Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3621] 
Wednesday 13 May 2009 
( 
continued on Saturday 16 May 2009 
) 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
New Part 11 Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members the Committee is resumed. Last night the Committee completed consideration of Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is 9 a.m. on Wednesday 13 May and we now have a series of new proposals in front of us to insert new parts. Although they have come to us in arithmetical order to make sure they are checked and everything is OK we will not be dealing with them in exactly the same order so I ask members to bear with us and with the Clerks. We also have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a new part establishing the Auckland Transitional Agency Review Commission. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That we report progress in order to send this bill to a select committee for a period of 4 weeks. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Committee report progress. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 These amendments are not strictly in the right order but this proposed new part deals with the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. This part would not be necessary if there had been a wee bit of goodwill by the Government and if it had faith in Aucklanders by giving them a say on this bill. The amendment would not have been necessary but now we are here on Saturday 16 May which is still the sitting day of 13 May here in Parliament. 
Much could be achieved by establishing a commission. The commission would be headed by a person who is eligible to hold the office of commissioner “if he or she is or is eligible to be a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a District Court Judge at the time of appointment as a Commissioner he or she shall be appointed as a District Court Judge at that time.” That shows the seriousness and importance we place on the appointment. We cannot just appoint our mates as some parts of the bill allow. This appointment is very important. 
The proposed amendment goes on to state: “When considering whether a person is suitable to be appointed as a Commissioner the Attorney-General should have regard to the need to ensure that the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in matters coming before the Court including knowledge and experience in economic commercial and business affairs local government and community affairs:” That is really important. 
The amendment mentions local government and community affairs. It is interesting. We have drafted this amendment so that these now come together. Local government in Auckland is being ridden roughshod over and worse then that so is the community. The community has been left out in the cold by this Government. 
It is interesting. We will have a series of meetings all over the place that will be run and paid for by the National Party. In my area Mr Bakshi will have one—if he is still around. He might be able to tell people how many houses they can turn into brothels and things like that. I understand he is a bit of an expert in that area. 
The appointment of commissioners is important because planning resource management and heritage protection are very important. They need to be up to speed with that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: You’re right George. Get on with it. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is good to see my friend the member for Hunua up here bright and early. It is good to see that he is awake; sometimes it is hard to tell whether he is talking in his sleep or whether he is awake. Other important areas that commissioners should have knowledge and experience in are environmental science including the physical and social sciences; architecture; engineering; surveying; mineral technology; and building and construction. Knowledge and experience of matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi are also very important. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s never concerned you before George! 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: There is Mr Henare. He obviously did not get home last night considering the condition he is in. He probably went straight to the clubs. He has come well fuelled for today. When we have Tau Henare well fuelled it makes life interesting. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You told us that these additional parts will not be considered in numerical order—and I understand the reason for that—but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to know which part is to be debated after this part so that we can read it and be well informed before we debate it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a good point. The next part we will consider will be Part 10. If the member wants to look further into the future we will then consider Part 9. After that we will go on to Part 5. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 New Part 11 is a serious response to a serious problem. The problem is a lack of independent oversight which has been made worse by this bill’s being rammed through the House in the dead of the morning and the dead of the week. This bill will still be here next week. The bill is being rammed through without a select committee process and we have to ask why. I say to all those sleepy-looking members opposite that it would have been quicker for this bill to go to select committee than to debate new Part 27. Bill English will not be happy because we will still be here on Budget day. What about the pre-Budget announcement schedule? What about all of those nasty little things that those members want to hide on the day? The whole shambles will be disrupted by the fact that Paul Hutchison— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are dealing with a new part and new material. There has been no speech from this side so there can be no need for any rebuttal. Members should confine themselves very tightly to the content of the part now being debated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is very very important that we have consistency through this debate. We have had over the last couple of days—or the earlier part of this day depending on whether one looks at this in temporal or parliamentary time—a broad-ranging debate on various parts. The Government cannot change the rules now just because it wants to run away and go home. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. I say to the member that one of the finest parliamentarians this place has ever seen the Rt Hon David Lange once said that consistency is the last refuge of a fool. The point being made here is that members should focus to some degree on the part. Although the Hon Trevor Mallard is correct and we have had a wide-ranging debate this is new material and it is quite tightly focused. We will have a little bit of latitude but I want the member to talk to new Part 11 “Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission” though he may introduce some other material. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: New Part 11 establishes the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. The commission will consist of a chair and five commissioners. The eligibility requirements for the chair will include being a District Court judge and for commissioners will include having juridical experience. 
This part is important for several reasons. The appointment of the commission is an independent process. We all know that processes that are simply governed by politicians and delegated to officials can often run into trouble. It is noteworthy that the New Zealand National Party at this point has significant experience with independent judicial processes. For example I understand that Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is experiencing— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This member is trifling with your request to stay tightly within the bounds of this new part. He is introducing material totally extraneous to this particular debate and I ask you given the expense that the taxpayer is being put to for the Labour members to exercise their brawn and filibustering skills—or whatever we want to call them—to keep the bounds very very tight. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Unlike the member who just raised the point of order I listened carefully to your ruling. It was a ruling down the middle. You asked people to be narrower than they had been but you also indicated that you would be reasonable. That member is inviting you to be unreasonable. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I reinforce one other point Mr Mallard made which you neglected to touch on. You are the sole judge of relevancy under Standing Order 107 and for Mr Brownlee or another member to get up and continually bring to your attention his or her interpretation of Standing Orders on this matter is not correct. He should not challenge your ruling; you have already ruled on this. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have a couple of points. Yes I want the debate to be a bit tighter given the nature of the amendments. I think the member was addressing the material before him. I said that people could draw on other things and explanations as they went through; I will not be unreasonable about that. Mr Cosgrove is right: I am the sole judge and I will remain the sole judge and I thank him but I do not need to be reminded of that. As for Mr Brownlee’s point about the monetary cost I would have thought some members of the public would think it is a good thing to see the Chamber being used a bit more often rather than sitting empty. But never mind that is another story. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Let me turn to a particularly serious reason why the Auckland Transition Agency needs an independent juridical oversight. It is dealing with assets of $28 billion—close to one-quarter of the country’s GDP if it were all expensed in one year. That is a huge amount of assets. It spans a range of subsidiary organisations including the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Ports of Auckland—which I will come back to—Metro Water Watercare Services North Shore Holdings Enterprise North Shore and Waitakere City Properties. Each of these entities has its own well-constituted governance process and in many cases its own independent board. But under the bill before this Committee they are simply placed under the jurisdiction of this transition agency. It is like some form of bizarre renationalisation of something that is already publicly owned. 
Here is where the plot gets thicker. The agency will not report through an independent governance process to the Cabinet of the New Zealand Government which would be of course the normal process for any State-owned enterprise or Crown entity. No—this agency reports to one Minister the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide. Why on earth would that be? It is certainly not good governance practice which is why in new Part 11 we are introducing the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission with additional juridical oversight. 
Members opposite have obviously been lobbied hard by Ports of Auckland. Ports of Auckland says that this legislation will not do. It is a private company trading in open markets it has its own board and it wants to be a special case. Let us admit that there are grounds for that special case but why for Ports of Auckland? Why not Watercare Services? If the  
National Business Review 
 and  
Trans Tasman 
 are to be believed the Minister in charge of this bill is going to appoint the chief executive of the water company to be the chair of the transition agency. How will they deal with that conflict of interest? I would not want to be that person. I have great respect for Mark Ford and I think he is a very able man but I would not want to be in his shoes. I hope he gets first-class legal advice about his liabilities and his risks because I think he is exposed. 
I think the Minister in his rush to railroad this legislation through the House and to create a very clean reporting line that allows him to bulldoze his way through normal legal convention is exposing one of the more able executives in the Auckland business community. I hope for Mr Mark Ford’s sake that he thinks very carefully not only about whether to accept that appointment but also about the conditions upon which he accepts it. I am sure that Mr Mark Ford would appreciate what the Opposition is doing to try to provide better independent cover oversight liability and risk management through this important part that is being very seriously introduced this morning. I hope the Government members who are sitting here and who will be getting used to sitting here will give this new part their earnest consideration. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on new Part 11 which establishes the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. The Leader of the House in relation to the first speech given on this part by the Hon George Hawkins said it was bureaucracy gone mad. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’d know! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He would know about that I say to Mr Hughes because since being in office the National Government has established 36 review committees. Most of them have been set up by Mr Brownlee who is trying to review what he knows about the energy sector. Unfortunately he does not know a lot so he has had to establish 36 review committees. 
This particular review commission has been established for a very very good reason: National has pushed this bill through Parliament under urgency denying Aucklanders the right to have a proper democratic process. In the light of that and of the fact that last night we sat in this Chamber and established without a select committee process an agency that would be responsible for $28 billion of assets and for 6000 people’s jobs we need a review commission. This is a serious amendment and a serious new part because this Government has decided that Aucklanders should not have a say about the transition to a super-city. It has tried to push that through without any input at this important stage in the process. A review commission as established under Part 11 would be able to let Aucklanders have a say. 
We see very clearly when we look at this part that the review commission will be established on a far fairer basis than that of the transition agency it will seek to review. If we note the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission we realise it will consist of the chair of the commission and five commissioners. We noted in the debate last night Part 3 that clause 11(1) states: “The Transition Agency must have a governing body consisting of a chairperson and no fewer than 2 but no more than 4 other members appointed by the Minister.” There we go; we will finally have a sufficient number of people to look at this matter properly. 
I now turn to how those people will be appointed. For the review commission we have an appointment process that will involve a range of people. It will involve people such as the Prime Minister the Minister of Local Government the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Attorney-General; they will all be involved in the appointment of the commissioners. That is unlike the Auckland Transition Agency where one person will appoint the members of the governing board and that one person is the Hon Rodney Hide. 
The Hon Rodney Hide said that the Auckland Transition Agency will be responsible for a rationalisation of governance arrangements in the Auckland area. Members on this side of the Chamber know very well what Mr Hide and his ACT Party friends believe is a rationalisation of services. It is not about making them more efficient and it is not about making them effective; it is about cutting and slashing them. That is the agenda. It is about privatising assets taking them away from the people of Auckland taking them away from the people of New Zealand and returning them to Mr Hide’s mates. That is why in this part we are asking for a review commission to be appointed in a way that will reflect a wider set of interests than the narrow ideological interests of Rodney Hide. We are certain that when Auckland people see a review commission established in this way they will know they are getting a proper review of arrangements for Auckland governance rather than the sham of democracy that we have seen from members on the other side of the Chamber. 
I also want to refer to another reason why the review commission is vitally important. Clause 13(1)(b) of Part 3 which we passed last night states that the transition agency will have the ability to look at and review every single item on the agenda of a meeting of an existing local government organisation during the transition period. If that is not the action of the nanny State I do not know what is. Every single item down to the toilet rolls and the stationery of a local government organisation in Auckland will be reviewed by the transition agency. What kinds of decisions will we get in that environment? We need to be able to review those decisions and ensure that Aucklanders have a proper say about what is happening to their local government organisation. The transition agency is a sham from the Government. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on new Part 11 put forward by my colleagues which introduces the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. Having sat through the debate on the bill I have become more and more concerned about elements that give total and utter control to the Minister of Local Government. I think there should be some kind of independent judicial oversight and review of that. If members look for example at Part 3 which we passed last night and the establishment of the governing body of the Transition Agency we see that no more than two people are required on the Transition Agency. That is a concentration of a huge amount of power in the Transition Agency. We do not know who those people will be. They could be Richard Prebble and Christine Rankin for all we know. They could be Melissa Lee and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for all we know. 
Hon Member 
: A third job. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They could give him a third job. The Transition Agency will have a huge amount of power so there should be some oversight of what it is able to get up to. There is a very very tight time frame for the implementation of these local governance reforms. Clause 13(1)(a) suggests that the Transition Agency has to have everything in place and be ready to function from 1 November 2010. We know that it will be very very tight. Mistakes could be made. There should be some oversight and some ability to review the decisions that are being made because of the huge amount of power that the Transition Agency will have. 
I will go further and look further through the bill at some of the things the agency will do. It is also worth noting that under clause 22 all the expenditure for the Transition Agency has to be approved by the Minister. That does reinforce the need for some independent review given the huge amount of control that will be given to Rodney Hide and the very hand-picked select number of individuals who will ultimately end up in total control of Auckland— 
Hon Member 
: $28 billion. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —in control of $28 billion and in control of—how many employees? 
Hon Member 
: Over 6000. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: And in control of over 6000 employees. That is a lot of people’s jobs and a lot of people’s lives that Rodney Hide will effectively be given control of. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The Tsar. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes—the “Tsar of Auckland”. Members should bear in mind that it is not the National Government that will be getting the control; it is Rodney Hide the ACT Party Minister with his 3.5 percent of the vote who will have control of all of Auckland. There should be some oversight of that. 
I come back to new Part 11 which establishes the new Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. It makes it clear that a judge has to be in control of it. It cannot be one of the political mates of the National Party or the ACT Party. They cannot make it Christine Rankin Richard Prebble or John Banks and we are very supportive of that. 
Hon Member 
: Why not? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He is not a judge. If members would read the amendment we are debating they would know that. 
This amendment gives the review commission the power to hear submissions. It gives it all the powers that a District Court might have in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction. If members look at the explanatory note of new Part 11 they will see that it sums it up very well. It states that the new part amends the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill “to ensure decisions concerning members of the public are subject to independent review.” Once again it comes back to the notion of the concentration of a very very large amount of power in a very very small number of individuals. There has to be some kind of accountability some kind of oversight. 
It is particularly important in my view given the way this bill has been rushed. The bill has not been through a select committee process so there has been no public scrutiny. People have not had the opportunity to make submissions and say they think there is a problem with this part or that part or that they would like this amendment or that amendment. Having sat through a number of select committee processes on pieces of legislation so far in my time in Parliament I can say that I find those processes incredibly valuable. 
On the surface during a first reading a bill may seem perfectly logical and well-written but it is amazing what technical issues—that we would not otherwise get a handle on—are picked up during the select committee process. By not putting this bill through the select committee process the public are being denied that opportunity. Having an independent review mechanism in place would pick up any mistakes that have been made because of a lack of consultation. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I say to the National Government which is desperately trying to shut down debate on new Part 11 that Labour members would like to have a discussion about it. We are putting up serious amendments to try to do the best we can to rectify rotten and flawed legislation. Given that this is the only debate on this legislation happening in this country we do not think it is too much to ask that those members of this House who care about the rights of the people of Auckland who actually care about democracy in Auckland are allowed to have a debate on this issue. So I thank the Chair for giving Labour the call. I say to Government members that they might do well to listen to what we are saying rather than squawking like headless chooks. Nathan Guy might think it is funny to kill democracy in Auckland but the Labour Party does not. 
New Part 11 is very important. There is one very simple line in this part which the Labour Opposition has put up that might not seem like a big deal; clause 38(2) says simply: “The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency.” Do members know what? The Auckland Transition Agency is not independent from Rodney Hide; it is not independent at all. Because of that people should be very concerned. This hand-picked bureaucracy will have all the powers of the current eight democratically elected Auckland councils. As I said last night in the debate given that the Auckland Transition Agency is basically for all intents and purposes going to be the Auckland Council for the next 18 months the people of Auckland the ratepayers of Auckland need to know that there is some kind of check and balance on the power of that organisation. 
I see Sam Lotu-Iiga laughing; he thinks he is about to get a third job on the Auckland Transition Agency. I urge Government members to look seriously at new Part 11 and take a call to debate it rather than just being annoyed that they are being made to work on a Saturday. 
Another very important point is that clause 50 “Hearings” states: “The Commission shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition period.” This is a very interesting clause. When we go back to Part 3 which was voted on last night and was opposed by members on this side of the Chamber we notice all kinds of clauses on the requirement for the Auckland Transition Agency to report to the Minister but nothing about its need to represent the community. There is clause after clause about how the agency must report to the Minister at regular intervals on progress and must provide a final report. What does the bill say the agency must do for the people of Auckland? The Government members have gone quiet now because none of them have actually read this legislation. They have their research unit notes and they have been trotted down here to take closure motions but none of them have read the legislation. Well there is nothing in the bill about representing the people of Auckland. In fact the agency is “to provide information to the public of Auckland … as it thinks fit”. If we look at the process of this bill which is going through the Committee stage without it having been to a select committee we can probably guess that “as it thinks fit” will be never unless the agency tells the councils not to buy toilet paper as one of the Auckland councils suggested in the newspaper the other day. 
That raises a very important point. The Auckland Transition Agency has the power to veto any kind of spending a council wants to do. The agency will ask the Minister whether it is OK for the North Shore City Council to buy toilet paper this week and the Minister will say no because he is worried that the council will go over to Mount Albert and use it to block the bulldozers. The council can then say to the agency that actually the toilet paper is important for tourism; it needs to buy toilet paper for a lot of public toilets and it is worried that without it people might not want to come to Auckland. 
Labour members are proposing a review commission. It will have to meet it will have to be accountable to the people of Auckland and—this is a really good part—its members will actually have to have experience in local government. Unlike the members of the Auckland Transition Agency’s governing body these people will have to know what they are doing and they will be there to serve the people of Auckland in a local government capacity. The review commission will be able to review the Minister’s decision about toilet paper. 
I think that is a really important safeguard for the people of Auckland. A transition agency is being set up to hand power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime Minister’s mates until a council structure can be put in place which will then hand power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime Minister’s mates. We need a check and balance and the review commission is that check and balance. As I said the review commission will have to meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition period. There is no requirement on the Auckland Transition Agency to actually meet with the people of Auckland. There is no requirement at all for it to be accountable to the people of Auckland. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the chance to take a call on new Part 11 in the name of my colleague the Hon George Hawkins. There are two great questions in politics—only two. The first is: how on earth did Gerry Brownlee get that job? How on earth was Gerry Brownlee given that job? And the second great question is: who guards the guardians? 
This morning considering the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in urgency we have to ask ourselves some questions about the basics of politics—some of the great questions about how it is handled for citizens and by citizens. This new part considers the question in this particular way: it appoints a review commission to oversee the work of the Auckland Transition Agency. 
I draw members’ attention to new clause 52 which sets out the powers of the commission that George Hawkins is recommending in this new part. It states: “The Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to reconsider a decision taken.” That is a very important point. I am not sure members opposite understand just how much power Parliament is devolving in urgency at the moment. They have been briefed at caucus that this is a simple bill but it is not a simple bill. This bill shifts power in New Zealand not to more people but to fewer people. And those fewer people are not elected; those fewer people are appointed. They are not appointed by the lead party in the Government the National Party; they are appointed by a Minister from a party that enjoys about 3 percent of the party vote in our country. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: And a fine Minister at that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is very easily impressed through his community board meetings his council meetings his district drainage board meetings his annual plan meetings and his draft long-term council community plan meetings. He is very easily influenced by power; he tries to collect every job that is going. Goodness knows whom he is invoicing for today for his being here but I hope it is not the people of Auckland. 
The point here about new clause 52 is that under the bill as it stands Mr Hide gets to appoint an authority whose actions cannot be reviewed by anybody. Mr Grant Robertson will talk about the process by which the review commission will do its work and there is an important part around hearings. But my point is that the powers of this commission are important safeguards for our Parliament. We are trying to decide who will guard the guardians. One-third of our people will be governed by the transitional authority—one in three New Zealanders’ lives will be affected directly by a bill that members opposite do not want to debate. 
After 15 minutes’ consideration of a commission that could review and be a backstop to this agency National members want to move closure on it. They are shutting down debate on a topic that affects the lives of over 1 million New Zealanders. Over 1 million people’s lives change as this bill goes through yet National members are not interested in that. They think it is no problem. They trust Mr Hide. Mr Hide has been doing over the National Party since 1996 but they are too stupid to even realise it. Rodney Hide runs rings around these people and he will find ways of getting his people into the agency. He even smartly put up a new amendment yesterday to give the transition agency five people not four so that he could appoint another of his people to run all this. That is how smart the Minister of Local Government is. The Leader of the House is so stupid he cannot work that out. 
There are two great questions in politics. First how the hell did Gerry Brownlee get that job? And second who guards the guardians? The Labour Opposition through proposed new clause 52 gives an answer to the question of who guards the guardians. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Wasting taxpayers’ money. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Sam Lotu-Iiga has the cheek to talk about wasting taxpayers’ money. He is so good at wasting money that he wastes not only taxpayers’ money but ratepayers’ money as well. That is efficiency! It is machine-like efficiency to in the same hour and on the same day waste both taxpayers’ money and ratepayers’ money! I do not know any other member in this Committee who can do that. Do members know the sad and terrible thing about it? Although he is getting money off both sides both sides are getting poor value for money. I wish Sam Lotu-Iiga wore a big receipt on his chest so that we could rip if off him and get our money back. The Minister of Consumer Affairs is from the ACT Party. We know that the ACT Party is running rings around the National Party so why does the Minister of Consumer Affairs not get our money back from Sam Lotu-Iiga? That is the question we want answered here this morning. 
I am in favour of new clause 52. It will be good for the decisions of this transition authority to be able to be reviewed by the commission which will be set up to check these things. You know after the one term that Paul Quinn is getting in Parliament maybe he could be on this commission because every commission needs a secretary. Everybody needs somebody who is useless and he could be the person to make sure things are going well in that particular regard. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is very good to get a call for the Green Party after many attempts on this excellent amendment in the name of my colleague George Hawkins to insert new Part 11 which appoints a review commission for the Auckland Transition Agency. If ever an organisation needed judicial oversight by a review commission chaired by a judge this agency does. Three people—the Minister and two of his henchpersons appointed by him—will be able to countermand every decision made by every council in Auckland and make them do something different. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So it could be a squash player and a dancer who has been dropped on her head? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Well the mind boggles at just who those two people might be but regardless of who they are they are clearly subservient to the Minister. 
Our largest city is not run as a dictatorship by one Minister in Parliament who incidentally had the support of some 3 percent of the population when his party was elected. That is what we call a dictatorship and that needs judicial oversight and a review commission. Although the debate yesterday talked about the councils still having decision-making powers it is very clear here that they do not actually have any decision-making powers at all unless the Minister happens to like the decisions that they make. They will be completely neutered organisations for 18 months they will be completely subject to the will of the Minister and that could include doing anything. As colleagues have said it could include selling assets it could include taking a different approach to implementing the plan—the possibilities are limitless as to what these councils might be required to do by this transition agency. 
This review commission is a very sensible idea. It will be chaired by somebody who is or is eligible to be a District Court judge. That means that there is some respect for the law in what is going on there and I think that will be a useful thing as well. It is a five-person commission so it is actually somewhat larger than the body that it is reviewing which I think just reflects on the stupidity of having a mere three people able to run the whole of Auckland for 18 months. So it is a very well-worked-out amendment. It has all the detail in it about the appointments and the oath of office. The commissioners will even have special advisers to help them with proceedings. My colleague has thought of all the details about the remuneration of commissioners and their procedures and hearings. There is no doubt that they will also have staff and that they will be protected. 
We had concerns yesterday from the Government about 6000 local government workers who were scared about their jobs. I have to ask who made them scared about their jobs. It is not the Green Party that is making them scared for their jobs and it is not the Labour Party or the Maori Party that is giving them all this anxiety about their employment—it is the Government that is doing so. There is a very easy way to address their concern about their jobs and that is to just get rid of this silly legislation or send it to a select committee so that we can hear from those people about whether they are adequately protected. 
Again this is the first of many good amendments to this bill. I strongly support it because if we are going to have this stupid structure there are a lot of checks and balances we have to put in place. The Green Party has six proposed new parts coming up which will ensure that this transitional authority does sensible things sustainable things fair things peaceful things and democratic things in Auckland. Maybe when we have passed all those amendments we will end up with a transitional agency that will actually do what the people of Auckland want it to do despite this legislation being very poorly conceived in the first place. As I say this is just the first of a number of parts that will improve this legislation enormously. It would of course be much better if it were sent to a select committee so that the people of Auckland could have their say about how they want this legislation to be improved and that may yet still happen if we persist. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a very serious point of order that I bring to the Committee and this is the sort of issue that arises when we are in urgency. Last night the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide moved amendments to Part 3 that could have some very far-reaching and unintended consequences. He moved that the employees of the existing staff of the eight authorities lose their current employment rights. Under this amendment moved by the Minister in the chair women currently employed by the Auckland authorities could lose the right to paid parental leave and this is incredibly serious— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is raising a debating point. I know that the member feels strongly about this but this is a matter for a call and for a debate to be brought to the Committee’s attention. It is not a matter for order in the process of how the Committee conducts itself. If the member wants to continue with this she will have to demonstrate that it is about order not about substance. So far it has all been about substance. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think my colleague was attempting to get into a debating matter; it is a matter of order of process in terms of what the Minister has advised the Committee of. We are seeking to find out whether the Minister is in a position to be able to supply us with a report or maybe a briefing from the officials about this issue of paid parental leave because the employment relationship has changed and we need to make sure we can get the information from the Minister because the part has been dealt with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. If the member wishes to have a briefing from officials then I am quite sure the Minister would welcome the member approaching the Minister and having access to the officials. That is entirely appropriate and it is what normally happens but it is not necessarily a matter of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thank you for your advice in that particular area but this is very serious because it is my understanding that we will come up to a clause relatively soon that indicates that this amendment binds the Crown. It would be good if the Minister could supply to the Committee a written opinion on that particular area as to whether this amendment in binding the Crown overrides the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that I have just made the point that that is an issue of substance; it is not an issue of order. If the member wants to approach the Minister to get a written opinion from him he is more than welcome to do that; this does not take up the time of the Committee. We want points of order to be on matters of order not matters of process. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In the past Chairs and Speakers have had reasonable latitude around points of order where there is a genuine attempt as there is in this case to avoid disorder. I am sure that if what has been indicated is the case this has the potential to lead to gross disorder during the week. I am attempting to help you to avoid that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. What I think I will also do is get the maintenance staff to check the member’s chair. It seems that there is something wrong with it in that the member does not seem to be able to stay in his seat for very long! I say to him that to imply that previous Chairs have done something quite differently is saying that I am not handling the job right. I am sure the member did not want to imply that that is the case. But I say to the member that my experience of being the Minister in the chair is that where members want information from the Minister and from officials they approach the Minister directly and the Minister makes the information available via the advisers he or she has in the Chamber. Points of order are to be about order not about process. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to be agreed to: 
to add the following new part: 
Part 11 
Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 
38Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission Established 
(1)The Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission is established immediately before the commencement of this section and which shall have the jurisdiction and powers conferred on it by or pursuant to this Act and any other Act. 
(2)The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency. 
39Interpretation 
For the purposes of this part  
Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 
 or  
Commission 
 means the entity established by section 38. 
40Membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission 
The Commission shall consist of the following members: 
(a)a Chair of the Commission: 
(b)five Commissioners. 
41Eligibility for appointment as Chair of the Commission 
(1)A person shall not be appointed or hold office as Chair of the Commission unless he or she is or is eligible to be a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a District Court Judge at the time of appointment as a Commissioner he or she shall be appointed as a District Court Judge at that time. 
42Eligibility for Commissioner 
When considering whether a person is suitable to be appointed as a Commissioner the Attorney-General shall have regard to the need to ensure that the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in matters coming before the Court including knowledge and experience in— 
(a)economic commercial and business affairs local government and community affairs: 
(b)planning resource management and heritage protection: 
(c)environmental science including the physical and social sciences: 
(d)architecture engineering surveying minerals technology and building construction: 
(da)alternative dispute resolution processes: 
(e)matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and kaupapa Maori. 
43Appointment of Commissioners 
(1)The Governor-General may on the recommendation of the Attorney-General after consultation with the Prime Minister the Minister for Local Government and the Minister of Maori affairs appoint a person as the Chair of the Commission. 
(2)The Commissioners shall hold office for the duration of the transition period. 
44Oath of office 
A person appointed as a Commissioner shall before undertaking any duties as such take an oath of office that he or she will honestly and impartially perform the duties of the office. 
45Special advisors 
(1)The Chair may appoint as a special advisor a person who is able to assist the Commission in a proceeding before it. 
(2)A special advisor is not a member of the Commission but may sit with it and assist it in any way the Commission determines. 
46Registrar and other officers 
(1)The Commission— 
(a)shall have a Registrar; and 
(aa)may have 1 or more Deputy Registrars; and 
(b)may have other persons to assist it in an administrative capacity. 
