Hide Rodney:  
Hide Rodney:  
[Volume:654;Page:83] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I see that Ms Sue Kedgley has put in an amendment— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that you will not reverse your ruling but I just want to know whether the tradition of calls going from side to side has been broken because my colleague has certainly— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No the Minister always has the opportunity to speak at any time and I have given him that call. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Sue Kedgley has put in some amendments and I would just like to go through them and explain the reason why the Government will not be voting for them because I think these are serious amendments that are attempting a policy outcome. Ms Kedgley has put in three Supplementary Order Papers. Supplementary Order Paper 19 proposes changes to clauses 13 and 20 to remove the power of the Auckland Transition Agency to review or determine agendas for forthcoming meetings of existing Auckland local authorities and other local government organisations. 
I am sorry but Ms Kedgley has misread these clauses. The provision for the Auckland Transition Agency to review agendas is intended to allow the transition agency to identify and give notice to organisations if it considers that decisions on a particular matter may impact on the reorganisation or on the future capacity or assets of the Auckland Council. Such decisions must be reviewed and confirmed in writing by the transition agency before they are implemented. If we remove that power to review items that would leave the transition agency able only to identify such decisions after they have been made under clause 20(3). It will be far less disruptive if local authorities are aware of the need to seek confirmation before decisions are taken rather than retrospectively. The reason for being able to see the agendas is just to know which decisions are in front of the councils. What Ms Kedgley would do is allow the councils to make decisions that the transition agency would not know about. Also I should point out that Ms Kedgley has misread the bill. A careful read of the bill would show there is no power anywhere in this bill for the Auckland Transition Agency to “determine” local government agendas. That is a complete fabrication I am sorry. 
The powers to review both the decisions and the agenda items are necessary safeguards to cover decisions not already covered by the confirmation requirements in clause 31 or not recognised as covered by these provisions. The requirement that the Auckland Transition Agency confirm decisions does not mean that those decisions will be blocked in any way. It is recognised that existing councils will need to make some decisions that have consequences for the Auckland Council in order to take opportunities when they arise or address identified needs in a timely way. The process merely allows the Auckland Transition Agency to be satisfied that the impacts of those decisions are justified by the benefits. In the debate in relation to the establishment of the select committee that member commented that this provision would prevent councils putting particular matters on the agendas. Let me assure members in the Chamber and particularly Ms Kedgley that the bill does not do that at all. I am afraid Ms Kedgley has misread it. 
The second set of proposed amendments that Ms Kedgley put up in Supplementary Order Paper 20 seeks to require explicitly the approval of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee for ministerial appointments to the Auckland Transition Agency. That amendment relates to confusion about the operation of Cabinet and the role of Ministers. I can understand the Greens being confused on this issue because Labour has never allowed them to be Ministers or to be in Cabinet unlike National which has been a bit more generous with its potential coalition and support partners. If Ms Kedgley had had that experience the Greens would realise that it is contrary to legislative conventions to refer to Cabinet and Cabinet committees in this way in statute. The convention is that Cabinet arrangements and the way in which Ministers exercise their statutory powers are the prerogative of the Prime Minister to determine and are not subject to constraint by Parliament. So what the Greens would be doing with this amendment—and I am sure the Labour Party will not be voting for it—is to set up in statute a means of dictating the mechanisms of Cabinet committees and therefore undermining future prime ministerial power and setting a very very different convention to the way Cabinet and Parliament would understand it—I am sure Labour would accept that. It is also worth noting that no other statute provides for ministerial appointments to be referred to the Cabinet appointments and honours committee. No party in power has ever done that; that does not exist anywhere in statute. 
Hon Member 
: That’s amazing. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It is amazing but I can understand Ms Kedgley’s confusion—she is always the bridesmaid and never the bride. 
If we go to Supplementary Order Paper 21 which is in Ms Sue Kedgley’s name we see that an amendment proposes to insert a new clause 23A in respect of the transition agency. I want members to focus on this with particular care because this is from the Green Party which is actually complaining about the Government imposing its will on Auckland and through the councils. I want people to focus on this because it will be very interesting to see whether Labour will support this. The amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 21 requires that the transition agency before commencing any changes prepare a transition budget to cover the period until—wait for it—the 2016 triennial elections. So the transition agency would be preparing the budget for the new Auckland Council right through to the 2016 elections. The budget would be required to be publicly available prior to the approval being sought when variations are sought at 6-monthly intervals. The proposal lists the individual components of the transition and the budgeted costs of each. The amendments propose that any variations or cost overruns from the budget be met by the Crown. 
I explain again to the Greens and to Labour members how this works because clearly—and I apologise for this—there has been a misunderstanding. I have done my best through the night in clear plain English to explain how the bill works but clearly we have been missing it. The bill already requires that the Auckland Transition Agency has to obtain the approval of the responsible Minister and the Minister of Finance for its budget expenditure. This is set out in clause 22 and Mr Horomia can check this out. It also imposes a range of financial reporting and accountability requirements including the provision of audited financial statements for presentation to Parliament under the Public Finance Act 1989. I am sure that members on this side of the Chamber who are concerned about fiscal prudence and proper accounting—unlike some of the inappropriate shenanigans we have seen in the past—will appreciate that. It provides for a narrative report of the agency’s activities on its dissolution—and I ask Mr Horomia to check—as set out in clause 13(1)(c)(ii). 
In the absence of an elected Auckland Council it is appropriate that the accountability of the Auckland Transition Agency is to Ministers and through them to Parliament which has established its set of duties and powers. That is the proper mechanism for financial accountability as set out in the Public Finance Act. I want Green members to focus on this because what they are proposing is to create a binding budget running through to 2016. That would be hugely problematic given that the whole point of finalising the reorganisation and bedding down the change is to have the Auckland Council functioning from 1 November 2010. 
Somehow the Greens are trying to get Parliament to dictate the budget for Auckland through to 2016. What does that say about their approach to local democracy? The Government wants to achieve a reorganisation for Auckland—and Labour has said that it wants one mayor one council and one plan—so a transition agency is needed as explained in the royal commission report which spent $4 million setting that out. However the Greens are coming along and saying “No no. We don’t want the Auckland Council or Aucklanders deciding their own budget; we want to decide their budget not this year not next year and not the year after that but right through to 2016.” I would be astonished if the Labour Party wants to vote for that. I would be astonished if the Labour Party wants to vote for putting Cabinet committees into statute. I would be astonished if the Labour Party— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No put the Executive Council into statute. Do it properly—the Governor-General in Council. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard is calling out that we should be doing it properly. I ask him to look at the Labour Party’s own amendments. At least the Greens have made a proper attempt to deal with matters of policy rather than just raise matters to cause a vote. That is why I am answering the Green’s amendments. I am interested in whether the Labour members will be voting for them.