treated fairly. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am very glad to hear that from the member opposite. I do not know whether he has the authority to make that statement but he says they will be treated fairly. The success of the transition will depend on having a stable workforce. I repeat that comment. The success of the transition will depend on having a stable workforce. The unions have indicated a willingness to engage constructively in that process. 
I tell members opposite that there is evidence of what I am saying from other reorganisations that have taken place in local government. Queensland is the example that I want to draw to members’ attention. In Queensland last year the number of councils was cut from 157 to 73. In that time it was guaranteed that no council staff below the level of chief executive would lose their jobs for 3 years. So it is possible to make those sorts of commitments. Why did Queensland do that? It did that because it recognised that if restructuring was to achieve the goal of improving local government in Queensland it was essential that it retained workers. It recognised that it was also about maintaining those workers’ wages and conditions. I say to members that is a good example. There was a code of practice drawn up in Queensland that was agreed jointly by all of the parties including the workers and their representatives. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise along with other Government members to support the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. My first acknowledgement is to the royal commission: the Hon Peter Salmon Dame Margaret Bazley and David Shand. What a great job they did along with their staff their researchers and the workers that contributed to the commission of inquiry’s report. I also acknowledge the Hon Rodney Hide for the great work that he has done since being appointed Minister of Local Government his leadership and the honourable way he has conducted himself in seeking the opinions of Aucklanders and New Zealanders. He has been ably assisted by the Hon John Carter who is appropriately sitting to my right in the House. His experience in this area is unsurpassed. His work in the area and his dedication to the people of Auckland—although he is not an Aucklander—are fully appreciated by us. I also take this time to acknowledge our leader the Hon John Key. He has led this country he is a breath of fresh air for this country and he has been acting decisively thinking strategically and moving regionally. 
As some members of this House have already indicated reforms of local government are not new. In 1989 the Hon Michael Bassett—a very decent man a very thoughtful man and a very intelligent man although he was a Labour Party Minister—put forward various reforms. Those reforms transformed Auckland City when Onehunga Borough Council One Tree Hill Borough Council and a number of other borough councils within the isthmus were put together to form the current Auckland City Council. At the time there was opposition to such reforms similar to that heard today. In fact one of the opponents lived in the outer suburbs and some of them now form the Auckland City Council. I refer to David Hay who was the Mayor of Mount Roskill Borough and who is now the Deputy Mayor of Auckland. So contrary to the views opposite people can come from the outer suburbs and form part of the council for Greater Auckland. 
We have talked about the composition of the proposed council and some have referred to the eight at-large councillors. I find that strangely ironic and I find it strangely hypocritical that those who are at large in terms of being list MPs within this House are now speaking out against the at-large council membership. It is strangely ironic that those are the loudest voices against such at-large representation. 
I also acknowledge my friends in the Maori Party. I have great sympathy for their views about having Maori representation on the council. I have great empathy for the Maori Party and I have a huge amount of respect for the Maori Party in its desire to have representation on the council. But I have also heard of other groups who would like similar representation. I ask whether we should have an Asian councillor whether we should automatically have a Pasifika councillor and whether we should have a South African councillor. The reason we live in a democracy is that it allows the people to have their say in who runs cities boroughs and the country itself. Indeed I think it is an insult to those who put their hands up for election to the at-large seats to say they are not able and willing to represent their particular city. We know that in this House we have a former Deputy Mayor of Manukau City. He is a man of honour and integrity a man who was elected by the people. I have put up my hand within the Auckland City Council area and have shown that minorities can with the right amount of work and the right amount of talent and gifts represent the people. Minorities represent the people. They do not represent just Pasifika people or just workers; they represent all the peoples within those electorates. 
We have heard members from across the Chamber say there has been no consultation—zero consultation. In that case I do not know why a royal commission of inquiry was set up by the Labour Government in 2007. Why did we have a royal commission of inquiry if there was no consultation? I tell members that I was part of the consultation and over 3500 people took part in it. Members opposite also say there will be no future consultation. That is an absolute lie too. A number of meetings have already been held in Auckland City; a number of meetings are about to be held in Auckland City. In fact I myself have set up meetings throughout my constituency of Maungakiekie—right across the electorate—to see what the people of Maungakiekie have to say. I have already been listening and I have already had meetings with people out there. I have talked to local community board members and found that they are by and large positive. They are positive and they are quite keen to hear what will come out of the legislation and what will come out of the consultation in terms of the powers and the abilities of local community boards to set the direction of their local communities. I have also talked to a number of employees of local city councils and I have found that although they are a little nervous they see that the positive benefits of a single city are the way forward. 
I want to touch on a few examples of why a single city is the way forward. We will have one council one mayor one district plan and one long-term council community plan. There is a project in Auckland called the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative—an infrastructure project that runs between Auckland City and Manukau City. That project is within the long-term plan for Auckland City Council and funds have been set aside in terms of the purchase of houses and infrastructure development. Yet on the other side of the divide Manukau City has not provided for this development in its long-term plan. There is a mismatch here that would be solved by having one council. There is also the Pasifika Festival of which Auckland City Council is very proud. But again one council contributes to this iconic event on our calendar yet the other councils that benefit from such an event do not contribute financially. 
This legislation is about leadership. It is about leading Auckland City into a new era it is about leading Auckland City into becoming an iconic city for the Asia-Pacific region and it is about the leadership that we may have from a mayor with the ability to lead such a city. I support this bill. It really is a new turn in the history of Auckland and also of New Zealand. I acknowledge those who have contributed to this bill and I look forward to putting forward my support for this bill in the coming months and moving Auckland into the future. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I say first off that Auckland does not want to be reorganised. West Auckland is on the march: there has been a big march in west Auckland and huge meetings opposing the Government’s proposals. South Auckland as we heard last night from my great colleague Su’a William Sio is in mourning. It is in mourning for the loss of Manukau City. On the North Shore where I work the MPs are Jonathan Coleman Wayne Mapp Murray McCully and John Key. They are too important and too busy to take much notice of the perfect storm that is building around Auckland governance in their electorates. Just in case those members missed it I quote from the  
North Shore Times 
 where North Shore city councillor Ken McKay “predicts the supercity will be the most disastrous thing that has happened to Auckland and likens it to the situation in Fiji.” He says: “We criticise Bainimarama for taking democracy away from the people but are we much better off in supporting a single city and taking democracy away from ratepayers?”. 
In the North Shore like in the rest of Auckland people are worried about many things. They are worried about the powers—the extreme powers—of the mayor that are being proposed by the Government. They are worried about the positions—the six or eight positions—on the council that will be elected at large. They are worried about how their voice will be recognised and heard in a super-city. They are worried about their billions of dollars worth of assets and the huge economic contribution that they make to Auckland City and about how that will be rationalised in a single city. They are worried about their community services. They are worried about how the citizens advice bureau is going to be funded—will it be funded to the same extent will it be funded to the higher level of other parts of the city or will it be funded to a lower level as it is across the city? They are worried about their community houses—the community houses where people are employed by the council to run local support programmes in the community particularly in areas like Albany and around Greenhithe where there is a large migrant population. Those houses do very very important work. People are worried about the council land that their kindergartens are on. What will happen to that in the super-city? They are very worried. 
In Rodney people do not want to be part of this super-city at all. It is very very interesting in Rodney. I have not noticed an awful lot of consultation from the Government or the council in Rodney but people there have certainly been talking to me. I noticed last week that 10 Rodney District councillors put out a media release calling for the public’s help to get a rethink of the proposed super-city. The 10 district councillors in Rodney are saying that “the government needs urgently to rethink its proposal regarding the incorporation of Rodney into its so-called supercity.” I understand there is the same problem in the deep south of Auckland: in Hunua people do not want to be part of the super-city either. 
The surveys in Rodney and indeed in Helensville—the Prime Minister’s own electorate—show that the majority of the community are vehemently opposed to the proposal. They believe that it is a hastily formulated and superficial plan that there has been a failure to have proper consultation and that people have not had a proper say. They have no faith in the select committee process. I think the very process of rushing the bill through the House under urgency without the opportunity for consultation does not give them any confidence. 
I am also interested in the motion that was passed yesterday to set up a special select committee. I wonder how many Auckland members from the Government will be on that committee. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: John Carter will chair it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes OK. Well I was wondering— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: He’s not from Auckland. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. We want some Auckland members; we have some good Auckland members. I heard Minister Pansy Wong taking a call earlier and I could not help but think given her performance as Minister of Women’s Affairs that she will not be able to help anybody. Why would anybody trust that woman when she has proven herself to be completely ineffective particularly as an advocate for women? She is so ineffective that yesterday she allowed the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce within the Department of Labour to be abolished. Once again in an awful repetition of history women are now on the back foot; women are back to fighting for basic justice. How can the people of Auckland have any confidence in any of the Ministers who are in Auckland? 
The main themes that have come out of the meetings I have attended on the North Shore are themes that have been debated across the city. I have mentioned the issue of the extreme powers of the mayor. People have no confidence in a mayor who can select his or her own deputy chair choose the heads of committees and have such enormous power. They have no confidence that eight people elected at large will have any idea about what it is like to represent Beachhaven or Northcote with its areas of State housing. How can those people feel confident about that? They are concerned about the lack of Maori representation. On the North Shore they are concerned about that issue and they will be joining the hikoi on 25 May. They are concerned about the rush and the lack of consultation. They are asking why we have to do this in such a hurry. What is the rush? Why are we rushing this bill and this governance set-up through Parliament under urgency? They are concerned about local representation and as I have said about community services. 
On a broader issue the reality is that under this proposal workers will lose their jobs. Let us just be honest about this: workers will lose their jobs. My colleague Carol Beaumont has outlined an approach that is much better than the one the Government has taken. Like Carol Beaumont I have spoken at length with the union of the workers affected and with workers at the councils. They are very concerned but it is not only they who are concerned; the communities that they serve are also concerned. The communities are asking the legitimate question of how they will get the services they need in the transition period between now and October 2010. They rely on the staff who do such a great job in supporting their services through community service councils and other community programmes such as transport and transport safety programmes. The communities are asking how they can feel confident that those services will continue when we know that the affected staff are feeling absolutely bruised by this legislation. I ask how we can expect productivity from workers when they are really on a long path to redundancy—well a long path to getting the sack actually. 
The transitional provisions that are being proposed in this bill—and which we will no doubt talk a bit about later in the Committee stage—are insufficient. First of all I would have thought that one of the basic things we could assume in this society is that workers’ representatives would be on the Auckland Transition Agency. There should be a voice for workers on the transition board. There should be proper consultation with workers and proper management of the change process. If those in charge do not get the cooperation of workers this change will not work; it will fall over. 
There are better ways of doing this. There are guarantees that we can give to the staff. The services provided in Auckland across the city are very different in many parts of the city. They are different in west Auckland South Auckland the North Shore Rodney and central Auckland. Of course the great councillor from the Auckland City Council who is also an MP is far more interested in attacking a very very good and dedicated councillor who has given years of hard work to the city of Auckland than in actually representing his people of Maungakiekie. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh my colleague says the member is in trouble with an Aucklander again. I look forward to reading about that. 
It is very interesting in this second reading debate and in the urgency process to consider what the Auckland MPs— 
Sandra Goudie 
: She’s read the bill! Has she read the bill? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I say to Ms Goudie that I have read the bill—unlike that member. Where are the National Government’s members from Auckland? 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to speak on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. We are on the cusp of the most significant change in governance in Auckland since our city was first formed. History will show that this Government has finally done what people have been calling for for decades. There have been 18 months of consultation $4 million spent and 3500 submissions and we are now implementing a key recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. I am very pleased as well that the Government has decided to have a separate select committee for this. The Opposition is squealing but this dedicated select committee to focus on issues of Auckland governance is exactly what is needed. That is what Auckland deserves and that is what it will get. The establishment of a dedicated committee shows the level of importance that our Government gives to Auckland governance. It will give Aucklanders the ability to be involved in the consultation on issues like the make-up of the council and the powers of local boards. 