(2)The Registrar a Deputy Registrar and every other person assisting the Commission shall— 
(a)be appointed under the State Sector Act 1988; and 
(b)be officers of the Commission. 
(2A)A Deputy Registrar has all the powers functions duties and immunity of the Registrar subject to the control of the Registrar. 
(3)An officer of the Commission may also hold another office or employment in the Public Service. 
47Remuneration of Commissioners and special advisors 
There shall be paid out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose to every Commissioner and special advisor remuneration by way of fees salary or allowances and travelling allowances and expenses in accordance with the Fees and Travelling Allowances Act 1951 and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly and— 
(a) the Commission shall be a statutory Board for the purposes of that Act; and 
(b) every special adviser shall be deemed to be a member of a statutory Board. 
48Commission sittings 
The quorum for the Commission is the Chair of the Commission and one Commissioner sitting together. 
49Commission procedure 
The Commission may regulate its own proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit. 
50Hearings 
The Commission shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition period. 
51Hearing of submissions  
(1)All hearing of the Commission shall be held in public. 
(1A)Hearings will be informal with the Commission hearing submissions of any ratepayer in the Greater Auckland region that wishes to appear before the Commission. 
(2)The time and place of hearing before the Commission shall be fixed by the Registrar ensuring that all hearings are held within the current boundaries of the Franklin District Papakura District Rodney District North Shore City Waitakere City Manukau City Auckland City Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island. 
(3)The Commission will also accept submissions by mail or email. 
52Powers of the Commission 
(1)The Commissioners have the same powers that a District Court has in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction. 
(2)The Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to reconsider a decision taken. 
53Review of decision by Commission 
Decisions of the Commission are subject to review by the High Court. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 11 not agreed to. 
New Part 10 Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland Transition Agency 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of new Part 10 which is about the personnel provisions for the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency. This is a very important new part and I hope the members across the Chamber will listen to the debate on it. It is about personnel provisions that affect 6300 workers and the treatment of those workers also affects their families. We are talking about a very significant number of Aucklanders who as one can imagine are feeling very nervous and insecure at the moment given that the major structural change is occurring in a time of high unemployment and major economic crisis. I hope that there will be a fair hearing across the Committee of this issue. I am sure that Nikki Kaye—the new friend of the worker—will support this new part. The party leaders across the other side of the Chamber are not here but if they were they would recognise the value of these sorts of provisions as well. As I understand matters recently they have understood the value of working with unions in trying to look at employment matters. 
New Part 10 proposes a number of important general principles. First and foremost those general principles include the idea of being a good employer—that is a very important principle. It also requires that policies developed under that principle are available to employees and that the Auckland Council would report on its compliance with those policies. We have outlined some of the things that good employers might do including the fair and proper treatment of employees providing good and safe working conditions providing equal employment opportunities recognising the aspirations of Maori and making sure that employees of the Auckland Council maintain proper standards of integrity conduct and concern about the public interest. I reinforce that point because the people who work for councils provide public services. These people care about the public services that they provide which are very very important things that affect the day-to-day living of people in Auckland. So we are very aware that those workers will want to be in a position to provide good-quality services to the public. 
The context of this part is very important and we talked a little about that last night. Workers are feeling very insecure at the moment. Council employees—employees of the different councils and of the regional council—are feeling very concerned. Why is that? The royal commission said some very important things about the staffing issues related to this important change that is going on. It said it expected current council staff to form the nucleus of the new organisations. One of the royal 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 start-up costs for the new organisation and to enable key services to be delivered as usual during the transition”. 
The unfortunate thing is that although that statement provided a degree of certainty to the affected workers on the other hand the Government has decided that there will be a rationalisation of council staff which will start to occur immediately. That means there will be job losses. The Government is disregarding not only many of the other recommendations of the royal commission but also the recommendation about providing security for council staff. In the current economic environment that is very very difficult for people to deal with. 
If one looks at how workers in the Public Service are currently being treated by the Government one would understand why council workers in Auckland are feeling insecure. I ask members to look at the level of job cuts that is going on at the moment in the Public Service. I ask members to look at the fact that those workers are being treated as second-class workers and are not eligible for example for provisions like the 9-day working fortnight—not that that has actually made a great deal of difference yet. But Public Service workers are not even eligible for it. 
We have already seen a number of attacks by the Government on workers. We have seen a number of workers lose the right to challenge unfair dismissal. The Government is now looking at the provisions around holidays. The Minister of Labour has put up a zero percent increase in the minimum wage and actually does not agree with pay equity for women workers. I could go on but I say those things also mean that workers are feeling very insecure and nervous. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Mindless! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Mrs Goudie that I have a point of order. This is very serious point of order and I want to word it as carefully as I can. We are in Committee and it is a Saturday morning. The Opposition has put up a lot of amendments and new parts by way of amendment. Obviously some are more detailed than others. This particular new part Part 10 is very important to the Opposition because it directly affects the lives of 6500 people. My point of order is that on the last part considered by the Committee if we include the time taken on points of order a closure motion was accepted within 40 minutes of the Committee’s considering a brand new part that had never been near a select committee and had not been distributed to members until today. 
The point I am making is that I understand that there will be pressure on both you and the other Chair of the Committee to get this business through as quickly as possible. I respectfully say that a part must be given the due consideration of this Committee regardless of whether it is a Tuesday afternoon a Wednesday evening or a Saturday morning. I think that we need to have the chance to debate our new parts which have not been to a select committee. The level of public scrutiny— 
Hon Simon Power 
: This is outrageous! It’s your discretion; he shouldn’t be telling you this. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Deputy Leader of the House can interject. I said at the beginning that I was trying to take a careful but serious point of order to reflect to the Committee exactly how we feel about this which is that this particular part is of importance to us. I am not challenging your ruling Mr Chairperson because there has been no ruling. There is no closure motion before you; we are at the beginning of the debate on this part. I respectfully submit to you that the previous part was shut down very very early. I want an assurance that that was not a tariff simply because we are meeting on a Saturday morning which appears to be the reason for the Government’s sense of urgency about the closure motions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The first point I make is that the Chair will not feel pressured about accepting closure motions. I do not feel pressured in any particular way. I observe that I consider these new parts to be in a slightly different context from the parts that have been tabled in the House because those were on notice and so on and these are not. 
Secondly I am guided—and I am sure that the other Chairs have been guided—by content. We need to concentrate on the subject matter at hand. I have said that I will be quite liberal and let people make other comments as they go through the parts. If someone makes an interjection and the member responds that is fair enough. But we do not want the rest of the speech to be on the interjections; we want to be on task. 
Thirdly I assure the member that there is no tariff. A closure motion having been accepted for the previous part does not mean that this is the rate that we will carry on for all other parts. It will be about the content of the part the content of the speeches and the way that the Committee conducts itself. The length of debate can go up; it can go down. But content will be important. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The chair again Mr Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The first thing is that I do not appreciate comments of that sort. I do not think it is helpful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Fair enough. I apologise to the member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The other point I make is to ask you to elucidate on your ruling on one particular point that was not clear. You indicated that it would make a difference whether the parts had been on notice or not on notice. I could not tell from your comments whether something that had been on notice would have a longer debate; whether because something had not been on notice members needed time to look at it and it would therefore have a longer debate; or whether something not on notice would have a shorter debate because there had been no notice. Could you indicate which of those you meant? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I appreciate the member’s wanting some elucidation on some of the finer detail around some of these judgments and the shadow Leader of the House’s views on these matters. It has always been my understanding that when a closure motion is taken by the Chair is a matter for the sole discretion of the Chair. It has been my experience over the last short while that whenever an attempt is made to try to define those parameters the fall-back position is the Standing Order in that regard. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is absolutely correct. It has always been and will always be the sole discretion of the Chair whether a closure motion is taken and the Chair will take it as he or she sees fit. I do not want to get into a long debate about the matter the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. Although members put up amendments and call them parts that is only the way they themselves have described them. Those proposed new parts could in another way be looked at in substance in effect as amendments. 
Hon Annette King 
: You can’t make that decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I can make that decision about substance. For example members get up and quite often say: “I am raising a fresh point of order.” when in fact they are not. They say that simply to relitigate the same matter; they describe it as a fresh point of order when it is not. I think everybody has been guilty of that at some stage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can you elaborate on the notice thing Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: On the notice thing the bill was put on the Table and members have had a long time to read it in terms of hours. But these proposed new parts have turned up—they have just appeared. The point I make is that I consider the bill as tabled by the Government of the day as being the issue we are here to debate. That is the main focus of this debate. When members table amendments to the bill they are of lesser concern to a degree than the actual bill. When members table amendments that they put up as new parts they may describe them as parts but when one reads them one could describe them as amendments because they are not as significant as what we would normally have as a part of a bill. We will be flexible about this matter. 
I say to members that regardless of all that is going on around the edges it will remain the sole discretion of the Chair how long the debate goes on for. There will be no correspondence entered into. The Committee will determine closure motions by vote and the content of the speeches will be the Chair’s consideration. If speeches are on target and are discussing and elucidating the amendments we are considering then the debate will tend to go on for longer. If people get off task and we are on to everything else but the part or amendment we are discussing then the Chair will consider closure motions much more quickly. Members should be assured of that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling; it was very helpful. I would like to extend an invitation to you to make an examination of Part 2 of the bill and of the proposed amendments. When you are considering your tariff in relation to substance I think you will find there is much more substance in these amendments than there was in Part 2 and therefore the debate should be proportionately longer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member could make that argument but I have read quite a lot of the proposed amendments and I think some of them have not added to the fountain of wisdom in this place. I also mention to the member that substance is quite often more than just the number of words counted on the word processor. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I reassure you that this is a fresh point of order and has nothing to do with the timing of debates. This point of order is about a comment you made that I require some explanation on. It is the point you made that the proposed new parts we are dealing with should be seen just as amendments. When amendments to parts were debated previously they were stand-alone single one-clause amendments. The difference with this proposed new part—if we take for instance the part we considered for a little over 30 minutes in total Mr Hawkins’ proposed new Part 11 “Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission”—is that it contains 25 new clauses. Yesterday we were voting on amendments to clauses. I think to consider an entire new part as being just the same as an amendment leads to some confusion in the Committee. Clearly proposed new Part 11—with 25 clauses—will be much more substantial than an amendment to omit a certain date and substitute another. Much more work goes into developing these proposed new parts. They cover a much larger ambit of issues and I think to just dismiss them as being the same as amendments that the Committee has seen previously is neither fair nor correct because these proposed new parts contain a substantial number of clauses. I just ask your advice on that matter because I think it could lead to some confusion as the Committee considers proposed new parts this morning. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The attempt to define the nature of the debate by what it is labelled and how many words are involved rather than by the content of what is involved in the debate itself is leading to confusion. I submit that it seems to me that an attempt to define these types of debates puts you in a very difficult position Mr Chair. As I understand it the position under the Standing Orders is simply that your discretion—and your discretion alone—determines when the closure motion is taken. That should be the end of the matter. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 My friend the Deputy Leader of the House misinterprets what I mean. I am not discussing closure motions. We have dealt with that issue the Chair has ruled on it and we accept what you said. We are talking about the difference between proposed new parts and amendments.  
The Committee of the whole House used to consider a bill clause by clause. Indeed if the Government forgot to move a part by part motion then we would be subjected to hours and hours in Committee as it worked through clauses. It was always a challenge for Government whips to make sure a Minister moved a part by part motion. We have moved away from that situation to an assumption that the Committee of the whole House will always consider bills part by part and that amendments relate to clauses—as we have seen so far. It is completely different when amendments are put down that create new parts as we see here. An amendment to create a new part is a separate debatable question as opposed to individual amendments on clauses which are not debatable questions; they are questions taken at the end of a debate alongside the Minister’s amendments and other members’ amendments. It is a completely separate area. Your comments that these proposed new parts are just like amendments is the point the Opposition is raising with you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member with all due respect that the whole structure of his argument is based on a wrong assumption. The fact is that whatever name the member puts on these amendments—whether he calls them “parts” “model parts” or whatever—they are all amendments. Each one is an amendment. An amendment that has “part” on it has exactly the same status in this Committee as an amendment that takes out one word and substitutes another. It is an amendment—it is nothing other than an amendment to the bill. It is no different. It is irrelevant whether the member calls the amendment a part; it is still an amendment. However the Chair instead of having a very narrow debate on an amendment has given consideration to the fact that the amendment has a substantial amount of clauses in it which is why we had multiple speeches on the amendment and did it slightly differently from any other amendment. That is the point we are at. 
I reiterate two things. Firstly the Chair will be the sole determiner of the debate and will then simply allow the Committee to make its own decision about whether the debate continues. Secondly the Chair’s decision will be driven by two things: whether there has been relevance and whether there has been undue repetition. So there are two criteria: relevance and repetition. If members are relevant and are providing fresh material then the Committee will continue to debate the part. The moment it changes—there is repetition and relevance goes down—then the Chair will start to look at a closure motion. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Speaking to the amendment to insert new Part 10 in the name of Carol Beaumont I draw attention to a couple of points in particular. First of all the members opposite are of the view that these amendments are vexatious and they are expressing some irritation that the Opposition should be bringing such amendments to the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that we have been opposing this bill because it is an affront to democracy and because it is an affront to the rights of the people of Auckland. 
This amendment in particular although not addressing the democratic rights in substance actually goes to the question of something that is even as profound as Aucklanders’ democratic rights. It goes to the question of the working conditions and the security of the people who work within local government services in Auckland. That is the issue. That is why I say to Mr Power who is now the Minister in the chair this could in no way be considered a vexatious amendment. It is nothing of the sort. 
In fact I draw to the attention of the Committee the Government’s voting on matters such as this even as recently as last night. The Government voted down amendments that asked for the views of women of Maori of Pasifika and of people of different ethnicities to be represented in the consideration of the Auckland Transition Agency. 
This amendment gives the Government a chance to reconsider the mistakes it made last night. The effect of what the Government did last night was to forbid women Maori Pasifika and other interest groups to have any kind of consultation on or representation in the activities of the Auckland Transition Agency. Time and time again the Opposition put up amendments that asked for the Minister of Women’s Affairs to be consulted and for the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs to be consulted. The amendments did not even go as far as to call for a poll although there was a moment when we did call for one. In fact the amendments asked just that the Ministers responsible for the portfolios of women Pasifika people with disabilities and ethnic affairs be consulted in the process. 
The Government voted against every one of those amendments. That needs to be sheeted home to the Government because we will be talking about that around Auckland for years to come. This amendment gives the Government another opportunity to do the right thing. We are looking for some protection for the workers who provide the public services administered through local government in Auckland. 
Is it too much to ask of this National Government that there should be good and safe working conditions that there should be equal employment opportunity programmes that the aspirations and aims of the Maori people should be recognised that there should be opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees that there should be recognition of the aims and aspirations of ethnic or minority groups or that there should be some recognition of the employment requirements of women—including paid parental leave? 
The Government now has an opportunity to do the right thing to take notice of the progress that has been made in employment law in the last 9 years to recognise the rights of our workforce in Auckland and the differences in its composition—especially in relation to the workforce in local government—and to defend its rights to those provisions I spoke about. If the Government proceeds to oppose each of these parts of the bill—these amendments I should say based on the procedural debate that has just taken place—and if it votes down this part then it can expect all 6500 of the workers in local government in Auckland to know which side their bread is buttered on. That will be a very clear indication of what this Government stands for. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call. I was invited earlier by the Chair to take a call when I raised a very serious point of order but the debate on new Part 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill put forward by my colleague Carol Beaumont is the perfect debate for me to put my issue into context. 
I inform the Committee that I was invited by the Chair to speak to the Minister in the chair about our very real concern which was raised by the people of Auckland early this morning that their right to paid parental leave might have been expunged by an amendment last night from the Minister of Local Government. This is a very serious issue. I went to the Minister as I was invited by the Chair to do and the Minister said—and members should listen to this because the Auckland Transition Agency reports to that one Minister with nobody else providing any checks or balances over his powers and authorities—“You had your turn last night; you didn’t take it.” We were voting on amendments last night. We were voting yes or no to amendments; we could not debate or discuss amendments in the Chamber last night. When I took up the offer of the Chair the Minister said: “It is finished. You had your turn last night.” Is that the sort of attitude he is going to take when the transition agency raises issues? It will report to Mr Hide only as the Minister. Are those the sorts of powers and authorities that he will extend over the rights of the 6500 workers whose current terms and conditions might have been amended very badly last night with an impact on their lives? 
Those members opposite were not in the House when we voted on paid parental leave—which women members in the previous Opposition voted against—but I am sure that the new women members do care about women’s rights and paid parental leave as do many many men. The amendment last night may have been an unintended consequence. In the point of order that I reasonably raised I asked whether it could be looked at and whether the Minister could clarify it for the Committee. If that is the sort of attitude the Minister is going to have as the one person with power and authority over the transition agency it is deeply worrying. 
In this new Part 10 that we have put forward we suggest that we establish a code of practice for employees—for those full-time employees who have worked for over a year for the current authorities that will go by next year. Clause 108(2)(k) states: “there shall be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee;”. These are serious amendments that we have put up. We had no opportunity to look at this bill before we got it to debate in the House and the relevant part of it was pushed through last night in urgency. We are using the one democratic tool that we have got to try to make this bill better and the response from the Government benches has been that we are wasting the Committee’s time. 
I tell the members of the Government that people have been phoning us all night. My daughter phoned and asked: “What is this bill that is going through the House?” and I said: “We are in urgency to fight about the bill to establish the Auckland Council.” She said: “What is the bill all about?” and I said: “Tough! You will not have a chance to debate this bill. You will not have a chance at all.” Calls came through all night long from people in Auckland and we are receiving calls this morning. They are taking it seriously. They are anxious and they are worried. They are hugely concerned about their rights. They are hugely concerned about the unintended consequences of this bill. 
This is when a Government gets things wrong: when it rams things through the House and does not involve community voices. That has happened and that is why we are here and I am pleased that we are here. We are going to fight this fight. It is absolutely critical to consider our code of practice for workers their rights and their conditions. It is not just about structural changes to the transition agency. The Government sees it as simplistically as that—that it is just about structural amendments. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am sorry that we have to take time to debate part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that was actually passed last night but the Opposition members who are introducing new parts are sowing confusion. I think it is because they are genuinely confused. Let me be very very clear. Paid parental leave is a statutory entitlement. Nothing in this bill changes that and I would have thought that members opposite understood that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Opposition members are in the Chamber together because we are the last line of defence and up until now this debate has been about the rights of Aucklanders— 
Hon Members 
: Ha Ha! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: They may laugh. What exactly is it about democracy that they oppose? What is it about democracy that “Gerry-mander” opposes? We are not here this morning debating new Part 10 to talk about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders. [ 
Interruption 
] The importance of Part 10— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Those exchanges across the Chamber between members are not acceptable. The member is on his feet and speaking in a debate. Interjections are fine if they are fair and reasonable but interchanges between members are out of order. I invite the member to continue. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: New Part 10 unusually compared with the other parts of the bill is not about the democratic rights of all Aucklanders; it is about the employment rights of those some 6000 Aucklanders who are employees of the organisation. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition asks Government members to specify exactly which of the provisions they object to because I understand from their barrage that they are likely to be voting against this new part. They should tell us why they object. Is it because they disagree with the proposition that there should be an obligation on the part of the Auckland Transition Agency and the Auckland Council to be a good employer? Is it because of the good and safe working conditions in this part? Do they object to an equal employment opportunities programme? If they do why not put out a press release in support of that view? Is it the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons? 
Perhaps that is it especially when we look at clause 104 “Appointments on merit” because that goes to the heart of our concerns about the bill. It is particularly concerning when one puts it together with the governance structure that is over this entity because unusually it is not reporting to a Cabinet committee—it is not reporting to Cabinet. Those people will be the sole appointees of one Minister—the Minister of Local Government the Hon Rodney Hide. Why does that matter? It matters in two respects in relation to clause 104. It gives that Minister absolute jurisdiction over appointments. The board has only two to four people in addition to a handpicked chair. That is not a wide enough range of skills or people to give diversity of opinion. This is designed to be a directive. It is designed as a diktat; that is how it is structured. Because of that it is essential that it has written in as a statutory obligation those things that we would expect a good organisation to take for granted. But there can be no guarantee here because the governance structure is flawed from the outset. 
Why has the governance structure been designed that way? It follows a model of change management called “shock and awe”. Roger Douglas used it—crash through opposition move so quickly people cannot unite or take to the streets move before they work out what is really happening and drive through the middle. That is exactly what this legislation is about. 
That is why we are in the Chamber historically on a Saturday morning; why we will be here on Monday morning and Tuesday morning and Wednesday morning and in Budget week; and why the legislative programme of this diktat Government is going to be a shambles. The junior Government whip is looking very worried because he knows that he will be taking responsibility in the eyes of the people of Hawke’s Bay for the fact that he cannot manage the House. And the Leader of the House who is already a public joke who has barely opened the Standing Orders must take primary responsibility for the fact that it took the Government 2 days to question an amendment. Change a comma and it took them 2 days to work out how to question that amendment! What kind of House skills is that? No wonder the “Business Herald” yesterday had a diary piece asking who the lamest duck in the Government was arguing whether it was Richard Worth or Gerry Brownlee. It is I think a lay down misère. Gerry Brownlee is next but at the moment we have not finished with his colleague. Gerry Brownlee is next because he will never recover from this process. 
Clause 104 “Appointments on merit”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is an oxymoron is it not? How about the pot calling the kettle black? Because I do not have confidence that the Minister of Local Government is one to appoint people on merit; I think he is one to appoint on ideology. I think he wants to appropriate and privatise the assets built up by the people of Auckland over 45 years. He will ensure that the people who are there are doing just that. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very pleased to support this very important new Part 10. I am pleased the Minister has accepted that paid parental leave is well established and will be covered in the legislation perhaps regardless of this amendment. But some other provisions are quite important. For example clause 101(2(d) requires “Recognition of—(i) The aims and aspirations of the Maori people;”. I think that is important. It might be quite educational for the little group that will run the Auckland Transition Agency to have to take into account the aspirations of the Maori people. In the process of running the transition while taking into account the aspirations of the Maori people the agency might come to the realisation that the new body really should have direct Maori representation in the form of three Maori seats. It is quite possible that if the agency takes to heart the provision in this new part it may make very strong recommendations to the Government saying: “Now we’re operating and we’re listening to Maori in the process of operating this transition we very strongly recommend that the Government reinstates the three directly elected Maori seats proposed by the royal commission.” That would be excellent. 
Clause 101(2)(f) requires “recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment requirements and the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups;”. As is well known quite big meetings have been held in places like South Auckland and there has been very strong Pacific Island participation in those meetings. Those people are worried about the loss of the identity of Manukau City and about how account will be taken of the interests of Pacific people who are concentrated in that city. But if the transition agency really takes on board the provision in clause 102(2)(f) then perhaps it would say to the Government: “Well hold on. The structure you have put in place which strips out local representation and knocks out sub-regional representation like that for Manukau City really affects the rights of different ethnic groups particularly in the case of South Auckland Manukau City and Pacific Island people.” Again perhaps the agency would make urgent representations to the Government to make alterations to the legislation at the last minute. That would at least improve the possibilities of sub-regional identity and the interests of the Pacific Island people being taken into account. The same applies to other non-European groups in our society who feel shut out by this big structure where rich white people will tend to get the positions. There will not be— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Rich white men. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Rich white men; I apologise. 
There is also a provision in clause 101(2)(g) to recognise the employment requirements of women. Again as has been rightly pointed out that may educate the transition authority to recommend to the Government urgent changes to the structure so that women are not disadvantaged in the way that they will be under this legislation and the companion Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill that will go through Parliament. 
Clause 104 “Appointments on merit” is quite important because we know that the appointments to the transition agency are to be made directly by the Minister of Local Government without any reference to a Cabinet process. We know that will be hard to achieve so having that provision might at least make his Cabinet colleagues and others say “Hold on there should be a merit procedure.” 
Clause 105 “Acting appointments” could be very relevant because it deals with resignations from the transition agency. I would expect there might be quite a few resignations even though the agency is supposed to go for only a short time. After a few weeks in the job a new appointee might say: “I’m in a horrible position here operating like a dictator intervening in agenda items of local bodies all across the place. The body I’m helping to set up here isn’t going to work.” There might be a lot of resignations so this provision could be very pertinent. 
Clause 108(3)(a) provides for the maintenance of service delivery levels. That could be important too because there would be a tendency for the new— 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call to support clause 101 in new Part 10 which is in the name of Carol Beaumont. There are three points that I would like to make in this debate. Firstly I will talk about the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency being good employers. My second point will be about the aims and aspirations of Maori. My third point will come back to the fact that this is all about democracy and transparency. 
In respect of the Auckland Council being a good employer I point out that it is really about caring for and protecting the rights of workers. When I was a school principal we had a framework saying that any employer or teacher who was dictatorial and lacked support would breed a resentful child. This is what I see in the legislation that is being pushed through. We are being dictated to and there is a lack of support which will breed resentment in the community. 
This issue is also about the aims and aspirations of Maori people. I say to members that Maori aspire to be heard in their workplaces to be influential. I struggle to see what is wrong with recognising the aims and the aspirations of Maori the employment requirements of Maori and the need for greater involvement of Maori in Auckland public affairs. I wonder why it is such a hard issue to deal with why it is so hard to debate why we have to push this bill through so quickly and why Maori people do not have an opportunity to participate in any sort of debate on an issue that really does affect them and to participate in settings that allow Maori to be heard. To have public meetings is fine but I just wonder how many public meetings will be held on marae and I wonder how many public meetings will be held at times when whanau can get to those meetings and actually contribute. It is really important that the aims and the aspirations of Maori people are not overlooked in this whole debate. 
One of the greatest aims and aspirations of Maori is simply to get a job. When we see that our unemployment rate is up at around 11 percent which is higher than that of most groups aside from the Pacific Island population we realise that it is really important that Maori rights and Maori conditions at work are considered and looked after. Again this comes back to democracy. We hear National members say they are listening. But I ask whether they have heard what the people are saying. There is a big difference. When those members sit in a meeting and simply listen to what people are saying and then move on in their own direction they are not hearing what people are saying. People do not like the direction that all this is heading in. 
To come back to the issue of the Auckland Council being a good employer I say that this is about people having an opportunity to be selected. What we are seeing here is that the Minister of Local Government will base his selection criteria on individuals or groups that support his ideology. That ideology is quite intimidating for the Maori people because our values are totally different from those of the Minister. We have a fear that the people being selected will be mainly male mainly wealthy and mainly Pakeha. Let me tell members now that Maori are certainly not Pakeha. We are certainly not generally wealthy and we certainly do not live in the suburbs of Remuera Pakuranga Howick and those other places. We tend to be the people who live in west Auckland Glenfield Otara and Mangere. 
Moana Mackey 
: They need a code of practice. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: They do need a code of practice. The Minister must notify the House and make a workforce transition code of practice. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why do they oppose that? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Indeed—why do they oppose having a code of practice? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora no tatou. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak for the voices of Auckland that have been silenced as a consequence of the chilling erosion of democracy being orchestrated by Rodney Hide and Mr Brownlee this morning. It is good to see Mr Harawira back here after practising his salute with a Melanesian flavour to it. 
I stand to speak about the importance of the rights of those Aucklanders whose democratic entitlements have been swiped away as a consequence of the Auckland Transition Agency. Now we focus on their rights as employees. They cover a large and vast distance. My colleague earlier spoke about those who are disadvantaged those who occupy marginal positions. Their level of irrelevance grows by the hour in the mind of the National Government. It does not care about people who do not have powerful friends in shiny towers. It does not care about people who do not belong to the chamber of commerce who do not belong to other powerful professional organisations. All it cares about is turning the transition agency into a small unaccountable group of people who will be driven by profit. They will not think of the humanitarian considerations that employees deserve at a time when avalanche after avalanche of bad news is coming from overseas. The rights of children mothers fathers and grandparents are the rights that we should be concerned about and they have been completely forgotten. 
The Minister of Local Government stands up and gives lame accounts as to how Opposition members are either being trivial or not treating the House seriously. This is the highest court in the land. Aucklanders have every right to look to the Opposition to hold the Government to account in terms of speaking up for their right—given that to date we have failed to make any difference whatsoever in relation to their democratic rights—to be able to go to work and continue to contribute to and enrich the city of Auckland and its broader environment knowing that they will not fall victim as they did in the 1980s to Mr Roger Douglas’ foul schemes knowing that they will not fall victim to half-baked ideas from people who unfortunately will not be elected but will be appointed. The Government will not appoint Maori from the local tribes. It will not appoint tangata whenua and give them a decent fee to represent the indigenous dimension. Similarly the Government wants to appoint people on fat salaries who will not be accountable to us. They will smash the rights smash the entitlements and accept none of the obligations that fall upon good employers. 
