Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
Brownlee Gerry: Business of Select Committees — Appointments 
[Volume:654;Page:3177] 
Earlier in the week the Opposition was advised that National would take four seats on the select committee and Labour would take three and that the other parties would take one seat each. Today the motion from the Leader of the House gives National five seats Labour three seats and the Green Party the ACT Party and the Maori Party one seat each resulting in the National-led Government taking seven seats and the Opposition taking only four. That is contrary to the way we have generally run our select committees and that is why I hope my amendment will be supported by the Government because a bit of sloppy work I suspect has resulted in this particular way. It is particularly so seeing that the Labour caucus is over eight times the size of the ACT caucus for reasonable reasons; but on this occasion Labour will have three seats and the ACT Party—which did not even pass the 5 percent threshold—will receive one seat in that respect. The Leader of the House I think for the sake of the good order of Parliament should consider correcting the mistake that has been made with the imbalance of membership in terms of representation of the main parties— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no mistake here—no mistake. The numbers were four or five and the number chosen was five. As for the eight versus three— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No no. Please sit down. That was not a point of order as we were alerted to today with some of the Speakers’ rulings earlier in the day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: In fact it is true that the best place for that Leader of the House to be is outside the House because things generally work a little more— 
Simon Bridges 
: No no—you can’t do that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Of course you can. He said that as he walked out of the door. He said “I am leaving now.” so I think it is almost on the record that he is not here. So I think a little bit of preciousness from National is not required—oh he is back. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yes I am reconsidering! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s just not on for him to threaten the House in that way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No we are not going to go there. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Can I say how good Gerry Brownlee looks on the Government back benches and given his competency he can choose any one of the seats back there. I think the sheepskin will be ordered— 
Hon Member 
: Paul Quinn’s. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well Paul Quinn will not be using that seat for very long I suspect but that is a matter entirely in the hands of Paul Quinn. 
The reality with this special select committee is that the Government has not handled either the process of the royal commission or the setting up of this committee in the kind of way we would expect for the fair representation of political parties in the House. The committee will be considering legislation relating to Auckland governance and it is worth pointing out at this point that the legislation comes from a royal commission which is the most serious inquiry that the Government can order into any topic. Royal commissions are the “gold-plated” inquiries if you like of the way in which we are able to consider a serious issue confronting the country. Indeed during the 9 years of the previous Government only two royal commissions were commissioned—one into genetic modification a very serious issue and the second one into the issues around Auckland governance. 
What concerns the Opposition so strongly is that having received a report into Auckland governance from a royal commission that worked very diligently and very hard on the matter the Government has acted in a very cavalier way to bring legislation to the House so quickly upon receiving that report. For example the royal commission’s report runs for over several hundred pages yet we are expected to believe that Government members received that report of several hundred pages read it considered it debated it reflected on it and announced their position on it within 10 days of the release of that report. I just do not think that that is credible—not one bit at all. So I will ask the Minister of Education as the ranking Government member in the Chamber whether she has read every page of the royal commission report into Auckland governance. It is unusual to have such silence from a Minister who just before said what a good reader she was. I am sure Mr Mallard will explore that particular point in the coming days weeks months—but not years in her case. That would be the fact. I want to know from National members whether they read this report cover to cover. Did the member for Auckland Central read the royal commission report before the Government made its decision? How much of it has she read? 
Nikki Kaye 
: Oh probably 80 percent. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She has read 80 percent of the royal commission report— 
Chris Hipkins 
: 8 percent. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —or did she say 8 percent? I might have misheard her across the Chamber. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Executive summary. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh the executive summary or the whole report—well I do not actually think that that is the case. I would be very surprised if she had read 80 percent of that. Would the member be prepared to table her copy of the royal commission report complete with her notes highlighted remarks and yellow post-it notes later today? Would the member table her copy? Well I think we have now established that the member for Auckland Central has not read 80 percent of the royal commission report but I want to know who has read the whole lot. Has John Carter read every single page of the royal commission report? Has he read every page? He will not answer that either. So we are rapidly establishing that having received a really good report which has been thoroughly investigated and had research papers attached to it—a decent report from the royal commission; the best thing a Government can ask any inquiry to provide—National members have not even bothered to read it properly and fully before they have made their decisions about Auckland. Then they have come to Parliament and asked us to set up a special select committee in order for them to do their work. It is just not credible for them to maintain that position; they have not done the work on Auckland governance in time for this. 