I think it is useful to discuss why we desperately need this reform. The royal commission said: “Auckland’s regional council and seven territorial authorities lack the collective sense of purpose constitutional ability and momentum to address issues effectively for the overall good of Auckland. Disputes are regular among councils over urban growth and the development and sharing of key infrastructure including roads water and waste facilities.” In summary one council will enable us to deliver on regional priorities. We support it the royal commission supported it and the Labour Party supports it. Regardless of its filibustering the Opposition supports one council and that is what we are implementing. People have had enough of sitting in traffic because regional transport priorities cannot be delivered. Community organisations are sick of having to apply to different councils for community funding. They have limited resources and this legislation will set in train a process that will reduce the bureaucracy they will have to go through to obtain funding. I am proud of that because community organisations are struggling at the moment and this will reduce bureaucracy for them. 
Auckland has over one-third of our country’s population. It is forecast to have a population of 2 million people by 2050. We are the engine room of the New Zealand economy. This legislation is good not just for Auckland but also for the rest of New Zealand. I know that members in this House from other regions of New Zealand are quite excited about this legislation going through. The need for major reform was highlighted by the royal commission when it said “Maintaining the status quo or tinkering around the edges is not the answer. Bold change is required.” That is what you have got from this Government— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows and I indicated to her that she cannot bring me into the debate. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: That is what Aucklanders have got from this legislation. As the royal commission highlighted the existing structures do not work. The commission said that Auckland’s regional council and seven territorial authorities lack purpose. In particular the royal commission identified two broad problems evident in current Auckland local government arrangements. The first was around regional governance and the fact that it is weak and fragmented. I am proud that our Government is doing something about that. The commission said this was the best way to tackle the region’s problems such as suffocating red tape increasing rates transport bottlenecks and lost opportunities. 
The next key issue the royal commission dealt with was around community engagement. The irony of the structure we have adopted which will go to the people of Auckland for consultation is that it is a shot in the arm for democracy for Auckland: Aucklanders will get much more local democracy as a result of the model we are offering. I challenge members on the other side of the House. The problem with members opposite is that they have no consistent policy on this issue; they are all talking from different song sheets. We have Ross Robertson and George Hawkins who say they support the royal commission which they set up. However they say they support the royal commission but then they criticise the at-large council seats. It is really difficult to find out the Labour Party’s policy on this issue. The Labour Party needs to issue a statement today letting the people of Auckland— 
Moana Mackey 
: We have already! 
NIKKI KAYE 
: No the Labour Party has issued a statement that says what it does not support; it has not issued a statement saying what its model is. I challenge the Labour Party to do that. 
I come back to community engagement which is crucial. I am very proud that communities like those of Waiheke and Great Barrier may finally get some of the autonomy they want. I am proud that I will be going around my communities with the Hon John Carter the great Hon John Carter— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The great honourable! 
NIKKI KAYE 
: —the great Hon John Carter—to consult with communities like Waiheke and Great Barrier about the powers of the local boards. I think that it is crucial to do that; it is a great day for some of those communities. We have set a process in train so that they may finally get some of the autonomy that they want. 
I am very proud to be standing here to support the bill. We are on the cusp of one of the most significant changes for Auckland. I know it is not just Aucklanders who will end up supporting these proposals; it is also those in the rest of the country. Finally we will be able to have movement forward for Auckland. We will be able to get rid of those transport bottlenecks. We will be able to cut the red tape and ensure that community organisations do not have to apply to a whole lot of different councils for funding. But more important we will also enable and put in train a process that will allow communities like Waiheke and Great Barrier as well as the communities of Grey Lynn and Ponsonby to get more local representation. Our model is stronger in terms of local representation. Labour has no policy; it is all over the place. Its members cannot make up their minds and they cannot issue a statement that shows which model they support. They set up the royal commission and they support one council but they are making themselves irrelevant on a day that is historic for Auckland. 
I am proud of this bill. I am proud of being the member for Auckland Central and I will be out there talking to people in the community and moving this forward. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be read a second time but before that we have two amendments to be decided. The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting “now” and adding “this day six months” at the end of the question. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the amendment in the name of H V Ross Robertson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be amended by omitting all words following “That” and adding: “Auckland reorganisation be decided by a referendum”. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I take this minute to appreciate the Hon George Hawkins because I am looking forward to his contribution and he has a birthday coming up tomorrow. If we keep the House in urgency he may save a year and he will be 1 year younger than he otherwise would be. It would also save him having a barbecue. 
We are discussing Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. First of all Part 1 sets out the background material that provides the context for the bill. We should not need to debate that too much. I think that everyone is familiar with the background: Auckland’s difficulties the setting up of the royal commission by the previous Government and the current Government’s response. We then move to the purpose of the bill as stated in clause 3(7)(a): “to establish a single unitary authority to govern the entire Auckland region on and from 1 November 2010;”. That is actually the main recommendation of the royal commission. The purpose of the bill accordingly is also as stated in clause 3(7)(b): “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region (being 1 regional and 7 territorial authorities) at the close of the preceding day;”. I think Labour also agrees with that. 
The third purpose in clause 3(7)(c) is “to establish an entity to facilitate the transition to the new local government arrangements;”. That is necessary because someone has to do the transition and of course as soon as the change is announced there is something of a hiatus for the existing councils. They are quite keen to get a transition agency up and running that they can interact with and that can provide for the smooth and orderly movement to one council. The fourth purpose in clause 3(7)(d) is “to require the existing local authorities and local government organisations to support the reorganisation”. Again that is a necessity if we are to achieve the reorganisation for Auckland. There are also some consequential changes that we need to make. Part 1 outlines the clauses and the parts of the bill defines the terms used in the bill sets out the relationship between this bill and the other local government legislation provides that the legislation properly binds the Crown and most important provides for the Act to be repealed on 1 November 2010 with the good work of the transition agency having been done. 
This is an important day because we have agreement in the Chamber and I think in Auckland that something needs to be done. Of course there will be debate about the best way forward. We look forward to the Opposition holding the Government to account and looking for any gaps or mistakes we make so they can be fixed. The important thing and I think we share this view is that we get the best result that we can for the people of Auckland following on from the work of the royal commission. I make the point that not everyone and I look at Labour members here too has agreed with everything in the royal commission report. I am interested that Labour members say they do not like the at-large councillors. That was a heavy-duty recommendation from the royal commission; they wanted 10. So when we make that decision it is also a decision to step aside from what the royal commission proposed. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Define heavy-duty recommendation! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a heavy-duty recommendation to have 10 at-large councillors. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Are the other recommendations not heavy-duty? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Of course they are. 
Chris Hipkins 
: But why are you ignoring some but not the others? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I am pointing out to Labour members who are saying we have not followed exactly what the royal commission is saying that the Labour Party is not following those recommendations either. I ask Labour members to understand the process here. We need a transition agency now to provide a process for the councils to interact and we are sending to the select committee the very issues that Labour and indeed others have concerns about. Why—because the proper process is to consider those issues through the select committee process. I look forward to Labour members coming up with a consistent position on what they would do for Auckland that all members can latch on to. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports new governance in Auckland. We do not support the way the process has been hijacked. Members talk about a select committee going out and getting Aucklanders’ opinions but Aucklanders are not being asked what they think about the setting up of a unitary council. They will not have a say about that. I understand that things must progress fairly rapidly but this Government could have allowed a select committee to hear the concerns of the Auckland councils. That process would not have had to be long. The select committee could have then reported back to the House. That would have been a far better process. 
Paul Quinn 
: We’ve already had 18 months of it George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Mr Quinn has not read the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. All he reads is the menu at Bellamy’s. That is the absolute truth: he has not read the report. Sitting next to him is Nikki Kaye who has read only 80 percent of it. That is not acceptable nowadays. 
The member for Maungakiekie is a councillor and a member of Parliament. The trouble is that he does not attend council meetings so he does not have any idea. We have to be better than this in this Committee. We should make sure that the Government is prepared to listen to the Auckland councils’ views on the transition. But no—it has decided to pass the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in urgency and not give them that chance. That is quite a pity. I say that when members do not listen they lose their seats. I think we should talk to the Hon Richard Worth. What happened to him? He did not listen. 
Paul Quinn 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member may laugh at that but it is very true. He lost the Epsom seat. 
This legislation also deals with the jobs of Aucklanders. Six thousand Aucklanders will have to put their faith in the Auckland Transition Agency. Those workers are not getting a say either. Councils are not getting a say; the workers are not getting a say. The process is being hijacked by the Government. I have seen the situation. I have been around here for some time and I see what Governments do from time to time. But this is the most important thing that has happened to local government in Auckland for 50 years or more. It is very important. 
I was Mayor of Papakura at the time of the last reorganisation of local governance. Papakura survived and its people quite like it now. But they will not be able to have a say. The other day the Mayor of Papakura was at Mansell Senior School a decile 1 school. Just over 200 pupils go to the school. One kid asked whether they were going to have a mayor any more. They will not. But that is a part of the second bill that is coming up—the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
In respect of the first bill it is very important that we make sure things are under control. Everything is not sweet at the moment. Chief executives in the Auckland area are getting pay rises of $60000 per year. That is $1100 per week. I think that is disgusting. It has been reported in the media that people like Jarrod Moyle who works for Sheffield Consulting Group have said that chief executives should get $1 million salaries. There was no comment about the workers at the coalface; this is all about looking after the big rich fat friends of the National Government. It is disturbing that ordinary people who clean toilets empty rubbish bins and get playing fields right will not be able to have a say on the transition. I think that matter is very important. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I was going to start my speech by referring to the first of the many amendments that Labour will be introducing but first I will address the comments just made by the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide. I thank him for taking a call. All too often when we go into urgency we see National Government Ministers sitting in that chair like a dried arrangement—not getting up not saying anything and not doing anything. It is good to have a Minister in the chair who is prepared to take a call and to address the concerns. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Get on with your speech! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: This is my speech. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s rubbish. Get on with the good bit. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Brownlee can say that it is rubbish; he has just come into the Chamber. He is obviously very keen to get out of here tonight. He is reading the newspaper. I say to Mr Brownlee that if he wants to keep interjecting on me I will keep responding to him. I am quite happy to do that. But he is obviously very upset that we pointed out that Rodney Hide is prepared to take a call. I hope that he will stand up and address the issues of concern that are being raised. Once again we have— 
Paul Quinn 
: Have you only got two sentences? You’ve already said that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say it because I believe it. 
Paul Quinn 
: So you go round and round? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes; that is fine. We can keep having this conversation. 
Paul Quinn 
: If you say it long enough you will convince yourself. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is fine. We can keep having this conversation I say to Mr Quinn. I am quite happy. Anyway I restate how happy we are that the Minister in the chair is prepared to take a call. We hope he will take more calls on this. 
Once again here we are in urgency and the Government is ramming through a piece of legislation that will not be going to a select committee and will not have a public process associated with it. Let us remind ourselves that during the election campaign the National Party promised Aucklanders that it would consult on the royal commission’s report. But National has not done that so I hope the Minister will take a call on that issue. 
My colleague Chris Hipkins referred to the comments made by the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide that the royal commission report contained heavy-duty recommendations that were carried through. I think it is important that we understand how the Minister came to decide which regulations were heavy-duty and which could be dispensed with. 
