Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

Members, the Committee is resumed. Last night the Committee completed consideration of Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill. It is 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 13 May, and we now have a series of new proposals in front of us to insert new parts. Although they have come to us in arithmetical order to make sure they are checked and everything is OK, we will not be dealing with them in exactly the same order, so I ask members to bear with us and with the Clerks. We also have a number of amendments. The first is in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a new part establishing the Auckland Transitional Agency Review Commission.

I move, That we report progress in order to send this bill to a select committee for a period of 4 weeks.

These amendments are not strictly in the right order, but this proposed new part deals with the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. This part would not be necessary if there had been a wee bit of goodwill by the Government and if it had faith in Aucklanders by giving them a say on this bill. The amendment would not have been necessary, but now we are here on Saturday, 16 May, which is still the sitting day of 13 May here in Parliament.

Much could be achieved by establishing a commission. The commission would be headed by a person who is eligible to hold the office of commissioner “if he or she is, or is eligible to be, a District Court Judge. If an appointee is not a District Court Judge at the time of appointment as a Commissioner, he or she shall be appointed as a District Court Judge at that time.” That shows the seriousness and importance we place on the appointment. We cannot just appoint our mates, as some parts of the bill allow. This appointment is very important.

The proposed amendment goes on to state: “When considering whether a person is suitable to be appointed as a Commissioner the Attorney-General should have regard to the need to ensure that the Court possesses a mix of knowledge and experience in matters coming before the Court, including knowledge and experience in economic, commercial, and business affairs, local government and community affairs:” That is really important.

The amendment mentions local government and community affairs. It is interesting. We have drafted this amendment so that these now come together. Local government in Auckland is being ridden roughshod over, and, worse then that, so is the community. The community has been left out in the cold by this Government.

It is interesting. We will have a series of meetings all over the place that will be run and paid for by the National Party. In my area, Mr Bakshi will have one—if he is still around. He might be able to tell people how many houses they can turn into brothels and things like that. I understand he is a bit of an expert in that area.

The appointment of commissioners is important because planning, resource management, and heritage protection are very important. They need to be up to speed with that.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: You’re right, George. Get on with it.

It is good to see my friend the member for Hunua up here bright and early. It is good to see that he is awake; sometimes it is hard to tell whether he is talking in his sleep or whether he is awake. Other important areas that commissioners should have knowledge and experience in are environmental science, including the physical and social sciences; architecture; engineering; surveying; mineral technology; and building and construction. Knowledge and experience of matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi are also very important.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: It’s never concerned you before, George!

There is Mr Henare. He obviously did not get home last night, considering the condition he is in. He probably went straight to the clubs. He has come well fuelled for today. When we have Tau Henare well fuelled, it makes life interesting.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You told us that these additional parts will not be considered in numerical order—and I understand the reason for that—but I think it would be helpful for the Committee to know which part is to be debated after this part, so that we can read it and be well informed before we debate it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member makes a good point. The next part we will consider will be Part 10. If the member wants to look further into the future, we will then consider Part 9. After that, we will go on to Part 5.

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.

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.

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.

It is a pleasure to take a call on new Part 11, which establishes the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission. The Leader of the House, in relation to the first speech given on this part by the Hon George Hawkins, said it was bureaucracy gone mad.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He’d know!

He would know about that, I say to Mr Hughes, because since being in office the National Government has established 36 review committees. Most of them have been set up by Mr Brownlee, who is trying to review what he knows about the energy sector. Unfortunately, he does not know a lot, so he has had to establish 36 review committees.

This particular review commission has been established for a very, very good reason: National has pushed this bill through Parliament under urgency, denying Aucklanders the right to have a proper democratic process. In the light of that and of the fact that last night we sat in this Chamber and established, without a select committee process, an agency that would be responsible for $28 billion of assets and for 6,000 people’s jobs, we need a review commission. This is a serious amendment and a serious new part, because this Government has decided that Aucklanders should not have a say about the transition to a super-city. It has tried to push that through without any input at this important stage in the process. A review commission, as established under Part 11, would be able to let Aucklanders have a say.