So it falls to us to remind the media to remind our friends here in the broader Opposition and to remind the Government that these sorts of things open up ill will. These sorts of things cause people to feel that they no longer have a decent stake in the development of what is meant to be the super-city. This provision enables the creation of a mega-city over the bodies of good God-fearing decent workers. How can that possibly be sustainable? How can that possibly lay down a basis for productivity and for growth in the confidence of people who want better parks who want better goods and services but who fear they will be unable to achieve them because every time they have a request of a significant nature to improve their working environment it will have to go across Rodney Hide’s desk? His desk will be littered with applications for contracts and a variety of other foul schemes to erode and undo the good work that the very workers we are concerned about have created and contributed to. 
It might be said that we should not focus too much on those groups that we will get to speak about later in the day—that is the tangata whenua and the Pasifika. But those are the groups along with other vulnerable sectors of the employment force that this bill is designed to protect. I would like to hear from Mr Rodney Hide. How on earth does he think that instilling power in a small group of corporate-driven unaccountable people will enrich the rights of workers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Towards the end of that speech I was watching the clock fairly carefully. I want to check with you that the clock did not go a little bit fast towards the end. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It certainly did not go fast. There are two of us here checking. That is completely out of order. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I am very pleased to stand in this Chamber to support Carol Beaumont’s amendment to insert new Part 10. 
I want to put forward a bit of history from a Pacific woman’s perspective in relation to the importance of being a good employer and having good personnel policies that acknowledge and look after the diversity of our communities and our country. Pacific unemployment has gone up from 8 percent to 13.7 percent yet Auckland is the biggest Polynesian city in the world. I will talk about a personal story to put it in context. I say hello to my mother who is 80 years old and is watching us on television. Mum came over from Samoa in the 1950s. She worked as a shorthand typist for the Department of Social Welfare and she managed to become the manager of 30 women. She became the first Pacific equal employment opportunities coordinator in that department together with Elsie Ellison of Ngati Porou who was the first Maori equal employment opportunities coordinator. The point about having those communities represented in the workplace is that it means there is a better connection with those communities. Having them represented ensures that they participate and have information but more important it ensures that the needs of those communities and some creative responses and innovation can be part of the mix. 
I am very very proud to say to the Minister of Local Government that it is important in this debate to honour the contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. We should think of the big picture. I think of the Rugby World Cup. Who plays in our rugby team? Who plays in the New Zealand Warriors and in the Kiwi netball team? Who won the Lexus opera competition last week? It was a Kiwi-born Samoan. Who heads Black Grace? It is Neil Ieremia from Cannons Creek who now lives in Auckland. Jonah Lomu and all those other people came from very humble beginnings. 
It is those workers who need to be looked after. It is about value for money but it is also about value for people. It is really important that we address that issue in terms of work workers’ rights and better investment to support those workers to lift their capability. It is also important to have an organisation that reflects the look of Auckland because that is good for New Zealand good for the Pacific and good for the world. Our whole community like any other community has contributed to “New Zealand Inc.” New Zealand is very very well known all over the world in terms of its Maori Pacific Asian and Pakeha contributions. Each contribution enhances us. Unless those groups are reflected in the workplace not just at the level of a cleaner but at the management level where decisions are made the delivery of the agency will be ineffective and fall short of its responsibility. 
I stand as a New Zealand - born Pacific woman. I am very proud to be a Kiwi. Pacific people are very proud of our country. We do not want to be honoured just for playing good rugby; we have a contribution to make in terms of the economy and our society. Our people like those in many other communities work extremely hard no matter what job we do. We see examples of that in Parliament from bottom to top. It is important that we look after our people because they contribute to the economy and they contribute enormously in terms of social capital too. They do a lot of voluntary work in the areas of sports culture spirituality and faith. Those areas are all part of the package. 
I congratulate Carol Beaumont on her vision of creating personnel policies that are not token gestures or responses but actually enhance are integral to and reciprocate the enormous contribution that Pacific people have made to this country. After all Aotearoa is part of the Pacific. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this excellent new part proposed by my colleague Carol Beaumont. I can only echo what all my colleagues have said. But I also affirm our plea to the National Government to seriously consider this part and to think about what we are talking about when we talk about good employment practices being a good employer and how important that is particularly at a time when 6300 workers are living with enormous uncertainty. They do not know whether they will have a job in 18 months. They do not know what the rationalisation of their jobs means. That is what the Government has proposed—that their jobs be rationalised by October 2010. 
Last night we heard a whole lot of platitudes about how Part 3 was about protecting the workers. Well no it actually is not. It may protect the workers who transition at the point of the changeover in October 2010 but I ask how many of them will be left. How many of them will have been rationalised in the meantime? That is why this provision is extremely important. But in addition to that I would like to put forward some additional amendments to clause 101 “General principles” in new Part 10. I propose that we add new subparagraphs (i) to (v) to subclause (1)(a). 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is I think the most serious point of order I have taken with regard to chairing in a very long time. Mr Chairperson in giving the call you went from my colleague Winnie Laban to Darien Fenton. Colin King attempted to take the call at that time. I accept that it is your discretion to call whom you like. What I would like from you is an assurance that you received no comment at all from John Carter—as I thought you did—indicating that you should not accept the closure motion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not correct. I have sole discretion over who takes a call. I am impartial in these matters and that is where the matter ends. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a long tradition well established in this House that calls go from side to side. You chose not to take the call— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have made my decision. I have sole discretion as to who is given the call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am seeking an assurance that you did not get an instruction from John Carter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is impugning my integrity. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is and I do not like that. I ask you to withdraw that comment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are involved at the moment in a very technical process which some of us are playing very carefully by the rules as to the timing of the tabling of amendments. What you have done in your approach has the effect of showing considerable favouritism towards the Government. I want to know— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is completely out of order. I strongly object to that assertion. The discretion as to who takes a call is entirely in the hands of the Chair at the time. I will choose who takes the call—it is as clear as that. I offered the call to Darien Fenton and she has the call. That is where the matter ends. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the point the Opposition is raising is a serious one. It is not done to challenge you or your authority but it is very important that all the Chairs of the Committee are not seen as liaising with the Government in any way. Last evening I was surprised to see you meeting with the chief Government whip and the Clerk of the House at the same time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear what you say; thank you for those comments. I want to assure you that I do not get my instructions from the other side of the Chamber. I am an independent person; I chair the Committee as I see the points that were made earlier by the previous Chairperson presiding as to content as to delivery and as to substance. At this stage I have given the call to Darien Fenton and that is where the call lies. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that I am at some risk in doing this but the Committee would be entirely satisfied if you gave it the assurance that you did not receive any comment from Mr Carter before he left the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are challenging my ruling and that is completely out of order. I am impartial; I make the decisions based on how I see the flow of the debate. Whom I choose to speak is at my discretion. That is why I chose Darien Fenton following Winnie Laban. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You are not prepared to give the assurance? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Look I have given you my assurance that I do not get instructions from anybody. You are asserting that I do and I take strong exception to that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept absolutely what you have said—that you are not getting instruction in any way or taking instruction. But I just wanted an assurance that it is not your practice to meet with the chief Government whip and the Clerk at the same time—that that is not your practice—as I discovered you doing last evening. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well it is true that you did. I happened to be with the Clerk of the House at the time—just to explain to the Committee—and the chief National whip came in. That had nothing to do I can assure you with the process of deliberations last night; it was just fortuitous that we happened to be in the same place at the same time when you came in and I left immediately afterwards. I can assure you there was nothing untoward in that. Once again I do take exception to that assertion. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I accept that. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I go back to the amendments I am moving to clause 101 “General Principles” to add new paragraphs to subclause (1)(a). Paragraph (i) of my amendment states: “The principles of a good employer must include the views of employees” and paragraph (ii): “The principles of a good employer must respect the democratic rights of employees”. I will go on to the rest of the provisions in a moment but I tell the Committee that we cannot help but notice how desperately National members have been called on to hold meetings in Auckland to go and get the views of Aucklanders. You know there have been big ads in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and those members have been running around. There are some gaps in those meetings I must say but the National members have been running around and saying they want to listen to people’s views. Here is a chance for National members to put things right to go beyond listening to the views of Aucklanders—which clearly they have not done—and to ensure that the views of employees are listened to. This is a chance for employees’ democratic rights in the workplace—to have a say in their workplace to contribute to the change that is happening to be listened to and to be treated as partners in the workplace—to be actually affirmed. 
Paragraph (iii) of my amendment states: “ The principles of a good employer must include the shared understanding of employees” and paragraph (iv): “The principles of a good employer must include regular consultation with all employees”. Well the principle of consultation is well established but we believe that because of the inability of the National Government to understand what consultation means—and particularly consultation with the people of Auckland—we need to have that written into this bill when it comes to employees. The word “consultation” means that employers sit down and take the time to share views with their employees. It means they talk about proposals ask for input on those proposals genuinely consider the employees’ responses—genuinely consider them—then come to decisions and work with employees to implement them. 
The final paragraph in my amendment is that “(v) The principles of a good employer must include a regular statement that no employee”—no employee—“should feel obliged to participate in the making of political videos for the employer”. I wonder why we think we need that! I think the events of the last week have been very very difficult for the National Party candidate for Mt Albert and many many questions are still to be answered about the making of a particular video that stars a particular National MP who is now a Minister. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions but I want local government employees of the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency to be assured that they will not be required to make political videos for Rodney Hide or for the transition agency with goodness knows who being in those videos. The type of employment practice that National favours was I think confirmed last night when it did not support our amendments to Part 3. When it came to giving a voice to workers in the transition authority National’s call was “if the face fits”—if the face is white male and rich. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the amendment to add new Part 10 in the name of Carol Beaumont be agreed to: 
to omit clause 101. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Further amendments in the name of Charles Chauvel and Darien Fenton are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the period of the extended speech when you did not take a call from the Opposition that amendment was tabled. I want to tell you that the effect of your action was to cause these amendments to be ruled out. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I ask you to have a look at Standing Order 85 because the repeated questioning of the way in which this process is being conducted by a presiding officer is in fact extremely disorderly. Everyone knows that great effort is being made by the Opposition to put up a fierce fight against this bill. That is perfectly reasonable but it does have to be within the rules. Mr Mallard himself said that his party is paying particular attention—pedantic attention—to the rules in order to prolong this debate. There is nothing wrong with that but there is a procedure Mr Chairperson that works in this Parliament and that is yours to preserve and I think that it is time Mr Mallard was informed that his repeated questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I want to take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said and assure you that your integrity has not been questioned at all. But obviously as the Committee has undertaken its proceedings there are differences between the Government and the Opposition about the way things should be handled and the only recourse we have is to you as the Chairperson and the other chairpersons as well to protect the minority. The notion of disorderly conduct I think is a red herring coming as it does from a man who once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures should not be going that way at all and to try to put words into Opposition members’ mouths because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we are concerned about I think is ridiculous. 
The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you as the Chairperson did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it so for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for those comments. I act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill. There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that and move on but I just make that point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is a new practice because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House that when more than one Government member is seeking the call as was the case when you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in Parliament. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A quick perusal of the  
Hansard 
 of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a similar practice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We do not need to go into that. It is entirely at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time and I exercised that prerogative. I will now put the amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 104. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister’s amendment has now been agreed to. Therefore the amendments in the name of Darien Fenton are now ruled out as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont be agreed to: 
to insert the following new part: 
Part 10 
Provisional personnel provisions of Auckland Council and Auckland Transition Agency 
101General principles 
(1)The Transition Agency and new Auckland Council must— 
(a)operate a personnel policy that complies with the principle of being a good employer; and 
(b)make that policy (including the equal employment opportunities programme) available to its employees; and 
(c) ensure its compliance with that policy (including its equal employment opportunities programme) and report in its annual report on the extent of its compliance. 
(2)For the purposes of this section a  
good employer 
 is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment including provisions requiring— 
(a) good and safe working conditions; and 
(b)an equal employment opportunities programme; and 
(c)the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and 
(d) recognition of— 
(i)the aims and aspirations of the Maori people; and 
(ii)the employment requirements of the Maori people; and 
(iii)the need for greater involvement of the Maori people in Auckland public affairs; and 
(e)opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees; and 
(f)recognition of the aims and aspirations and employment requirements and the cultural differences of ethnic or minority groups; and 
(g)recognition of the employment requirements of women; and 
(h) recognition of the employment requirements of persons with disabilities. 
(3)In addition to the requirements specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section the chief executive shall ensure that all employees maintain proper standards of integrity conduct and concern for the public interest. 
(4)This part applies for three years from the commencement of this Act. 
102Equal employment opportunities 
(1) For the purposes of section 101 of this Act an  
equal employment opportunities programme  
means a programme that is aimed at the identification and elimination of all aspects of policies procedures and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate or tend to cause or perpetuate inequality in respect to the employment of any persons or group of persons. 
103Employee context 
(1)In this part an  
employee of a local government 
 does not include a person who in the context of local government employment is a casual or temporary employee other than a long term casual or temporary employee of the local government. 
(2)In this section  
long term casual or temporary employee 
 of a local government means a casual or temporary employee of the local government who has been employed by the local government or by the local government and its predecessor local government on a regular and systematic basis for several periods of employment for at least 1 year immediately before the issue arises as to whether the employee is a long term casual or temporary employee. 
104Appointments on merit 
The chief executive in making any personnel appointments shall give preference to the person who is best suited to the position. 
105Acting appointments 
(1)In the case of absence from duty of any employee (from whatever cause arising) or on the occurrence from any cause of a vacancy in any position in the Auckland Transition Agency or Auckland Council (whether by reason of death resignation or otherwise) and from time to time while the absence or vacancy continues all or any of the powers and duties of the employee or pertaining to the position may be exercised and performed by any other employee for the time being directed by the chief executive to exercise and perform them whether the direction has been given before the absence or vacancy occurs or while it continues. 
(2)No such direction and no acts done by any employee acting pursuant to any such direction shall in any proceedings be questioned on the ground that the occasion for the direction had not arisen or had ceased or on the ground that the employee has not been appointed to any position to which the direction relates. 
106Application of Part 10 for transferring employees 
(1)For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council this Part applies to any local government in the Auckland Region as defined in Part 1. 
(2)For employees transferring to the new Auckland Council this Part applies to a person as an employee of a local government other than the chief executive officer of a local government. 
107Prohibition on retrenchment because of reform matter implementation 
(1)A local government must not take any action to end an employee’s employment with the local government if the action is taken whether completely or partly and whether directly or indirectly because of the taking effect under this Act. 
(2)For deciding whether a local government has contravened subsection (1) the reason given by a local government for taking action to end a person’s employment must be considered but is not conclusive. 
108Local government workforce transition code of practice 
(1)The Minister will approve codes of practice (workforce transition codes of practice) directed at ensuring the proper transition of local government workforces from any existing local government to any new or adjusted local government as in existence after the changeover day for the new or adjusted local government area. 
(2)Without limiting subsection (1) a workforce transition code of practice may establish employment terms and conditions for employees that are consistent with— 
(a)firstly the essential principles stated in subsection (3); and 
(b)secondly the supporting principles stated in subsection. 
(3)The essential principles are that— 
(a)services delivery levels should be maintained or enhanced; and 
(b) as far as possible the locations at which local government employees perform their work should not be changed. 
(4)The supporting principles are that— 
(a)employment security for local government employees should be maximised; 
(b)local government staff should be retained to the maximum extent achievable; 
(c)the impact of reform matters on local government employees should be minimised; 
(d)there should be maximum employee involvement in the implementation of the reform matters as they affect employees; 
(e)contracts of employment should be honoured; 
(f)there should be maximum support given to employees; 
(g)employees should be treated fairly and with respect; 
(h)merit and equity should apply in all appointments; 
(i)there should be prompt and sensitive dispute resolution; 
(j)there should be no overall loss of employment across the local government employment sector; 
(k)there should be no overall reduction in working conditions for any employee; 
(l)there should be no overall disadvantage to an employee in relation to the employee’s working conditions. 
(5)It is the responsibility of each local government to ensure to the extent a workforce transition code of practice applies to the local government that the local government acts in conformity with the code of practice. 
(6)A workforce transition code of practice whether made before or after the commencement of this subsection is not subordinate legislation but is a statutory instrument. 
109When workforce transition code of practice takes effect 
(1)The Minister must notify the House of making of a workforce transition code of practice. 
(2)A workforce transition code of practice takes effect— 
(a)on the day the Minister’s notice is notified or published in the  
Gazette 
; or 
(b)if a later day is stated in the Minister’s notice or the workforce transition code of practice—on that day. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 10 as amended not agreed to. 
New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The assets involved in the entities to which the bill refers are worth about $27.2 billion. They provide annual revenue of about $2.3 billion. The royal commission report and the explanatory note of the bill reveal that those assets which are currently owned by the people of Auckland are central concerns of this reform. One has only to turn to the general policy statement in the explanatory note to see that that is so. The need for safeguards and constraints in decision making by local authorities and their subsidiaries during the transition period is also identified as a central matter of the concerns being dealt with by the Committee today. 
That is why it is unusual in my view that there is nothing in this legislation to ensure that those $27.2 billion worth of public assets are protected during the transition period. An extremely powerful authority is being created by the legislation. It has all the powers of the entities that it replaces yet nowhere is there any safeguard to guarantee that those assets owned by the people of Auckland—which are listed in my proposed new schedule 2—will be protected and kept in public ownership during the transition period. The people of Auckland and indeed the people of New Zealand deserve an assurance that that will occur They deserve an assurance that this reform is not all about privatisation as many of us suspect either in the short term or in the long term but in fact there will be a guarantee that those assets are kept in the ownership of the ratepayers of Auckland. 
That is what my Part 9 would ensure. It requires that the Auckland Transition Agency should not sell or otherwise dispose of or sell any equity securities or surrender any voting rights in or relinquish any right to appoint trustees directors or managers of any asset or organisation listed in schedule 2 during the transition period. Obviously because of the scope of the bill the amendment deals only with the transition period but members on this side hope that no assets will ever be alienated in Auckland as a result of this reform. The protected assets that are set out in schedule 2 are the parks of the people of Auckland the swimming pools of the people of Auckland and the public libraries of the region and the assets of the region such as those held by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. 
Simon Bridges 
: Stop reading! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: That member might benefit from actually reading the schedule instead of interjecting and deciding what his position is. It would be nice if National were to commit once and for all to public ownership of these assets rather than using mealy-mouthed weasel words about whether it has any commitment to the ownership of public assets. Make no mistake members on this side of the Chamber strongly believe in retaining these assets in public ownership. That is what my Part 9 is about and that is what my schedule 2 will bring about. It will forbid this shadowy appointed agency from selling these assets during the transition period without any public scrutiny and without any ability for the public of Auckland to have a say on it. I would like to hear the Minister in the chair John Carter take a call and commit that side of the Chamber to the position that is set out in this part. It would be great to hear a commitment not to sell Ports of Auckland Ltd Metro Water Auckland International Airport Ltd or Watercare Services. Those fantastic assets have delivered a great return to the people of Auckland. They are strategic to the future of the region and they must be kept in public ownership not alienated by the shadowy body of appointed cronies who will be running Auckland for the time it takes to deal with the transition. 
I would like to talk in particular about the assets in South Auckland because they are of real concern. Members on this side of the Chamber have been to meetings in South Auckland and have heard from ordinary people in that part of the region that they are worried that they might lose access to their free swimming pools as a result of this reform. They might lose access to the fantastic services that are currently provided by the excellent Manukau City Council of which my colleague Su’a William Sio was formerly the deputy mayor and of which Len Brown is currently doing a fine job as mayor. That city has made a real effort to reach out to its people and provide them with excellent services as have Waitakere City Auckland City and the other entities dealt with by this legislation. But nowhere in this bill is there any interdiction against the selling of those assets and that is a major omission. It is just like the absence of any decent personnel provisions which was the deficit that my colleague Darien Fenton sought to remedy earlier. This deficit must be remedied because the people of Auckland must be assured that there will not be any alienation of assets either during the transition period or afterwards. 
I spoke about the quantum of the assets involved and I said that the value of the assets was $27.2 billion with annual revenue of $2.3 billion. There must be an assurance—we must hear it today from members on the opposite side—that the assets will be kept in public ownership. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
Hon Member 
: Unbelievable! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That was unbelievable from Todd McClay as my colleague said because we have not had one speech from him in this debate. It is interesting that the debate on the retention of public assets is the debate that the National Government wants to shut down the quickest. Is it not interesting that the one thing National does not want us to talk about in this Chamber today is the retention of public assets? We on this side of the Chamber know that the real agenda of the Minister in charge of this bill Rodney Hide is privatisation. That is the real agenda. Roger Douglas will not deny it. He knows that that is the real agenda of the ACT Party and of the Minister who is responsible for this bill. 
New Part 9 proposed by my colleague Charles Chauvel will protect public assets for Auckland people at least for the time of the transition agency—because that is what this bill deals with. If we could put forward something that could protect those assets beyond that then we would because we know that the agenda of Rodney Hide and the National - ACT Government is to privatise those assets. We know that is the agenda. 
Simon Bridges 
: Give me the evidence. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Simon Bridges wants some evidence. The evidence is the Minister in the chair—at the moment it is John Carter although usually it is Rodney Hide. The Minister responsible for the bill and the Minister in the chair are the evidence for the privatisation agenda. Rodney Hide said that the transition agency would be responsible for the rationalisation of governance arrangements. We know what rationalisation means to people in the ACT Party. It means selling off public assets that have been built up over generations in Auckland. Generations of Aucklanders have contributed to the growth of the services and assets in their region. The parks the swimming pools and all the securities they now have in that region are the result of generations of hard-working Aucklanders who are now having all that trashed by the National Government. 
National and ACT should be ashamed that they will not support this new part because it would give at least a scrap of reassurance to people in Auckland that their assets are safe. The powers of the transition agency are so broad and so wide that anything is possible under it. Every single decision of the existing councils is under review. The wide-ranging powers of this agency need some kind of control and that is what New Part 9 does. It ensures that for the time of the transition agency the list of public assets in schedule 2 will be protected. 
We know that the people who Rodney Hide will appoint to the transition agency will not be the kind of people who are interested in the protection of public assets. We know that the agency will be made up of Rodney Hide’s friends. Mr Hide will be the only person who decides who will be on the transition agency. What kind of democratic approach is that? Here is an agency that is taking on the powers of councils right across Auckland and one man—Rodney Hide—is deciding who is on that agency. 
As my colleague Darren Hughes said earlier this morning Rodney Hide has been playing National for years and its members have fallen in right behind him. Rodney Hide will decide who is on the transition agency and who will control the assets of Auckland. We on this side of the Chamber have absolutely no confidence that the transition agency will not seek to sell off public assets. 
We have no confidence because we know the background. It is the reason that Roger Douglas is back here. He has returned from the political grave to come back into this Parliament and force on that party over there the agenda of privatisation. That is why he is here. He tried it in the 1980s but he did not quite get there in the end. He was foiled so he is back now to run this agenda through the National Government. He and Rodney Hide will make sure that those assets can be sold off in time and they will bring their cronies in to run the transition agency. 
We on this side of the Chamber are saying no. We are here on a Saturday morning trying to protect the public assets of Auckland which were built up over generations of hard-working Aucklanders who have said that they want assets they can all share in. They want swimming pools. They want parks that their children can play in. So here we are today on a Saturday morning saying that we will not let Rodney Hide run his agenda through this Parliament—we will not do that. 
National had the option to send this bill to a select committee. It could have done that. Why has it not done that? I want to see a member of National get up and say why the people of Auckland do not deserve a chance to make submissions on this bill. Why do they not have the opportunity to say they believe their public assets are important and that they want to ensure their children have parks to play in? That is the opportunity National should be giving Aucklanders today and it has taken that right away. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take the opportunity that Charles Chauvel’s amendment presents to bring home again why we are here today. The point about this whole debate is that the people of Auckland have not been given a chance to have a say on things that will affect their daily lives—things that will intimately affect the way their lives are governed in the wider Auckland region. That is why we are here. I am delighted that members of the public have taken the opportunity of the Committee sitting on a Saturday—in outside terms; in temporal terms—to come and see why we are doing this. 
Let me be completely explicit and transparent about this. The Government worries that our amendments are frivolous and vexatious and that we are wasting the time of the Committee. Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is that this Government is trying to railroad issues through this House that the people of Auckland have not had a chance to examine through the usual democratic process of making a submission to a select committee. That is why we are challenging the faults the deficits and the liabilities in the legislation that is in front of us. 
My colleague Charles Chauvel has introduced an amendment here that goes to the heart of the matter. It is about the protection of public assets. There is no protection for public assets in the bill before us on the whole super-city structure that is being promoted by the Government against the recommendations of the royal commission. There is no protection for public assets to remain as public assets. Let me just be clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about assets that people in local communities have agitated for campaigned about petitioned on donated money towards and been rated for for years and years. They are places like the Long Bay Regional Park. They are places like Little Shoal Bay Foreshore Reserve in Northcote. They might be places like Rocket Park in Mount Albert. They might be places like Mountford Park in Manurewa—a very fine park named after a very fine Labour councillor in fact. They might be places like the regional botanical gardens in Manurewa. 
Those kinds of local assets regionally and locally held on behalf of the people for the public’s enjoyment are many of the things that make our local communities as rich as they are. If we go to libraries and swimming pools—and if the members opposite would care to read the amendment they would see those facilities are listed on it—we will realise this is a question of equity. This is a question about who gets access to books and sporting facilities unless they are held in the public domain for the use of the public. Those assets must be protected. It must be possible for poor families who do not have facilities on their doorsteps and swimming pools in their backyards to have access to the local facilities that have been built up over time after having been petitioned for argued for and funded by local people. 
It is that richness of facility and asset that my colleague Charles Chauvel is trying to protect in his amendment. There is no protection in the bill currently before the House for those assets. Why would the members opposite not expect the Labour Opposition to get up and defend those things? They are public assets and there is no guarantee that the kinds of transitional arrangements that the Government is putting up will protect these assets. 
I will say one more thing about this amendment. It is a modest proposal. It is only about the transition period; it is not even in perpetuity—although goodness knows we could do with that kind of protection as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Colin King—[ 
Interruption 
] I have called Colin King. The member has not been able to get a word out so far and I have a constant barrage coming from the other side of the Chamber. Can we just please hear what Mr King wants to tell us. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 My colleague Maryan Street has noted that new Part 9 is a temporary measure if you will in respect of the Auckland Transition Agency. But I just point out a couple of things as well. The National Party pledged in its election campaign that it would not sell any public assets at least in its first term. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill sets up a transition agency of which all assets—including those that Manukau for instance retained—fall under the purview and the power. Effectively then those assets have been nationalised to the Government because that agency is appointed by and reports directly to the tsar of local government Mr Hide. Mr Hide will appoint his asset-stripping villainous mates to that agency so one could quite logically say that Mr Hide—and therefore since he is a Government Minister the Government—will control all assets brought into the agency from Greater Auckland. Yet not one clause in this bill guarantees that any of those assets will not be sold. 
I ask the Minister—or perhaps a National member because it was National’s promise—to get up today. If National is not prepared to accept Mr Chauvel’s new part that would guarantee that those assets would be retained at least during the transition then I invite a National Minister perhaps Mr Brownlee to get up and provide us with that guarantee therefore fulfilling his and his Government’s election promise. 
Hon Member 
: An Auckland member. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes an Auckland member as my colleague says; an Auckland member would do. I look around. Maybe an Auckland member is hovering around here—Mr Hide is the Minister in the chair. 
This is important. We have to ask what the motivation is for not giving such a guarantee. We know that Mr Hide’s whole life has been one of attempting to strip out public assets and public ownership. His whole purpose for being he tells us is to asset-strip from the public purse. There is no guarantee in this legislation that he will not appoint his villainous mates to this agency—because he will. He will appoint those people who have a motivation to strip out assets. I know I am right and do members know why? Why would Rodney Hide appoint people who did not agree with him? Of course he would appoint those who agree with his philosophy— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: And they’ll get a gong! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And as my colleague says they will probably get a gong. Mr Hide is on record many times as saying in respect of this super-city proposal—and I am sure he will not disagree with me—that he wants more private enterprise in local government. We know what “private enterprise in local government” is code for. The good people of Manukau—and of other places in other local authorities—who chose to keep their assets build them up retain them and gain revenue from them will now have those assets completely stripped away under an agency that Mr Hide will appoint his mates to and that is absolutely answerable in all ways to him. His policy is to sell off assets. 
