Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3623
David Lange, once said that consistency is the last refuge of a fool. The point being
made here is that members should focus to some degree on the part. Although the Hon
Trevor Mallard is correct and we have had a wide-ranging debate, this is new material
and it is quite tightly focused. We will have a little bit of latitude, but I want the
member to talk to new Part 11, “Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission”,
though he may introduce some other material.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: New Part 11 establishes the Auckland Transition Agency
Review Commission. The commission will consist of a chair and five commissioners.
The eligibility requirements for the chair will include being a District Court judge, and
for commissioners will include having juridical experience.
This part is important for several reasons. The appointment of the commission is an
independent process. We all know that processes that are simply governed by politicians
and delegated to officials can often run into trouble. It is noteworthy that the New
Zealand National Party at this point has significant experience with independent judicial
processes. For example, I understand that Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is experiencing—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This member is
trifling with your request to stay tightly within the bounds of this new part. He is
introducing material totally extraneous to this particular debate and I ask you, given the
expense that the taxpayer is being put to for the Labour members to exercise their brawn
and filibustering skills—or whatever we want to call them—to keep the bounds very,
very tight.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Unlike the member who just raised the point of order, I
listened carefully to your ruling. It was a ruling down the middle. You asked people to
be narrower than they had been, but you also indicated that you would be reasonable.
That member is inviting you to be unreasonable.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I reinforce one other point Mr Mallard made, which you
neglected to touch on. You are the sole judge of relevancy under Standing Order 107,
and for Mr Brownlee or another member to get up and continually bring to your
attention his or her interpretation of Standing Orders on this matter is not correct. He
should not challenge your ruling; you have already ruled on this.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have a couple of points. Yes, I want
the debate to be a bit tighter, given the nature of the amendments. I think the member
was addressing the material before him. I said that people could draw on other things
and explanations as they went through; I will not be unreasonable about that. Mr
Cosgrove is right: I am the sole judge and I will remain the sole judge, and I thank him
but I do not need to be reminded of that. As for Mr Brownlee’s point about the
monetary cost, I would have thought some members of the public would think it is a
good thing to see the Chamber being used a bit more often rather than sitting empty. But
never mind, that is another story.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me turn to a particularly serious reason why the
Auckland Transition Agency needs an independent juridical oversight. It is dealing with
assets of $28 billion—close to one-quarter of the country’s GDP if it were all expensed
in one year. That is a huge amount of assets. It spans a range of subsidiary
organisations, including the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, Ports of
Auckland—which I will come back to—Metro Water, Watercare Services, North Shore
Holdings, Enterprise North Shore, and Waitakere City Properties. Each of these entities
has its own well-constituted governance process, and in many cases, its own
independent board. But under the bill before this Committee they are simply placed
under the jurisdiction of this transition agency. It is like some form of bizarre
renationalisation of something that is already publicly owned.