Hipkins Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hipkins Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3625] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on new Part 11 put forward by my colleagues which introduces the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. Having sat through the debate on the bill I have become more and more concerned about elements that give total and utter control to the Minister of Local Government. I think there should be some kind of independent judicial oversight and review of that. If members look for example at Part 3 which we passed last night and the establishment of the governing body of the Transition Agency we see that no more than two people are required on the Transition Agency. That is a concentration of a huge amount of power in the Transition Agency. We do not know who those people will be. They could be Richard Prebble and Christine Rankin for all we know. They could be Melissa Lee and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for all we know. 
Hon Member 
: A third job. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: They could give him a third job. The Transition Agency will have a huge amount of power so there should be some oversight of what it is able to get up to. There is a very very tight time frame for the implementation of these local governance reforms. Clause 13(1)(a) suggests that the Transition Agency has to have 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 6000. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: And in control of over 6000 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 well-written 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.