Clearly Labour members have stated that we support the unitary council but we believe that Aucklanders have the right to be consulted on that issue. When the Minister in the chair took his call he also referred to the fact that the select committee process is the consultation that Government members have been referring to. But maybe the Minister in the chair is not aware of the fact that this legislation will not be referred to a select committee. He should have been alerted to that by the fact that we moved to the second reading right after the first reading. That would have been his first clue that this piece of legislation had not been referred to a select committee. But clearly that did not tip him off so perhaps the Minister in the chair might want to take a call and clarify what he meant when he said that the consultation on this bill was the select committee process when in fact there will be no select committee process. That is a shameful thing. I note also that there is no regulatory impact statement with this legislation. I wonder what the Minister for Regulatory Reform would say about that. I look forward to the Minister in the chair who I believe has a close personal relationship with the Minister for Regulatory Reform actually addressing that issue. We find ourselves once again in urgency with no select committee process for a bill that is being rammed through. The people of Auckland are not having their say. 
Nikki Kaye 
: They have had their say. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: How have they had their say? [ 
Interruption 
] Nikki Kaye says that the fact that there were 500 oral submissions and 3500 written submissions means 1.4 million Aucklanders have had their say. I ask Nikki Kaye to stand up and take a call—and stop yelling at me—and tell this Committee why she promised along with the National Party during the election campaign that National would consult Aucklanders on the royal commission report before it did anything. I ask Nikki Kaye when she did that. Those members cannot answer that because the fact is that they did not consult. It is a broken election promise. Nikki Kaye can keep interjecting on me and I will keep responding to her but the fact is that she is a lion in Wellington and a mouse in Auckland. I challenge her to go and make those comments in Auckland. She should go to South Auckland and repair some of the damage done by Melissa Lee last night. She should go to South Auckland and give the speech she is giving in this Committee with the comments she is making in Auckland because Auckland members from National are big and brave when they are in the confines of Parliament in Wellington—big and brave. The fact is that Aucklanders were promised— 
Paul Quinn 
: You’re a bit of a mouse in Gisborne. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am not a mouse in Gisborne and I am happy to stand according to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call the Hon David Carter—sorry John Carter. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s much better than David Carter. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s the great Hon John Carter. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: That is very kind of the members to say so but I think that David Carter is a remarkable member of Parliament actually. 
I just listened with wonder to the input to this debate from Opposition members. I am actually quite staggered and disappointed by the lack of effort they are putting into this issue. If they are genuinely opposed to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill then they should fight it word for word paragraph for paragraph and clause by clause. But all we are getting from Opposition members is rhetoric saying that they like the suggestion of having one city one system of roading authorities and water supply and one plan and they think there should be a unitary authority across Auckland but they oppose the bill. Well what sort of nonsense is that? You know the Opposition spokesperson on local government is even recorded in the local paper as saying he thinks there should be one city for Auckland across the whole area. Labour members support that idea and they support the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Incidentally they keep asking how many of us have read the report of the royal commission. They keep asking us but I would like to ask those members how many of them have read it. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I have. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Really? 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Yes. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: All the volumes? 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Yes. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: George Hawkins says that he has read all the volumes. I ask how many volumes there are. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: One. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: One? There are actually four volumes. You see he says that he has read it— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: One is the executive summary. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: There is one executive summary and there are four volumes actually. The volumes are there on the back desk and there are actually four volumes— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’re counting the executive summary as a volume. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: No no not at all—the executive summary and four volumes. The fact is that those members obviously do not know and have not read the report. 
But the point is that we are here today to talk about this bill going through the House. Those members are saying that it is dreadful that we are putting it through under urgency. But the fact is that this starts the process as we and the Minister of Local Government have said before and it gets the legislation into a position where we can go to the people and say that there will be one city—we do not need any confusion about that—and we are interested in ensuring that there is consultation on the things needed from a local perspective. That is exactly what the Opposition is asking us to do as well. Again the only argument those members have is that we are starting this process by putting this bill through under urgency. They say that if we had not done that they would have had to support it. Well somebody had to start the process. If it had been the Labour Opposition we would have seen another 50 years go by before any action was taken. Those members stand up— 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh they want to stand up in the Committee. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: —yes of course they would—and say that they are worried about the waste. George Hawkins just stood up and said that it was dreadful that some chief executive was getting a $60000 pay increase. Well if he is worried about that sort of stuff surely he wants to support a system that allows us to address those issues. I would have thought that the Opposition would be quite keen to see a system that allowed those things to be looked at and reformed. Surely that is the sort of stuff we want. 
I cannot imagine that George Hawkins enjoys the traffic congestion he has to drive through day after day when he is in Auckland. Surely he wants that sort of stuff fixed—one would think so. Why would he not want to support that sort of stuff? Why would he not want the Government to actually try to fix the cost that Auckland brings upon the people of this nation because of all the difficulties it has? Why would that member—who is a former mayor—not want a system that allowed decisions to be taken across the region? Why would that member not want that sort of stuff? Well the Minister of Local Government the Prime Minister of this country and this Government will provide for that to happen. It is very difficult to argue about. 
Most important while we fix those things that are problems for Auckland and while we fix the structure to allow decisions to be taken affecting infrastructure and the issues that matter on a high scale for Auckland we are also going to allow local people to have their voice in order to allow local democracy to prevail. We will ensure that the functions Waiheke Island residents want will be there. They can tell us what they want and we will put it in there. People can tell us how many wards they want and how many councillors should be elected at large. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 A previous speaker Nikki Kaye said that she knew people in Auckland who were excited about this super-city model and I am sure there are some. I am sure that many of Rodney Hide’s mates and many business people are rubbing their hands together with glee about this super-city because they can see that this legislation will mean they will end up getting their hands on $28 billion worth of assets. They know that the hidden agenda is to set up the council in such a way that they can siphon off all of the major commercial activities of the council into corporate boards then contract them out and privatise as much as possible. So they are rubbing their hands together with glee; I tell Nikki Kaye that yes they are excited about the super-city proposal. 
I am quite sure that the Citizens and Ratepayers are absolutely excited about this super-city proposal because they know that if they get their man John Banks into power as mayor he will be effectively the “Tsar of Auckland”. Under the proposed new model in this bill he will have almost total control of the council. He will be able to choose all his chairs and his deputy chair and he will then have complete control of the council and its agenda. He will set the budget he will set the long-term plan and he will then be able to unleash his agenda for Auckland. This is the hidden agenda here which is why those people are rubbing their hands together with glee. They know that under this new model of local governance with this incredible concentration of power in the executive and the mayor they will be able to unleash their agenda for Auckland without opposition. 
I was a Wellington city councillor for 8 years and I know that once the mayor gets control of the council and control of all the chairs he or she can just ram things through in exactly the same way we are ramming through this legislation today. The mayor will be able to control the new council and unleash his or her agenda on Auckland but I am worried that Aucklanders will realise this only when it is too late. They will wake up in 3 years’ time—if this legislation is rammed through using Rodney Hide’s shock tactics—and realise they now have a “Tsar of Auckland” and a bloated huge super-city a mega-city that is inaccessible to ordinary Aucklanders. They will not be able to access it or influence it. Whole communities will be disenfranchised and powerless. The people on the local boards—whatever few powers might be tossed their way—will be utterly frustrated and they will ask how this happened: “How did it happen that our very effective eight Auckland city councils were wiped out overnight?”. What is the problem with the Waitakere City Council the North Shore City Council and the Manukau City Council? What is the great evil that they have done? Their satisfaction surveys show an 80 or 90 percent satisfaction rate. 
We want to make it absolutely clear that the Green Party is utterly opposed to the proposed super-city model. Apparently there is some uncertainty about where Labour stands so I want to make it absolutely clear that the Green Party is implacably opposed to the proposed super-city model. 
The ACT members were yelling out that the councils were wasting money. I tell those members to wait until ratepayers work out how much this radical restructuring is going to cost how much will be foisted on them and how much their rates bill will go up just so those members can wipe out local democracy in Auckland. I also point out it is a complete myth that the Government is adopting the royal commission’s plan. What nonsense! A public policy director of the Auckland University of Technology launched a broadside today against the Government’s plans. He said that what the Government is proposing is a shadow of the royal commission’s report. He said further that the Government has taken just a few headlines out of the royal commission’s report and removed most of its other mechanisms. Let us remember that the royal commission said that its report should be taken as an integrated whole. But all the Government has taken is a few headlines that suit it and scrapped the rest of the report. Then it has tried to pretend that because people were consulted on the royal commission somehow they do not need to be consulted on this bill or on anything else. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I support Sue Kedgley the member who has just resumed her seat. Of course the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is not an end in itself; it is the start of a very very slippery slope. She is absolutely right to point out that the $28 billion worth of assets that will all go into council-controlled organisations will all be subject to the majority on the new council which of course will be dominated by the at-large councillors elected across the city using the bank balances of the good people of Remuera. 
It is OK for Nikki Kaye that the gulf islands have their community boards but is it not a shame that so early in her term she has slipped from what she could have been. She could have been a good MP. She could have risen above the nimby factor and said “Because my gulf islands are OK … ”. It does not take long until we get to Melissa Lee and start worrying about brown people coming up the motorway and invading the good white suburbs of Mt Albert. It is a slippery slope from the gulf islands to brown people on the motorway and that is what those Nats stand for. 
I tell New Zealanders to be very afraid when the Government concentrates power. John Carter asked: “Have you read all the volumes?”. Well there are three volumes and an executive summary. In a sleight of hand the Government managed to turn 6 inches of integrated research and 3000 submissions into this report. There is a misprint on it; it should say “Making Auckland Bluer”. It is in blue print. I remember when Mr Carter handed it out and I remember the look on his face. He knew he was giving the people of Auckland a permanent right-of-centre local government. The Government took those four volumes put them in the rubbish bin and replaced them with this report. Members will notice that it is not the same thickness. It is not as thick as the Minister of Local Government. This is not even an executive summary. 
What does the bill do? I will get back to the content of the bill. Part 1 is called “Preliminary provisions” and one would think there is nothing much in it. But when we check the fine print we see that it completely overrides section 49 of the Local Government Act. That section requires a poll or a referendum on reorganisation. National members used to be big on referenda were they not on the anti-smacking bill. They are very big on crime and punishment but they are not very big on referenda about local government for some strange reason. I do not know why that is. They said they would consult on those volumes that they have now put it in the bin. They said they would consult on making Auckland bluer but they did not. Then they said “Well you’ll get your say in the select committee.” That is fine. Here is the bill that overrides the Local Government Act and there is no select committee. It is being rammed through the House in urgency which is why we are here to take away the right of Aucklanders to have their say. Those members are doing it by stealth. 
It is intriguing that Roger Douglas was here because this is the Roger Douglas model of change management. It was used in Baghdad; it is called “shock and awe”—crash it through before the people line up. Why are those members so frightened? They are frightened that the people of Auckland will rise up like the thousand people who marched in Henderson at a day’s notice. The hikoi is coming from the north the south and the west. It is coming with the disempowered people the brown people the poor white people and the people of colour and ethnicity like Mr Bakshi. The people will rise up and will not be silenced by this bill now or in 2011. They will rise up and they will have their say because they do not want to make Auckland bluer—not now not in 2011 not in 2014 not in 2017 and not in 2020. The people want to have their say; this Government is taking that away. 
Labour stands for the people. We stand with the people and we stand for democracy. This bill is an outrage. The Government has spent a million bucks got a thorough report put it in the bin replaced it with something wafer-thin like the Minister has not consulted on it has rammed through a bill with no select committee process and has overridden the law. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It is a somewhat daunting prospect to make a contribution in this debate after hearing “Martin Luther Cunliffe” give such a wonderful dissertation. I think it was a Martin Luther King impersonation of John F Kennedy. However I think the absurdity of that contribution perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of the Labour Party’s opposition to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. 