I ask Mr Brownlee whether he will take a call. Will he respond perhaps by interjection and say that he will guarantee that Mr Hide will not be able to strip through his mates on this agency the assets of the super-city? Or perhaps Georgina te Heuheu will respond. There is silence. Silence means they have answered the question. I say to those who ask why we are sitting here today that today if this bill passes the Government will have nationalised unto itself—yea nationalised to Mr Hide—all the assets of the Greater Auckland region. Then I tell those people who are listening to hold their breath. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: New Zealand’s not listening. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: What an arrogant little new member that member is. He said: “New Zealand’s not listening.” I suspect that in that member’s electorate and in Epsom and in other places they are listening and they will be listening if asset stripping takes place. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Michael Woodhouse. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Mr Chairperson— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I point you to Speaker’s ruling 16/1 in regard to the use of cellphones. I ask you to ask Mr Quinn to remove the blockage from his ear. He has been using his cellphone for about the last half an hour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not really a point of order. Members know the rules about cellphones. They are not to be used in the Chamber although having said that there is some inconsistency because the Chamber is littered with other sorts of phones. I am not sure how we justify the distinction but we do. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My colleague Mr Roger Douglas pointed out to me that he wondered whether you had noticed that we were here and were trying to take a call. He thought that maybe you had not noticed us. I just wanted to make the point that we are here and we are very very anxious to take a call on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I assure the member that I am well aware that she and the Green Party are here. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this proposed new part because this actually gets to the heart of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. I have already said that what we are seeing here with this bill is “Rogernomics Part 2”. Suddenly all of New Zealand can understand why Roger Douglas took himself out of retirement to come back to Parliament and why Rodney Hide chose to be Minister of Local Government. At the time some people were a bit perplexed. Why would Rodney Hide want to be Minister of Local Government? But now the reasons are all unfolding. 
We need to be clear that ACT and the new right have realised that they have been thwarted in this term of Government from selling off assets—further State-owned enterprises—at the national level. The Prime Minister has made that clear. I can imagine a breakfast where they all got together and contemplated “What are we going to do to advance our agenda in this term of Government because unfortunately we will not be able to achieve our objective of selling off the remaining publicly owned State-owned enterprises in New Zealand?”. They said: “Ah I know what we’ll do. There is $28 billion worth of assets in local government.” I can imagine them sitting around at a breakfast meeting saying “I know what we will do. First of all we will get rid of those annoying irritating eight city councils and that whole layer of democracy because they have really been quite irritating and they have not yet fallen into corporate hands. We will get rid of them. Then we will set up a completely new local government structure”—which this bill is doing—“that concentrates power in the hands of the executive and the hands of the mayor.” 
This is what academics call “the new strong mayor model”. Basically it means that the mayor can have complete control of the Auckland Council by picking the deputy mayor and the chairs and by coming up with the agenda and the long-term plan. Then the mayor can unleash the agenda on to the unsuspecting voters of Auckland. And they are unsuspecting because none of this was mentioned in the ACT Party or National Party manifestos before the last election. What will the agenda be? We know that the agenda is to sell off local government assets. Someone on the Government benches yelled out “What’s your proof?”. Can I suggest that National Government members read the ACT Party’s local government policy. It is on the website and it is plain and clear for everyone to see. 
At least ACT is honest about its policies. It does not try to hide them. ACT is quite up front. ACT says in its local government policy that it wants to privatise effectively all of the commercial assets that these councils own such as the Ports of Auckland the airport and so forth and it wants the roads to be privatised and water to be privatised. The rest of that $28 billion worth of assets will be put into corporate boards and then those corporate boards will be at arm’s length from the council. The councillors those who are not in the control of John Banks and his merry men—even if there were some left-wing members who were able to find themselves elected on to the Auckland Council—will have no control because all of these assets will be put into these corporate boards at arm’s length and of course they will all meet in secret and they will then begin to unleash this agenda of privatising the assets of Auckland; assets that have been built up for many years. 
This is the second part of the agenda. It was plotted out. It is the reason they have all come together and got Roger Douglas back into Parliament and why we have Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government. I am worried that Aucklanders will realise this when it is too late. 
Hon Member 
: That’s what happens. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is what happens. There was another piece of legislation that slipped through last year. Nobody cared much about it. The Green Party tried frantically to alert New Zealanders to this legislation. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 This amendment to insert a new Part 9 goes to the heart of this debate. If the inevitable happens and the National Government succeeds with the assistance of Rodney Hide— 
Hon Member 
: And Peter Dunne. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —and Peter Dunne thank you—in ramming through this legislation then this day will go down in history for Aucklanders as the day when National and ACT stole their democracy. The day will also go down in history as the day when National and ACT stole $28 billion of public assets and put them on the auction block for future administrations to flog off. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
38AInterpretation 
In this Part unless the context otherwise requires— 
sell  
has the meaning it has in the Sale of Goods Act 1908 
voting 
 has the meaning it has in the Electoral Act 1993. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
38BPoll of electors before sale 
Any authority this Act can only sell assets after conducting a poll of electors under the Local Electoral Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That brings us to the substantive amendment— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know there is quite a lot of movement going on to your left and to your right but many more amendments were tabled before the question on the first amendment was put. Those amendments have been tabled to the Clerk’s Office; they are on this part. It may take a few seconds for your staff to catch up with you but I think it is fair to say that there are hundreds of questions for you to deal with before you get to the substantive question on the part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. I cannot wait. It is always good for people to try to catch up with me; it is not usual. I will ask the Clerk to check the veracity of what the member has said and to ensure that all the amendments to the amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel are being considered before I put the question on the Charles Chauvel amendment to insert a new Part 9. We will just pause for a moment in silence unless someone has a very good story or a humorous yarn to amuse us with while we sort this out. 
Members I will do something unusual here. The amendments to proposed new Part 9 that were moved by Moana Mackey follow a very similar form which is: “Notwithstanding any other provision the residents of [Dominion Road] in [North Shore City] shall be understood to have a public interest in any Auckland Council owned assets.” The test for relevance of an amendment is that it has to be serious has to stand in law and has to be accurately described. The Clerk and I have been backwards and forwards across this issue and it seems that a judgment call needs to be made. I invite someone from the Opposition which has put forward these amendments to put the case for why the amendments should stand. I also invite Government members to make a submission on whether they think the amendments should stand—I will not prejudge what they think. Following those submissions I will make a decision. 
Before I make a decision and we have some discussion about it afterwards I want members to make a submission as to why they believe that these amendments meet the requirements not only of the Standing Orders but also of the interpretation of Dave McGee who wrote  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 and is well known to members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can you give us the reference? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Page 379. [ 
Interruption 
] Just to answer the question by Gerry Brownlee when I make a ruling on this matter there will no doubt be some controversy because people put a lot of time and effort into these amendments. I thought it would be better to have some discussion about them before I ruled than to have a continuous stream of points of order after I rule. I thought we should get the issues on the table and have a bit of a discussion about them before I make a ruling. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Speaking on your course of action I think you are doing the right thing. There needs to be some consideration of this matter. Certainly on the face of it this side of the Committee will have an opinion. I wonder how you feel about putting yourself in this position. I do not want to be in the position of recalling the Speaker because we are questioning your course of action; we are not. I just wonder given the nature of this particular ruling—you are not in a position to recall the Speaker; that is not how it works—how you feel about it. Are you comfortable progressing with this course of action? If you are then I think we would leave it there at this point. Otherwise if you indicate you wish to have the Speaker back then we will cooperate with that course of action as well. That statement is not meant in any way to detract from the course of action you have proposed; I think it is probably the right way to go about things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I just say to the member that it is a line call. I have outlined the criteria for amendments and I have outlined that I am about to rule but I thought that before I make a decision I would invite opinions from either side of the Committee. I have indicated where the terms of McGee and the Standing Orders are in relation to what I am interested in. I know from past experience that when I make a decision—as I will do—it will be litigated so I am just turning it round and suggesting that we have some litigation in front and then the issues will be a bit clearer rather than having endless points of order after the ruling. If at the end of that discussion members are unhappy with my decision I accept that you can recall the Speaker but at that point the issues will have been much better clarified. I do not have any ego about this; if you want to challenge my ruling I am OK about that. I presume that Mr Mallard will put forward a case as to why these amendments should stand. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Yes Mr Chair. I am working on the assumption that the consideration is not whether the amendments are vague or lacking form. I just want to test that with you—that the question before you I presume is not a question of vagueness because the amendments are not vague; they are quite clear. I think they are in the proper form for amendments and for incorporation into law and I want to make sure before I start this discussion that that is accepted. If that is not accepted then we could come back again with more discussion. 
We then go to the question of whether the proposed amendments are frivolous. That is an important question and I accept that there could be a discussion on the question. The particular amendment we are talking about concerns Dominion Road in North Shore City and whether the residents of that particular road have a public interest in the Auckland Council - owned assets. I am working on the assumption again that there is not a lot of debate around the Auckland Council and that it owns assets that they are public assets and that the public has an interest in them. 
We then go to the definition of “frivolous”—and a number of people will be looking in their different dictionaries. A key part of the definition goes to the words “not serious” “trifling” and “futile”. I want to make it clear that Opposition members are absolutely serious on this particular issue. There is a fundamental debate to be had here about the assets and about who has an interest in them—whether it is the residents including the residents of particular areas who have an interest in the assets or whether the assets should be available for transfer away from the residents of those particular areas to others. 
That is my view and it is certainly the view of the Opposition. I am not suggesting that it is automatic that the Committee will necessarily agree with this amendment. It is a question of whether the Opposition should have the right to test the will of the Committee on this amendment. It is my view that the amendment is a serious amendment and one that deserves the attention of the Committee. It is something on which the Committee can express its view and it should be allowed to do so. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 We most certainly have a view. If one thinks about the substantial bill one will find that it is about the transitional arrangements that are to exist beyond the passing of this bill for the integration of the various Auckland local authorities into one entity. I am pleased to hear the Opposition agree that there will be many assets across the city of Auckland it is certain that will come under some structure directly accountable to the Auckland Council which will be the much wider body to look at these things. 
This amendment attempts to suggest that certain residents in certain roads—I believe that some 500 roads are nominated—have a greater interest in those council-owned assets than any other person in Auckland. That is simply not the case. The Auckland Council is there for the residents of the Greater Auckland City whatever that configuration may end up being—that is yet to be determined. It would be quite inappropriate to suggest that the interests of one street or these 500 streets are greater than any others. I think the suggestion that we need to protect these particular streets because of a particularly special interest is quite wrong. 
I suppose these are attempts to call attention to the part that Labour is attempting to insert in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which in National’s view is an unnecessary part. We most certainly think that it goes back to a single point: are the interests of any one resident in any of these streets identified in successive amendments any greater than the interests of another? That would on its own suggest that this is an utterly frivolous way to go about considering these matters. 
The protections of Aucklanders are intrinsic in the transitional arrangements that have been dealt with by the Committee so far. For Labour members to come along and suggest that they are doing some great and good work for particular residents is an extreme stretch. Putting up amendments in the names of a mere 500 streets inside the Greater Auckland area does indicate an act of trivial pursuit in this particular debate. A Parliament cannot be made to look stupid by things like this. We cannot be put in a position where having dealt with the substantive part of a bill we then insert some part or amendments that tend to second-guess the intention of Part 3. 
It is also interesting to note that these are amendments to one of the extra parts that Labour itself wishes to submit. I would have thought that in the consideration that clearly would have gone on during the preparation of this particular part that reference might have been raised about the need to protect particular streets. I cannot believe that the preparation of these 500-odd amendments was a last-minute thing which leads me back to the point that Labour members are very much engaged in a trivial pursuit. 
If members go back to Part 3 which has been dealt with by the Committee the interests of the people in Auckland and the assets that will be part of the new Auckland City are extremely well-protected as far as transitional arrangements are concerned. This Committee cannot pre-empt what might be in the bill that is expected in September and where some of these matters may be made more clear. The reason for having a transitional agency is so there can be consideration about how things will go forward. 
I think three points are relevant. The first point is that this is an amendment to Labour’s own proposed amendment to the bill by way of a new part and is therefore very poorly considered at this late point. The second point is that the transitional arrangements in Part 3 already make the protections for all Aucklanders and the Committee has dealt with that matter. The third point—and it must be upheld—is that in a bill dealing with an entire region to single out individual streets as apparently having some greater interest for no reason other than that they are a street inside the proposed Auckland Council area cannot be allowed to stand. It is a great effort in trivialising the activities of the Committee and I think it would be appropriate if these amendments were ruled out of order. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I have taken some time because we have been directed to page 379 of McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
. The point of that particular reference is that the Chair or Speaker has the power to rule out amendments that are frivolous vague or lack legislative form—that is to say they lack precision. Amendments must be in a form of words that may be embodied in law. 
I suggest there is no other course of action but to rule these amendments out because when one goes through them one can see that a map of Auckland has been used and that each clause picks out a street name at random and says that particular street is understood to have a public interest in Auckland Council - owned assets. That has to be regarded as frivolous because street after street is named. When taken in the context of the amendments that have been put up that has to be frivolous and it would cause this Committee to become a laughing stock. 
The proposed amendments are also vague. It is not quite clear how it is possible for one street to have a particular interest over and above that of any other street. I say that what that would mean is a mystery to all and sundry. The proposed amendments are vague and therefore lack legislative form. Of course there is the final problem: no one street in the Auckland Council area has any greater interest than that of any other street. That in itself makes the amendments a nonsense. The primary bill that members are here debating does not threaten anyone’s interest in publicly owned property. 
I submit that there is no option but for the Chair to rule these amendments out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have three points to make. The first point Mr Chairperson is where your call on balance should go. It is my firm view that generally it is the right of Oppositions to put amendments. It is the democratic right of all members of Parliament to put amendments. If there is any doubt at all then it should be the House that decides whether an amendment is put. The second point I would make is that the arguments we have heard from both Mr Brownlee and Mr Hide are arguments—which some members might find compelling—on the substance of the amendments. They think that the amendments are bad that they are wrong and that people should not vote for them. There is a pretty clear answer to that and it is to vote against the amendments when they come up. This is not a debate about whether they are good amendments or bad amendments or whether the propositions that are put are right or wrong; the question is whether the House has the right to consider to them. It is my submission to you Mr Chairperson that they are serious relevant in the right form and serve to emphasise a point that is very important to all Opposition members. They were lodged properly— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s covered. The matters are covered in Part 3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Chairperson is the member allowed to make a running commentary? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think the member is quite right. I want to hear just Mr Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: So in summary your discretion should be exercised very sparingly. These amendments are substantive and if members disagree with them they have the right to vote against them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank members. That has clarified matters quite considerably for me. The first point I make is in response to the point raised by Mr Brownlee about the House looking stupid. That is a fair point but it is not entirely for the Speaker to prevent the House from looking stupid—that is up to members and how they deal with things. The second point I make to Mr Mallard is that members do have the right to move and that is what has been exercised here. Mr Mallard said that the Committee should decide whether these amendments are right or wrong. The question before us is whether we will do this collectively or individually. If we were going to make this decision collectively then I could put it to the Committee to test the will of the Committee as to whether we accept these amendments. However that is abrogating the role and responsibility of the Chair and I am not about to do that. 
Regarding the issue raised by Mr Brownlee about fairness to Aucklanders I think it is almost like a bill of rights test as to whether this should be a consideration. I think that gets closer to the point. There is no doubt that the amendments as they stand are in the legislative form. There is no doubt that they could be written into legislation. The Clerk said to me that one of the considerations I should have as a Chair is about consistency. There are many examples in legislation of inconsistent bills and Acts. I ask the members to look at the smoke-free legislation. Parliament has not always been consistent and I do not think that consistency is entirely the right test. 
I think that we are getting closer to the point which was made by Mr Brownlee that this is a bill about all Aucklanders. That point has been re-emphasised by the Hon Rodney Hide—that one interest group should not be superior to another. The bill we have before us is a public bill about setting public policy for all Aucklanders. It is not about setting policy for the interests of private individuals. I think that the issue here is that these amendments as they stand will be setting policy for private individuals and private interests. It is about individuals who are private residents in particular streets that is they are residents in those streets as private individuals. Therefore I am of the view that these amendments are about private interests and not about the interests of Auckland or about public policy for Auckland. The amendment to insert new Part 9 that has been put up Mr Chauvel was in order because it was about public policy that treats all Aucklanders in the same way; it was about public interests. But the interests of individual property owners in a street are private interests and they should be dealt with by way of another bill—a private bill. I therefore rule the amendments out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 As you anticipated in your preliminary remarks this is something that in my opinion requires a Speaker’s ruling. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the judgment given by the Chairperson. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee has asked for you to consider the matters that I have ruled on and for you to make some decisions. It extends from an amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to insert a new Part 9 “Protection of Public Assets”. In his amendment Mr Chauvel wants the bill to reflect a register of assets that should be protected in a variety of ways. That is not the issue here. Subsequent to that the Labour Party moved a range of amendments—I have not counted them but they are substantial—to amend Charles Chauvel’s part. Objection was taken to those amendments and I was asked to rule them out and I invited comments from both Labour and National on them. 
It seems to me that it gets down to a particular issue which the Clerk has raised with me that the bill before the House is a public policy bill. It is not about establishing rights for individuals. The Clerk’s view of this bill is that although the amendments are consistent in form and could stand in legislation they have to have some form of consistency. However I did not think that was a turning point because this House has passed legislation before that has been inherently inconsistent—like the liquor legislation and so on. I did not see that as a particular test. The particular test that I did put weight on was that these amendments would give private individuals and businesses in particular areas rights or interests that would not be available to the general public of Auckland and that therefore the amendments sought to be about private interests and not public interests. 
The bill is about establishing public policy for Auckland—it is a public policy decision. On that basis I ruled the amendments as being out of order. There are many other points that could have been made in submission but I am sure representations will be made by both National and Labour on those other particular points. That is the summary of the position as I see it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first point I would like to make is that I think the process that was followed by the Chair in calling for members’ comments on this issue is a good process. Unfortunately I think we have reached a point where we do not agree. The decision goes to the question of whether these amendments are frivolous. We have had acceptance that they are not vague; in fact they are very specific. They do not lack form; we have had acceptance that they can be written into the law. The Chair of the Committee has indicated that in his opinion these amendments are not appropriate because they give private rights to individuals. We could have a debate about that matter. They are not private transferable rights. If someone leaves a street he or she does not take those rights with them. There is not ownership of rights. But if I were to have that debate I would be getting into the substance of the debate. 
That is the problem with the Chairman’s ruling. He has actually got into in making his ruling a view on the merits of the amendments rather than whether they should be ruled out under the areas that are very well outlined by  
McGee 
 on page 379. My submission to you is that no one has made the case that these particular amendments are frivolous. Given the tests that have been applied in this Chamber by Chairs today—in parliamentary terms or during the last 4 days in temporal terms—these amendments could not possibly be frivolous. A whole series of date changes and a whole series of name changes have been accepted by the Chairs which if one were applying a frivolity test would have been much more frivolous than these amendments. On the standards of frivolity these amendments cannot be ruled out. 
The point I will go back to is that it is my submission to you that the judgment of my friend and colleague the Chair of the Committee Rick Barker in this particular case is wrong because he has gone to the merits of whether it is appropriate to grant a private right by way of a public bill. There is nothing that prevents this Parliament from doing that. People might think it is wrong. People might not like it but my submission is that for groups of people it happens all the time. When we have bills that deal with local authority matters it happens quite regularly that groups of individuals gain and other groups of individuals lose. I will go back to the point about the substance that the rights are not transferable rights. 
As a final point I say that the Chairman made a very good argument on the specifics—one that I might even find rather compelling if I were considering it carefully—but it is not the basis on which items should be ruled out. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think it is very interesting that part of the argument advanced by the Hon Trevor Mallard is some assessment against a frivolity scale. We should remember that this proposed new part that Labour is attempting to insert is to protect the assets of the citizens of Auckland. To then amend it to protect the interests of residents in particular roads I think trivialises the point of the part in the first place. In all other respects—not wishing to prolong proceedings—I think the Chairman of the Committee Rick Barker outlined extremely well for the House why he was choosing to rule these amendments out of order. I am sure you will have noted the comments he made in his address to you in which he was explaining why he had reached this conclusion. Without wanting to prolong proceedings I simply want to say that we concur wholeheartedly with his decision and accept fully the rationale he has applied. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I think the judgment you have to make as Speaker in this situation must take into account the context in which this debate is being held. It is pretty clear from the conduct of the Committee that the Opposition is trying to delay progress—we are trying to filibuster this bill—and that the Government wants to bring the debate to an early end. I want to cause the Speaker to reflect on the fact that the fourth estate has actually been commenting on whether this filibustering is an abuse of parliamentary process. I suggest that it is not. It is already clear that although the progress that has been made on this bill is slower than the Government might like none the less it is substantial. 
This bill has been considered under urgency and even at the current rate of slow progress it is very clear that this bill will be completed in accordance with the Government’s agenda within a week which is far far quicker than would be the normal process were it not for urgency. It is the right of the Opposition to use the Standing Orders to filibuster. Filibustering does not bring this place into disrepute. It is not an abuse of process. It is not frivolous. We are using the rights we have as parliamentarians in the Opposition to slow down the progress the Government wants to make under urgency. I make the point again that substantial progress has been made. I do not think anyone thinks this debate will go on for weeks or anything like that. This is the only opportunity we have to scrutinise the bill. Many other jurisdictions use filibustering. We have a practice now whereby we do not get even to the end of debate where new points are being raised on proposed new parts yet closure motions are taken. It is completely appropriate that the Opposition be able to filibuster this bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. Dealing with the previous contribution first the Speaker may well have views about whether filibustering is taking place and whether time is being wasted but those views should not in any way influence the Speaker’s decision on this matter. The matter that is currently before the House has been argued by both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Gerry Brownlee and has already been ruled on by the Chair of the Committee. There are a number of matters perhaps I should touch on in ruling on the question before the House. 
The first one is perhaps to come to the substance of the argument that was given greatest weight by the Chair of the Committee. It is a matter of some importance. Standing Order 249 deals with the classification of bills. Members will see there that there are different categories of bills and we are dealing with a Government bill and with a matter of public policy introduced by a Minister. Therefore matters that relate to private interests are not properly dealt with under a public bill; they are matters that are dealt with under a private bill. 
This is not the first time this issue has come before Parliament. Some members may recollect that when the House was previously considering liquor legislation individual amendments were proposed to deal with the interests of each hotel and tavern in New Zealand. The amendments were ruled not to be in order as they dealt with private business interests more appropriately dealt with in private legislation. So this is not the first time this kind of issue has been dealt with by the Committee. That is the first issue to cover. In terms of the substance of the decision made by the Chair under the Standing Orders there is an issue around the nature of legislation and in respect of previous precedent in the House the Chair’s ruling is absolutely consistent with those previous precedents. 
The other important issue is that the Chair is required to rule on the admissibility of amendments. The Chairperson’s rulings are not to be corrected or reversed by the Speaker. That is Speakers’ ruling 78/1. That change can be done only by the House by resolution upon a motion with notice. Our Speakers’ rulings indicate that the standard practice of the House is for the Speaker not to overrule the ruling of the Chair. But in this case I must say that the argument accepted by the Chair is totally consistent with the Standing Orders and with previous precedent and the Chair’s ruling must stand. I declare the House back in Committee on the bill at hand. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets ( 
continued 
)  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert after “those Acts” “ of Parliament”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 We have just had a little bit of confusion and the whips of ACT and the Maori Party had to correct their votes. I think it would help if you named the person putting the amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My apologies. We have three amendments in the name of Sue Moroney and I will mention her name each time I put the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert after “Transition Agency” “of only 4 people”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert before “Transition Agency” “the unelected group of friends called”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
39The local government together with the citizens of Auckland both present and future generations have the right to— 
(a)realise the benefits of fixed and variable public assets including those held by Crown corporations and Crown agencies: 
(b)full public disclosure and unfettered public access to information regarding the financial and legal status of Crown corporations and Crown agencies held in the public trust: 
(c)be consulted about any planned changes to Crown corporations and Crown agencies. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
40This Part 9 is made for the purposes of— 
(a) providing for peace order and good Government of the Auckland region: 
(b)protecting public assets vested in Council from damage accelerated deterioration or abuse: 
(c)ensuring future generations of Auckland citizens have the use of public assets: 
(d)protecting important public assets from privatisation which may limit the access of future generations of Auckland citizens.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to add the following new part: 
Part 9 
Protection of Public Assets 
38Protection of Public Assets 
Nothing in this Act the Local Government 2002 the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Electoral Act 2001 or any regulations made under those Acts shall permit the Transition Agency to— 
(a)sell or otherwise dispose of or sell any equity securities in; or 
(b)surrender any voting rights in: 
(c)relinquish any right to appoint trustees directors or managers of any asset or organisation listed in Schedule 2 during the transition period. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 9 not agreed to. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move that progress be reported and that there be an instruction to the House that this bill be referred to the special select committee for Auckland legislation for it to have hearings on it and to report back to the House within 4 weeks. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: A member can only move that progress be reported; an instruction cannot go with it. If the member wishes to move that progress be reported I will accept that proposition but he cannot include with it an instruction about what will happen after that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to move a motion to report progress that includes an instruction that select committee consideration take place and that the select committee report back to the House within 4 weeks of it receiving the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
New Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. New Part 5 is a very grave part of the bill because it points to the delinquency and the severity of the complete disregard for the history constitutional and demographic importance of Auckland in the planning for Auckland’s future mega-city status and the complete level of ignorance about the future character of the mega-city of Auckland. That is why we stand with a degree of hope that is clouded by the bad decision-making that has guided the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide to date which has resulted in his isolating marginalising and completely neglecting a growing percentage of Auckland’s population. 
In 1867 Donald MacLean derived a response to the growing unrest amongst iwi that the Crown was governing the country without any inclusion of a meaningful nature of Maori. That was when statutory Maori representation—after the failure of the runanga experiment early in the 1850s—took root. This part is an extension of that. Why would a modern nation want to provide distinctive Maori representation in its largest city as it seeks to use that city as a catalyst to transform the wider economy? Why would it want to do that? Not only because of heritage but because the reality is that these are the people whose population percentage is growing disproportionately faster. They are the Asian proportion they are the tangata whenua in a broader sense and they are the Pasifika people. So what is being asked for here is a continuation of that proud tradition that exists at the level of national Government. 
Na reira ko taku ki te Whare he aha oti te raruraru me whakaae tatou kia waihangatia wenei turanga Maori hei noho e kitea ai te kanohi Maori i te aroaro o te motu; nga turu Maori e rua ma te marea me tetahi atu turu motuhake mo nga tangata whenua? Nui noa atu te pouri ahakoa te moe tahi a Te Pati Maori ki o ratou hoa kahore he paku aroha e puta ana ki a ratou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
So mine to the House; what problem is there that we agree to create these Maori positions to enable the face of Maoridom to be seen before the nation—the two positions for Maori for the public and a special one for the people of the land? I am greatly saddened that although the Maori Party has bedded together with their colleagues they display no compassion for them 
.]  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise. This is a matter in which I have no expertise but I think from my limited knowledge that we might have had a slight miss in the interpretation right at the end. I think the “two” that my colleague outlined was for Maori seats and the “one” was for mana whenua. I think it is important that we get that right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. If there was a wrong interpretation I am sure that when the member resumes his speech he will pick up on it. I am leaving that to the discretion of the Hon Shane Jones. Was there a mistake in the interpretation or was it accurate? If there was a mistake you have an opportunity to correct it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I shall take that opportunity. With due respect this correction I am sure is not included as part of my formal speech. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the interpreter a senior scholar of our language but the essential point is that my proposed new part corrects the absence of tangata whenua and mana whenua representation and provides two slots for Maori in general. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My proposition to you was about the interpretation provided by the interpreter. Did the interpreter report accurately what you had first said? If the interpreter did not report you accurately I am giving you the opportunity to correct the record. We are not getting into a debate on what you said; all I want to know is whether it was interpreted accurately. This is your opportunity to correct the interpretation if it was incorrect—not a debate just a correction if that was the case. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I have nothing further to add in relation to that issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Let us move on to my very clever innovation as to how the people of Pasifika will actually be included. Ara noa atu te aroha ki o tatou huanga mai i Te Moana-nui-a- Kiwa. I tae mai ki konei hei horoi i te paru a etahi ke atu. I hara mai hei tata wahie i hara mai hei waha wai engari i te mutunga he tangata he iwi rangatira. Ko te mea tika kia kite ai to ratou kanohi i roto i tenei kaunihera hou kei puta te korero kahore wa ratou panga horekau o ratou kanohi e tika ana kia kitea ai i roto i nga turanga teitei. 
