There are a couple of blogs below that outline the filibuster on Auckland legislation. The Labour/green team has developed hundreds of amendments and about a dozen extra parts. We can keep drafting them. We are probably able to keep the bill going well into next week.
We have one objective – to get the bill off to a select committee even for three or four weeks, including about a week of hearings in Auckland. the times are negotiable.
Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party are prepared to pull our amendments and new parts out if the NACTs agree to send the bill to a committee.
Gerry Brownlee has turned down down the offer but it remains open.
Good on you. It seems like a lot more time is eaten up by forcing Rodney Hide to think of serious responses to clever amendments though.
The “date on which the name of the Super City….” thing was funny for a while though.
Section 13 is surely in need of improvement:
1) Under g (ii) why the heck would the Transition Agency be able to appoint a chief executive for an existing local authority? Surely that contradicts the point Hide is trying to make about the Transition Agency just being there to assist in allowing the councils to “carry on as usual”. I could understand the Transition Agency having an oversight on the appointment of a Chief Executive, but being able to completely appoint one themselves? WTF?
2) Regarding 13(4) why is it that the existing local authority will have to keep paying for a staff member that has been seconded to the Transition Agency? Let’s say a particularly effective staff member from Papakura District Council is seconded to the Transition Agency and helping to set up something that will assist the region as a whole. Papakura District Council is a fairly small council and someone will need to carry on with that person’s former job. This would place a great burden on the Papakura District Council.
I’m sure I’ll think of more….
Phil Twyford says:
May 15, 2009 at 11:42 pm (Edit)
Jarbury – Yeah it does seem a bit over the top s 13(g)(ii)that the Transition Agency appoints the CEOs for the existing councils. But hey, thats nothing compared to s20 which gives carte blanche for the Transitional Agency to review (and check, confirm or overturn)ANY decision and ANY agenda item of the existing councils. Now that is heavy handed.
In the same way that Clark and Cullen would never back down so to do I hope that there is no way the Nats back down. Labour are demonstrating how angry and pathetic they really are? This is turning into a stalemate – but the Nats will win this and Labour will be made to look the pathetic angry souls they really are. You need to be constructive to progress this.
The Nats have just won a closure vote – that means the house could well be sitting well after midnight tonight. It is the first closure on this bill.
I somewhat agree Monty, hence my above suggestion that you’re better off with constructive amendments. Although there is a certain “protest” element to this which I support. It should have gone to a select committee for something this important.
How does a closure motion allow the House to sit after midnight? Could one allow the House to sit on Sunday?
Huh? Huh?
When there has been a closure motion the house keeps sitting through breaks until the voting on that part is complete. That procedure is however overuled by the standing order which prevents the house sitting on a Sunday. Trevor
when you cchildren have finished playing could you put the cat and rubbish out.
Good opposition politics. Keep standing up for Auckland and New Zealand. Am watching and cheering you guys on.
I think you guys are doing a great job. Is there no standing orders or rules to place a maximum on the number of amendments? and one other question do all MP’s have to stay in wellington until urgency is over?
No standing orders or rules to limit number of amendments – though it is pretty easy to block some of the multiple approach such as those to Parts one and two, the nats have now discovered how to do that which has the potential to shorten the voting.
All MPs don’t have to stay here. Up to 25% of a parties vote can be exercised by proxy. the rest have to be in the grounds. Trevor
Trevor are you blogging from a cellphone or something? I swear I just saw you on TV.
I’m using my laptop in the House. Trevor
“Good opposition politics. Keep standing up for Auckland and New Zealand. Am watching and cheering you guys on.”
do you really think that at the moment Labour can claim to represent the entirity of Auckland and NZ?
Labour just got kicked out of power, maybe Hyde will self destruct but at the moment Labour has no right to claim to speak on behalf of NZ.
Especially as they wanted to amalgamate the councils and complete the motorway – or maybe they dont’t now – I’ve lost track of their changing positions. Does anyone know?