This part is integral to the entire bill. It simply means that we have had a royal commission spend some 18 months considering this issue. The royal commission interestingly was established by the Rt Hon Helen Clark after her public expressions of concern about the “dysfunctional” nature of Auckland local governance. The royal commission spoke to literally hundreds of Aucklanders and it came down with some recommendations for how things might progress. At that point Labour would think the job has been done—that it has had the committee and got the report so the job is done. That is exactly what “Martin Luther Cunliffe” just told the Committee. We have a great pile of documents here— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is an obvious one: members have to be referred to by their correct name or title. There is no end of possibilities as to the names we could use for the Leader of the House who made the transgression. We do not do that because we respect the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The point is well made; the member well knows that. He should address members respectfully and in keeping with the tradition of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I most certainly will. I offer the reflection that after almost 13 years in this place I am well aware that the expletives used to describe me certainly are not exhausted when it comes to the Opposition’s imagination. 
Mr Cunliffe gave us exactly that information when he spoke before. He said there was a great pile of documents here and it was terrible that it has been synthesised down to its essence and presented in a readable understandable form to back up a Government that is actually doing something that is totally foreign to the Labour Party in taking some action on information provided to it on issues that have been discovered and considered by the people who are most affected by them. That is all that this bill does. It sets up a transition agency so that all those people who have responsibilities in local government at the moment know where they are heading. 
The interesting thing is that we have not heard one Labour speaker admit that he or she is going to vote against the super-city proposal and vote down any concept of there being a united situation for local governance in Auckland. That is Labour’s serious agenda. Those members have said that even though Helen Clark expressed concern about Auckland governance she is gone and so is the idea. They are going back to the 1960s if they say they will vote against the proposal to unite local governance in Auckland. That is irrelevant and the Labour Party is pretty irrelevant in this argument through its actions. Talk about wanting to be consulted consultative and constructive means absolutely nothing when we get this sort of opposition to a bill that essentially protects the people who have an obligation to make this thing work. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Opposition members suggest that I am talking absolute rubbish. That means they have not read the bill. They do not understand that without the protections of this bill and without the transitional authority having the backing of the law then there can be no progress towards a super-city. 
The interesting thing is that there is no argument here about how many people might be on the council and how many local boards there might be. That is in another bill which is going to a select committee and it will be decided on by that committee after representations have been made to it. There are no pre-decisions about that. I think it is incredibly disingenuous of the Labour Opposition to filibuster in the House today on what should be very very simple legislation designed to protect the people in employment at the present time. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go! Members opposite are suddenly saying I should not be speaking because I am somehow interfering with their right to speak. That shows the arrogance of the Labour Party. Labour was absolutely whipped at the last election. No concept of humility was ever expressed and here we see the same arrogance today—it is Labour’s way or no way. 
This process was started by a Labour Party in Government that knew what it was doing and it will be opposed by a Labour Party in Opposition that has no idea where it is heading. I feel sorry for Phil Goff. It is no good being a train engine out the front if all the carriages are several metres behind and off the hook. That is about where he is at. The Labour Party rather than supporting its leader is having a cup of tea down the back in the guard’s van—utterly hopeless. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 When one looks at Part 1 one sees that it sets out the background and purposes of the bill. In that respect there are a number of questions that I wish to put to Her Majesty’s Government. What is the purpose of the bill? We are told that it is to improve public services overall organisation overall efficiency staffing and everything else that goes with improving organisations. I hope for the people of Manukau City whom I represent and since the last election also the people of Auckland City that that is correct. My experience having now served in the part of Auckland City that covers my electorate Otahuhu is that that is not the case. Let me put on the record today that as an Opposition we broadly speaking support a unitary council. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: I do not know why members opposite are so surprised. We have said that for a number of days now and we have been quite frank and quite open about it. We support it but I tell the Government that we strongly disagree with a number of the key provisions of this legislation. That is where we— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Name one. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON 
: The member wants one. I will give him one. In respect of the number of members who will be elected at large we do not agree that there should be eight; we believe that it should be open and that each person should be able to represent his or her ward. 
We broadly support a unitary council but as a local member of Parliament in Manukau I say there is a concern at the constituency level and how it will impact on the people. I have already had meetings with the Otahuhu steering committee group. I have already had meetings with the Papatoetoe community safety group and met with residents in Otara. We have also attended a number of mayoral forums on this issue. So here is our question to the Government: is the purpose of this bill to run the Auckland region like a business by business and for business? That is not the purpose of local government; local government is there to represent the concerns of the local people. So I call on the Prime Minister to stand up on his hind legs take a call and tell us exactly what he thinks. I call on other Auckland members of Parliament. Let us go through them—I ask them to get up on their hind legs and tell us what they think. What about Paula Bennett? What about Jonathan Coleman Murray McCully Maurice Williamson Jackie Blue Pansy Wong Sam Lotu-Iiga Nikki Kaye Judith Collins Wayne Mapp Tim Groser Richard Worth Tau Henare Melissa Lee and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi? Why will those members not take a call and tell us that the purpose of this legislation is not to run the Auckland region like a business for business and by business? 
Can those members also tell us whether this legislation is about an asset grab of $28 billion worth of public assets? I know that in Manukau we have a considerable number of assets—Manukau City Investments Ltd Manukau Water Ltd Tomorrow’s Manukau Waste Disposal Services Manukau Building Consultants our city investments our leisure services and our education and employment trust. We have the Pakuranga Arts and Cultural Trust the Highbrook Park Trust Board the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust not to mention of course the airport shares. We want to be reassured that Manukau will be treated fairly when it comes to the creation of the super-city. 
As a local member I am concerned about the loss of local representation in the area of Manukau. I come back to Otahuhu. I now represent Otahuhu. I was amazed when I went to Otahuhu that it did not even have a swimming pool yet in Manukau every single ward has a swimming pool. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I have had the opportunity to go through the somewhat numerous amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins and I am afraid to say that this Government will not be able to support them. His first amendment is to the title of Part 1 “Preliminary provisions”. Sadly it goes against the drafting conventions that we have had in this House for some time. His numerous amendments to clause 3 essentially seek to rewrite history. I know that that is something Labour is always keen on doing but it is not something we consider to be important in this bill. In particular it beats this Government as to quite why Labour wants to add to the bill “Volcanic activity has shaped Auckland for millennia and will continue to do so”. George Hawkins wants to take up the time of the Committee to make a note about volcanic activity. I am a bit disappointed that he has not stood up on this important bill and explained why he wants to add that in. 
A further amendment is to clause 4. Those amendments are just inappropriate because if one reads clause 4 one will see that it is a descriptive clause and the member is trying to change it. I would be interested to know whether the other members of the Labour caucus support the amendments put in by George Hawkins. The next amendment is an interesting one and I would be very interested to hear Labour members speak to it. George is proposing to rename the Auckland Council the “Auckland Super Council”. We know that Labour supports having one council for Auckland so it supports the concept of an Auckland Council. Now what it is trying to do is to pass legislation that would rename it the “Auckland Super Council”. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s the Minister’s language; the Minister calls it that. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Darren Hughes is yelling out. No I am sorry this is the amendment in the name of the spokesperson on local government George Hawkins to rename the Auckland Council the “Auckland Super Council”. 
We have learnt two things from Labour members this morning. The first is that they support one council. The second is that they have learnt that volcanoes have shaped Auckland and they want that duly noted by Parliament. The third is that they want the Auckland Council named the “Auckland Super Council”. Why else would they move that amendment? 
Finally I am afraid the Government cannot support the amendment to clause 8 because that would repeal the Act before the restructuring occurs. Quite why George Hawkins and Labour would want to do that beats the Government. I am afraid the Government cannot support any of these amendments. They have been poorly thought through and I do not believe they actually have the support of Chris Hipkins and others because I do not believe that Chris wants to name the Auckland Council— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Simkins. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: What is his name? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Simkins. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Simkins. I do not believe that the proposal to have— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member was referring to Mr Simkins. I am sure he meant Hipkins. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct. This is the second time we have had this. Members know that there is a proper manner of address for people in the House. I have asked members previous to this to address people consistent with the Standing Orders and the respect due to this House. Members are honourable members and we treat each other with respect. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is an interesting position. The Minister Rodney Hide did actually get my name correct and was corrected by the Leader of the House to make the pronunciation incorrect. So it was a deliberate attempt by the Leader of the House to make Rodney Hide make a mistake. I suggest that you bring him to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have dealt with the matter. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I apologise Mr Chairperson. I am sorry but we cannot support these amendments. I look forward to members taking the call to explain why on earth Mr Hawkins wants to name the Auckland Council the “Auckland Super Council” and why he wants Parliament to note on this particular day that volcanic activity shaped Auckland. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill should be renamed the “Removal of Democracy in Auckland Bill”. This bill removes the opportunity for Aucklanders to say whether they want their councils replaced. The Local Government Act provides a chance for them to have their say in a referendum. That is how the Act is supposed to work: someone puts up a proposal and the people vote it up or down. If this super-city structure for Auckland is such a good idea then Aucklanders would vote for it. If it did not get majority approval and pass the Government would have to fix it and keep fixing it until Aucklanders would or could vote for it. But Aucklanders will never get that chance under this bill. 
We know that the next bill to be debated will put in a fix in the way the Auckland super-city council is to be elected. The super-city council will be effectively stacked. It will be back to the days when 21 out of the 22 councillors in Auckland City lived east of Queen Street. I know because I was on that council and I was one of them. Auckland ran into huge problems because it was stacked with conservative right-wing councillors for generations—that is why a ward system was introduced. That is why the National Government is going back to the failed structures of the past—only it is worse because they are making it an even bigger potential disaster. One would think that most Aucklanders would want to have a say in that and one would think the Government would acknowledge that. 
One would think that voters who live west of Queen Street—the ones who are less likely to vote for the National Party in local government drag—would want to say whether they agree with their representation being dramatically reduced or even eliminated entirely before it happens. One would think that the voters of South Auckland would want a say before they lose free entry to their swimming pools. Were any other members on the Manukau City Council that introduced free entry to swimming pools in Manukau City? Members are looking at one of the original members of that council. Will the Auckland super-city council’s self-appointed mayor John Banks follow Manukau City’s example and eliminate all fees for swimming pools in Auckland City or will he make Manukau City charge for swimming pools in the new super-city? I say we know exactly the answer to that question. 
That is what this bill actually does—it removes free entry to swimming pools in South Auckland and any effective say that local communities will have in the future about the way they are run. How does it do this? Well at the moment entry to public swimming pools in Manukau City is free. That is a good thing because the kids in South Auckland unlike a lot of kids in Remuera or Herne Bay do not have swimming pools in their backyards. That is how the kids in South Auckland get the chance to learn to swim. It is how they get a fair chance to have the childhood that a New Zealand kid should have. But across the rest of Auckland there is a charge for entry to swimming pools—in Auckland City out in west Auckland and on the North Shore. So what do members think will happen to the free entry to pools in South Auckland? It will be abolished and the people who are least able to afford to pay will have to start paying. 
I can already hear the presumptive super-city mayor John Banks giving speeches about why the ratepayers of Auckland City should not be subsidising the swimming pools of South Auckland. Well there is a point about that you know because the ratepayers of South Auckland now subsidise their own pools and they choose to do it. What choice will they get under this bill to continue to do that? I submit: none. 