Ahakoa te kitea o te kanohi Hamoa i tera taha poto noa ake te wa mona ki reira. E kore oti i a ia te kake i nga hoiho e rua i roto i te haora kotahi. Na reira he utu kei te hara mai mona engari haunga ano tena take. 
Te wahanga tuatoru ko nga tangata i tae tata mai mai i te whenua o Ahia. Era tangata i hara mai i te rawakoretanga etahi i arumia e etahi ke atu etahi i ahu mai ki konei kia tatu ai te noho o wa ratou tamariki ki Aotearoa. Na reira e tika ana o ratou kanohi me o nga motu me o te tangata whenua kia kitea ngatahitia. Kaua e waiho ko nga hoa o te Minita anakenake hei whakatutua hei whakarite mo te noho a te iwi mai i nga moutere mai Ahia mai i nga marae o te motu he rite ki te pononga noa iho nei. Kahore he mana. Na reira koia ta matou e tautoko i tenei wahanga. Tenei wahanga rangatira kia kore ai te iwi Maori e ’hakatahangia. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
There is much sympathy for our relations from the Great Sea of Kiwa the Pacific Ocean. They came here to clean up the mess left by others to be woodchoppers bearers of water but in the end they are humans and a dignified people. To have their faces seen on this new council is the proper thing to do. It would allay any talk that they have no interests and they should not be seen in these positions of high standing 
. 
Although the face of Samoa can be seen on the other side the member’s presence there is limited. He will not last on both horses for a single hour. So there is a cost ahead for him but that is another matter.  
The third part relates to recent arrivals from Asia. Some came from poverty some followed other Asians over here and some immigrated here so that their children could settle here in New Zealand. So it is right that their faces are represented alongside those of Pasifika and the people of the land. Decisions on how people from Asia Pasifika and from the marae of the land should live should not be left solely to the Minister and his cronies. That makes the people subservient and without dignity. So that is what we are supporting here in this part this noble part that ensures Maoridom is not marginalised. 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A kai te Heamana ki taku nei mohio mena ka huri te tangata ki te korero i te reo Maori i roto i te Whare nei ka katia te wati tae noa atu ki te mutunga o tana korero. Otira ka huri atu ki te reo o tauiwi ka timata ano. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Mr Chairman my understanding is that when one speaks in Maori in this House the clock is stopped until the end of that address in Maori. It is turned on again once one starts speaking in English 
.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a very good point and I thank the member for bringing it to my attention. The interpretation is in addition to what the member is saying so the time allocation is not reduced. In the case of the previous speaker Shane Jones the clock was turned off while we had the interpretation. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for those words of assistance. The point remains however that during the course of the debate on this particular part there will be a great deal of bilingual debate. We need reassurance. When we lapse from one language to the other the timekeeping will be essential. This debate is the only chance that that portion of Auckland’s population will ever hear their language being spoken in defence of their rights. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for that point. In terms of the timekeeping there are two of us here who keep the time. In fact in relation to the member who spoke before—I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard is keeping his eye on the clock—I gave the member about 10 seconds extra because we had not turned off the clock as quickly as we might have. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support proposed new Part 5 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. In doing so I put in context why we think it is important that this specificity is laid down now: to ensure that in future we achieve Maori representation. 
I think it reflects no honour at all upon the National Party that after 3 days of debate on a bill that is being considered in urgency and that is not going to select committee not one of the amendments that have been put by the Labour Party by the Green Party or by others other than the Government have been supported by the Government. So after 3 days of debate the bill is as it was proposed by the National Party. People would think on that basis that we have an infallible Government. This Government is so confident of its own abilities that it thinks it does not have to listen—not only will it not listen to the will of the people through the select committee process but it cannot even listen to Opposition submissions in order to find kernels of good ideas that it can bring itself to agree with. 
People considering whether that is a realistic assessment of how this Government deals with personnel and of the appropriateness of appointments that it causes to be made to bodies need only reflect on mistakes that have been made by the Government in the last week in terms of the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission. It is the Government’s right to appoint her but it shows that if people have the ability to make appointments or to control who the representatives of the people on important bodies like councils— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I say to those members who are obstructing my view that I would like to be able to see the speaker when he is speaking. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission shows that it is very important to have checks and balances on those who control the appointments in order to make sure that we have fair representation and that we do not have inappropriate appointments or a lack of representation. The example of Christine Rankin shows that this Government above all others is not infallible when it comes to the matter of representation and who it appoints to bodies. 
Representation is what lies behind proposed new Part 5. This part inserts mechanisms to make sure that the discretion of those involved in the future as to who should be elected to councils and what groups ought to have some representation is limited by the legislation rather than being left completely at large. We know that if it is left completely at large the National Government could make the same mistakes in respect of future representation in this new Auckland body—in terms of not achieving fair representation of the 1.4 million citizens of Auckland—as we have already seen in respect of the Families Commission this week. That is why I am so supportive of this amendment brought forward in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. 
Part 5 will make sure that these mechanisms work fairly for the people of Auckland by prescribing limits—instead of the absolute absence of limits in the current legislation—to give some direction as to what is fair representation in the future. It is important to note that this is not done just for the local tangata whenua in the narrow sense. The amendment does not say that these are only the people who have whakapapa back to the lands of these areas and therefore have rights of representation. We know there are ethnicities and ethnic groups in the Auckland area—substantial groups within our democracy but not strictly tangata whenua in that they cannot whakapapa back to an iwi showing land-based links—who will not have a voice on this new area. None the less these are representative or discrete groups of people who should have some voice if they are going to believe in the democracy that we have in New Zealand. 
If these groups do not have a voice—if they find that their large percentage of population is effectively prevented from having a voice on this new council—they will not vote and they will not believe in our democracy. They will have less faith not just in local government democracy but in all of our political institutions and that would be a bad thing. That is why new Part 5 sets out the mechanisms to ensure representation not just of that narrow group of land-linked tangata whenua but of Maori more generally and also of Pacific peoples. We know that the largest Polynesian city in the world or rather the largest centre of population of Polynesian peoples in the world is Auckland. Yet this bill in its current form does not recognise their right to a voice in Auckland. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 A tena koe kai te Heamana. Tu noa iho tenei ki te tautoko ake i nga korero i te wero o taku hoa a Shane Jones tino Honore. Nana i tu ake i roto i te Whare nei ki te tautoko nei na i te kaupapa kei waenganui i a tatou. Nana i ki mai ra kua takahia te mana o te iwi Maori o Tamaki-makau-rau ki raro iho. Koi na e ahua tino raruraru ana matou ki tena kaupapa a te tangata e noho nei ki to taha te Minita mo nga Kaunihera-a-Rohe. No reira na runga i tena kai te Heamana e tika ana kia tuku wero ki tena taha o te Whare ki nga mema Maori o tena ropu o tena ropu otira nga ropu katoa e huihui nei i roto i tenei Whare kia tu ake ra ki te whakapuare o ratou whakaaro mo te kaupapa kai runga kai te tepu i te mea ra ko te mana o Ngati Whatua. 
Ko ahau tenei e tu atu nei kua takahia ki raro. Na ko te mana o Tainui o tenei kua tu ake nei kua takahia ki raro. Ko te mana o te Kawerau-a-Maki kua takahia ki raro. Pera ano i te mana o Pare Hauraki kua takahia ki raro. Kua takahia ki raro i te mea ra ko tenei pire e kia nei me wahangu kotou me wahangu ki tenei kaupapa. Korekau he mana kei waenganui i a koutou. Kua tuku atu te mana ki nga ropu paku ahua kiritea nga tangata ma ratou e tahaetia i nga taonga a Tamaki-makau-rau ka hoko atu ki tawahi. Koina te take e tu ake ai. 
Kua takahia hoki te mana o nga iwi o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa nga whanaunga mai i Hamoa i Tonga i nga Kuki Airana i Whiti mai i era motu katoa. Kua takahia ki raro. No reira taku wero ano ki nga mema Maori o nga ropu torangapu katoa tu ake tu ake ki te whakahe i te kaupapa kei runga ki te tepu. Ki te Minita Poraka e noho nei ki to taha kua ahua hoha a Tamaki-makau-rau whanui tonu ki a ia. 
No reira mihi ana hoki ki nga ropu kua huihui nei i tenei Whare. Otira kia kaha ki te tu ki te korero i nga korero hohonu nga korero whanui e pa nei ki te mana motuhake a te iwi Maori. No reira e Hone tena koe. Otira ahua hoha ki to tumuaki ra ki a Tariana hara mai ki roto i te Whare i nanahi ka tuku i tana wero ki a matou ka ki mai ra e ahua taurekareka noa iho a kotou korero e Reipa. Kai te tino whakahe ki tena wero i te mea ra matou o tenei taha ka tuku wero ki te Kawanatanga kia ata whakaarohia kia ata whakarongo ki nga nawe ki nga porarurarutanga kua horahia nei i roto i te Whare. Kihai i te whakarongo. No reira nana na Tariana i ki ai e ahua taurekareka noa iho nga wero nga korero katoa o te Ropu Reipa. E kai te tu a Reipa ki te tautoko i nga iwi katoa o Tamaki-makau-rau. Ko wai a ia ki te ki mai kai te ahua korotake noa iho nga korero? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have not had the interpretation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well I did pause. Is there to be a interpretation? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Mr Chairman. I rise to endorse the statements and the challenge set down by my colleague the Hon Shane Jones. He stood up in this House to support the matter in our midst. He stated that the authority of the Maori people of Auckland has been trampled upon. We are troubled by that a matter that the person seated by you the Minister of Local Government created. Because of that it is right that we challenge that side of the House the Maori members of each party and indeed all parties gathered here in this House to stand up and express their views on the matter that is on the Table about the authority of Ngati Whatua. 
As a descendant of Ngati Whatua I say that the authority of this one standing before you has been trampled upon. As a descendant of Tainui as well my authority has been trampled upon again. Kawerau-a-Maki’s authority just like Pare Hauraki’s authority has been trampled upon because this bill states that in respect of this matter you collectively must remain silent. You have no authority at all. It has gone to smaller groups whose members are somewhat fair in colour and who will steal Auckland’s resources and sell them offshore. That is my reason for standing up. 
Trampled upon as well is the authority of the people of the Great Ocean of Kiwa of the Pacific those from Samoa Tonga the Cook Islands Fiji and all those islands. My challenge once again therefore is for Maori members of all political parties to stand up and oppose the matter on the Table. To the Minister seated at your side Mr Chairman Auckland at large is somewhat weary of him.  
And so I acknowledge the parties gathered here in this House. Be staunch and address us at length and in depth about Maori independence. Greetings to you Hone. I find your leader Tariana a bit of a bore. She came into the House yesterday and stung us by saying: “Labour all your challenges and talk amount to nothing.” We reject that taunt entirely because we on this side are challenging the Government to really consider and think through the complaints and concerns being presented in the House. The Government is not listening. So for Tariana to say that all of Labour’s talk and challenges amount to nothing is being somewhat extreme. Labour is actually standing up in support of all the people in Auckland. Who is she to tell us that what we have stated is pointless? 
] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I thank the interpreter for his very close description of what I said. 
I would like to summarise one particular point. I was very offended—and I have to say this while Hone Harawira is in this Chamber—by the comments made by the Hon Tariana Turia yesterday. She came to this Chamber and described as vexatious Labour’s efforts to have the Government recognise the needs of the Auckland people and allow them to have a say in this process. That is absolutely ridiculous. If that member cannot accept that this Parliament has a process that everybody including the general public has an opportunity to take part in then she is just as guilty of a dictatorial attitude as the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide and as the Leader of the House and as many of those members sitting on that side of the Chamber. The junior Government whip is waving the paper in the air. He knows I am right. There is a process issue at hand here. The people of Auckland have the right to have a say in what the Government has in mind for their future. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Heamana. Tena koe Mr Jones e ngaro haere ana. Tena tatou katoa tena koe Mita. Greetings to you Mr Chairman to my whanaunga Mr Jones and to Mita Ririnui who has just spoken. Tena tatou ’hakoa tangi ana taku ngakau pau te kaha te rongohia i nga korero kua puta mai i te mangai o taku whakanaunga a Shane Jones me te tautoko ano hoki a Mita Ririnui—although my heart grieves greatly to hear the words spoken by Shane Jones and supported by Mita Ririnui here today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. Sincere apologies to the member but I think there is a risk of this member being treated inequitably. He is providing his own translation and therefore he is not getting the benefit of the clock being stopped while that translation is occurring. If that were to continue it would result in his speech being half the length of any other member’s speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is entitled to have the clock stopped when he speaks in Maori—that is if he provides his own translation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He has been. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. I ask the member to continue. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: He patai he patai. I have a question Mr Chairman: me timatangia ano ahau? May I start again? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. The member has spoken for well over 1 minute and we have stopped the clock. So I ask the member to continue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The point I was making is that about half of that time was for translation and the clock was not stopped for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I said that at the time and we will take that into account. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe. Tangi ana taku ngakau i te mea kua rongo ahau i te korero me te whakaaro o Shane Jones e orite ana te tu o te Maori ki tera a wetahi atu. Tangi ana taku ngakau ki tera. I was very grieved to hear Shane Jones put forward the view that Maori are just like anybody else. Tangi ana taku ngakau i te mea ehara matou i te tangata e orite ana ki tetahi atu. I am grieved to hear Shane Jones say that because we are not the same as everybody else. He tangata whenua matou te iwi Maori. We are the people of this land. E rongo ana au i nga korero mo Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa e rongo ana au i nga korero mo wera kei roto o Haina me wera atu o nga rohe. I hear the call for representation from the Pacific peoples and from Asian people. Engari kei hea te korero mo nga Tarara kei hea te korero mo Kenya kei hea te korero mo Somalia kei hea te korero mo etahi atu? He whai poti anake tenei kaupapa. Kare au i te whai rangatiratanga. Koi ra taku riri. Tena koe. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to Hone Harawira who has the call. I have deliberately raised my point of order at this point rather than interrupt him when he resumes his speech. We are considering new parts to this bill and I express a concern that the time being allowed for the consideration of these parts is obviously a lot less than the time allocated for earlier parts that were put forward by the Government. 
I make the point that it is the Opposition’s right to put forward new parts and to have them properly debated. It is of course proper of the Chair to cut off debate when no new points are being raised and where there is undue repetition. That of course Mr Chair is within your rights but I suggest that in respect of some of the closure motions that were moved earlier in the morning we are verging on having debate cut off before all points have been exhaustively covered by speakers. 
I know there is a tension here between the Government getting its business through and the Opposition delaying it but I suggest that it is the right of Opposition members to act as we are acting. That Opposition members are able to exercise their rights to the limits of the Standing Orders particularly in urgency is an important check against the powers of the Government and I ask you Mr Chairperson to consider that in your rulings this afternoon. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Chairperson an interesting point of order has been put to you by the Hon David Parker but it directly challenges your authority in the Chair. I simply remind the Committee that it was the Hon David Parker who this morning told anybody who was here to listen or anybody listening in that the Labour Party was in fact engaging in a filibuster on this bill. I would have thought that that was a clear indication to everybody that most of the matters being dealt with at the moment are not serious. They are simply vexatious and frivolous and they are being put forward by Labour to try to prolong the debate today. 
The other thing is that if we were engaged in an actual debate on this bill that debate might be interesting but the vast majority of time spent on this bill has been spent on dealing through the vote process with the extensive range of frivolous amendments put forward by Labour. Some 8000 amendments I think have now been dealt with in one way or another. The real point though is that National thinks that continued challenges to the Chair are completely unacceptable and should not continue to be a feature of this debate. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Chairperson I think it is important at this junction that the Committee consider very carefully under your guidance the way forward. In the first place I submit to you that the point of order raised by my colleague David Parker in no way trifled with your rulings. It sought a clarification from you and it asked at your discretion that you take into account the various factors as we go forward. I echo the strongly expressed sentiments of my colleague David Parker in this respect. 
The second point is that the Leader of the House has in his submission failed to distinguish between amendments and parts. The submission of David Parker specifically related to parts not clause amendments and asked that parts be fully debated. As is well known to you Mr Chairperson and to the Leader of the House amendments to clauses— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The member should read the Standing Orders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I know what the point of order will be. I ask the Leader of the House to let the member make his point of order. If I feel he is getting off the point I will stop his point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The example given by the Leader of the House—about so-called trivial changes to dates and so forth—is clearly distinct from proposals to add entirely new parts. I submit to you Mr Chairperson that the application of the word “trivial” to a part such as new Part 5 which the Committee is currently debating is a gross insult to the communities affected which are Maori Pacific and other ethnic groups. It is simply not appropriate that members of this Committee should describe mechanisms to ensure appropriate representation of that nature as “trivial”. 
That brings us I guess to the core point of what the Leader of the House submitted which was that these parts are in his view no more than a filibuster and therefore do not deserve the protection of the Standing Orders. That brings into question the matter of whether the member’s perception of the part should stand for the whole Committee. Clearly it should not and new Part 5 should be seen as an example of an extremely substantive and well-thought-out part. Why is it necessary? That is the whole point— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is straying into the substance of the part. Let me make a number of points. Firstly it is not helpful to have descriptors of what members do as being trivial or this that or the other. A point of order is about order; it is not about the emotional words that one might wish to attach to it. 
Secondly I make the point that no matter what members write on their amendments—whether they insert new parts new multi-parts and so on—they are still amendments. So according to the Standing Orders we are considering amendments not parts. However because they are amendments of such a nature they will get a little more air time than they would if they were just one-word amendments and that is reflected in the Chair’s consideration. I repeat for the Committee the point I made before which is that the two Rs which are relevance and repetition will guide the Chairs’ decisions. 
The third point I make again—and this will never change as long as we have this Parliament—is that the decision will be the Chair’s and the Chair’s alone. No correspondence will be entered into and there will be no emails no texts no groans no sighs and no rolling of heads or eyes—that will all wash over the Chair whose opinion is impartial. The Chair will determine the appropriate time for the Committee to consider an amendment. 
I also make another point which I think is important and fundamental here. New Zealand is a democracy. We argue and battle over words. This is a contest of words and this is a contest of wills. It seems to me in a way that it is a little bit like Ogden Nash: when the going gets tough the tough go shopping. He did not say that but in this situation when the going gets tough in the Committee the tough write amendments or parts. That is what this is about; it is a wrestle. But at the end of the day we have to have the debate. It has to be relevant cogent and to the point and repetition should not be entered into. 
Both sides will feel aggrieved and disappointed at some point—such is the role of the Chair. But we will make these decisions as we go piece by piece. I state it again: it is the Chair’s decision—no correspondence will be entered into—and it is about relevance and repetition. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe Mr Assistant Chairperson. Kia ora tatou katoa. If Labour’s proposal for Pasifika nation seats was genuinely about representation then where are the seats for the Somali the Kenyan the Dalmatian or the South African? Although I respect much of what Labour has had to say today this proposal is nothing but a naked grab for the votes of the large Pasifika nation populations in Auckland. Although I have the greatest respect for my Pacific cousins I note the fact that the phrase “sons of Maui” attributed to George Hawkins was actually one coined first by me in this Chamber in recognition of our historical relationship to one another. Although I respect the right of Asians to be heard I can never accept the betrayal by Labour’s Maori MPs of the primary right of Maori to be on the Auckland Council as manu whenua as tangata whenua and as Maori. 
I am outraged by the cringing position taken by those Labour Maori MPs in allowing the status of Maori to be downgraded to that of other ethnic groups for we are and always will be the first people of this great land of Aotearoa. I call on those Labour Maori MPs to speak up for Maori to fight for Maori and to be Maori. I call on them either to fight for those seats on the Auckland Council—for mana whenua first for Maori second and for anybody else after that—or to admit their failings to recognise their duplicity to confess their complicity and to resign their seats forthwith. Their mana for what it is worth the mana of their people—and indeed the mana of their tupuna—deserves nothing less. Kia ora tatou. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I feel obliged to take a call on new Part 5 which contains Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 in the name of the Hon Shane Jones. This part is important. We are proposing this part to ensure that the representation of Maori Pacific and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of Auckland City is protected. Earlier in this Chamber I cited what North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams said on this bill and the other related bill. He said: “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.” We have to introduce this part because this bill amongst other things will remove the right of Aucklanders to vote on the reorganisation of Auckland. Labour thinks that the National Government’s complete failure to consult on this plan is wrong and that Aucklanders deserve a say in the future of their city. 
Auckland is home to many Asian Kiwis and I am one of them. Statistics New Zealand predicts that about one-third of its residents will be of Asian ethnicity by 2016 up from 20 percent in 2001. But it is sad that in response to such important legislation—which has created the biggest challenge Auckland has faced in its entire history—National’s Asian MPs are systematically silent on the issues. Mr Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi was here last night smiling to himself and he was here this morning as well. But where is the Hon Pansy Wong? Where is the honourable Melissa Lee? I saw her on television on  
Close Up 
 busy apologising for the comments she had made the night before. But what about the interests of thousands upon thousands of Asian Aucklanders whom those MPs at least claim to represent? Under National’s plan in future the people of South Auckland and west Auckland in particular are unlikely to be entitled to influence local government in Auckland. I think the small but growing number of elected community board members and councillors of Asian ethnicity will be denied any real ability to influence the future of local government in Auckland. I am not blaming National Asian MPs. The 800-page of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance took 18 months to prepare it cost millions of dollars and it received 3537 submissions. The National Government’s sham version of a super-city that is being forced on Auckland was thrown together in just 3 days. 
We are introducing new parts and further amendments. At this Committee stage it is very important for me to reiterate that I oppose this bill for three main reasons. The bill is procedurally unfair because as Part 3 shows existing local authorities will have their powers stripped from them and 1.4 million people in Auckland are not able to have a say about that.  
Goodbye Pork Pie 
? I do not think Aucklanders are impressed. Clause 49 of schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a referendum on reorganisation proposals. This bill will override those provisions. In a broad constitutional sense this bill is flawed. The bill also creates huge uncertainty. Both Mr John Key and Mr Rodney Hide have admitted in this Chamber that they have no idea how much their sham version of the super-city is going to cost. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou katoa. I stand to support Labour’s position on new Part 5 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill but also I tautoko Mr Hone Harawira’s comments. We stand here under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Our rights do not come from multiculturalism; they come from te Tiriti. Although we acknowledge the multiple cultures of Aotearoa the first point is the difference between mana whenua rangatiratanga and minority need for representation. Any legislation in this House should be passed on that basis recognising the value of mana whenua first-nation people first then recognising the diversity that Auckland undoubtedly has. 
The other main problem with this bill is its capacity to reinforce a trend that has been dominating local government since its inception in Aotearoa. I have named this TMPM syndrome—“Too Many Pakeha Men” in positions of power syndrome. Local government in Tamaki-makau-rau and throughout the motu is already cursed with TMPM syndrome with current and historical dominance of Pakeha men just about everywhere we look. This is not an attack on Pakeha men. I have lived with two of them though not at the same time. Members should not get me wrong: I value my Pakeha men very deeply especially the current one. However I think for Pakeha men a minority experience in a decision-making process would be a salutary lesson because unless one has experienced marginalisation as a minority in the decision-making process one has no idea what one is talking about or what it feels like. 
What is the problem with TMPM and local government? If we are to have representative democracy which is not necessarily the only way we can do things in the Pacific it should absolutely be representative. In addition we must acknowledge mana whenua and the three Maori seats as recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. To my knowledge there is no local authority district in Aotearoa where two-thirds of the community is Pakeha men yet 90 percent of local councils Pakeha men. Fifty percent of all communities are women and many other cultures are well represented in most communities but we will not see them on local authorities except in corners desperately trying to be heard. 
Mr Rodney Hide’s bill exacerbates the problem we have with TMPM syndrome. There will not be a choice to stand for the super-city council. An “at-large” voting system is about the money needed to establish name recognition before one can start to have a chance. That fact immediately marginalises tangata whenua and other people in the city. The system is also not about numbers. Even if Pakeha men were the majority councils would still need to represent different perspectives. Tamaki-makau-rau needs a vibrant system of participatory local government that uses creative techniques of engagement with the diversity of communities whilst staying based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Maori are not a stakeholder to be consulted but are the first nation with whom we Pakeha—and I am speaking for the Green Party which is predominantly Pakeha—via the Crown need to negotiate relationships based on the article signed on 6 February 1840. Te Waiohua have made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and hence the Maori Party the Greens and Labour are calling for the Prime Minister to support the recommendations of the royal commission on this issue. There will be a hikoi and we will support it with weary hearts as yet again the Crown pays lip-service to the Tiriti relationship but gatekeeps the actual political process. 
Unsurprisingly I expect to hear proponents of this bill say that if people want diversity in the super-city then they can vote for it and if they want Maori seats they will vote them in. We have heard this line of argument since 1800—that if the citizens at large want the Maori seats they will vote for them and that there is no need to recognise mana whenua—let alone anyone else. Sadly this argument flies in the face of everything we know about the history of political representation Parliament being a case in point until MMP. Even since then the Maori seats have been essential to allow Maori voters self-determination albeit in a Westminster-Pakeha hybrid framework which is not exactly the tangata whenua or Pacific way. 
Yes we could go to the citizens of Auckland and hold a referendum and ask them whether they would like to have the three Maori seats. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move that the question be— 
Hon Member 
: No no. Take a call. 
COLIN KING 
: The time we are spending in the Chamber today is very important. It is significant from the point of view that we need to be very conscious about what we are actually here for. We are here at this time to be conscious of the importance of every citizen in New Zealand but more important to be concerned that we do what is right and fair for the future of New Zealand. 
Many an amendment has been proposed from the Opposition today. When we look at the title of this particular proposed new Part 5 “The mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori Pacific and ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council” we start to understand the future vision that the other side of the Chamber is proposing. The Government of New Zealand is proposing to do away with those impediments that are holding back New Zealand and have done for the last 9 years under the previous Labour Government which is now a very bewildered and confused Opposition. 
Those members continually try to divert people’s attentions away from the main issues like ensuring that we have a united focus as a country and that we build up a future for this nation that we and our grandchildren can be proud of. We can form such a future by way of a combined city of Auckland that reaches its potential. We must all acknowledge that at the moment it is the young generations whose potential we want to realise whether they are Maori Pasifika or people who come to New Zealand in the future. 
The proposed configuration of Auckland governance is presently being obstructed by a very distracted Opposition. It is an Opposition that had 9 years to do something positive for this country when it was Government but unfortunately the Labour Government will be remembered for its wasteful 9 years in office. We now have a Government that is determined to make the very most of a situation yet we tend to trifle around the edges at a time when we should be pulling together as a nation. I believe that we are at a stage here with the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that is certainly significant. The debate around the bill is hugely significant from our point of view because it is a contest of ideas. It is about the future and representation of the people. It is not about ideologies and contests to bewilder confuse and distract which we hear from the Opposition. 
We have had some interesting debates and some very broad debates. Some have been well off the mark and have not concentrated on those things that will make a significant improvement not only to Auckland but also to the nation of New Zealand. Auckland is a shop window to the world a capital city in the context of the largest city of New Zealand with 1.4 million people. It is very important that those citizens are comfortable in the knowledge that they have an overarching arrangement in Auckland that ensures we do not have the dislocation that there has been for many many years. 
