Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this

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.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ka mōtinihia ahau kia whai rīpoata mō tō tātou kōkiri whakamua.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

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.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

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?

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

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.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) Link to this

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) Link to this

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) Link to this

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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

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) Link to this

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) Link to this

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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

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.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

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) Link to this

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.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

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—

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this

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) Link to this

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 TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this

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) Link to this

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 (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

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?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) Link to this

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) Link to this

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) Link to this

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 200,000 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 $250,000 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 $3,000 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) Link to this

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) Link to this

I move, That the Committee report progress.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this

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 Māori representation on the transition agency. Maybe, since the Māori 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 Māori Party and the Green Party that Labour did try to make that part stand alone. We tried to make that part for Māori 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 Māori Party colleagues for putting the others in with Māori, 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 Māori representation; only Labour put up amendments on the Table to ensure Māori 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) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this

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.

NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this

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, 6,300 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 6,300 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—

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this

I move, That the question be now put.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this

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 hīkoi in Auckland. The hīkoi has been initiated by Māori 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 Ōrākei 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—