Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3622] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 New Part 11 is a serious response to a serious problem. The problem is a lack of independent oversight which has been made worse by this bill’s being rammed through the House in the dead of the morning and the dead of the week. This bill will still be here next week. The bill is being rammed through without a select committee process and we have to ask why. I say to all those sleepy-looking members opposite that it would have been quicker for this bill to go to select committee than to debate new Part 27. Bill English will not be happy because we will still be here on Budget day. What about the pre-Budget announcement schedule? What about all of those nasty little things that those members want to hide on the day? The whole shambles will be disrupted by the fact that Paul Hutchison— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are dealing with a new part and new material. There has been no speech from this side so there can be no need for any rebuttal. Members should confine themselves very tightly to the content of the part now being debated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is very very important that we have consistency through this debate. We have had over the last couple of days—or the earlier part of this day depending on whether one looks at this in temporal or parliamentary time—a broad-ranging debate on various parts. The Government cannot change the rules now just because it wants to run away and go home. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. I say to the member that one of the finest parliamentarians this place has ever seen the Rt Hon 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. 
Here is where the plot gets thicker. The agency will not report through an independent governance process to the Cabinet of the New Zealand Government which would be of course the normal process for any State-owned enterprise or Crown entity. No—this agency reports to one Minister the Minister in the chair Rodney Hide. Why on earth would that be? It is certainly not good governance practice which is why in new Part 11 we are introducing the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission with additional juridical oversight. 
Members opposite have obviously been lobbied hard by Ports of Auckland. Ports of Auckland says that this legislation will not do. It is a private company trading in open markets it has its own board and it wants to be a special case. Let us admit that there are grounds for that special case but why for Ports of Auckland? Why not Watercare Services? If the  
National Business Review 
 and  
Trans Tasman 
 are to be believed the Minister in charge of this bill is going to appoint the chief executive of the water company to be the chair of the transition agency. How will they deal with that conflict of interest? I would not want to be that person. I have great respect for Mark Ford and I think he is a very able man but I would not want to be in his shoes. I hope he gets first-class legal advice about his liabilities and his risks because I think he is exposed. 
I think the Minister in his rush to railroad this legislation through the House and to create a very clean reporting line that allows him to bulldoze his way through normal legal convention is exposing one of the more able executives in the Auckland business community. I hope for Mr Mark Ford’s sake that he thinks very carefully not only about whether to accept that appointment but also about the conditions upon which he accepts it. I am sure that Mr Mark Ford would appreciate what the Opposition is doing to try to provide better independent cover oversight liability and risk management through this important part that is being very seriously introduced this morning. I hope the Government members who are sitting here and who will be getting used to sitting here will give this new part their earnest consideration.