Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:663;Page:11486] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to address a number of issues in my second contribution to this debate. I think that what Aucklanders are saying is that this bill has come out with too little on local boards and too much on council-controlled organisations. That is the lack of balance in this bill and that is the concern on this side of the Chamber. The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill is a massive con job on Aucklanders. The Government has ignored the voices of Aucklanders who say these changes will make Auckland governance less accountable and less transparent. The Government’s corporatisation plans for Auckland have been given the green light. Despite what members opposite say about council-controlled organisations the Government is still planning to hand over 75 percent of local government to council-owned companies. Making these new council companies publish a glossy brochure and hold a press conference every 3 months and calling it accountability will not satisfy Aucklanders I am sorry. It is an insult actually. A majority of the initial directors will be appointed by the Minister—Rodney Hide. Why would anybody feel comfortable about that? The council-controlled organisations will be so big and so powerful that it will be difficult for the council and the mayor to hold them accountable. I feel sorry for any mayor. Obviously I have my preferences about who might be the mayor of the super-city— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Are you a John Banks supporter? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —no I am not a John Banks supporter—but how on earth can they have a platform on transport in Auckland when so much of it will be controlled by an organisation that has no accountability to the people of Auckland? 
This Government is imposing the council-controlled organisations on Auckland. Every other council in New Zealand gets to make its own decisions about what is corporatised and what is not. What is so different about Auckland? Why do Aucklanders have to put up with that? The Government insists on setting up the transport agency as a council-controlled organisation against the wishes of Aucklanders and the advice of four Government departments who said it would reduce transparency and accountability to ratepayers. There are some very interesting questions about the transport council-controlled organisation and maybe the Minister can help me with this. I cannot get my head around how this massive corporation controlling millions of dollars can deal with things that matter at the local level. I am thinking about things like school travel planning or walking school buses or road safety coordination walking cycling community road safety cycle safety accessibility programmes and other things that matter at a local level. Currently councils deal with those things. They employ staff to deal with those things and they have plans around those particular things. 
Aucklanders deserve better from this Government. They deserve to have a say on the future of their city and the Government has denied them that. This process of reform held out a huge opportunity but it has been missed. The royal commission came up with a vision for Auckland which the Government threw in the rubbish bin. It hardly considered it—and what happened? The royal commission’s report went from 800 pages 18 months of work down to 2 weeks of work and 36 pages or something like that. Unbelievable! I think the people of Auckland have been denied a real say in having a city that is really worthwhile. Aucklanders want a democratic city not the corporate city outlined in this bill. 
The minor changes in this legislation proposed by the Government do not go far enough. I think it is interesting to go back and look at some of the polling that has been done on this issue. People have mentioned the  
Herald 
-DigiPoll but I want to go back to the Our Auckland poll on things like council-controlled organisations. First of all 94 percent of people did not think the Government had officially asked them what kind of Auckland they wanted. That is serious—94 percent of people. Out of 9000 responses and in a very short period of time that figure is quite big. Also 92 percent did not want core council services such as water transport economic development tourism and events to be operated by corporate— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague Darien Fenton who is giving a very good contribution. From time to time Ministers who are in charge of legislation cannot sit in the chair and have to be replaced by another Minister. That is completely understandable and there is no trouble with that at all. I see that Mr David Carter the Minister of Agriculture is in the Chamber but another Mr Carter John Carter the Associate Minister of Local Government and also the chairman of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee which considered the bill we are currently considering in the Committee of the whole House has now assumed the position of Minister in the chair. 
I think the Government can organise itself in such a way that that does not happen. It is not good for the order of the Committee for the Minister who acted as the chairman at the select committee to then sit in the chair during the Committee of the whole House for the scrutiny of the legislation. I do not think it is appropriate when the role of the Committee is to try to scrutinise this legislation. This particular member has already had a chance to do that in his role as select committee chair. To now sit here as the Minister in the chair is I think farcical. 
Hon John Carter 
: The one thing that the member who raised the point of order will not appreciate is that on this side of the Chamber we are multi-talented. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. I say to Darren Hughes that the only very firm rule on this is that when the Minister in charge of the bill is in the Chamber he or she has to be in the chair. They cannot be substituted. But after that there are no particular rules. It is up to the Government to ensure that there is a Minister in the chair. No one can be excluded from it so if the member who is currently in the chair—John Carter—had some other role in Parliament that is immaterial. The only binding rule is that if the Minister in charge of the bill is in the Chamber he or she has to be in the chair. I now call on Darien Fenton who has 16 seconds remaining. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I trust the time will remain 16 seconds and not become 15 seconds after you called her name. The concern the Opposition is raising here is an issue of practice. We believe it is poor practice first of all for a Minister so closely linked with the legislation to chair a committee but that is a whole other issue. The issue in front of us right now is that the Hon John Carter having chaired the select committee is now the Minister in the chair is acting as the Minister in charge of the bill and can answer questions from the Committee of the whole House—all members of Parliament—having already chaired the select committee. 
This is not an attack on the Government. Mr Hide was sitting here diligently contributing and doing a good job as the Minister in the chair. But another Minister the Hon David Carter is here and it seems to me that if Mr Hide has to be away temporarily the Hon David Carter could sit in the chair. But it is verging on preposterous for the Hon John Carter to say that it is a good parliamentary practice for him to chair the select committee and then for the bill to be returned to the House and be considered by the Committee of the whole House while he sits there as the arbiter and the responder to questions that the legislature has on the legislation. The Government can fix this very quickly by simply asking the Ministers to swap places. My question to you Mr Chairman is whether there are any issues around conflict. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is traversing the same ground again. He used slightly different words but he went over the same ground. I make the point that the only requirement in respect of the Minister in the chair is that if a Minister in charge of the bill is in the Chamber he or she has to be in the chair. If the member who is in charge of the bill is not in the Chamber it is entirely the Government’s decision as to who sits in the chair. I guess it is a little akin to what happens in question time; it is for the Government to decide who answers questions. If a particular Minister is absent then the Government can determine whom it wishes to have here. Whether the member has been on the select committee or was the chair of the select committee does not impinge on that particularly. I do not want to go over this again. If the member wants to take the issue further and have the Speaker make a written ruling on this I am happy to have the matter referred to the Speaker and he can come back and rule on it. That is my ruling on it. Mr John Carter is perfectly entitled to sit here and undertake the business if that is the Government’s decision. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not wish to prolong the issue but the second point of order raised by the Hon Darren Hughes was a direct challenge to your ruling in the first place. It was nothing other than a direct challenge to your first ruling which set out that there was no conflict: the Minister in the chair could be any Minister as long as he or she was taking the place of the Minister who was formerly in the chair. It was a direct challenge to your ruling. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not want any more comment. I take up the Hon Tau Henare’s opening statement that we should not prolong this. I think we will get ourselves into some agony. I have ruled on the matter; that is the end of it. As Chair it is up to me to determine whether I take offence or see it as a challenge. It is not up to any other member in the Committee to feel offended or to feel that it is a challenge. I took it as a fair enough point of order and I want the ambience of the Committee to continue. I want to move on; let us build some bridges here team. I shall give Darien Fenton a couple of extra seconds to finish her speech. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I was talking about the Our Auckland poll recently in which 92 percent said they did not want core council services such as water transport economic development tourism and events to be operated by corporate unelected council-controlled organisations.