Every other New Zealander who looks at Auckland is bewildered that it does not have the cohesion that one would expect. The situation we find ourselves in today can only point back to the previous administration which lacked the courage and ability to take New Zealand forward. The Government today is endeavouring to address and work through what will be the most efficient and practical solution for the candidates the citizens and the arrangements that have existed in a dislocated fashion throughout Auckland’s recent history. Whether it is Maori Pasifika or other ethnic groups that need to be considered let us move forward today. It is a goal to have one people and one nation. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. All morning all afternoon— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —I am allowed I am making my point—all last night all day yesterday and right from the start of this debate Labour members have said “We want to debate this bill fully.” This afternoon shortly after David Parker spoke those Labour members have been trying to shut down debate on what they are describing as the most important bill for Auckland. My point is this— 
Hon Members 
: What’s the point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think the interjections are fair in that the member should come to his point of order. There is a question before the Committee which is that the question be now put. It is a relatively straightforward question. I am more than happy to hear the member’s point of order providing it is about the question being now put. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My apologies. It is actually a point of irony. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On a proposal about whether Maori Pacific Island and Asian seats will be put forward on to this council why is Labour denying its own Pacific and Asian speakers the opportunity to speak on this amendment? Or is it trying to bury this proposal in order to try to dig its Maori MPs out of a hole for sacrificing the Maori seats and downgrading the status of Maori to that of other ethnic groups in Auckland? It is absolutely unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members we are in a very interesting position here. We have had three closure motions put forward by National members that the question be now put. We are in the remarkable position of having the Opposition move that the question be now put. It is a procedural motion— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I’d like to speak— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not think there is anything to speak about. The member may raise a point of order about the order of this matter but not on the substance of it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We had two senior members of Labour giving impassioned speeches this afternoon and asking for more time to be taken on this matter. We have not moved a closure motion since those speeches. I think you need to consider whether the generosity of the Government in allowing Labour the time it wants for this debate is going to be abused. Or do we have confirmation that the entire attack from Labour is trivial? On the one hand those members asked for extra time and got it but now they have decided they want to shut things down. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The proposition put to you by the Leader of the House is not correct. Since we have returned from lunch Mr Macindoe sought a closure motion and Mr King got two-thirds through a closure motion before being told he was not to do that. So Mr Brownlee is not correct. I have moved a motion and I would like you to consider the motion I have moved. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 A whole raft of amendments have been tabled. Under Standing Order 293(1)(c) as Minister in charge of this bill I require that consideration of this part be postponed to give the presiding officer time to prepare the papers. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I can probably be helpful and say that my reading of the Standing Orders means that you do not have any discretion in this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I say to the honourable member on this matter that I think I agree. I will confirm with the Clerk precisely the effect of this. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I may also be able to help the Committee. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raised a point of order before Mr John Carter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Can I just first say to the honourable Hone Harawira that I heard the point of order. I did not think it was particularly relevant to this. The Hon Darren Hughes had moved a procedural motion. It is not debatable it is not about content and it is then for the Committee to decide. I have the choice of whether I put the motion. I was in the process of making that decision. In the meantime the situation has changed because the Minister in charge of the bill has exerted his right under Standing Order 293(1)(c) which states: “the member in charge of the bill requires that consideration or further consideration of a part or other provisions be postponed.” The Minister is now saying that he is postponing consideration of that part and that is his right—it is his motion. If that right is exercised then the debate on this stops. The Hon John Carter has a point of order. Once I have dealt with his I will come back to the member. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I raised a second point of order before Mr John Carter rose to make a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I just told the member I am going to listen to John Carter first and I will come back to that member second. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am not raising a new point; I am speaking to the point of order following that of Mr Mallard. I am hoping to help the Committee by saying that you are quite right that the Minister as you have already stated has the right to make that decision and postpone and it is not debatable. It is the right of the member in charge of the bill. That is the advice that I have sought and that is the motion that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: All right. I now call the honourable member Hone Harawira. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I was simply going to say that although I respect the right of Mr Hughes to call for the motion to be taken that does not deny the right of other members to stand and ask for the call. Is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not quite correct. Members might stand to seek the call but once a member has sought and moved the motion that the question be now put it is the Chair’s decision as to whether the question is put. If it is put the Committee will decide whether the question is put. If the Chair decides not to take the motion then of course the floor is open for other members to take a call at that point. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have two points of order to raise with you. First regarding the status of the motion that I moved you will have to give a decision on whether the question would be put. Second in respect of the Minister in charge of the bill not wanting to consider the bill that is in urgency before the Committee at the present time when we return to this part we will be at the point after my closure motion. That is my first point of order. My second point of order relates to the time factor in which the Minister in charge of the bill wants to postpone consideration of this part. We will need to know what time we are going to come back to that in order to consider it because we have other parts ahead to debate. If we get ourselves into a position where we have finished those parts and have to report progress the opportunity for this part to be voted on by the Committee and for the amendments to be considered by the Committee will not come. I am presuming it is not a catch-all so that the Minister can delay for consideration just this part for another day—whatever that might mean. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have now had time to consider Standing Order 293 as far as (4)(a) and (4)(b). I was under the impression that the Minister was not specific on his delay and therefore the effect of what he has done is to put this right down to the bottom before the preliminary clauses. So we will do the other 27 or 28 parts unless they get similarly deferred and then we will come back to this at the end before we deal with the preliminary clauses—probably on Thursday or Friday maybe. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We have a very interesting position here. I cannot remember the Committee being in this gymnastic position before. It is a very unusual twist and I think that people who are listening to this will be unaware that there are other circumstances outside this Chamber that are driving this and the timeliness of it. But firstly to the simple point: the situation as I understand it is that the Hon Darren Hughes has moved a closure motion at which point I was about to consider whether we should put it. Then enter stage right the Hon Rodney Hide who says that he wants to exercise his authority as the member in charge of the bill to have the consideration of this part or provision postponed. That is his right; there is no argument about it. At the moment that occurs it then freezes everything on this part; it is simply sealed in an envelope and pushed to one side. So we do not deal with the closure motion from this point; the whole lot is locked up and is moved. 
We then go to Standing Order 293(4)(a) the part I would rely on here which states: “any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with other than preliminary clauses that are considered together”. It seems to me that the Standing Order is saying to us that we are now reorganising things so that this part which is in the name of Shane Jones now moves right to the back of the queue and we now start on the next part that we have for consideration. At the point we reopen it will be the time we then consider—I suspect I will get some advice from the Clerk on this—the motion moved by the Hon Darren Hughes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Right at the end just before the preliminary clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is correct. If the Clerk advises me differently on that I will come back to you but that is as I see it at that point. 
New Part 5 postponed. 
New Part 12 Paid Parental Leave Entitlement 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This new part will be vigorously debated by Labour members. There has been one of the sneakiest attempts I have ever seen to strip the working women of Auckland—and for that matter in a minor way the men as well—of their right to paid parental leave. This Government is trying by a change of employer to take away the current entitlements of the pregnant women of Auckland. Having Judith Collins as the Minister in the chair is the most massive irony because a woman from Auckland is taking from her sisters the right to paid parental leave. 
There are women who quite carefully and properly have timed their pregnancies in order to get paid parental leave. It is something that thousands of women including hundreds— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How do you do that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tau Henare wants to know how one times a pregnancy. I plead guilty to not having a lot of expertise in it myself but I want to make the point— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It appears as though there are no copies of new Part 12 on the Table at the moment. I am sorry to interrupt the member; no doubt he got his copy from his research unit which we do not have access to. I cannot see it; there are none on this side of the Table. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Please members. The floor is the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: They are not here. I cannot see them on this side of the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: If the member’s complaint is that there are no amendments from Steve Chadwick on the Table I think that is a legitimate complaint. Members should have access to the paperwork and I ask the Clerk’s Office to do the necessary work to bring the paperwork to the Table for them. But that should not in any way interrupt stymie or stop the flow of the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a relatively simple matter. Under the paid parental leave legislation a woman has to work for a particular period of time—6 months—before she is entitled to paid parental leave. She has to be with an employer for that length of time. It is one of the debatable points of the legislation. Labour when last in Government considered whether that period should be reduced or whether it should be there at all. But it is clear that an entitlement is triggered by employment with a particular employer. 
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill changes the employer without a proper transitional provision to carry forward the entitlement with the effect of taking away the entitlements of women in Auckland who are employed by any of the eight councils—the seven territorial local authorities and the one regional authority. I say to members I had some doubts about this provision. I was not sure when I first saw this provision. I said surely it would not be true and surely the right would be there. But then it was pointed out to me that firstly the provision binds the Crown and secondly—and even more interestingly—the KiwiSaver legislation has a transitional provision with regard to the employer. Why is people’s entitlement to KiwiSaver maintained with a change of employer but a woman who is pregnant does not have an entitlement to paid parental leave? It is a disgrace—an absolute disgrace—and it is shameful. 
I make it clear that this is yet another reason why this bill should go to a select committee. It should go to a select committee so that this cock-up—the one where John Banks can put in Sam’s replacement—can be fixed. It is a relatively simple matter of fairness. I am informed by my colleague Annette King that 50 percent of women’s pregnancies are planned so why should a woman employed by one of those councils who has planned her pregnancy around her entitlement to paid parental leave have that entitlement expunged? Why should she have that money taken from her as a result of this legislation? It might be all right for rich Tories. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on this very important part. This is an indication of why it is so important that we spend time in this Chamber reviewing what this legislation actually does. It is being rammed through. It is not going through the select committee process whereby members of the public can come along and have their say and whereby parliamentarians can look clause by clause at the nitty-gritty of the legislation to make sure that something has not slipped through that would have an unintended consequence or an intended consequence that the people of Auckland do not want. We have found one of those here which concerns paid parental leave. 
We know that the Government does not like paid parental leave. It was a dead rat that Government members had to swallow because they knew that taking it away would be too unpopular. But we have here legislation that removes the right of women who work at these councils to have their paid parental leave entitlement carried over in the transitional period. What will happen is that whenever this legislation passes basically the eight elected councils in Auckland as they are known today will cease to exist. They will cease to exist as employers and we will move to a transitional arrangement up until the next local body elections. Because the employer is to change it means that unless we put in this very simple amendment to make it clear that there is no intention to stop the paid parental leave entitlement those women will lose their entitlement. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins whether the Government will be supporting this amendment. 
There are two options here: this situation is the result of either a conspiracy or a cock-up. Usually in such cases there has been a cock-up; that is the reality. If it is a conspiracy it means that in an underhand back-door way the Government is using this process to undermine paid parental leave. If we go with the alternative point of view which is that this is just a cock-up then the Government should have no problem in supporting a very simple amendment to clarify it is not intended that women who work for these local authorities will lose their paid parental leave entitlement. I will be watching very carefully to see what the Government does with regard to this particular amendment. 
We know that Government members will not take any calls apart from closure motions unless they suddenly decide there is a procedural reason why they need to start filibustering on their own legislation. I hope Colin King makes another fantastic speech on this issue. The Labour Party cannot wait to put his speech on Maori representation on its blog Red Alert as the only National speech on Maori representation. That will be fantastic. I am looking forward to Mr Colin King taking a call on this particular amendment. 
The amendment is very very simple. It states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.” If members of this Committee have no problem with regard to the women of Auckland who work for these local authorities keeping their paid parental leave provisions then they will support this amendment. If the National Party and the ACT Party are genuinely trying to undermine paid parental leave—and they are well on record as not liking it—then they will oppose it. This will be a very very interesting vote. Mr Brownlee the Leader of the House looks like he is poised to jump up. He has been trying to make out that everything that is going through this House has been frivolous. That is not the case. We have had to buy time to actually look at what this legislation does. We have said to Mr Brownlee that if the Government sends the bill to a select committee he can go home now. If Government members send it to a select committee the debate will end. But they will not do that because they do not want the people of Auckland to find out about things like this fish-hook which says paid parental leave would be undermined. 
I say it is the job of a good Opposition to scrutinise the law. Let us not forget that every minute that we spend in this Chamber debating this legislation is another minute that Aucklanders continue to be run by their democratically elected councils and not the unelected anti-democratic bureaucracy that Mr Brownlee Mr Hide and Mr John Key want to put in charge in Auckland. I think that is reason enough for us to be here today debating this part. I look forward to Mr Gerry Brownlee’s speech. Maybe we will see for the first time the Government being rolled and in desperation having to support a Labour Party amendment because Gerry is on the job. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am a little perplexed as to why this particular part has been allowed to be debated today. Let us read the entire part. Clause 250 states: “Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987.” The next clause clause 251 states: “Notwithstanding anything in this Act all current councils and all new councils created under this legislation will be related employers for the purposes of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act.” 
I want the Clerk at the Table to listen to this because it is a very important point and it would be good if the Clerk would listen. Will we be going through the farcical situation over the next few days whereby the Clerk’s Office accepts new parts of this bill that simply restate the existing law? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There are two parts to my point of order. The first is that it is not appropriate for the member to deal with questions of procedure which should be dealt with by you in the middle of a speech rather than by raising a point of order. Secondly it is completely inappropriate— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s not a point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That is my point if Mr Brownlee would listen to it; interjecting on a point of order as the member knows as Leader of the House is outside the Standing Orders. My second point is that it is inappropriate for any member of this Committee let alone a senior member and let alone the Leader of the House to exert influence over the staff of the Office of the Clerk. If he wishes to make a comment about House procedure he should direct it to you Mr Chairperson; he should do it through a point of order not through a speech; and he should not harangue the Clerk. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I make two points. Firstly I do not think anybody in this Committee who has been here a while would believe that the Clerk’s Office would be moved by any pressure by any member on any point. In actual fact members have often complained that the Clerk’s Office is immovable to any pressure on any point. Secondly I do not think it is necessarily good for the member to address the issues to the Clerk directly. Yes the Clerk has an influence over these things but I feel that the member should direct the issues to the Chair as the Chair is responsible for them. If the member is grumpy about decisions then he should heap it upon the Chair as the Chair’s shoulders are big enough to take all of his discontent on this issue. But members should direct issues at me not the Clerk. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I suppose I am somewhat surprised that it now seems that in the days ahead the Labour Party is going to introduce to this bill new parts that reconfirm existing law. I know that the Labour Party is now struggling with its 27 parts so here is another one from me: “That all council vehicles will obey all the rules of the road while they are operating for the council.” That could be a new part. Then of course any number of other existing pieces of law could be put into a new part. 
I cannot understand why the Labour Party cannot work out that existing settled law is just that. Nothing in this bill can undo other laws. That is not possible. Poor old Darren over there is scratching his head and tapping his head; I assume he is trying to stay awake but I am not sure. It is pretty darn simple. The transition authority which this bill is about gathers together the opportunities that exist for the creation of the new council. A third bill is coming and I want to say very emphatically that this bill does not impose the new transition agency in the role of employer; it simply puts a duty on that authority to work with— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It does so! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is the point is it not? We have written this bill over a long period of time and we understand it; that side of the Committee does not. It will be a sad day for Parliament if all existing law is to be somehow turned into a new part of this bill for the Committee to consider. It is an utter nonsense. It is a pathetic device and it utterly trivialises the process of Parliament. 
It is sad to me that a party that went out to set up this whole process in the first place is now so desperate that it has to resort to these sorts of beltway tactics in order to make itself feel good. Are we going to see more of it? I suspect we will. I suspect that throughout the afternoon the statute book will come out and every little bit of law that relates to anybody’s activity anywhere— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: That’s our job. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —will somehow be written up into a new part. They are confirming it. Maryan Street is confirming it. That is the tactic. David Parker was right that this is a massive filibuster. The only thing I will say about Trevor Mallard is that he is probably going to get me out of a hole. He said the bill will be passed on Thursday but I guess in the end it is our choice which Thursday. 
It is very very sad for Parliament to see this sort of part accepted into this type of bill. It would be interesting to know where the connection is that has caused the concern and I think the mock outrage expressed by members of the Opposition today. This bill is about an authority that will gather up the other eight authorities in Auckland to work with them in order to ensure that the transition to the new one-Auckland council which will not even be settled until September is successful. It is an utterly pathetic effort. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for giving me the right to speak in this debate. Over the course of the last 3 days I have not had the opportunity to participate. The Government has been so keen to close down debate on this bill that—never mind the people of Auckland getting a say—as a member of Parliament I have not been able to take a call yet. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: We need longer. 
SUE MORONEY 
: We need significantly longer on all these parts. I have wanted to comment on many of them and to date I have not been able to. 
In regard to this new part in particular I am pleased to rise and take a call to stop the Government from taking away the ability of employees of local body authorities in Auckland to have paid parental leave in the transitional period. If Mr Brownlee had read the legislation he might realise this. Mr Brownlee’s speech was very important because it reminded us of exactly why this bill should be going to a select committee. The Minister does not realise what occurred yesterday during this very debate on this very legislation. His own Government moved to withdraw a provision before the Committee and in doing that it actually put at risk paid parental leave for women employees of councils. He has not even worked out that that clause—and if my colleague would be good enough to pass me his copy of the bill— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Clause 36. 
I read that clause out because that is what the Government removed from the legislation yesterday. That is why we are putting forward an amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick to add New Part 12. We want to guarantee that women—and men actually—who are about to have children can take paid parental leave. 
It is no surprise that National is trying this on because every single time the issue of paid parental leave has been put before Parliament it has voted against it. National has voted against paid parental leave on every single occasion. That is why it is the job of the Opposition to watch out for this and to make sure that the Government does not slip in something like this. That is exactly why the people of Auckland—and in fact the people of New Zealand—should have the right to see this bill referred to a select committee. These are the very questions that need to be addressed. They are complex situations and we do need to ensure that all the rights of these employees are protected. 
As I said it is no surprise that National is doing this. Just last week National also canned the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce. So it is no wonder National members are trying to make sure that there are no rights for these employees going forward. National members have removed that provision from the bill. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is utter rubbish. 
SUE MORONEY 
: No it is absolutely true. They did it to ensure that the employment terms and conditions did not automatically transfer through to the transitional authority. 
This is a serious issue because 6300 employees are involved in these eight councils. They need to know—and they should have the right to ask this question—why the Government has taken out of this bill those workers’ right to have the same terms and conditions that they have worked many years to acquire. Why did National move to take that right away from them as it moves towards this sham of a transitional body? It is an important question because the very act of creating that transitional body changes the employer and therefore the employment circumstances of 6300 workers. This is an issue that will be important to the families of Auckland. If National members do not think that paid parental leave is important then they are wrong. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Now we understand what the deal is. It is right that yesterday clause 36 was taken out of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It was set aside because that matter will be dealt with in a successive bill. Two further bills will be dealt with before the Auckland Council is established. [ 
Interruption 
] If members would just calm down I will explain it all to them. 
Firstly it is worth noting that this particular part new Part 12 refers to the transfer of remaining employees. These are employees who are not part of the transition in the initial stages. It is important that they are protected. National understands that. Labour members wanted to muck around so much with the bill that they put up 8000 amendments to this particular part. That is utterly absurd. National has said: “All right a select committee can deal with this and it will be included in a successive bill that deals with the Auckland transition arrangements.” The members opposite know that is how this works. Even today they are putting up their own little part and then they want to amend it. Here we have an exceptionally confused Opposition engaging in mock outrage over the employees of these organisations when the harsh reality is that the Government is well aware of the issues and is doing the right things to ensure those protections are there. 
No one can contract out of employment obligations put in the law. Opposition members can wave all the bits of paper they like and they can get as excited as they like but they are simply wrong. So we have the absurd situation of Moana Mackey asking what harm there was in putting this provision in the bill. That is like asking why the 50 kilometre per hour rule should not go in the bill or why all the pedestrian rules should not go into the bill. That is like asking why a raft of other civil matters that are part of legislation should not be included in the bill or why everything on the statute book should not be included. The reality is that that is an absurdity. When the law applies it applies and one cannot contract out of it. 
Our friends on the other side of the Chamber are as confused as ever. I would love to know—and here is the real question—what is so wrong with a select committee considering this issue because that is what Labour is now opposed to. National has said that a select committee should consider this matter. We have taken the provision out of the bill so that a select committee can consider it. Mr Hide has said there is an issue here and we will remove it from this bill. Labour members have put up 8000 objections to protecting workers so the Government will let the select committee decide which of those amendments are valid and which are not. Then Labour comes back today and starts putting into the bill another part—another couple of hours of Parliament wasting its time—to put in place a law that already exists. I hope Labour members recognise that it is time to get off this silly course and to let this part be dealt with. They can bring in their 20000 amendments that they claim they have sitting in the back room and Parliament can once again go into this farcical situation of voting down the nonsensical halfwitted thoughts of Labour members. 
I will make it abundantly clear that in the action the Government has taken there is no intention to remove from this bill the protections for employees who will be left over after the transfer—far from it. National wants a select committee to consider what is right and fair. Why does Labour oppose that? 
Grant Robertson 
: Send the whole bill to the select committee. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If Labour members oppose the whole bill why are they so hell-bent on changing it from top to bottom with the raft of ridiculous amendments that we are seeing? The trivial pursuit exercise that the Labour members are engaged in is a great tribute to the Labour research unit. There is no doubt about it. The members of the unit are clearly the brains of the Labour Party. Labour does not put its brains up front; it puts its beautiful people up front. And that must also call into question the quality of the brains that back up Labour members. It is with considerable regret that the Government will not be supporting this part. It is utterly ridiculous and it is completely stupid. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Gerry Brownlee needs to understand Newton’s first law of holes: when in a hole stop digging. Gerry Brownlee said the Government has no intention of threatening the principle of paid parental leave and that the matter should go to a select committee. I say “Bravo!” to “Mr Mander”—he is known as “Gerry Mander” because of the overall intent of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill—because he has hit the nail on the head. It is rather a large hammer but he has hit the nail on the head. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have worked very hard to get an extraordinary range of nicknames in this Parliament but I really do not like that one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sure the member will be able to rectify that and have his say in future speeches. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw the epithet. The Opposition and the Government are actually in direct agreement on this point of paid parental leave. The Labour Opposition and the National Government led by the esteemed Leader of the House agree on two things: firstly that the principle of paid parental leave is too important to be left in doubt and that there is no harm in having a provision for the avoidance of doubt; and secondly that the matter should be sent to a select committee if there is any doubt on it at all. 
I say to Gerry Brownlee that if the Government agrees to those two things then he can go home; otherwise it will be a long day and a long night. I will tell members why. Paid parental leave is really important because when people need it they have no choice but to need it. It is not possible to be half-pregnant. If a woman is pregnant and expecting a child she is well down the track. It is therefore essential that women can rely on the terms and conditions of their employment when they most need to rely on them. 
There is a delicious irony here. The women and men of Labour are standing up for the rights of women and families but the men of National are prepared to ignore those rights. Are the women of National leaping to their feet in defence of family rights? I ask why the Minister of Corrections does not rise to say “Harden up ladies!”. Where is the Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police at this time? What about the Associate Minister of Immigration? What about any one of the innumerable blonde members from the South Island? What are they doing at this time? Amy Adams is a wise and capable member—she is even a lawyer I believe—so why does she not rise to her feet in defence of the women of Auckland’s regional government and tell them that their paid parental leave will be guaranteed because this good great new caring conservative and centrist John Key Government will protect them? No I guess she will not. 
Why is the Government rushing this bill through the House when it does not come into force until November? Why does the bill have more holes in it than a Swiss cheese? Why does the bill have more air between its ears than the Leader of the House? Why does the bill need the Labour Opposition to comb through it to find all the little things that a select committee would find? The answer is that there is a hidden agenda. That is why we are here unusually—in fact historically—on a Saturday. We are here because we are the last line of defence for the democratic rights of Aucklanders. The Minister the Hon Rodney Hide who is giggling knows he has the sole authority under this bill to appoint a coterie of three henchmen to gut Auckland. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I certainly want to speak on this important amendment new Part 12. But before I do I say how thrilled I am that people in Wellington have taken the time to come to Parliament to listen to this debate. That means that we in Wellington are well-prepared for when our turn comes as it most certainly will once the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill has been foisted on the people of Auckland. The Government will then turn its attention to other parts of New Zealand and Wellington will be one of those parts. So it is great to see everyone here. We will be up with the play and aware of what is happening. Already there are calls from the Mayor of Wellington and others for a similar sort of forced amalgamation here in Wellington. So I thank those people very much for coming out today. 
The other thing I want to do is table ACT’s policy on local government. The National Party has asked us to give it proof that a privatisation agenda is lurking beneath this bill. Here is the proof positive. Everyone can read it for themselves: “Local government will be required to shed its commercial activity … Roads and piped water will be supplied on a fully commercial basis.” etc. I would like to table that policy so everyone can be quite clear as to why we have the suspicion that the ACT agenda is to privatise the $28 billion of assets in Auckland. People can read it for themselves. 
The other thing I take issue with is some of Gerry Brownlee’s comments. He said that nothing in this bill can override any other bill. In fact the reason we are here today is that the bill overrides the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 that stipulate that there should be a formal consultation and a poll of electors in any part of New Zealand where a reorganisation takes place. This bill has overridden the right of Aucklanders to have a poll in order to make a decision about whether they want to see their eight councils obliterated and whether they want this new highly centralised Auckland Council to be foisted upon them. This bill overrides the other bills. I do not know why Mr Gerry Brownlee suggested that it could not override other bills because it does. 
Then he asked why we would assume that this bill would take away the right to parental leave of the women who are part of the 6300 employees in the existing councils. Well why would we not assume that the rights were going to be taken away when the bill takes away virtually everything else in Auckland governance? The bill takes away the rights of eight existing local councils to be sovereign and to implement the wishes of their electors. It effectively ties the local councils’ hands behind their backs and they will have to go cap in hand every time they want to spend more than about $5000. So why would we not assume that this bill seeks to override the rights of women employees to have paid parental leave? 
It is incredible that we are debating the issue of paid parental leave. I have actually been doing some research in between coming to the Chamber on women’s liberation. Paid parental leave was one of the things that women were calling for in 1970. Here we are in 2009 and the National Government is seeking to take away paid parental leave. It is truly alarming which is why this amendment is so critical. If the Government is not trying to take away the rights of women to paid parental leave in the transition why would it not allow this amendment for the avoidance of doubt? 
The other thing that I would like to table today is a definition of “blitzkrieg”. That is what is being done here. One of the fundamental tactics of Rogernomics is speed—do not give people a minute to breathe just keep moving and give them no time for reflection. Blitzkrieg was developed in Nazi Germany. Major General Fuller defined blitzkrieg as “Speed and still more speed and always speed was the secret … and that demanded audacity more audacity and always audacity.” 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This is a very important matter and I find it very troubling that Mr Brownlee thinks that this is silly or trivial. We are not being silly or trivial. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He said you’re silly and trivial. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague. Mr Brownlee certainly did not say that you were silly or trivial as Tau Henare has accused him of doing. If we are going to have those interjections I think that he has to get them right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. Members should make sure they are relevant when they are interjecting. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: This matter is not silly or trivial. 
I want to support the amendment that my colleague Steve Chadwick has put up. This bill affects assets of $28 billion but more important it affects the working conditions of 6300 workers. These workers are people—people with families people with mortgages and people who are our neighbours and families. Frankly it is important that we get this right. We have raised a legitimate concern about whether the actions of the Government have put at risk people’s right to paid parental leave. This is something that is certainly seen as very important on this side of the Chamber and something that a number of us on this side of the Chamber campaigned very hard for. That is why this bill should go to a select committee so that we can make sure that important things like people’s right to paid parental leave are not at risk. I would be very glad if they were not at risk but there seem to be at least two possible reasons why they may be. 
The first of those is the removal of clause 36(1) and the second one is that later in that same clause there is an explicit reference to continuity of employment for the purposes of KiwiSaver. There is a principle of statutory interpretation that if one explicitly refers to one thing it means that if other things are not explicitly referred to they are not covered. At least it has raised some very significant questions. As my friend and colleague Sue Moroney said this could be a cock-up or it could be a conspiracy. Either way potentially there are risks. A cock-up is highly probable given the way that this bill is being rammed through the House. It is entirely possible that this is a cock-up and that that is not the intention of the Government. That at least is a little reassuring. 
However it could well be that this is yet another example of attacks on workers and attacks on women by this Government. As evidence of that in the last few days this Government has got rid of the pay and employment equity unit at the Department of Labour. Why? Does it not matter to people that women are paid fairly for the work they do? On the conspiracy side of the equation the fact that we have a Minister of Women’s Affairs who does not seem to have the slightest idea about anything in her portfolio area— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Who is the Minister? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: —I think her name is Pansy Wong. She does not seem to have any idea of what is going on in her portfolio. We have a Minister of Labour who seems hell-bent on reducing workers’ rights. We have tried during this debate to make sure that workers’ rights are looked after. A new part was put up this morning about personnel provisions. We talked about getting some principles like good-employer principles into this legislation. I want to ask what is wrong with that. Why are members opposite opposed to good-employer principles? In other local government amalgamations that have taken place it has been an absolute cornerstone of the legislation to make sure that employment rights are centre stage. 