There are literally hundreds of issues like this that the bill does not even begin to address or to propose consulting Aucklanders on. That is one result of having Auckland’s councils historically elected the way the Government wants them elected. It is only going to get worse. If the Government wants an at-large election across Auckland City it will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who will never be able to stand for office in a public election. The Government cannot tell me that the 30 voluntary councils around the place like community boards and committees will have any power. I know they do not. They used to have in Auckland and they were emasculated. They used to have in Christchurch City where I live now and they have been emasculated there too. Their budgets have virtually been taken away and their authority to talk to local authority councils has gone. That is what will happen to those councils in Auckland too. 
I support a strong regional government. I was on the Auckland Regional Authority when it bought all the regional parks in Auckland. I was on the authority when it purchased the whole of the bus fleet and that was a good thing to do. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take the advice of the honourable member Mr Ross Robertson and get up on my hind legs to defend the Government’s position on Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. In particular I want to address the purpose of the bill but before I do I want to issue a blunt clear warning to the Labour Opposition members. I hinted at it last night; I will now deliver it. The people of Auckland are not listening to them. They made it very very clear in the 2008 election that they had stopped listening and that Labour had let Auckland down once too often. I note with interest the warning of another fine member Mr George Hawkins that members will lose their seats over this. I can only assume that he had in mind—[ 
Interruption 
] In your dreams George!—members like Mr Cunliffe who really must be nervous. What the people of Auckland wanted and expected this morning was a clear rational reasonable debate on Part 1 of this bill—on the purpose of this bill. The Labour Opposition actually agrees with the critical purpose. It agrees that there should be a unitary governance authority in Auckland. Member after member has got up and said that. So why is it that so many of the members opposite choose not to debate the purpose of the bill but instead as they did last night in the first and second readings prefer to engage in personal attacks on members on this side of the Chamber? 
That is one of the reasons why Auckland is not listening. What the people of Auckland want to hear from us and what they are hearing from the Minister—and I compliment the Minister for the clarity and the precision that he has brought to proceedings—and from this side of the Chamber is this very simple purpose: will a unitary Auckland governance system set up the framework for the prosperity of that region and therefore the prosperity of New Zealand for the next 50 to 100 years? That is what the people of Auckland want to hear about. That is what they want us to debate. They want the assurance that we can— 
Phil Twyford 
: They want democracy. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: They exercised democracy in 2008—unlike the way the Labour Party treated that member’s ambitions for Mt Albert. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: What did they do? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that Labour did not nominate that member for the Mt Albert seat that he thought he had an absolute right to. That is what it did. If Phil Twyford thinks that insulting the Prime Minister in this House builds his image or his reputation in any way I tell him to forget it—just forget it. The critical point is how the new structure contained in the purpose—in Part 1 of this bill—will develop Auckland to become the driver of prosperity for the region and not just for tomorrow or next year but for the next 50 to 100 years. That is the purpose as set out in Part 1. I invite subsequent Opposition speakers to get up put the personal insults aside respect what the people of Auckland want and get on and debate that simple point and debate the issue around the transition authority which I believe holds the key to making this all work in the next 18 months. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to address clause 3 and propose an amendment to it that would insert new subclause (4A) after subclause (4). The subclause would read: “The Royal Commission recommended the establishment of six councils beneath the Auckland Council. This recommendation of the commission was dismissed by the Government.” 
Labour proposes this amendment because it recognises despite the efforts of the National Government to rewrite history that the National Government has swept away some of the most important work of the royal commission in dealing to and dispatching the royal commission’s proposals around the second tier of Auckland governance. The royal commission spent 18 months thinking analysing consulting and researching and focused its attention on this dilemma this problem that underlies the entire exercise of restructuring Auckland local government. Everybody acknowledges—as my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber have said today and on other days—and accepts that Auckland needs strengthened regional governance. We need the ability as a city to speak with one voice. We need the ability to make the really big decisions and investments in a timely way. 
Auckland is exceptional; it is unlike any other part of the country. It is our biggest city and it is more complex and has challenges and demands that no other part of the country faces. That is the case for making an exception for Auckland: we are carving out space in our local government legislative framework so that Auckland can deal with its special challenges. Part of the recipe for dealing with those challenges is centralising power and pushing regional functions up to the super-city. That makes sense and nobody denies that. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Except your colleagues. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: No. I say to Mr Brownlee that if he takes this seriously and listens to what we are saying he will have to acknowledge that everyone on this side of the Chamber recognises that creating the top tier—giving it real powers and real resources to deal with the challenges that Auckland faces—is critical; nobody disputes that. But if we are to centralise power in 20 or more councillors on the Auckland Council then it is essential that we address the need for a strong second tier. The royal commission acknowledged this; it spent a lot of its time— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The wrong bill—that is the next bill. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that I am talking about an amendment to Part 1 that acknowledges that this National Government swept off the table in fewer than 18 days the crucial recommendations that the royal commission took 18 months to formulate. 
I want to talk about what the royal commission proposed. The royal commission proposed six councils roughly along the lines of the existing territorial authorities. Part of the analysis of the royal commission was based on a cost-benefit analysis and I will talk about that. 
Paul Quinn 
: Do you understand what that is Phil? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Mr Quinn that the royal commission’s proposals estimated that the net present value would be $425 million—that is the present value of future savings. The many local boards like the 20 to 30 local boards that the National Government and Mr Hide have proposed would cost $225 million. So the royal commission estimates it would cost $200 million extra to set up a proliferation of local boards. 
Nikki Kaye 
: You don’t support them. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: If the member for Auckland Central reads the report of the royal commission she will see that after 18 months it came to the decision that it could not possibly justify trashing the existing local councils. It could not justify getting rid of Manukau City Council North Shore City Council and Waitakere City Council. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I would like to speak to an amendment that has been put forward by the Labour Opposition. The amendment that I will to speak to amends the title of Part 1 by deleting the words “Preliminary provisions” and inserting the words “Background purposes interpretation-related matters”. The reasons we have put forward this amendment are twofold. I think it responds to some of the issues raised by Mr Hide about our amendments generally. We are trying to match the rhetoric of the Government with the reality. We are taking it upon ourselves to insert some reality into this bill making it honest and making sure that it is well understood by the people of New Zealand—Aucklanders in particular—and by all members of this House. We have taken it upon ourselves through our amendments to put more reality into this bill and to match the Government’s rhetoric with that reality. 
I will begin with our suggestion around the amendment to the title of Part 1. My colleagues I am sure will speak to the many other amendments that have been suggested. They are not just the ones that have been highlighted by Mr Hide; there are many more and we look forward to speaking to those. The current title of Part 1 is misleading. Parliamentary procedure has long defined that the title and commencement clauses are traditionally the preliminary clauses. To call Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” runs the risk of confusing not only the good members of this House but also members of the public once this bill progresses further. 
Let me just reflect on some of the reasons why calling the entire Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” could be considered misleading. Well one would think that this bill were preliminary by the vain attempt at a regulatory impact statement. That statement would imply that this is the kind of legislation that will be in place for 1 month and not as Ms Kaye pointed out the most significant change to local government “since forever”—I think those might have been the words she used. We will come to an amendment on that later. 
When the regulatory impact analysis team considered the proposals in this bill relating to Auckland’s future governance arrangements it called them economically significant. For those members who want further clarification of “significant” it means “likely to have a major effect”. Given that I would have thought we would have quite a hefty regulatory impact statement. I know that this is an issue dear to Mr Hide’s heart. He holds a ministerial portfolio on this issue. In fact he has had exchanges with visitors from abroad on the importance of thorough regulatory impact statements. New Zealand used to have a reputation of being praised on the way it conducted its regulatory impact statements yet I refer to the response made by the regulatory impact analysis team when it stated that it has not assessed the regulatory impact statement because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decision. A decision was made then the statement was put together. How could Cabinet feasibly have considered the impact of the most major change to local government “since forever” without having had a regulatory impact statement to consider? 
This just points to the farce of the Government proposing such significant changes without knowing the economic impact of those changes not only for Auckland but also for the entire country. Based on that regulatory impact statement we might assume that all the provisions of Part 1 and in fact the major changes that come from that are preliminary ones. Again I think that is misleading so we are willing to put forward to the Government a proposal to change that title and to put some more honesty into the bill. 
There is an alternative though. If the Government wishes it could change the word “preliminary” and perhaps put some dates into Part 1. The most significant change in Part 1 is the removal of the provision enabling individual Aucklanders to be polled on this reorganisation. That is one of the most significant parts of Part 1. Is that or is it not a preliminary measure? I ask the Minister to address that question. Is the removal of the democratic right of the people of Auckland to vote on this reorganisation a preliminary matter? If it is not preliminary does that mean they will eventually have their say? Does it mean that eventually they will have a chance to vote on this matter? 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 One of the concerns that the Green Party has is that these measures take away the rights of Maori people in this country particularly the rights of the tangata whenua. This is a denial of the rights of people under the Treaty of Waitangi to exercise their tino rangatiratanga. In fact a case was lodged in the court just this morning by one of the Auckland tribes—Te Waiohua—to seek an urgent discussion by the Waitangi Tribunal of the claim by local Auckland Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a very detailed claim. It refers to the fact that the royal commission gave three seats to the tangata whenua. This proposal completely scrubs the consideration of the royal commission of the rights of Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. 
The claim states not only that but also that the other thing that is not part of the arrangement is any proportional system. At least in this House we have a form of a proportional MMP system that allows significant Maori representation. Unfortunately no such proportional or single transferable vote system is proposed in the bill before us that would allow greater Maori representation. So it may be that this whole process is tripped up and rightly so by the hearings that will take place on this matter in the Waitangi Tribunal—at least I hope they are. 
I received an email from Mayor Andrew Williams of North Shore City and it relates to the question Phil Twyford raised before. He said that people in the second tier that has been abolished feel disenfranchised. People consider themselves to be westies or to be from the North Shore or South Auckland. That identity is being stripped from them. Mayor Andrew Williams is very harsh about the transitional authority. He said that these bills effectively shut down elected local government in Greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of hand-picked unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months until the deeply flawed super-city takes over and worse still all the costs for this unnecessary upheaval will land directly on the ratepayers even though the Government does not have the faintest clue about what it all will cost it. 
The mayor says that the replacement of the second tier by these 20 to 30 local boards is no answer because they will have no powers no resources will not be able to borrow money and cannot develop annual plans etc. All that they will be is bodies that can make recommendations. It is a hopeless situation. He said that the Government seems hell-bent on bulldozing ahead with its super-city plan regardless of the legitimate fears of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens that the super-city plan spells the end of meaningful local democracy and local decision-making. 
That is the concern of the Green Party and even more we were worried to read on the ACT website the ACT policy which is to get local government to shed its commercial activity—roads and piped water are to be supplied on a fully commercial basis the local government power of general competency is to be abolished etc etc. That is the agenda. It is a privatisation agenda that not only takes away the powers of Aucklanders in terms of the real involvement and decision making of local boards but also it passes over many of the current functions of local boards and councils to the private sector to make them commercial and to turn local bodies into local commercial enterprises. The Green Party is very much against that. We frequently stand in this House discussing Treaty settlements. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to try to explain to National members if I may why we are so opposed to this bill. I do not agree that it is a simple bill at all. It has a number of purposes one of which is of course to set up the Auckland Transition Agency and we will have a lot more to say about that as we go on. Another purpose in clause 3(7)(b) is “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region … at the close of the preceding day;”. That is a huge thing—that is an enormous thing—and I think that Aucklanders are so opposed to this bill because of the cynical way in which this Government is going about it. 