They have instead—and this is a bit of political advice to the Government—forced people into positions that they cannot back down from quickly. The Government has forced people into a position where they have to oppose what the Government is proposing because the Government has not been prepared to engage and listen and to allow a reasonable amount of time—rather than 10 days—before it has put its position out to the country. Quite why it has done that I do not understand and maybe Government speakers can outline that for us. 
In relation to this special select committee I tell the House that it is not without precedent for Parliament to have stand-alone committees. There was one looking into employment relations legislation back in 2000 when a new Government came in with a very full Order Paper of legislation. A lot of work was required to be done by the new Government so a special select committee had to be set up. I think that anybody even a National Party supporter with a cursory look at the Order Paper under this Government will see that it is not exactly taxed for work when it comes to new ideas the Government has put on the Order Paper or new legislation that the Government wants to see brought forward in this country. After 6 months we have very very few bills at all on the Order Paper that legitimately belong to the Government—that have been introduced by the Government or where the policy work has been done by the Government. The bills still remain the ideas of the previous Government. And that is after 9 years in Opposition as Mr Twyford said in which to come up with some ideas. 
So that is the reason why the employment relations committee was set up as a stand-alone committee. The existing Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was already busy with work. The employment relations committee of course was opposed by National members in Opposition who said it was a very dangerous thing to have. I happen to have some quotes here from members who are now very very senior members of the National Government—or to be fair they became senior members of the Opposition; then they were junior members and now they are back as senior members of the National Government. That is the sort of musical chairs we were subjected to as that period went on. 
Someone we do not hear a lot from today is Dr Wayne Mapp but Dr Mapp received a warrant to be a Minister in Government which I just relate to the House as breaking news. He was very critical of this when in Opposition—as was Ken Shirley who was the deputy leader of the ACT Party and as was Simon Power who is the workhorse—the “Bill Birch” if you will—of this Government. He has said that select committees are the backbone of democracy and that they should not be undermined in this way. 
Standing Order 184 sets out which select committees the House has in all their subject areas. We have one called the Local Government and Environment Committee. That committee considers matters concerning local government. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who chairs that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I will get to that. But that committee is clearly charged by this House to deal with matters for local government. But what was established in question time today was that that committee will not have any work at all once the reports on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill are finished later on in June and if I get out the  
Parliamentary Bulletin 
 I can see that the only work before the Local Government and Environment Committee will be a briefing from the Department of Internal Affairs on actions arising from the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. So the select committee has filled up its work plan with a briefing on a piece of legislation that it will not be given the chance to look at. The Local Government and Environment Committee could easily handle this work and there is no reason for us to have a special committee. The Local Government and Environment Committee of course is chaired by Chris Auchinvole and that may well be one of the reasons why the Government is not so keen to go with it. 
But I want to know from the Leader of the House in the remaining minute I have which Auckland members will go on this committee to represent National. I really hope that the Hon Tau Henare goes on the committee because one thing we know about Tau is his constant and perpetual state of anger and I think that it would not be too hard for Opposition members to convince him to come on our side on some of these matters. After Nikki Kaye’s speech today I certainly hope she is appointed to the committee. Sam Lotu-Iiga would make a great contribution but he is always busy with those draft annual plan meetings in his role as a councillor. We just do not know what the drainage board might have on that day which would mean that Sam Lotu-Iiga could not be there. But the member whom I really hope gets appointed to the committee is Steven Joyce because if anyone knows how to stuff up Auckland it is Steven Joyce and he could do some great work on the select committee in that regard.