Getting it right for the people who work for local authorities is important not only to those workers but also to the people in that area in order to make sure that those workers are able to get on and do their job without worrying that they are going to either lose their job or have their wages and conditions of employment reduced. Queensland is a very good example of this. I am holding up now the code of practice which was agreed by all parties to ensure that people were not made redundant that people’s jobs were actually guaranteed for 3 years and that their wages and conditions were fully guaranteed as was their right to be represented by unions. Queensland was able to conduct one of the smoothest local government amalgamations that has been seen. That is in direct contrast to what happened in South Australia where a whole lot of people lost their jobs. There was a lot of nervousness and concern and in fact there were very significant service provision problems for the people of South Australia not to mention the effect that the amalgamation had on the workers and their families. 
Frankly I think it is really important that Steve Chadwick has put up this amendment and we should think very seriously about whether you are going to make sure that people are not disadvantaged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Not me. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Sorry of course you would not be doing this. The members opposite need to be very very confident that they are not making workers lose their entitlements. To go back to the matter at hand this issue is important because—and I say this for the benefit of those who do not know—to get paid parental leave a worker has to have had 6 months’ continuous service with an employer. I will give a little example—a very current example—which involves the National Party and a staff member working for the Labour Party who came across from Ministerial Services. Her employment contract ended and she had to take a new contract with the Parliamentary Service. She was pregnant at the time of the election which meant she missed out on getting paid parental leave by 1 month. We tried to deal with that matter with National and I say for the record—and this perhaps goes back to the conspiracy side of the equation—that National was completely uninterested in trying to resolve that problem for that particular worker. Perhaps some of the women over on the other side of the Chamber should think about what that means. Paid parental leave is a very important employment right in the current economic environment where things are very tough for people. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to continue the debate. At every step of this debate while the Opposition members have demanded their say on bits and pieces of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill the Government on the other hand has moved closure motions to put an end to the debate. I say to the Government that Labour is determined to have its say and is determined to recognise that Aucklanders’ views are important. For that reason I rise to speak on proposed new Part 12 about the paid parental leave entitlement—to ensure that the voices of our women throughout Auckland and especially those in Manukau City are recognised and heard. The proposed amendment has two purposes: to give confidence to the women in Manukau City and the other seven local and territorial authorities throughout Auckland that their paid parental leave will be protected and to provide protection and confidence to the close to 7000 workers who are effected by the restructuring and reorganisation of Auckland councils. 
When I look across to the other side of the Chamber I see the member Dr Jackie Blue. I notice that she has been angry and frustrated throughout this debate. No doubt as a member from the Auckland region she is reflecting the anger and frustration that the people of Auckland are feeling about this particular debate. She is sitting on her own away from the rest of her colleagues. She is the member who should have been the Minister of Health. Her anger and frustration are a reflection of the way that people throughout the Auckland region are feeling; they are angry and frustrated that this Government is not prepared to allow public consultation on the bill by sending it to a select committee. That is all that the Government has to do. I invite Dr Jackie Blue to take a call. She should not worry about what the whips are telling her to do; she should take a call on this amendment and stand up for women in the Auckland region. Close to 7000 workers will be affected by the reorganised structure. It would not be so bad if just young single people were involved but probably 50 to 60 percent of the workforce is women—married middle-aged women with children—and if they have mortgages they have a real sense of fear about what will happen. 
It is also important that the Committee votes in support of the proposed new Part 12 because earlier the Government voted down a motion moved by Charles Chauvel—one of my colleagues—that the Government put in place a code of practice that honours and delivers the principle of protecting the workers affected. I have a concern about the workers for the various council-controlled organisations such as Manukau Water. I have been given a secret document which states: “It is worth noting that barely 24 hours after the Government announced its decision—which expressly didn’t mention Watercare as the provider—the Minister of Local Government sent out a media release which effectively reversed that position and said Watercare would be the provider … there is a secret transition plan [that] is beneficial to private sector companies supported by that Minister. This plan will see more than 500 people currently employed in the water industry lose their jobs in favour of private sector contractors.” Those workers are additional to the close to 7000 workers I mentioned. It is an outrage that Aucklanders who are listening to this debate and who want their views on it to be heard are finding that it is being shut down by the closure motions that members of the Government keep moving. The Government needs to listen to Aucklanders and to allow their views on this debate and on this particular bill to be heard. 
The disturbing thing throughout the debate is that the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide and Mr Key have been promoting the bill as simply a technical bill but the reality is that the bill changes everything. The bill takes away the powers and rights of councillors and mayors elected in 2007 because with the setting up of the Auckland Transition Agency the powers are given to three or four people handpicked by Rodney Hide who are then given the power to decide what happens within the local councils. I say again that all that this Government needs to do is send this bill to a select committee. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Steve Chadwick be agreed to: 
to insert the following new part: 
Part 12 
Paid Parental Leave Entitlement 
250Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights and entitlements of any employee of any territorial authority under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. 
251Notwithstanding anything in the Act all current councils and any new council created under this legislation will be related employees for the purposes of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 42 
New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 12 not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now move to a series of transcript amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4. I will read them out. The first proposed new Part 4 is “Amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001”. The amendments seek to amend substantially another Act and therefore could change the bill into an omnibus bill; the amendment is therefore out of order. I refer the member to Standing Orders 256 and 257. The next amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley is to insert a new Part 4 “Auckland Rail Transport Transition”. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects and targets. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to challenge your ruling but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Could I read them through first and then I will give the member the opportunity to take a point of order. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4 “Transport Funding Transition”. This amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4 “Amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998”. This amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4 “Transition Cost Recovery Plastic Bag Levy”. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment is to insert a new Part 4 “Cruelty Free Auckland Ports”. This amendment is outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 amending— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you make clear whether these are still Sue Kedgley’s amendments? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes they are. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 amending the Overseas Investment Act 2005. This amendment is out of order as it proposes a substantive amendment to another Act. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transition to Sustainable Investment”. Part 3 of the bill sets up a transitional agency and all provisions relating to it are logically found there. The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt with by the Committee so the amendment is therefore out of order. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 headed “Transitional Agency Civil and Political Rights”. Part 3 of the bill sets up a transitional agency and all provisions relating to it are logically found there. The proposed amendment is more fairly associated with clause 13 in Part 3. Part 3 has been dealt with by the Committee so the amendment is therefore out of order. 
Those are the amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley that I have ruled out of order. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I cannot understand how you can rule that this bill deals only with substantive amendments and does not deal with operational amendments when the bill deals with incredibly detailed operational matters. You need only to look at clause 31 which says the councils are not allowed even to enter into a contract of more than $5000 without the approval of the Auckland Transition Agency. Very very detailed operational matters are outlined in other parts of the bill. I cannot understand how it can be argued that the bill does not deal with operational matters when in fact the whole bill is full of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My interpretation in my ruling relates to the preliminary provisions of the bill. They set out very clearly that the bill is about structure and governance and not about operational matters. My ruling is based on the preliminary provisions of the bill before us—the clauses associated with those. That is my ruling. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I really am struggling to understand this. I think this is a pretty important point. The bill is riddled with operational matters. In fact you could argue that much of the bill is about not structural issues but indeed very detailed operational matters such as whether someone may borrow money whether a council may contract for something worth more than $5000 or whether a council can appoint a director of a council-controlled organisation. They are very very detailed provisions. I wonder whether it would be possible to recall the Speaker to get his ruling on the matter; otherwise a lot of our very sensible amendments which we have put a lot of effort work and time into and which we feel cover important strategic issues are going to be ruled out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for those comments. [ 
Interruption 
] Could that cellphone please be turned off. I thank the member for stating her position. As I have said I have ruled the amendments out of order because they deal with operational matters. They are not debatable. Are you seeking to recall the Speaker? I invite you to do so. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to move that we ask the Speaker to come here and give his opinion on this significant issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I have a go Mr Chairperson? I do not think we have a proper motion before us. I am prepared to move it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I think it is important that the person who is sponsoring the amendments recalls the Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I thought any member could move it—to get it right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for his help but I think it is appropriate that the person sponsoring the amendments have the opportunity to recall the Speaker. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to consider this important issue. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have ruled out of order a number of amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley. In my opinion they are operational matters. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is about structure and governance and the amendments proposed by Sue Kedgley are operational matters. I ruled that the amendments are outside the scope of the bill. There are a number of them and I will not go through them in detail. It is my view that they fall outside the scope of the bill because they are operational. Some of them look to amend other Acts and that is inappropriate. I have ruled accordingly. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Speaker for coming back to the Chamber. I did not call you back lightly; I think an important precedent has just been set. There is a worry that the interpretation given by the Chairperson could be used as a way to prevent consideration of many of the Greens’ amendments which we spent considerable time and effort working on and which we felt were well within the scope of the bill. 
I am particularly concerned about the ruling that the Committee cannot consider those amendments because this bill deals only with matters of structure and not with operational matters. In fact clauses 30 and 31 for example deal entirely with operational matters. I do not think there is anything more operational than in clause 31(3)(i) whether a council can enter into a contract “the consideration for which is … $5000 or more:”. I do not think there is anything more operational than in clause 31(3)(m) whether a council is allowed to appoint “a director of a council-controlled organisation:”. I will not keep reading. Very very detailed operational matters are enshrined in the bill and therefore I do not think that it is adequate to dismiss any amendment on the grounds that it deals with operational matters. Although the Chairperson said this bill deals only with governance matters quite manifestly it deals with operational matters as well. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 In order to be helpful Mr Tisch was diligent in giving a very detailed series of justifications in the report back as it were to the member. Quite a number of technical and individual issues were contained within that description. It is of course your call Mr Speaker but I mean this in all seriousness. I say that it may be helpful given the nature of this matter if Mr Tisch could outline in detail those matters for you in order for you to make an informed ruling because they were very very individualised and were quite technical. As I say he was very diligent in his description in order to give the justification for the member. I think it would be difficult for you to give an informed ruling without that information. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that what was suggested by the previous speaker is unnecessary. Mr Tisch has very generously taken Sue Kedgley through his reasons for ruling out her amendments. He could have invoked the provision of Standing Order 294 which is that he simply has to read some numbers out in order to satisfy the requirements of the House. The issues that deal with each individual amendment have been adequately covered by the principle that Mr Tisch has decided to adopt in approaching this matter. 
I do not want to speak further other than to say that the Government endorses the approach that the Chair has taken. There must be a separation between governance and operational matters. The specifics of this ruling were well elucidated to the member by Mr Tisch. Naturally members will appeal and appeal. It is a little like question time: one keeps asking the question but may not like the answer. Mr Tisch has been generous in giving a series of reasons; I do not think you should require him to go through all that again. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be as brief as possible. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will try to be brief but I think there are two points. The first concerns process and I refer you back to your earlier ruling as to the role of the Chair. I make it clear that we are not challenging that ruling about the Chair’s role and his or her ability to make these decisions. I am not asking you to reverse those decisions but more to act as a Privy Counsellor of a Court of Appeal and refer back to the rulings of the Chairperson for further consideration. I do not mean all of the rulings he made because some of them were very clear and correct. For example there were substantive amendments to Acts other than Acts that were already being considered in the bill. I do not want to disagree with my colleague but it is pretty hard to argue with those rulings. 
Secondly a number of amendments were ruled out effectively because they were operational matters not governance matters. I reinforce the comments that Sue Kedgley made: this bill is riddled with operational matters such as lines being drawn as to what the transition authority can do and what it cannot do. Sue Kedgley’s amendments were absolutely consistent with the substance of the bill and therefore in my opinion it would be proper for you to invite the Chairperson to reconsider his position on that point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will deal with the matter in maybe two steps. First I reiterate what the Chair has said to the Committee of the whole House—that is that the scope of this bill is quite narrow and deals with structure and governance issues. It would be my assessment that the Chair was on very good ground in making his rulings. But more important I make it very clear that on matters of relevance the Chair is the sole judge. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 78/1-3. Those Speakers’ rulings go back 100 years. They are some of the few Speakers’ rulings in our  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that go back that far and they have been reiterated every few years many times. Speaker’s ruling 78/3 states: “It is bordering on an inappropriate use of the undoubted right to recall the Speaker to do so on the ground of relevance”. So where the Chair has made a judgment on the issue of relevance and scope the Speaker cannot overturn that judgment. I have taken the first step of saying that I believe that the Chair has acted on very sound ground but 100 years of Speakers’ rulings make it very very clear that the Speaker cannot overturn the judgment of the Chair on those matters. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a further series of transcript amendments in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert a new Part 4. The first of those proposes to insert new Part 4 “Transition Towards Greater Climate Protection: Amendment to the Resource Management Act 1991”. That amendment is outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4 “Transition to Simplified and Streamlined Dog Control: Amendment to the Dog Control Act 1996”. That amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects. 
There is a further amendment in the name of Keith Locke to insert new Part 4 “Transition Agency Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio)”. That amendment is also outside the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance not operational aspects. 
There is a further amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a new Part 8 “Local Councils” which would establish local councils. That amendment is out of order as being inconsistent with the decision made by the Committee last night. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member will have an opportunity to contribute by way of a point of order when I finish. 
There is a further amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to insert a new part 63 “Special Provisions relating to the continuation of obligations in Part 7 of the Local Government Act 2002”. But Subpart 2 of Part 3 of the bill dealt with that issue. Part 3 was dealt with by the Committee. That amendment is therefore out of order. 
There is a further amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to insert a new Part 163 “Special Provisions relating to the Electoral Act 2001 to apply while this Act is in force” which relates to the Electoral Act and its application to this legislation. Clause 6 in Part 1 of the bill dealt with that issue. Part 1 has been dealt with by the Committee. That amendment is therefore out of order. 
A further amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert a new Part 32 “Establishment of transitional consultative councils” is out of order as it sets up another body. The bill sets up one body. 
There are further amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a new Part 23 “Special Provisions relating to the Papakura District Council” and a new Part 24 “Special Provisions relating to the Franklin District Council”. Those amendments are out of order as the bill deals with a specific Government structure across all of Auckland. 
There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4 “Transition Agency and Environmental Rights”. That amendment has been ruled out of order as it is outside the scope of the bill. The bill deals with governance and not operational matters. There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4 “Transition Agency Economic Social and Cultural Rights”. This is ruled out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill as the bill deals with governance and not operational matters. I have ruled that those amendments are out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Ka motinihia ahau kia whai ripoata mo to tatou kokiri whakamua. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I move that we report progress 
.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Progress cannot be reported on a point of order. 
Schedules 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the schedules stand part. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no debate on schedules. The schedules are not debatable. We will go to the vote. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Because we are now moving to consideration of the schedules I take it that all the additional parts that have been submitted by way of amendment have been ruled out of order by you—that the series that you have just ruled out were all the remaining parts that there were to be amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is correct. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I also seek a second assurance. It was not while you were in the Chair but there was an outburst from the Leader of the House directed at the Clerk’s Office. I just want an assurance that that outburst is not linked to the fact that all of a sudden every single amendment that created a new part has been ruled out. The convenience of that for the Government is not lost on the Opposition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. I am the sole judge of that. I can assure the member of the integrity of the Clerk’s Office and the hard work it has done over the last few days. I will be here to protect the Clerk’s Office at every opportunity and I am the sole judge of such things. I heard that comment. I was not here but I did hear that comment. Any criticism of the Clerk’s Office goes through the Chair but I want to give you the assurance that I have full faith in the integrity of the way that the Clerk’s Office has been operating. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I want to absolutely endorse those remarks. I think you would find that absolutely everyone in the Chamber shares those views. The Clerk’s Office has worked remarkably hard and it has people of integrity and professionalism. That is why the Opposition objected so strongly to the way it was addressed by National’s Gerry Brownlee. 
My next point of order relates to the suspended amendment to insert a new Part 5 “Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council” which also deals with Asian representation in the Auckland super-city. That part was suspended by the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Rodney Hide. We have to take that before the preliminary clauses. I am just checking that you will do that after the schedules have been voted on. Is that your intention? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes. Your assumption is correct. That is the process that we would go through. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Schedule agreed to. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We actually voted 32 opposed but the interpreter said 42 opposed. I just want to correct that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The new result for Labour is 32 opposed. Members the Ayes are 64 the Noes are 43. The motion is agreed to. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just wonder whether you can help on a point of procedure. I assume now that we have done the schedules. There are two points that I want to ask about. We have a postponed amendment to insert a part—I think it is Part 5 “Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council” in the name of Shane Jones. I understand that when that was postponed there was a motion from Darren Hughes before the Committee that was to be considered. From memory I think it was a closure motion. I wonder whether that situation still stands or is that the next thing we go to. That is the first thing that I want to understand. 
The second thing that I wonder about is a matter of procedure. After the part that has been postponed is considered by the Committee and a decision is taken we move to the preliminaries as I think they are called. While we are still considering the postponed Part 5 is there an opportunity for anyone in the Committee to put another part to be considered because we have not yet got to the preliminaries? I wonder whether that is a possibility. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Just further to that I am a little confused myself because Standing Order 293(1)(c) is not often used. If we go down to 293(4) we see that “Unless otherwise specified consideration or further consideration of—(a) any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with other than preliminary clauses that are considered together”. What I am not clear about after all the amendments that have been tabled here today is what your ruling is in respect of just what the preliminary clauses are. It would be helpful to the House if you could detail the preliminary clauses that are still there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think I can advise on the last question first. I think clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses. But on the substantive matter that was raised by John Carter which is what the position is with regard to further parts when Mr Barker was in the Chair and he was contemplating accepting closure he had not accepted the closure and it is my understanding that further parts can be submitted until the time that closure is accepted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My understanding is that the first point about the preliminary clauses is correct. Clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses of the bill. On the second point no the closure motion for Part 5 was postponed. We have before us a closure motion that was put forward by the Hon Darren Hughes. It is still appropriate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just get absolute clarity here. My recollection—and I am absolutely clear on this—is that Mr Barker when in the Chair had not accepted the closure motion. He had not said he was going to put the question and he had not started to put it. Many of us are of the view that it would have been better if he had put the question but that is not the case. He was thinking about whether he was going to accept the motion. He had not accepted it in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. Therefore the parts that are being lodged now are valid. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not think it would be too hard to go directly to  
Hansard 
 to clear up this matter. My clear recollection is that Mr Barker said the words “The question is that the question be now put.” At that point Mr Hide raised a point of order to suspend the proceedings. Once the suspension has been lifted clearly we should go back to the point at which the Chair was about to proceed with the vote. I do not think there is a question about whether the Chair intended to take the motion. He in fact accepted the closure motion and was in the process of putting the question.  
Hansard 
 will show that the words “The question is that the question be now put.” were uttered. Mr Hide’s postponement at that point means that naturally we would go back to that point once the suspension has been lifted. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do not feel any need to go back to  
Hansard 
 at this point. My recollection is different from that of Gerry Brownlee. I know that Gerry Brownlee is an honourable member and I am prepared to accept his word. If that was what happened—I cannot remember it—then I accept his word that that was the case. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have been advised that the closure motion was still live. That was where the debate on new Part 5 was postponed. We now come back to the position where the Hon Darren Hughes moved the closure motion. We will continue from that point. 
New Part 5 Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I put the closure motion on Part 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to omit clause 71. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There are a number of amendments in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia. These are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have obviously just got a copy of the Minister’s amendment and I wanted to test with you whether in fact these are inconsistent or whether both could happen. Clearly there is a review to be set up in the name of the Minister. That is correct; there is no doubt about that. But the question then is whether there can also be the reviews that are set up according to the amendments in the name of Parekura Horomia. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I think you are looking at a further amendment and not the one that I have— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am sorry. Which one have you put? The trouble is that we cannot tell which of the Minister’s amendments you are referring to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister’s amendment we just voted on is this one here. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The short one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: And that is tabled. So that is the amendment we have just voted on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to omit clause 72. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just for clarity so that we are quite clear what we are voting on could we have clarified as to what this clause 72 is. I cannot seem to find it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I assist the member—and it might mean that we need another minute or two for the member to have a look at it. It is part of the Horomia amendment to add new Part 5. If one can find it amongst the papers that is where it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for that. This is the amendment that we are referring to. It is tabled. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 8; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment to the amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The following amendments in the names of Carmel Sepuloni Kelvin Davis the Hon Mita Ririnui Jacinda Ardern and Dr Ashraf Choudhary are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
72ARepresentation 
(1)Despite any other provision— 
(a)there will be a review of the ethnic make-up of the Transition Agency (including its governing body) on 30 May 2009; and 
(b)the review will include a review of the Maori Pacific Pakeha Chinese and Korean representation of the governing body. 
(2)Despite any other provision community boards of existing local authorities will be consulted on any Maori Pacific or other ethnic representation of the Auckland Council. 
(3)Despite any other provision representatives from all ethnic groups will be consulted on 30 May 2009 about the activities of the Transition Agency. 
(4)Despite any other provision the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to appoint a board of Indian members a board of Pacific members and a board of Maori members to advise the Transition Agency. 
(5)Despite any other provisions the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to appoint a board of experts to advise the Auckland Council on matters of ethnic affairs. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 39 
New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The following amendments are now out of order: amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern amendments in the name of Dr Rajen Prasad amendments in the name of Su’a William Sio and amendments in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Because this is happening relatively rapidly can we ask you to elaborate on why those amendments are out of order? The one I am particularly interested in at the moment is that of Mr Prasad which refers in particular to Indian representation and I am not sure that the fact that there are to be reviews on ethnic issues cuts out that amendment. I am sure there will be parallel arguments for some of my colleagues’ other amendments but the fact that the Government has lined up an amendment to have a review generally does not cut out that specific review— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for those comments. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 In support of my colleague and as a member who has put forward a series of amendments here I say that your rulings—which we are not seeking to question; I want to make that clear—have been on two grounds: either because of inconsistency with the previous decisions of the Chair or the Committee or because they are matters related to operations rather than governance in the case of a large quantity of amendments including whole parts. So in fact two grounds of precedent are in play here. It is not clear to us from the way in which you have issued your latest ruling Mr Chairperson which of those decisions applies to the various amendments. It is a serious matter because we are dealing here with whole new parts which are debatable amendments by precedent from the Chair—from all Chairpersons—and it is important for us as we report back to our constituencies to understand the reasons why these amendments are outside the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sure. We have just passed an amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide which covers all the points you have just made. The other amendments are of the same substance. That is why the other amendments are now ruled out of order—because we have just passed that amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Could you elaborate? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. It is written down here and the member has a copy of this. We are not getting into discussion on this because we have just passed it and it is not debatable. I refer the member to the amendment we have just passed which now means that subsequent ones are out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a new point of order and it goes to the wording of the Rodney Hide amendment—the longer one—where throughout it there is mention of “provisions”. Probably unfortunately for Mr Hide within at least one of the new part’s amendments “provisions” are not mentioned but there are “sections”. So although “provisions” is widely used within a number of the amendments one particular set of amendments has “sections” and it is my submission to you Mr Chairperson that that set of amendments is not ruled out by the Hide amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The substance of the amendments and the substance of the Minister’s amendment are the same. That is why the others have been ruled out. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You advised that the Minister’s amendment ruled other amendments out of order. Are you able to tell us what the other amendments were? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I say to the member that the other amendments are tabled. They are available for the member to peruse; they have been on the Table for some time. They are there for him if he wishes to have a look at them. 
The same amendment that we have just passed means that other amendments have been ruled out. They are in the name of Jacinda Ardern Dr Ashraf Choudhary and Raymond Huo. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to: 
to insert the following new part: 
Part 5 
Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council 
Subpart 1 
Guarantees Maori representation on the Auckland Council by directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish Maori seats 
71 
(1)Two Maori members are to be elected to the Auckland Council by voters who are on the parliamentary Maori electoral roll 
(a)The 2 Maori seats shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless— 
(i)a referendum of Maori voters on the parliamentary Maori electoral roll is held; and 
(ii)75% of those voters vote in favour of removing the seats. 
(2)Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Mana Whenua Forum the members of which will be appointed by mana whenua from the district of the Auckland Council 
(a)The Mana Whenua Forum should— 
(i)appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council: 
(ii)through its representative on the Auckland Council advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to mana whenua: 
(b)The Mana Whenua seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless 75% of Mana Whenua Forum members vote in favour of removing the seat. 
Subpart 2—Pacific and Minority Representation 
Guarantees representation and participation by Pacific and Minority groups by directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum and an Ethnic Advisory Forum and allows the members of those forums to appoint one member each to hold a seat on the Auckland Council 
72 
(1)Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in consultation with Pacific communities and pacific leaders based in the Auckland district 
(a)The Pacific Advisory Forum should— 
(i)appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council: 
(ii)through its representative on the Auckland Council advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Pacific Communities: 
(b)The Pacific Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless— 
(i)75% of members of the Pacific Advisory Forum vote in favour of removing the seat. 
(2)Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish an Ethnic Advisory Forum the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in consultation with Ethnic communities and Ethnic leaders based in the Auckland district 
(a)The Ethnic Advisory Forum should— 
(i)appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council: 
(ii)through its representative on the Auckland Council advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Ethnic communities: 
(b)The Ethnic Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless— 
(i)75% of members of the Ethnic Advisory Forum vote in favour of removing the seat. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 5 as amended not agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 We are now making rapid progress on this bill and we are up to the title clause and the commencement clause. I am sure that Opposition members will have some further suggestions on what the title might be but the title as it stands and as recommended by the Government is the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which actually captures what the bill is about. 
I know that the commencement date has been contentious because all the way through yesterday and today we heard no less a person than the deputy Leader of the Opposition Annette King tell us that the bill does not come into force until November next year. I am afraid that the Labour Opposition is wrong about that. This bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent and I know there has been a bit of confusion about that. 
However Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010 because that concerns the Auckland Council. Clauses 27 and 28 in Subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31 October 2010. I commend the title and commencement of this bill to the Committee. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Minister has pointed to a very important issue. He is quite right that except for Part 2 which comes into force on 1 November 2010 this legislation comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Of course therein lies the problem because by the date that this bill receives its Royal assent there will have been no proper consultation with the people of Auckland as to its effect. 
One of the amendments that will be put forward by members on this side of the Chamber is to delay the date of that Royal assent to a date that is substantially later so that the normal processes that precede legislation coming into force can in some other process outside this Parliament take place in order to protect the citizens of Auckland and to give the fourth estate the time to properly identify the effects of the provisions contained in this bill. 
Let us consider that issue. The provisions of this bill were not available to the media or to the Opposition until shortly before this debate began. We have not had much time to properly get into the implications of this bill. It is true that Parliament has been sitting very long hours. We have been embroiled in the detail of each provision as it has come before us but we have had to do that under the pressure of urgency sequentially one issue after another and we have not had the time to consider other issues that may be there but which we have not thought of in the limited time we have had to deal with this bill. 
But that does not apply just to Parliament. It applies to everyone in Auckland. They have been prevented from having the time they would normally have to look at these things. These are very technical matters. They involve the interrelationship of the Local Government Act 2002 the various Acts of Parliament that cover Watercare Services and the like and the various Acts of Parliament that control local assets and the environment such as the volcanic cones and the lovely marine environment around Auckland. In order to get our heads around the complexities of all of those interrelationships it is very important that we give ourselves the time to reflect on these issues and the time to take the appropriate advice. 
Some of these issues are so technical that a lot of laypeople are not able to get their heads around them in a short period of time. They need time to be able to talk to non-governmental organisations that have expertise in these areas to their lawyers and to their local body politicians. Those local body politicians themselves have not had the time to get their heads around these issues so they are not yet in a position to inform their ratepayers and citizens as to where the hooks in this lie. Some of those hooks have been well identified by the Opposition including Labour and the Greens but a lot of them still lie untested because the process has been rushed. So one of the important and necessary changes to the bill would reverse the provision that currently states that the bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent—which could be next week—and puts it out to some later date. 
Labour members are open as to the range of dates. The date has to be substantially later than now but I do not have an unreasonable view as to what that date might be. If we could have a date that was similar to the date that would have been achieved after a full select committee process followed by a second and a third reading debate in this House then that would be an appropriate period of time to consider the date by which this bill ought to come into effect. Although the process by which we could have some decent scrutiny would not have the advantage of the officials’ advice would not have the advice of parliamentary services to the select committee and would not have the input of many politicians at least we would have something. Members of the fourth estate non-governmental organisations councils their lawyers and all the people who have a very strong interest in this issue would have the time to consider the implications of this and they would then have the time to take the other political steps that one can take when one does not like legislation. 
