Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3255] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It is a somewhat daunting prospect to make a contribution in this debate after hearing “Martin Luther Cunliffe” give such a wonderful dissertation. I think it was a Martin Luther King impersonation of John F Kennedy. However I think the absurdity of that contribution perfectly demonstrates the absurdity of the Labour Party’s opposition to the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. 
This part is integral to the entire bill. It simply means that we have had a royal commission spend some 18 months considering this issue. The royal commission interestingly was established by the Rt Hon Helen Clark after her public expressions of concern about the “dysfunctional” nature of Auckland local governance. The royal commission spoke to literally hundreds of Aucklanders and it came down with some recommendations for how things might progress. At that point Labour would think the job has been done—that it has had the committee and got the report so the job is done. That is exactly what “Martin Luther Cunliffe” just told the Committee. We have a great pile of documents here— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order is an obvious one: members have to be referred to by their correct name or title. There is no end of possibilities as to the names we could use for the Leader of the House who made the transgression. We do not do that because we respect the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The point is well made; the member well knows that. He should address members respectfully and in keeping with the tradition of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I most certainly will. I offer the reflection that after almost 13 years in this place I am well aware that the expletives used to describe me certainly are not exhausted when it comes to the Opposition’s imagination. 
Mr Cunliffe gave us exactly that information when he spoke before. He said there was a great pile of documents here and it was terrible that it has been synthesised down to its essence and presented in a readable understandable form to back up a Government that is actually doing something that is totally foreign to the Labour Party in taking some action on information provided to it on issues that have been discovered and considered by the people who are most affected by them. That is all that this bill does. It sets up a transition agency so that all those people who have responsibilities in local government at the moment know where they are heading. 
The interesting thing is that we have not heard one Labour speaker admit that he or she is going to vote against the super-city proposal and vote down any concept of there being a united situation for local governance in Auckland. That is Labour’s serious agenda. Those members have said that even though Helen Clark expressed concern about Auckland governance she is gone and so is the idea. They are going back to the 1960s if they say they will vote against the proposal to unite local governance in Auckland. That is irrelevant and the Labour Party is pretty irrelevant in this argument through its actions. Talk about wanting to be consulted consultative and constructive means absolutely nothing when we get this sort of opposition to a bill that essentially protects the people who have an obligation to make this thing work. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Opposition members suggest that I am talking absolute rubbish. That means they have not read the bill. They do not understand that without the protections of this bill and without the transitional authority having the backing of the law then there can be no progress towards a super-city. 
The interesting thing is that there is no argument here about how many people might be on the council and how many local boards there might be. That is in another bill which is going to a select committee and it will be decided on by that committee after representations have been made to it. There are no pre-decisions about that. I think it is incredibly disingenuous of the Labour Opposition to filibuster in the House today on what should be very very simple legislation designed to protect the people in employment at the present time. [ 
Interruption 
] There we go! Members opposite are suddenly saying I should not be speaking because I am somehow interfering with their right to speak. That shows the arrogance of the Labour Party. Labour was absolutely whipped at the last election. No concept of humility was ever expressed and here we see the same arrogance today—it is Labour’s way or no way. 
This process was started by a Labour Party in Government that knew what it was doing and it will be opposed by a Labour Party in Opposition that has no idea where it is heading. I feel sorry for Phil Goff. It is no good being a train engine out the front if all the carriages are several metres behind and off the hook. That is about where he is at. The Labour Party rather than supporting its leader is having a cup of tea down the back in the guard’s van—utterly hopeless.