My colleague David Cunliffe referred to the great pile of well-considered documents that came from the royal commission which involved years of work and lots of consultation. But all that was gutted down to a tiny little document and what is more made even worse by the distribution of a leaflet. So not only have we gone from 6 inches of documents to a tiny little document; we have also gone to a leaflet that was distributed throughout Auckland. It is so offensive. Under one of the headings “Representation” it states that the 20 councillors on the Auckland Council will be made up of eight councillors elected at large and 12 councillors elected from wards and that the local boards will advocate for their local communities and set policy for local issues such as dog control. How cynical how offensive is that: dog control graffiti—what was the rest of it—prostitutes other things? 
Hon Member 
: Brothels. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. Those members should go and talk to those communities and talk to them about the work that is done through local councils and how utterly offensive this proposal is. 
As I said this bill is a very important bill and it should not be rushed through under urgency—absolutely should not be. It deserves a lot of consideration and that is why this party is moving a number of amendments. I want to speak in support of the amendment in the name of George Hawkins that amends clause 3(1) by omitting the words “50 years” and substituting the words “80 years”. The reason for that is that this bill is a total denial of the history of Auckland. It completely ignores the fact that local government— 
David Garrett 
: Sounds like a press release not an amendment. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is fine; I am happy to put out a press release. I will take the member’s advice and keep doing it—that is right. I invite the member to put his views on the history of Auckland. Perhaps he can talk about the views of the people in Rodney where he lives and what they think. I invite the member to take a call. Tell us what the people in Helensville are saying. Tell us what their vote is on the super-city. Tell us how many meetings the member has been to about that and what the member has been listening to. 
As I have said this bill is a denial of the history of Auckland. It is an insult to the people of Auckland. This is what we are seeing. We are seeing people on the march people attending meetings and people who are very very concerned about it. Actually it is unnecessary to rush this bill through the House under urgency. In fact as I said it is an insult to the people of Auckland. The amendment that I am speaking to is to extend the term of 50 years to 80 years because that is how long we have had local government and issues in Auckland. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: A lifetime! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is more than a lifetime; it is my parents’ lifetime as well. They are also Aucklanders. Going back to the cynicism of National I want to say that I also found the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s accusations of arrogance pretty offensive. That man comes from Christchurch. I have lived in Auckland for 30 years. I have raised my family there I have paid rates there and I am a good citizen of west Auckland. But with this bill I am totally offended and I know my neighbours are my friends are and my family is. Everywhere we go people are opposed to this bill and to the proposals that are being rushed through quite unnecessarily. So I am speaking in support of that particular amendment because I want Parliament to acknowledge that there is a history in Auckland that the people of Auckland deserve to have a say and that they deserve to have input into the plans the Government is rushing through which the Government has reduced from 6 inches of a wonderful report from the royal commission— 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Mr Chair I felt the need to make a call because I think it is astonishing that the most interesting thing has happened. Ten minutes ago we finally got a position from Labour; we finally got a position from Labour members. They support the royal commission but only in certain aspects. What was astonishing is that Phil Twyford admitted to this House that Labour is opposed to local boards. That is right! So every Auckland MP will be able to go around Auckland and be very clear that Labour is opposed to local boards. [ 
Interruption 
] If Labour is not opposed to local boards then I want Labour members to make very clear their position on them. Labour needs to make its position very clear because otherwise Auckland members of Parliament will be making it very clear to the people of Auckland. 
It is very ironic that Labour members are getting up and talking about gutting local democracy when they may be opposed to the very unit of democracy that can deliver good democracy for Auckland. I ask Phil Twyford and the Labour members to be very clear about where they stand in regard to local boards because local boards have the potential to offer real local representation in communities like Waiheke and Great Barrier. Labour needs to set out its position very clearly. Is it opposed or is it not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Can I say before the member Clayton Cosgrove commences that as Chairperson I am enjoying the acknowledgments facial expressions and winks but I am trying to be fair about this. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 It is because I am a Cantabrian Mr Chair. They are jealous. I just say that this is very interesting legislation; from a Cantabrian’s point of view it is interesting because if this gets through without any consultation and if the people of Auckland are not allowed to have their say in a democratic way then the question I have and the question I will put to my constituents is: who is next? I say to Mr Brownlee a fellow Cantabrian will Christchurch and Canterbury be next to have legislation like this rammed through so that we have Selwyn and Waimakariri combined without any consultation? If that is the case then I wait with interest to hear Mr Brownlee whom Dave Henderson in a brilliant article about him described as a nice guy but “absolutely useless” in the Christchurch  
Press. 
 I look forward to his speech if Canterbury is to be next or perhaps it is Wellington or perhaps Dunedin. 
I make a point that when we look at the regulatory impact statement—my colleague Ms Ardern made this point—this legislation has been so well scrutinised by the Government that the regulatory impact analysis team “has not assessed the regulatory impact statement because it was prepared after Cabinet’s decisions were made.” Mr Hide is the person who told us that he would cut through red tape and have everything scrutinised so that it was absolutely correct. His definition of cutting through red tape is not doing the appropriate checking of legislation. That is now what his view and version of what cutting down red tape is. Here is legislation that is being rammed through on the people of Auckland without the people of Auckland having their say without the proper regulatory checks and balances and I am sure that Mr Hide or Mr Garrett—his sort of prototype or whatever it is—will take a call and tell us why that was not done. 
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation with the greatest impact on the largest provincial area in the country—commercial impacts social impacts business impacts and democratic impacts. The Minister in charge of the bill has not managed to get out from under the tanning machine long enough to actually do his job as he said on  
Close Up 
 he would do when he first became a Minister. He said that he would scrutinise every piece of legislation that every regulatory impact statement would go under his microscope that he challenged the people of New Zealand to send their problems to him and that he Rodney Hide and presumably Mr Garrett would go through them line by line and have them fixed. And here we stand today with mega-legislation that will have a mega-impact on Auckland and on other parts of New Zealand. They have not even gone through the appropriate process to have the regulatory impact statement done looked at and checked. That is a disgrace. That is either laziness either incompetence or it is either arrogance or a combination of all three. 
David Garrett 
: You cannot use “either” when you have— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I do not know whether the member is lazy arrogant or incompetent but I would say that the member is a living example of all three over there all of the above. The member might want to just pipe down or at least take a call and on behalf of his leader tell us why his leader does not do his job; tell us why his leader earns his pay has the warrant has the car but will not do what he promised New Zealanders he would do and actually do his job and sort out regulations. The only thing I think Mr Hide has worked out is that the little bit of red tape that he can do is that he takes himself out of it does not do his job and does not check legislation. 
This is a hash job. I speak as a Cantabrian and I will wait for Mr Brownlee to rise like a piece of leavened bread from the other side and tell us what happens if Canterbury is next—or maybe it is unleavened bread going by his Catholic roots—because if this gets through on Auckland then which province is next? Will it be Christchurch? Will it be Canterbury? Will the member answer? Hello no empty vessel! The bellows that normally blow on the front row have run out of air so he will not say whether Canterbury will be next or Dunedin or Wellington. But I ask some member to get up and explain to us why the Minister in charge of the bill did not even have the decency or the intellect to make sure the regulatory impact statement went through and was appropriate. Maybe it was because they were afraid of the content of that statement. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I think you may have to get some lights for this part of the Chamber. I have been calling out for the opportunity to speak and you have had difficulty seeing me. I am not sure whether it is the colour of my skin or the light here but certainly we have to do something about this side of the Chamber. 
Labour opposes the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and I want to address my remarks to four amendments— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: But the member does support reorganising Auckland! 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —if the member holds his horses. The first amendment is to amend clause 3(7) by inserting a new subclause (aa) after subclause (a): “to remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on any reorganisation of Auckland Local Government as currently provided for in the Local Government Act 2002.” Clause 3(7) states: “the purpose of this Act therefore is—(a) to establish a single unitary authority to govern the entire Auckland region” and the question that needs to be asked of the Minister is where he got his mandate. Where did the Minister get the mandate to establish one unitary authority? The Minister hopefully will take a call or the Associate Minister ought to take a call and answer that question. If the answer is that National won the election then I need to also ask whether National declared prior to the election that it would set up a super-city once it was elected as Government. I have not seen anything that indicates that that is what it was going to do but I have heard Mr John Key say that once the royal commission’s report was made known he would go out and consult Aucklanders. That consultation has not taken place and here we are with clause 3(7) establishing a unitary authority. 
If the Government also says that its mandate comes from the royal commission having consulted 3500 people then I have to ask whether that is a sufficient number when we consider 1.8 million people live in Auckland. In Manukau alone I think there were only 160 submitters. Do 160 submitters give the mandate for us to establish a unitary authority without consulting the people widely? I also say that the process of making submissions to royal commissions or select committees is generally a foreign one for most ordinary workers—workers who have a voice and who have been speaking out at recent meetings at the TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre. About several hundred people turned up there and all of them spoke against the establishment of a super-city. 
But it is also about the way that this is being done. I think people are hearing that Mr Key who with the greatest respect has been referred to as the smiling assassin— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will withdraw that. We are sticking to the way in which the House operates which is by using proper names; just withdraw it. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I withdraw that. I did say “with the greatest respect”. Although Mr Key has been saying to Aucklanders that he is listening Mr Hide on the other hand has been pretty determined to rush this bill through under urgency. 
Under the Local Government Act Aucklanders have a right to have a vote whenever there is a reorganisation of local government. I ask the Minister whether he received any advice regarding his obligations under the Local Government Act 2002. If he did receive that advice what was the Minister’s response to it? I would like to hear the answer. Polls have been taken throughout the city meetings have been held and a hikoi is coming up on Monday 25 May. All of those polls and meetings are passionately saying that this Government is doing the wrong thing by ramming in legislation under urgency that takes away local government as they know it and takes away their right to have a voice. 
The Government is saying that yes people will have a voice on the second and third pieces of legislation but they are having a voice on what the Government has set up—this unitary authority. Clause 3(7)(b) states: “to dissolve the existing local authorities that govern the Auckland region”. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 They say an unexamined life is not worth living; I say an unexamined bill is not worth reading. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which is now being rammed through all stages in this House under urgency is such a bill. In this Committee stage it is very important for me to reiterate that I oppose this bill for three main reasons: it is procedurally unfair it is constitutionally flawed and it creates huge uncertainty. 
Part 1 is a good—or should I say a bad—example. Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” sets out the so-called purpose of the bill and defines “Auckland”. The current title of Part 1 is misleading. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern mentioned earlier parliamentary procedure has long defined the title and commencement clauses as the preliminary clauses. To call Part 1 the preliminary provisions runs the risk of confusing members and readers of the legislation. Labour would like to propose an amendment to the title of Part 1 by deleting the words “Preliminary provisions” and inserting the words “Background purposes interpretation and related matters”. Why has the National Government failed to insert the words “Background purposes interpretation and related matters”? Because it completely lacks confidence that the people of Auckland agree with these radical proposals. Why does the Government completely lack confidence? Because the Government’s agenda on the super-city poses the biggest challenge that Auckland has faced in its entire history and its 1.4 million people are not able to have a say on it. 
Why is the bill an unexamined bill? Because the Government could not be bothered to listen to the concerns of Aucklanders and other New Zealanders. The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance did a good job. Its 800-page report took 18 months to prepare cost millions of dollars and followed months of investigation and 3537 public submissions. But the Government’s sham version which is now being rammed through the House and being forced on Auckland was thrown together in just 3 days. Technically today in the House it is still 13 May 2009; 13 May 2009 is a sad day for Auckland and a sad day for New Zealand. 
