Mallard Trevor:  
Mallard Trevor:  
[Volume:654;Page:76] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I first want to say something in rebuttal of the so-called expert on local government the Hon John Carter because some of us have long memories. Some of us can remember at least two pieces of legislation that were introduced into this House as a result of a very bad county clerk up in Northland. Who was the county clerk who lost all the cemetery records? There had to be a bill—an authorised agent bill—to forgive him for losing them. Who was the county clerk who without authority sent a truck 50 miles with half a dozen beer on the back? There was no authority at all to send the truck 50 miles back and forth. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are expecting some 1000 amendments to Part 2 so it would be good if that member could concentrate on the part itself rather than filling in time. [ 
Interruption 
] Is this a point of order or not? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Points of order are heard in silence. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We are expecting the Labour Party to put up some 1000-odd amendments on this part as it did on Part 1. It would be very good if that member could either get to some of those amendments or somewhat uniquely speak to the part itself. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I invite the member to take the call. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As was said by John Carter this is a robust debate and if Gerry Brownlee does not like it up him he should just leave the Chamber and go back to his room. If he cannot take it he should go. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is late at night and clearly that member has had a bit of an extra sugar dose— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I have a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I am on my feet. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Sorry I did not notice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is a robust debate and that was not a point of order. That is a debating point and you get a chance to take a call later on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My last point on John Carter by way of rebuttal is that some of us can remember how he first came into the Chamber. He was the loyal chair of the National Party committee for the electorate. Do members know who the member was? It was his father-in-law “Blackberry” Austin. He was a man of honour a man of integrity. When “Blackberry” Austin was down in Wellington his then son-in-law was plotting against him. He got the numbers— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have had over 2 minutes of talking about a member on the other side of the Chamber. We are on Part 2. I bring you back to the part and ask you to concentrate your last 3 minutes on it. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to say that I have had three fathers-in-law but Neil Austin was not one of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That was not a point of order but it was an interesting point! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry; I got the de facto thing mixed up. I apologise. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Let us settle down. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Getting to Part 2 I can remember that in 1989 and 1990 we made some fairly robust changes in the local government area. They were promoted by the ACT member Dr Michael Bassett. What happened then? Wherever those changes took effect the Government lost. I do not think Labour has ever won Devonport back again after the Devonport local body was abolished. I do not think we have ever won Eastbourne since the borough of Eastbourne was abolished. Those changes occurred under a Labour Government. 
I ask Nikki Kaye how happy she will be during the next election to go out there and defend the abolition of the Auckland City Council. Rates will have gone up by $700 to $1000 to pay for the transition costs. In Part 2 that cost is written off. I say to Paul Hutchison that he might survive as he has a reasonable majority but there will be something very questionable there. But I know that amongst National’s Auckland members we will see a struggle for list places. It is slightly easier than it was yesterday because Melissa Lee has gone quite a long way down the list in the last 24 hours. Paula Bennett has been working on going down the list for a period of time. 
Manukau City is one of the cities that go completely as a result of the bill. I tell any members opposite who are members for Manukau City—and I am not quite sure where the boundaries are—to stand up for Manukau. They should listen to what the people of Manukau are saying. At least instead of having this kind of farce instead of having their political advertising paid for by the Parliamentary Service—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite complain about the pledge card but the taxpayers are paying for this advertisement which is a retention scheme for Nikki Kaye. I will not bring the Chair into it but I want to know whether Nikki Kaye authorised the advertisement I am holding up. Nikki Kaye did not authorise it? So there is a National Party advertisement—