Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3626 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
everything in place and be ready to function from 1 November 2010. We know that it
will be very, very tight. Mistakes could be made. There should be some oversight and
some ability to review the decisions that are being made, because of the huge amount of
power that the Transition Agency will have.
I will go further, and look further through the bill at some of the things the agency
will do. It is also worth noting that under clause 22 all the expenditure for the Transition
Agency has to be approved by the Minister. That does reinforce the need for some
independent review, given the huge amount of control that will be given to Rodney
Hide and the very hand-picked select number of individuals who will ultimately end up
in total control of Auckland—
Hon Member: $28 billion.
CHRIS HIPKINS: —in control of $28 billion, and in control of—how many
employees?
Hon Member: Over 6,000.
CHRIS HIPKINS: And in control of over 6,000 employees. That is a lot of people’s
jobs and a lot of people’s lives that Rodney Hide will effectively be given control of.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Tsar.
CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes—the “Tsar of Auckland”. Members should bear in mind
that it is not the National Government that will be getting the control; it is Rodney Hide,
the ACT Party Minister, with his 3.5 percent of the vote, who will have control of all of
Auckland. There should be some oversight of that.
I come back to new Part 11, which establishes the new Auckland Transition Agency
Review Commission. It makes it clear that a judge has to be in control of it. It cannot be
one of the political mates of the National Party or the ACT Party. They cannot make it
Christine Rankin, Richard Prebble, or, John Banks, and we are very supportive of that.
Hon Member: Why not?
CHRIS HIPKINS: He is not a judge. If members would read the amendment we are
debating, they would know that.
This amendment gives the review commission the power to hear submissions. It
gives it all the powers that a District Court might have in the exercise of its civil
jurisdiction. If members look at the explanatory note of new Part 11, they will see that it
sums it up very well. It states that the new part amends the Local Government
(Auckland Reorganisation) Bill “to ensure decisions concerning members of the public
are subject to independent review.” Once again, it comes back to the notion of the
concentration of a very, very large amount of power in a very, very small number of
individuals. There has to be some kind of accountability, some kind of oversight.
It is particularly important, in my view, given the way this bill has been rushed. The
bill has not been through a select committee process, so there has been no public
scrutiny. People have not had the opportunity to make submissions and say they think
there is a problem with this part or that part, or that they would like this amendment or
that amendment. Having sat through a number of select committee processes on pieces
of legislation so far in my time in Parliament, I can say that I find those processes
incredibly valuable.
On the surface, during a first reading, a bill may seem perfectly logical and wellwritten,
but it is amazing what technical issues—that we would not otherwise get a
handle on—are picked up during the select committee process. By not putting this bill
through the select committee process, the public are being denied that opportunity.
Having an independent review mechanism in place would pick up any mistakes that
have been made because of a lack of consultation.
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I move, That the question be now put.