Let me quote what the Mayor of North Shore Andrew Williams said on this bill and other related bills: “These Bills effectively shut down elected local government in greater Auckland and hand the region’s governance over to a small bunch of hand-picked unelected super-bureaucrats to run for the next 18 months until the deeply flawed super city takes over. And worse still all the costs of all this unnecessary upheaval will land directly on the ratepayers even though the government has not the faintest clue what it all will cost them.” It is procedurally unfair because the Government’s sham version of the super-city poses the biggest challenge that Auckland has faced in its entire history and its 1.4 million people are not able to have a say on it. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. First of all I thank Su’a William Sio for his contribution earlier this morning. Of all the speakers today his speech touched most closely on the sorts of people who will be completely missed out under the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. So mihi atu ki a koe e Su’a mo tena korero. 
[ 
I acknowledge you for that statement Su’a 
.] 
A bill that will directly affect one-third of the population of this country and 50 percent of the Maori population of this country should not be rushed through the House under urgency. There is no rationale whatsoever for this bill going through the House in that way particularly given that the next stage is for the special select committee to go to Auckland where its business will drag out for weeks and weeks. It makes no sense to rush the bill through the House now. 
I also note that as we get closer and closer to the anniversary of the Bastion Point protest and to the possibility of a hikoi I have heard that word coming from nearly every speaker on the Labour benches in the last couple of hours. Yet when Ngati Whatua first called for a hui to talk about the possibility of taking action and announcing a hikoi nobody from the Labour Party was there at all. Not one of Labour’s MPs was there. It is not that only Maori Party MPs were there; National Government MPs were there as well—and this is a bill they support. 
Hon Member 
: The Green Party was there. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: The Green Party was there yet still the Labour Party did not turn up. In fact at that time Labour did not even have a position on Maori representation. It has come to a position since that time because I suspect it is trying to maximise the opposition to this bill. 
The Maori Party opposes the bill because Maori representation is missing completely from it. We oppose it because mana whenua do not have seats at the top table under this legislation. I do not need to put up an amendment to this bill because my whanaunga Shane Jones will put one up. He and I have already discussed it and I will be happy to support his amendment. 
The reason we support the mana whenua and the hikoi—and it is not a Maori Party hikoi—is that mana whenua themselves believe that it is important that Auckland the jewel of the Pacific the city with the greatest Polynesian population in the whole world deserves the opportunity for the tangata whenua to be represented at the top table. The people of Tamaki-makau-rau have been giving land for the development of the Auckland settlement for more than 200 years. For those members who do not know when Ngati Whatua ki Orakei got back the last little bit of land they owned Bastion Point they offered to share the management of that land with the Auckland City Council. For that reason because of the willingness of the tangata whenua of Auckland to continue to share that city and to give land to that city we believe that Maori seats should be mandatory and should be part and parcel of the make-up of the new Auckland City arrangements. Whether Auckland becomes a super-city is another story but if the hikoi provides the opportunity for mana whenua to have representation at the top table we will support it all of the way. 
I congratulate Rodney Hide and the National Government on at least trying to do something about Auckland. It has been talked about for a long long time. I suspect that the previous Labour Government did not do anything about it because it was not up to copping the flak that would come with it. Our position in opposing this bill is a matter of principle not a matter of money. We support the right of mana whenua to have seats at the top table. We support the right of all citizens of Auckland to make a choice as to what their city will look like. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 We have just seen from this National Government one of the most outrageous attempts to shut down debate on a very significant bill the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. After only 1½ hours of debate the Government wants to shut down the debate. This is a huge bill and it will not be referred to a select committee yet the Government wants to shut down the debate because it is so embarrassed by it. It is absolutely disgraceful. 
I want to talk about one of the amendments put forward by my colleague George Hawkins to amend clause 3 by inserting a new—  
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague the member for Rimutaka but the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Rodney Hide is present in the Chamber so he should be sitting in the chair. The bill is in his name. Mr Chairperson he should be sitting in the chair alongside you so that the amendments can be debated. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I did not notice the Minister come into the Chamber. We will effect that. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thank the Hon Darren Hughes for that contribution. I wonder whether he could indicate whether any other members might need to move seats at the present time given that he seems to be interesting himself in such important details. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Sorry I missed what that was about. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is a constant state for all of us in regard to Mr Brownlee. I point out that it is expressly stated in the Standing Orders that if the Minister in charge of a bill is present he or she must sit in the chair during the Committee of the whole House stage. That is “Standing Orders 101”—by which I mean a course in the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We will now move on. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The amendment that I intend to speak to would insert a new paragraph under clause 3(7)(a) to remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on any reorganisation of Auckland local government which is currently provided for in the Local Government Act 2002. This is very important because we should be transparent about this bill. It effectively removes the right of Aucklanders to have a say in the reorganisation of their local government so we should put a provision in the bill to be very transparent about the fact that this bill does exactly that. 
As my colleague Clayton Cosgrove pointed out people up and down the country will be wondering who is next. I tell members that we have already heard rumours around the Hutt Valley that Paul Quinn the member who was not elected to represent the Hutt Valley but claims to do so has been going up and down saying that he supports a merger of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils. We know that this bill is part of the National Government’s wider agenda to merge local authorities around the country to create super-councils all over the country. We should be very clear that this bill establishes a precedent that says that local people should not get a say on local authority reorganisation because that is exactly what this bill does. 
Hone Harawira talked a few moments ago about the fact that this bill affects 50 percent of the Maori population. That is a good point and I am very pleased that the Maori Party is opposing this bill. But I am a little confused because the Maori Party voted in favour of the urgency motion to push this bill through all of its stages without it being referred to a select committee. So I am a little bit confused about the Maori Party’s position. 
A few other comments have been made about this bill. It is a sad day for democracy that this bill is being rammed through the House and already the National Government is trying to shut down debate on it. That comes after the outrageous abuse of parliamentary process that we saw from the National Government yesterday over the Waterview Connection in Mt Albert. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Shameful! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It was absolutely shameful. The Government deliberately released the announcement on the Waterview Connection seconds after the Speaker had ruled that an urgent debate was out of the question. It was a matter of seconds. The Government deliberately timed the release of that information to avoid any parliamentary scrutiny. Now it is trying to shut down parliamentary scrutiny of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill and I think it is absolutely outrageous. 
I return to my comments on the Hutt Valley and the fact that Government member Paul Quinn appears to be in favour of the merger of the two local authorities in the Hutt Valley. It is part of the National Government’s wider agenda to do away with local representation local community organisations and local government agencies within the Hutt Valley. The Government is trying to merge the Upper Hutt Police District and the Lower Hutt Police District. That does not require legislation so the Commissioner of Police is allowed to go ahead and try to merge those districts without any transparency. In spite of National’s claim prior to the election that it was going to concentrate on front-line police resourcing it is trying to strip senior police resources out of the Hutt Valley. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This bill has nothing to do with the rearrangement of police services. Mr Hipkins has spent at least 3 minutes discussing that particular issue. It is very hard to see how the debate can continue if such extraordinarily extraneous matters are being brought into it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry. My focus has been on putting the amendments in order so I have not been paying the degree of attention that I should have been. I apologise to the Committee. Members know that in the debate on a part of a bill they are required to speak to that part. It is not a wide-ranging debate. I ask the member to continue and to refer his comments to the part under debate. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have already dealt with the point of order. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I will continue my speech. I clarify that I was referring specifically to the amendment put forward in the name of George Hawkins to amend clause 3(7) by inserting a new provision in the Local Government Act. I was making brief reference to the National Government’s proposal to merge the Upper Hutt Police District and the Lower Hutt Police District to illustrate the point that this Government is interested in merging things in local areas without giving the people a chance to have their say. The Government should be transparent about that and should not try to hide behind a procedure that allows it to shut down debate as it has been trying to do today. But that is another example of the born-to-rule Tory arrogance that we see from the National Government. Government members have stood up and said that the people of Auckland had a chance to have their say in November last year they elected a National Government and therefore National can do whatever it likes. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
:—Iain Lees-Galloway—Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I will speak on clause 3 “Background and purpose of Act” and in particular subclause (2). The reason that I will get down to that specific detail is that the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide invited the Opposition to speak on the amendments that have been proposed and as well the Hon John Carter invited us to speak to specific parts of the bill. We are very pleased to accept that invitation and I know that many of my colleagues intend to take up the invitation as well. 
Specifically this subclause states that “Over the next 100 years it is expected that the Auckland region will face enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces. Local trends including high population growth add to the challenges and opportunities the region faces. To meet these challenges and opportunities Auckland requires local and regional governance of the highest standard”. That is a laudable aim. But if this measure is the model that we will be using for governance of the highest standard then Auckland is in deep trouble. We have seen arrogant behaviour from the Government this morning. We have seen utter disrespect for process. We have seen deliberate name-calling and the misuse of names of members of the Opposition. There will be no select committee process. We have had questioning from Government members as to why we are voting against this legislation without any effort whatsoever by them to listen to the arguments that the Opposition is putting forward. Is this how the Auckland super-city council will operate—with no interest whatsoever in any opposition to what it is doing? Will the council ram through its proposals and legislation in the same way as this Government is doing? Is that governance of the highest order? I do not think so. Is that governance of the highest standard? It certainly is not. 
My colleague the Hon David Cunliffe earlier on referred to the whittling down of the royal commission report from three volumes plus an executive summary to just a few small pages. He called that a stomach stapling of the legislation. What an apt and excellent description of this process! Stomach stapling is a very good metaphor for what we are getting because stomach stapling is the cheat’s way. It is the easy way out. If one wants to lose some weight the best way to go about it is to get some exercise maybe take up dancing lessons— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will come back to the question. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am talking about governance of the highest standard. We are seeing today a circumventing of the best way to go about governance. This is a skirting round just like stomach stapling is a way of skirting round getting some exercise taking some dancing lessons or doing whatever it takes to get one’s weight down. Another thing that often happens with stomach stapling is that the speed of the weight loss means that an additional operation is needed later on. That is what we will see with this bill because of the speed with which it is being passed through the House and the absolute ignorance of clause 3(2) which refers to “governance of the highest standard”. We will need to revisit this legislation later on. We will need another operation to deal with the mess that will be left because of the speed with which this legislation is being rammed through. 
We on this side of the Chamber are absolutely in support of the Auckland super-city—or whatever it will end up being called—getting a governance system that is in its best interest. That is exactly what clause 3 is about. It talks about meeting future challenges through governance of the very highest standard. However we cannot have faith in this Government that the structure it will create has governance of the highest standard because the model will be what we are seeing here today with the Opposition being shut out and shut down. The Minister asked us to address the bill clause by clause as did the members opposite yet the Government whips and members of the Government are trying to shut the debate down early without giving the Opposition the opportunity to go through the bill clause by clause. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will just pause members a little bit here. I know that everybody is anxious but I do not need a barrage at me. If members stand up call “Mr Chair” once and stay on their feet I will make the appropriate decision. In fact anybody barraging me is not likely to get a call. I ask members to put that into their process of taking a call please. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am glad that we have had that clarification from you now Mr Chairperson. It is just a sign of our respect for you and our attention to you that we have been calling in this way. 
I would like specifically to speak to an amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3(1) which is to add a number of words after the words “50 years”. I will run through the amendment so that members are clear about what I am speaking on. So after “50 years” the subclause will read: “In particular a number of issues have held back the advancement of the Auckland region. These issues include—(a) an infrastructure deficit; and (b) a lack of cohesion between governing bodies; and (c) the lack of a single vision for the future of Auckland; and (d) duplication of services; and (e) duplication of laws and compliance obligations; and (f) lack of consensus concerning the development of the waterfront area; and (g) lack of consensus around the development of a stadium; and (h) variance in rate levels between different councils; and (i) competing interests between different governing bodies; and (j) stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.” 