A case in point of recent occurrence is the foreshore and seabed legislation which was highly controversial and incendiary. There are people who say that we did not get that right. What we did not do was rush it through in such a short process as is being done to the 1.4 million people in Auckland and stop people from having their say. Indeed we allowed sufficient time for people to— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The debate on the title clause of a bill is an opportunity to take stock of the various arguments that have been made during the Committee stage and to reflect those through the title. So it is absolutely appropriate that we reflect on the key arguments that have been made throughout the debate on the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. 
I said at the start of this debate some days ago that I do not often get angry about matters before this Committee but that I am deeply deeply angry about this bill. Let me remind the Committee why. The first more appropriate title for this bill is the “They Stole Our City (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill”. I speak here as a passionate representative of Waitakere City. It is a city of which I like the 200000 people of west Auckland am proud. I am proud because we have built a city that treasures its environment. It is a city that treasures the arts and promotes smart business. The role of the territorial authority the Waitakere City Council has been crucial in achieving that. The member Sam Lotu-Iiga is a councillor as well as an MP and he should not trash his other employer. The same is true of Manukau the North Shore central Auckland and east Auckland. We are made stronger by our diversity. We do not need to be homogenised by some top-down business baron - driven council for the few in a smoke-filled room. That is what we are arguing about today. 
The second reason we are arguing is that this bill should be called the “They Stacked the Deck to Keep Auckland Bluer Bill”. It is not about making Auckland greater; we do not need eight at-large councillors to do that. There will be eight at-large councillors because someone wants the right wing to be in control. That is because if people want to run an at-large campaign across Auckland they need $250000 to send one letter to every household. The poor need not run. If people are not rich or famous they can forget it; they cannot be an at-large councillor. They cannot get their name recognition up so they should forget it. That is why historically 19 out of 20 at-large councillors in Auckland used to come from east Auckland. That was no surprise as that is where the money and power was. That is why we had a ward system in the first place. The royal commission got that one wrong and the Government has got it way wrong. 
Thirdly the bill could be called the “Complete and Dishonest Waste of Money Bill”. The transition costs of this legislation have been calculated by independent analysis at Auckland University at $750 per ratepayer—not per household; per ratepayer. There are four people in my household; that is $3000 of transition costs and for what? To take away the city I am proud of and to homogenise us and bring us under the control of the barons of Remuera. 
What about the “No Proper Consultation Bill”? It is bad enough to do all that but provided the Government goes through a proper parliamentary process Parliament is sovereign. We accept that but listen to the lies that have been told about this bill. The Government said it would consult once it got the royal commission report. Then it said that no it would consult when it had made policy decisions. Parliament has a select committee process but the Government said it was sorry but there would be no select committee because it is ramming the bill through. We are here on a Saturday because the Committee of the whole House is the last line of defence. We are the last line of defence against something fundamentally wrong happening to democracy in New Zealand. 
I tell those members to be careful what they wish for because sometimes the previous Government got that a bit wrong. Others have said the Foreshore and Seabed Act the Electoral Finance Act or even the child discipline bill were examples of something that was maybe not as bad as this but was sort of similar because we did not carry public opinion. This legislation is the worst constitutional outrage I have seen in 10 years in this Chamber and I am ashamed that the Minister of Local Government Mr Hide is so afraid of public opinion. 
If that is not bad enough how is this for gall? He has put fully paid ads in the newspapers and will have a sham consultation after this bill is already passed. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I have an amendment to the title and I would initially like to speak to that amendment. My amendment states “to omit the words (Auckland Reorganisation) and replace them with (Gutting of Auckland Local Democracy)”. I think that sums up what this bill is about. Another possible suggestion would be to call it “Rogernomics Part 2” because that would also encapsulate what the bill is about. It is almost breathtaking that we could expunge eight democratically elected city councils overnight with the passage of this bill without ever asking one of the almost 1.5 million Aucklanders whom the councils represent whether they wish their councils to be obliterated off the face of the earth as they will be on 1 November next year. 
It is also extraordinary that there is absolutely no mandate for this bill because neither National nor ACT said in its manifesto that it was intending to eliminate the eight city councils of Auckland. Those parties did not tell Aucklanders that and they did not put it in their manifestos. This is shades of Rogernomics 1984. There is no mandate from the royal commission which wanted to retain the eight city councils. The people of Auckland have not been consulted. They are not even allowed consultation on this bill. It is extraordinary. I think it will take a while for Aucklanders to fully understand the implications of what has happened over the last few days—namely that democracy in Auckland has been drastically shrunk. Democracy has been shrunk and eight councils have been obliterated. 
But even worse than that the Government has come up with a completely new type of local democracy in New Zealand. That is why I am glad that people from Wellington have been sitting here watching; they understand what is going on. Everyone else in New Zealand needs to wake up to what is going on because it is going to happen all over New Zealand once this reform has been rammed though. The Government has come up with a new model of local democracy that gives unprecedented powers to the mayor—the so-called strong mayor model. Members opposite are hoping that John Banks will be the mayor. Someone like John Banks could be voted in by a minority—by arguably 30 percent of Aucklanders—take control of the Auckland Council pick his cohorts his inner cabal control the council agenda and ram through his agenda for Auckland. I think some Aucklanders do not realise that that is what will happen. We are trying to warn people about it now. 
The only things to counterbalance the new unprecedented executive powers of the mayor are these pitiful little local boards. The Government is setting up this funny little committee for Auckland but what will it consult on? Everything has been set in motion; everything is done. The only thing that I have heard anyone say we can consult on is the powers of the local boards which are not even set in statute. We are going to have huge consultation but what about? The powers of the local boards. 
In response to my question in the House the Prime Minister assured Aucklanders that every single Aucklander would be able to be heard by the committee that is being set up. I am sure Aucklanders will want to be heard if only to protest at the atrocious way in which this measure is being rammed through Parliament using shock tactics as Naomi Klein called them; the Government is using the blitzkrieg tactics of Rogernomics which are not to give people a minute to breathe but just to keep ramming it through. 
The other thing I want to say is that I am disappointed that the media ignored a very significant clause in this bill that will help to expunge local democracy from Auckland. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That progress be reported. 
Ayes 25 
New Zealand Labour 25. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 7; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is unbelievable. The Opposition is attempting to assist Government members who have been complaining and complaining that we have been dragging it out and when we say “OK why don’t we move on?” they vote against it. It is absolutely unbelievable. Maybe we could call this the “Absolute Shambles and What the Hell is the Leader of the House Doing Bill” because Government members do not know whether they are Arthur or Martha. 
I have a lot of suggestions for alternative titles for this legislation. The first would be the “Why Should Aucklanders Get a Say When Tories Know Best Bill”. I think that really sums up this legislation being rammed through all stages under urgency with no select committee which obliterates eight democratically elected councils overnight. It is unbelievable; maybe we could just call it the “Democracy is So Tiring Bill” because I think that is how National members feel about it. For them it is tiring having to stay here at Parliament to vote on things even though that is what we are paid to do. It is tiring to go out and talk to people. Democracy makes us really really quite tired and we can see the bags under Mr Brownlee’s eyes. 
My next name is a very important one because it relates to the amendment Labour tried to put up to secure paid parental leave for the employees of local authorities. We could probably call it the “Gerry Brownlee Does Not Understand How Paid Parental Leave Works Bill”. We tried to explain to him that when we move to this transition agency the women working there will effectively have a new employer which means that their paid parental leave entitlement does not carry over. Mr Brownlee said that we should not put a provision about that in the bill because we do not need to put in a provision to say that the residential speed limit is 50 kilometres an hour. I not sure whether Mr Brownlee knows that the residential speed limit does not change when someone changes employer. That is a crucial difference between the speed limit and paid parental leave. He might want to go and talk to the Minister of Transport about that get a briefing and have it explained to him. 
The bill could be called the “Gerry Brownlee (Trust Me I Know What I Am Doing) Bill”. He said the paid parental leave provisions were going to go to a select committee. But the fact is we are passing this legislation now. It will come into force whenever this sitting of Parliament lifts. We were asking him why he did not put in a really simple clause that clarifies what apparently the Government members claim—that they do not expect the entitlement to go. Let us just put that in the bill to clarify it. Mr Brownlee says that that part does not come in until November 2010 anyway and by then we will have passed the other legislation. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House given his control of the House this week I am not entirely convinced that those other pieces of legislation can be expected to be passed by November 2010. I think it is a great leap of faith for the women who work for the Auckland City Council to say: “That’s all right. Mr Brownlee is so much in control of the House that this will not be a problem and the legislation fixing it up will be passed.” 
The next very important amendment Labour put up was to ensure Maori representation on the transition agency. Maybe since the Maori Party opposed it we could call this bill the “Iwi Versus Kiwi Bill” because we are seeing the same old National Party. I just want to point out to my colleagues in the Maori Party and the Green Party that Labour did try to make that part stand alone. We tried to make that part for Maori representation stand on its own without the other representation for Pacific and Asian people but the Clerk told us we could not do it and that the only way we could get it up was to combine it. I want to say because we are criticised by Maori Party colleagues for putting the others in with Maori that we tried. 
At least Labour did try because I did not see other amendments on the Table from parties that were accusing us of not doing enough for Maori representation; only Labour put up amendments on the Table to ensure Maori representation. I think it is important that that goes on the record. 
Labour also put up an amendment to make sure that public assets could not be sold by this transition agency. National opposed that so let us call the bill the “Sell the Family Silver Bill”. One of the assets we are talking about is Auckland Airport. Do members remember what the National Party said about Auckland Airport when Labour stepped in to ensure that it stayed in New Zealand hands? National members were up in arms and then they sit here in this Chamber and expect us to believe that they care about the public retention of assets. The situation we find ourselves in is absolutely incredible. It is rotten rotten legislation by a rotten-to-the-core Government that is showing its true colours. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 We are 5 minutes into the debate—maybe 10—and National members are already trying to shut it down. We should call this bill the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill” because this bill gives Rodney Hide ultimate and total control of Auckland. It establishes a transition agency whose members he can hand-pick. The bill says that that transition agency has to have all of its expenditure approved by the Minister and it gives that transition agency the ultimate control over all the decision making of all the democratically elected existing authorities in Auckland. It hands ultimate and total control to the ACT Party and to people like Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas. Rodney Hide can now appoint whomever he likes to this transition agency. That is why we should call this the “Rodney Hide (Total Control of Auckland) Bill”. He could appoint if he so chose Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble to this agency because even though Roger Douglas is a member of the House we know that National members do not have any problem with double-dipping. They do not have any problem with double-dipping; they do not have any problem with anyone being involved in local government politics at the same time as being in this House. 
We should call this the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill” because we know this is the first step in the plans of National and the ACT Party to merge all local authorities into super-councils up and down the country. I took an interest in this particular issue because I know that Paul Quinn and his mate John Terris have been going around the Hutt Valley saying they are in favour of merging Wellington local authorities. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I put to you that we are getting repetition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Chris Hipkins to continue. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I asked Rodney Hide whether he had received any advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and the Lower Hutt city councils and he has. He has already received advice on the potential merger of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils. He answered that in parliamentary written question No. 05571 where he confirmed that he had received advice on the merging of the Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt city councils on 24 April 2009. 
I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call and give the people of the Hutt Valley an absolute reassurance that they are not going to lose their local governance as well as part 2 of this reorganisation that National and the ACT Party are pushing. We know that Hutt Valley people cannot be certain that they would even get a say in that reorganisation because National and the ACT Party would ram through more legislation in this House. That is why we should call this bill the “Local Government Reorganisation Part 1 Bill”—because we know that there is more to come. 
We should call this the “National Party Knows Best Bill” because we heard from members opposite that the people had their say on 8 November last year. It is all over from then on in; National has 3 years when it can do whatever it likes under parliamentary urgency and it does not have to go back and consult the people. It does not even have to send legislation to a select committee. It can do just whatever it likes. That is why we should call this bill the “National Party Knows Best Bill”. 
We should call it the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill” because after 3 days of debating amendments Gerry Brownlee finally worked out how to get them ruled out of order—not on his own; in fact he probably had quite a bit of help from Rodney Hide to do that. Gerry Brownlee sat through 3 days of voting on amendments before he thought it might be a good idea to pick up the Standing Orders and maybe have a bit of a read. The Leader of the House has finally read the Standing Orders! That is a cause for celebration. So we should call this bill the “Gerry Brownlee Has Finally Read the Standing Orders Bill”. 
We could call it the “Where is Melissa Lee Bill” because despite wanting to be the next MP for Mt Albert she has not taken one single call on this debate. She wants to be the next member of Parliament for a seat in the centre of Auckland yet she has absolutely nothing to say on the reorganisation of Auckland’s local governance. 
We could call this the “Privatisation is Back on the Agenda Bill”. National members may have gone around the country saying they would not sell State-owned enterprises like Kiwibank but they have suddenly discovered there are a whole lot of State assets in local government that they can get their hands on and hock off. They voted against the amendment put forward by Labour that would have saved that. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is being rammed through with no select committee consideration. Two parts of the bill will be in effect very shortly. Part 3 has some of the most significant implications for Aucklanders that one could imagine. Around $28 billion worth of assets 6300 workers and local government representation and services for over a million people will all be affected by the work of the transitional agency that is being established and that agency is under no obligation to consult anybody other than the Minister Rodney Hide. 
Some of my colleagues have already suggested that we should be calling this bill after Rodney Hide. That seems very appropriate given how much power he has to control this agency. This agency is made up of somewhere between three and five people. There are no requirements here to determine any criteria for selecting them. There is no need for that agency or its board to be representative of anybody. In fact it could be made up of five of Rodney’s best friends or as somebody said five members of the ACT Party for example. This is entirely possible under this bill. Let us call it the “Centralised Power in the Hands of a Rich Few Bill” shall we? Let us do that. Let us call it the “Centralised in the Hands of the ACT Party Bill” or indeed the “Centralise it in the Hands of Rodney Hide Bill”. 
Will Rodney Hide bother to talk to anybody about any of the important matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with? I think it is highly unlikely given there was no consultation on the recommendations of the royal commission given that developing the Government’s proposal after the royal commission did not seem to involve consultation with anyone other than the Government and given that no effort was made to cost it or to take a regulatory impact analysis before pushing this bill through Parliament. I think it is highly unlikely that he will consult people about the implications of some of the matters that the transitional agency will be dealing with. 
Despite our best efforts over the last few days to scrutinise this bill in the absence of a select committee process there will undoubtedly be things that have not been able to be checked in this Parliament. We have done our very best. We have raised issues concerning representation and making sure that people are represented—that the diverse and large population of Auckland is represented appropriately. We have put in place amendments concerning assets in order to make sure not only that they are not privatised but also that our elected representatives do not lose control of them—that they have the right to control those assets. We have made a number of amendments concerning workers and the treatment of the 6300 council workers. But none of that has been taken into account by the Government. Its members are far too arrogant to think that any of those things have merit. 
I think that Aucklanders and in fact New Zealanders will be highly resentful of the fact that the Government has not bothered to pick up a number of very important matters that Labour has raised with it. Labour members know that those issues matter to New Zealanders. The public control of public assets and the fair treatment of workers matter to New Zealanders. We have raised our concerns about unintended consequences such as the paid parental leave provisions which Gerry Brownlee considers to be a silly matter. If we are right then a lot of women will be very concerned—and a lot of families in fact—about Mr Brownlee’s attitude to this important matter of paid parental leave. 
There are a number of matters that we have not even been able to consider. One of those matters concerns clause 33. This clause has not had any consideration by the Committee but again we could call clause 33 the “Let Councillor Lotu-Iiga off the Hook” clause because that clause which we have not considered yet is all about filling extraordinary vacancies during the transition period. This now provides councillor Lotu-Iiga with the opportunity to resign— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member but I would like some advice. It is highly irregular and deeply offensive for a member as he is wandering around the Chamber to be screaming—not interjecting—at the speaker on her feet. He is not even bothering to sit in his seat. I ask you to enforce the relevant Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is unfortunate that the member has interrupted the speech being made by a member of his own party. This is how I recall it as I heard it. The member speaking was making reference to the member who was moving across the Chamber. The member who was moving across the Chamber heard his name mentioned and felt that it had been mispronounced. The member decided to try to correct the pronunciation of the member’s name. That is how I heard the exchange. We could get picky about it and interrupt all members’ speeches but I would prefer not to. I thought that was the matter. The member is still speaking and making her points but I invite members when they are speaking to do their best to pronounce people’s names properly. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Councillor Lotu-Iiga is missing in action according to  
The Aucklander 
 in two articles now. We have not even had a chance to consider the fact that this clause enables him to deal with the heat that he is under. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the amendment of my colleague Sue Kedgley that states this bill should more appropriately be called the “Gutting of Local Democracy Bill”. We have heard from Rodney Hide that the bill will take effect for the most part on the day after it receives the Royal assent. I think many Aucklanders will be very concerned that that will be the beginning of the stripping away of their local democracy and their ability to participate properly in civic affairs. I think they will be looking to another commencement date—the commencement date of the hikoi in Auckland. The hikoi has been initiated by Maori and will be led by them but no doubt it will bring in a lot of Aucklanders who want to protest. People will be coming from the south the north and the west and from the Orakei Marae into the centre of town for a big march up Queen Street to Aotea Square. I think that will be a very important commencement date. 
One thing that worries me is that when this bill takes effect and the Minister appoints the members of the transitional agency— 
Sue Kedgley 
: The gang of four. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It is called the gang of four by my colleague. It is the gang of four if we include Rodney Hide. The agency needs to have only three members—a chair and two others. If we look at the schedules which unfortunately we did not get time to debate in some detail we see they state that the quorum can be two members. If there are three members—the chair and two others—and the chair is empowered under the provision in the schedules to call meetings at times and in places that its chairman appoints he can call a meeting of just himself and one of the other members who turns up. They can have a vote but if it is divided then the chair has the casting vote so we have one person who can effectively direct everything in Auckland for that whole transitional period. When we think that there are all those other provisions that any agenda items can be interfered with and anything can be changed basically that puts huge power particularly in the hands of the chair of the board. 
We can contrast that with the powers under the associated bill where the local community boards—20 or 30 of them—do not have any powers at all other than what is delegated by the larger Auckland Council. The larger Auckland Council might say “We’re not going to delegate anything. Get stuffed.” and that would be it under this legislation. 
So members can see how the name “Gutting of Local Democracy Bill” is very appropriate. Why could it not have gone to a select committee? I was on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area Bill. We had less than a month to consider that bill. Perhaps we should have had longer but it shows that we can have short periods medium periods or long periods of select committee consideration. 
What was the Government scared about when it said that this transition bill could not go through a select committee process? It is outrageous but it sort of fits in with what the Government did not long after it came to power which was to rush a whole lot of important bills through Parliament under urgency so that there was no proper consideration. It is becoming a pattern—a very bad pattern. 
As Chris Hipkins said this process could be a blueprint for what will happen across the country including to the Wellington region. It is something that every New Zealander should shake in their boots about and not just think it is something that concerns only Auckland. It concerns the very democracy of this country. We do not want democracy to be cut out at the local level and have democracy—even limited democracy as we have seen over this urgency period—only in this Parliament. The limitations on the Government in our unicameral parliamentary system are bad enough—things can be rushed through very fast despite the resistance in particular of the Maori Party the Greens and Labour—without stripping away the powers of the people in terms of their local democracy. So the Greens are very supportive of Sue Kedgley’s amendment and very much against this bill as a whole. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry that this point of order is slightly late but I have only just come back into the Chamber. 
Hon Member 
: So we suffer. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think I know what the member is going to raise. I just say to members that it is helpful if we keep our comments down while a point of order is being raised. I do not mind small muttering but that comment was a bit excessive. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: My point of order is about the stage we are now at in Committee which is the debate on the title and commencement clauses. As you are probably all too painfully aware this bill has not been to a select committee; this is not the first time that has been said by the Opposition. There is a longstanding convention that as a result firstly a slightly wider scope is given to members for their speeches and secondly the debate goes for longer than a normal debate on the title and commencement clauses. I understand that the Government has repeatedly moved closure motions on these clauses so I just wanted to formally raise with you whether you will be taking into account the fact that this bill has not had the select committee scrutiny that it would normally have had. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I assure the member that the Chair will take all matters into account. It is a long and complex algorithm parts of which will be relevancy repetition the quality of the debate the fact that the bill has not gone to a select committee and the fact that it is a wide-ranging debate. All those elements will be judiciously weighed up and the balance of the argument will be sought. At that point the Chair will decide whether we are going to take closure. I thank the member for his effort. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was listening very carefully to your criteria for judging the length of this particular part of the debate. In reference to the point you mentioned about the quality of the debate I think this debate—particularly from Labour the Greens and the Maori Party—has been of an extraordinarily high quality. I think that should be taken into consideration because I am sure that that quality will continue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I am sure that the quality of the debate has been such that the member will take the oral record and replay it on a continuous loop to himself when he is home at the weekends. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Am I to take your ruling to mean then that you are reflecting Speaker’s ruling 110/7 which says: “members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.”? Of course this bill has been considered for 3 days and although none of the Opposition’s amendments have been accepted a very wide range of issues have been raised many of which deserve to be touched on in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member can be assured that the Chair has that very point weightily in his mind and will consider it very carefully. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I think the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill could be quite properly named the “Rodney Hide - ACT Party Double-cross Their Constituents Bill”. If members recall some time ago in an earlier debate Mr Hide said that he would come into this Parliament and if he was a Minister he would listen to people. Mr Boscawen of course led marches all over the country— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Only Mt Albert. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes in Mt Albert. He was calling for people to be listened to over various issues. Yet when those members get into Government no one is listened to. The people of Epsom—Mr Hide’s electorate—apparently are not intelligent enough to be listened to. The people in Heather Roy’s part of the world that she purports to represent—she does not have any constituents—apparently are not intelligent enough to be listened to. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Or to bother. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Or to bother. As other speakers have said it is interesting that once the bill is passed National will take out half-page ads in the paper and have public meetings in order to consult with folk—after the horse has bolted. I think that is pretty reprehensible. This is one of the biggest changes to the biggest city in our country and it will have huge commercial social and logistical impacts for a whole host of New Zealanders. I believe that that is absolutely wrong and I invite Mr Hide and others to reflect on their conduct and on that of the Government throughout this debate. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Reorganisation” and substitute “Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: As a consequence of that amendment to the Minister’s amendment Sue Kedgley’s amendment is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision. Secondly there are two amendments in the name of the Hon David Parker that are inconsistent with the previous decision and therefore are ruled out of order. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Am I to take it that my third amendment is within order notwithstanding the prior vote and that it could be put? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Hon David Parker could explain for us what his third amendment is. It is a bit confusing with so many amendments. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 My first amendment was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “concentration of power”; my second was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “democratic deficiency”; and my third was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “facilitating the privatisation of council assets”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have considered the three amendments and I wish to change my ruling to say that not just two amendments are out of order but all three are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (1) to (3) and to substitute the following new subclauses: 
Subject to  
subsections (2) and (3) 
 this Act comes into force 2 days after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. 
Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010. 
Sections 27 and 28 
 and subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31 December 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There are a number of amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern. I have to confess that I have not personally read each of them but I have been told by the Clerk’s Office which has worked through each of the amendments that they are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your assurance that you have sought the assurance of the Clerk’s Office that that is the case and that all of the amendments have been read by the Clerk’s Office. My view is that it would be very hard for that assurance to be given considering the time that has been involved. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It is not for me to speak of course but I know that the Clerk’s Office has done an outstanding job in regard to the whole issue of these bills. I have had the opportunity to notice that the staff peruse these things thoroughly. I would feel confident that they will have vetted the amendments submitted by the member and if the staff say the amendments are out of order then I would accept that is so. At the end of the day the important thing is that the Chairperson has sought advice from the Clerk’s Office and it has provided advice. Finally the decision comes down to you Mr Chairperson. If you rule that the amendments are out of order then we have to accept your ruling and that they are out of order. We have already had rulings from the Speaker who has been called back on that very point. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I ask you Mr Chairperson to advise the Committee because obviously a lot of amendments are involved. We acknowledge that the Committee has passed two amendments in the Minister’s name—the second one being to clause 2 to omit the words “on the day” and to substitute the words “2 days”. A number of the amendments in front of you refer not only to the date on which the bill comes into effect but also to what has to happen before the Royal assent can be given and particularly to some consultation with specified individuals. I think that even though we can accept that the actual day the bill becomes an Act has changed because of Mr Hide’s amendments there are a number of amendments for the period leading up to that point. I think that some advice from you to the Committee would be quite helpful. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 You Mr Chairperson have given a clear ruling to the Committee that these amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern have been ruled out of order. I think it is unfair of the Opposition to directly attack the Clerk’s Office. I think the staff have done a fantastic job. You have ruled and the Committee therefore should not challenge your ruling. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will start by saying that the Opposition also agrees that Office of the Clerk has done a wonderful job and there is no criticism at all of the office. The staff have worked under considerable pressure. There has been an enormous number of amendments brought about by the process that the Government is running. The point that Mr Hughes makes is quite a valid one and one on which we seek a ruling. His point is that the effect of some of the Opposition amendments is not covered by the amendments that have been put by the Minister because they relate not to the date on which the Act comes into force following the Royal assent but to what must happen prior to the bill going for the Royal assent. That is a different question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members that I am happy to rule. I have now personally perused for myself half of the amendments—they are all in the same form—and I find the amendments are out of order on two counts: firstly the date issue is well taken care of in Rodney Hide’s amendment; and secondly I would rule them out on the basis that they are not serious amendments. I intend no disrespect to the very important office of the chief Opposition whip but I do not think that it is a serious amendment to say that things cannot happen until the chief Opposition whip has signed them off. The member may disagree and I must tell members that there are lots of things for which the chief Opposition whip’s sign-off is very important—one of them being leave amongst other things—and we all hang on his word. However in this particular circumstance I do not believe that is a serious amendment. The second role whose sign-off is required is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It then goes on to the president of the Law Commission the Chief Ombudsman—I could go on—there is the Mayor of North Shore City etc. 
Hon Member 
: A good fellow. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Yes as the member interjects I have no doubt that the mayor is a very good person but it would be inappropriate for the Chief Ombudsman for example to be involved in signing off anything to do with statutes. That is not the role that the person has. So the first reason I think the amendments are out of order is that they are inconsistent with the amendment put forward by Rodney Hide and the second reason is that I do not think they are particularly serious. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think two points need to be made. They probably both go to questions of substance. I take very serious issue with your ruling on frivolity. I do not accept the idea that reorganisation cannot be done with a sense of unanimity and a sense of Parliament the country and the local authorities coming together. I think it is appropriate for the Committee to make that decision. A process that involves other people who guard the country’s processes such as the president of the Law Commission and the Chief Ombudsman might raise argument as to their roles but I think an argument can be made that it is appropriate for those people to be involved. On the question of dates it is certainly my view that the date issue notwithstanding Rodney Hide’s amendment when put together with the other substance could rule out some of the amendments but not all of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: On the date issue I say that the Committee having made an amendment on the issue has set the date that the bill comes into force. The Committee has determined what the date is and any other date is then inconsistent with that decision. The date amendments have gone. 
On the substance issue Mr Mallard makes a very good point but I have heard no justification as to what role the Mayor of Carterton could possibly have in this legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can give you that one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the member to let me finish. Carterton is a long way from Auckland I grant you. I have ruled the amendments out. The member might like to make some closing comments but I do not think I am persuadable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 On the question of the Mayor of Carterton I think that it has already been made clear from the evidence in the Committee this afternoon—although you might not have been in the Chair—from Mr Hipkins that the Minister of Local Government has called for and received a report on reorganisation in the Wellington region. Carterton is part of that region. The concern of the Opposition is that this process not only is being set up for Auckland but will be carried throughout the country. It is undemocratic reform: there is a lack of referenda as required under the Local Government Act; and there is the lack of a select committee process which should apply to this area. Although not all of us think that the Mayor of Carterton at the present time is the best character in the world and that Ron Mark could well do a better job the mayors of the Wellington region could well have a view as to processes for the country generally. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I think that we have had enough. I say to Trevor Mallard that I listened to Chris Hipkins. He talked about Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt but he did not mention Carterton. The last point that I make to the member is that the title of the bill is a give-away. It was Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill; we now have the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill. Tamaki-makau-rau is a long way from the Wairarapa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 1 as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand Labour 25; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Report adopted.