But most Kiwis think that Aucklanders have the same right to vote on their amalgamation as people in Christchurch had a couple of years ago. Trevor
I dunno about the Waterview Connection Neil, Pete Hodgson hasn’t answered my questions on another post: http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/05/15/from-the-frontline/
Pete has replied now
The Chairman said that about 50 votes remain – after this will the committee stage be over, or will the house sit in committee again to vote on more amendments?
We will sit in the morning to deal with the new parts. Trevor.
Trev, what you are offering is to send the reform process back into the mire of squabbling local poltics. I trust you know that Auckland needed a bit of a guiding hand – that waterfront stadium was a great idea.
jarbury, I’d really like to see those figures. I’m still with both Labour and the Nats on the motorway but I’m definitely less certain from what you have put forward.
Neil, read a few entires on my blog about Waterview that I’ve put together in the past few days. http://www.transportblog.co.nz
It is enormously questionable to spend so much money on a road. But anyway, back to the Super-City – can an amendment be asked for to name it after my cat?
Holy heck. What’s the justification for this level if interference? I can understand the government wanting to avoid the kind of situation we had in the 1989 local government reforms where Newmarket Borough Council spent all its money like crazy as they knew they were going to disappear, but surely this takes it too far?
An amendment should be put that asks for something to be named after my cat.
His name is Horatio and he’s love it.
Off to bed now
Does that response mean you’ve got something up your sleeve?
I look forward to it.
Finished for the day at 0105hours. goodness gracious me. i wonder, is this sort of sitting unprecedented, or has it happened quite a few times before over the past few decades?
@ David says:
Finished for the day at 0105hours. goodness gracious me. i wonder, is this sort of sitting unprecedented, or has it happened quite a few times before over the past few decades?
Has happened a few times – fairly common pre 1986 when there was no provision for a sleep break. Parliament used to sit through the night. There was no radio coverage (or tv of course) after 10.30pm on the first day of urgency.
In more recent years there have been a few occasions where there was extraordinary urgency.
Daniel says:
May 16, 2009 at 1:04 am (Edit)
Does that response mean you’ve got something up your sleeve?
I look forward to it.
Yes Daniel yours was the second post I have deleted – it was such a good idea I didn’t want the tories to see it. Thanks.
So how many proposed new parts are you proposing? Half a dozen each and you could be there into next month…
So we’re starting with Dominion Road in North Shore City. How many other streets are lined up?
Brownlee says 500
I strongly believe that the offer put to the government is reasonable and not asking much at all, and I support your efforts to delay this piece of legislation. I am surprised that the government haven’t taken up the it – personally I don’t see why they are so unwilling to let people have a say on it.
I’m also disappointed the media doesn’t seem to have reported on this offer – I’m sure most people will be of the same opinion as me – asking for a select committee is not asking much. Perhaps Labour should put more effort into getting this idea out there – so that people are very clear that the ‘time-wasting’ would stop immediately if the government would be reasonable.
I’ve seen a report today that Labour’s stalling tactics could delay the budget – what is the likelihood of this happening? Can National “interrupt” urgency to deliver the budget, or do they have to finish what they’ve started?
I don’t know the answer, but it was pointed out by the chair that in debating proposed new parts that amendments were being debated, not parts. I wonder whether this effects the right of the member in charge to postpone consideration of it. Someone there may well know…
I think what he meant was that putting in a new part was an amendment that was more than a small one word or minor amendment but not as important as a substantive part. Probably correct.
Got a bit annoyed with the costing of Parliament’s sitting time so worked out the postal cost of the City Council ballots in 2007 that they are planning to ride rough shod over: it’s $366,000. (990,000 ballots at 37c – discounted price of postage) plus costs of administering the vote. Perhaps the NACTs should have complained about what a waste that was since they clearly think democracy is a cost benefit exercise.