This amendment is important if this bill truly is the serious bill that the Government leads us to believe. On this side of the Chamber we agree that the bill is a serious matter. Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central said earlier today that it is the most serious thing since “forever” so I think that makes it a particularly serious matter. If it is indeed the most serious thing since “forever” then Part 1 in particular should not be called “Preliminary provisions” because the matters contained in that part—and the amendment to clause 3(1) that I have just mentioned—are far more than preliminary provisions; they are a serious background to a serious issue. 
Given the historic nature of the changes I believe that it is important we outline some of the issues that make up the reasoning behind the setting up of the royal commission. I will work through some of those issues and perhaps I will start at the end of the amendments to clause 3 with new subclause (1)(j) which we are attempting to add. It states: “stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.” We know that this issue has been an issue in Auckland for some time. A variety of different councils and different communities have attempted to come together over a number of issues and have found it difficult. It struck me this morning when I was listening to the radio and heard Melissa Lee the National candidate for the Mt Albert by-election who was illustrating the very point that we make here in respect of new subclause (1)(j). She was stigmatising the people of South Auckland in a way that I believe was shameful and outrageous. That shows the very need for bringing this new paragraph into the legislation. It is quite clear that Melissa Lee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It is time to put the question. We have a significant number of amendments. I will deal them as best I can in the order in which they were tabled. I will try to clearly state which ones they are so members can stay with me. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to the heading of Part 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Preliminary provisions” and substitute “Background purposes interpretation and related matters”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “50 years” and substitute “80 years”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “50 years” and substitute “20 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) after “50 years.” “In particular a number of issues have held back the advancement of the Auckland region. These issues include— 
(a) an infrastructure deficit: 
(b)a lack of cohesion between governing bodies: 
(c)the lack of a single vision for the future of Auckland: 
(d) duplication of services: 
(e) duplication of laws and compliance obligations: 
(f) lack of consensus concerning the development of the waterfront area: 
(g) lack of consensus around the development of a stadium: 
(h) variance in rate levels between different councils: 
(i) competing interests between different governing bodies: 
(j) stigmatisation of different areas of Auckland leading to fraction at the regional level.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “considerable” and substitute “central government”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “considerable” and substitute “Aucklanders”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “considerable” and substitute “ all New Zealanders”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “Local government arrangements for the Auckland region” and substitute “A lack of cohesion in Auckland governance arrangements”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “Local government arrangements for the Auckland region” and substitute “A lack of cooperation between Auckland’s governing bodies”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) “in particular the lack of cooperation between local body authorities” after “for the Auckland region”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “failed to deliver to Aucklanders”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “prevented the Auckland region from becoming an international city”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “held the Auckland region back for a number of years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “been the source of considerable controversy”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “been the target of a number of previous proposals of reforms”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “been the source of considerable frustration for Auckland residents for a number of years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “played an important role in contributing to the infrastructure deficit Auckland now faces”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “have indirectly contributed to lower productivity levels in New Zealand”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “resulted in increasing rates for Auckland rate payers”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “led to poor outcomes for Maori”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “led to poor outcomes for Pacific Island communities”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “led to poor outcomes for Asian communities”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “led to poor outcomes for European communities”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “resulted in a series of contradictory bylaws”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “led to a number of unnecessary compliance costs for businesses”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “resulted in increased road congestion”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “contributed to the incidence of road rage through the increase in road congestion”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “contributed to the degradation of air quality as a result of road congestion”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “provided increased economic stimulus to the region through large taxi fares from the airport caused by road congestion”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “successfully delivered services to Aucklanders”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “caused considerable concern for at least 50 years” and substitute “provided essential services to Aucklanders”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “50 years” and substitute “49 years”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Further amendments to clause 3(1) to omit the words “50 years” and substitute another period are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. The next amendment is to clause 3(2) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion— 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you read out the whole of that amendment for us please. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) “(particularly climate change)” after “environmental”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) “Volcanic activity has shaped Auckland for millennia and will continue to do so.” after “political forces.”  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “increased population”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “ enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “the effects of climate change”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “changing demographics”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “an increase in the immigrant population”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “the outcomes of some poor political judgement”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “the prospect of hosting a number of world-class events”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “enormous change brought about by global economic environmental and political forces” and substitute “the challenges associated with a growing population”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “100 years” and substitute “99 years”. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Further amendments to clause 3(2) to omit the words “100 years” and substitute another period are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of this Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to sort out Auckland governance”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to examine the current Auckland governance arrangements”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “consult extensively with the Auckland public before coming up with a proposal”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you please read out the next amendment in full before we vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am happy to do that. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to cost its proposal before presenting its recommendation to the Government and the public”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) the words “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to call for submissions and then reflect on those submissions before reporting back to the public”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to take into account the implications of the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Local Government Rates for local government arrangements in the Auckland region”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what changes to current legislation (consistent with the purposes and principles of local government as described in the Local Government Act 2002) are considered desirable to achieve or support the achievement of the inquiry’s objectives”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what changes to the boundary of the Auckland region or to the collaborative arrangements or mechanisms involving other regions across New Zealand are considered desirable to achieve or support the achievement of the inquiry’s objectives”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what is required for effective relationships and collaborative arrangements between central and local government”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what ownership governance and institutional arrangements and funding responsibilities are required to ensure the effective efficient and sustainable provision of public infrastructure services and facilities to support and enhance the current and future well-being of the Auckland region and its communities”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just for the purposes of clarification could we have the next amendment read out in full so that we can make sure we are voting on the correct amendment please. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what ownership governance and institutional arrangements and funding responsibilities are required to ensure the effective efficient and sustainable provision of public infrastructure services and facilities to support and enhance the performance of the Auckland region as a growth engine in the New Zealand economy and in its role as a key transport hub for New Zealand and the Pacific region”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) the words “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what ownership governance and institutional arrangements and funding responsibilities are required to ensure the effective efficient and sustainable provision of public infrastructure services and facilities to support and enhance the ability of the Auckland region to compete internationally as a desirable place to live work invest and do business”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what ownership governance and institutional arrangements and funding responsibilities are required to ensure the effective efficient and sustainable provision of public infrastructure services and facilities to support and enhance the ability of the Auckland region to respond to economic environmental cultural and social challenges (for example climate change)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what governance and representation arrangements will best enable effective responses to the different communities of interest and reflect and nurture cultural diversity within the Auckland region”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what governance and representation arrangements will best provide leadership for the Auckland region and its communities while facilitating appropriate participation by citizens and other groups and stakeholders in decision-making processes”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on what alternative transition processes for the implementation of any new or changed local government arrangements and of any associated matters that are identified are necessary or desirable”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on the best solution for Auckland”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to inquire into investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to investigate and receive representations on the way forward for the Auckland region”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “in October 2007 to investigate and recommend local government arrangements for the Auckland region over the foreseeable future ( 
Gazette 
 2007 p 3110)” and substitute “to provide an impartial and authoritative voice on the debate concerning the Auckland governance arrangements”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “with a 4 volume report”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “its main report comprising 787 pages”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and made over 33 primary recommendations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and advised that adopting a second tier model comprising of 20 entities would be more costly than their preferred option of 6 councils” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “delivering a report that is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of Hon Peter Salmon Dame Margaret Bazley and David Shand”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended the establishment of 3 Maori seats”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report 
:  
Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended a transition period of 4 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended that the Government appoint a Minister for Auckland”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended that the Government form a Cabinet Committee dedicated to dealing with Auckland issues”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended the establishment of an Urban Development Agency”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended the establishment of a Social Issues Board”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended the establishment of joint management structures between RTA/NZ Transport and NZ Railways Corporation”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended that elected members serve a term of 4 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended a number of boundary changes”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended the Council moved to an outcome-based transport funding system”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended local roads be the responsibility of local councils”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended that the second tier of governance required sufficient scale to be able to effect meaningful change”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and recommended that a second tier of governance be established”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and presented a number of recommendations that Aucklanders have not had the opportunity to submit on”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and presented a number of recommendations that have been subsequently ignored by the Government”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) “its principal recommendation being that the local authorities governing the Auckland region be dissolved and a single entity be formed to replace them (Royal Commission on Auckland Governance  
Report: Royal Commission on Auckland Governance 
)” and substitute “and was subsequently binned while the Government rolled out its own proposal”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(4A)The Royal Commission recommended the establishment of 6 councils beneath the Auckland Council. This recommendation of the Commission was dismissed by the Government. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(4B)The Royal Commission recommended guaranteed representation for Maori on the new Auckland Council. This recommendation of the Commission was dismissed by the Government. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “many” and substitute “a selection”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “binned the Royal Commission’s report and rolled out their own plan”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I get you to read out the amendment so we can keep track of which amendment it is we are voting on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is unusual to read out the whole amendment. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We had a request from the chief Government whip earlier for an amendment to be read out and the member who was previously in the Chair helpfully obliged given the significant number of amendments and the need to keep track of which ones we are voting on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is true. It is not the rule for the Chairperson to read out every amendment but I am happy to check read out this one. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “ignored many of the recommendations contained in the report and continued on”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “scanned the report and found the recommendations that supported its plan and used them to justify its position”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “did not seriously consider the Royal Commission’s report”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “scanned the Royal Commission’s report and pulled together a 36-page proposal and a press conference”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “substituted the Royal Commission’s report for a 36-page outline of a plan for Auckland Governance that was poorly thought through”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “quickly planned a press conference to release their ill-thought out proposal”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) “considered the Royal Commission’s report and agreed with many of its recommendations including the creation through legislation of—(a) a single governing body for the Auckland region; and (b) an entity to effect the necessary changes” and substitute “considered holding onto the Royal Commission report until they released their plan”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (5) the following new paragraph: 
(c)the establishment of elected Maori representatives. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(5A)Many important recommendations of the Royal Commission including guaranteed representation for Maori have not been included in this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (6) “and second tier bodies be elected at the October 2010 local government triennial general elections” and substitute “be elected at the 2010 local government triennial general elections”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (6) the following new paragraph: 
(a)members of second tier bodies will be elected at the October 2013 local government triennial general elections. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to 3 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (7) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)to remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on any reorganisation of Auckland Local Government as currently provided for in the Local Government Act 2002; and 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “to establish a single unitary authority to govern the entire Auckland region on and from 1 November 2010” and substitute “to establish a single unitary authority consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to govern the entire Auckland region on and from 1 November 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (7) the following new paragraph: 
(f)to protect public assets from sale during the transition process. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (7) the following new paragraph: 
(g)to provide an avenue for redress for affected parties seeking a review of the Transition Agency decision. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (7) the following new paragraph: 
(h)to provide for effective consultation around the appointment of members to the Transition Agency. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to 3 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (7) the following new paragraph: 
(i)to establish a Transition Review Board to safeguard the interests of the Auckland public for the duration of the transition. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 June 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 May 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 April 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 March 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 February 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “31 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “ 27 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “ 1 November 2010” and substitute “26 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “22 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “21 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “20 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “19 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “18 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “17 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “16 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “15 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “14 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “13 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “12 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “11 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “10 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “9 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “8 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “7 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “6 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “5 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “4 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “3 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “2 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “1 January 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “31 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could tell us which date we are up to so that we can keep track on the voting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I can but members should be following that on their own schedules of proposed amendments. We are talking about the amendment referring to 30 December 2010. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It has been a longstanding practice in this House for the Chair to read the nature of the amendment as well as the number of the amendment. It is certainly very helpful to members who may not have all of the papers with them all of the time. We would certainly commend the practice of the previous Chair and others and we seek your assistance in that regard. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 111/5: “It has never been the custom in the committee of the whole House for the chairperson to read out every amendment …”. It has occurred from time to time but has never been the custom. I will repeat the amendment because we have had some points of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “30 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “29 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “28 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “27 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “26 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “25 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “24 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (7)(a) “1 November 2010” and substitute “23 December 2010”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.