Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3640] 
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.