We see very clearly, when we look at this part, that the review commission will be established on a far fairer basis than that of the transition agency it will seek to review. If we note the membership of the Auckland Transition Agency Review Commission, we realise it will consist of the chair of the commission and five commissioners. We noted in the debate last night Part 3 that clause 11(1) states: “The Transition Agency must have a governing body consisting of a chairperson and no fewer than 2 but no more than 4 other members appointed by the Minister.” There we go; we will finally have a sufficient number of people to look at this matter properly.

I now turn to how those people will be appointed. For the review commission we have an appointment process that will involve a range of people. It will involve people such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Local Government, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and the Attorney-General; they will all be involved in the appointment of the commissioners. That is unlike the Auckland Transition Agency, where one person will appoint the members of the governing board, and that one person is the Hon Rodney Hide.

The Hon Rodney Hide said that the Auckland Transition Agency will be responsible for a rationalisation of governance arrangements in the Auckland area. Members on this side of the Chamber know very well what Mr Hide and his ACT Party friends believe is a rationalisation of services. It is not about making them more efficient, and it is not about making them effective; it is about cutting and slashing them. That is the agenda. It is about privatising assets, taking them away from the people of Auckland, taking them away from the people of New Zealand, and returning them to Mr Hide’s mates. That is why, in this part, we are asking for a review commission to be appointed in a way that will reflect a wider set of interests than the narrow ideological interests of Rodney Hide. We are certain that when Auckland people see a review commission established in this way, they will know they are getting a proper review of arrangements for Auckland governance, rather than the sham of democracy that we have seen from members on the other side of the Chamber.

I also want to refer to another reason why the review commission is vitally important. Clause 13(1)(b) of Part 3, which we passed last night, states that the transition agency will have the ability to look at and review every single item on the agenda of a meeting of an existing local government organisation during the transition period. If that is not the action of the nanny State, I do not know what is. Every single item, down to the toilet rolls and the stationery, of a local government organisation in Auckland will be reviewed by the transition agency. What kinds of decisions will we get in that environment? We need to be able to review those decisions and ensure that Aucklanders have a proper say about what is happening to their local government organisation. The transition agency is a sham from the Government.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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.

—in control of $28 billion, and in control of—how many employees?

💬 Hon Member: Over 6,000.

And in control of over 6,000 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.

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?

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

I say to the National Government, which is desperately trying to shut down debate on new Part 11, that Labour members would like to have a discussion about it. We are putting up serious amendments to try to do the best we can to rectify rotten and flawed legislation. Given that this is the only debate on this legislation happening in this country, we do not think it is too much to ask that those members of this House who care about the rights of the people of Auckland, who actually care about democracy in Auckland, are allowed to have a debate on this issue. So I thank the Chair for giving Labour the call. I say to Government members that they might do well to listen to what we are saying, rather than squawking like headless chooks. Nathan Guy might think it is funny to kill democracy in Auckland, but the Labour Party does not.

New Part 11 is very important. There is one very simple line in this part, which the Labour Opposition has put up, that might not seem like a big deal; clause 38(2) says simply: “The Commission is independent from the Auckland Transition Agency.” Do members know what? The Auckland Transition Agency is not independent from Rodney Hide; it is not independent at all. Because of that, people should be very concerned. This hand-picked bureaucracy will have all the powers of the current eight democratically elected Auckland councils. As I said last night in the debate, given that the Auckland Transition Agency is basically, for all intents and purposes, going to be the Auckland Council for the next 18 months, the people of Auckland, the ratepayers of Auckland, need to know that there is some kind of check and balance on the power of that organisation.

I see Sam Lotu-Iiga laughing; he thinks he is about to get a third job, on the Auckland Transition Agency. I urge Government members to look seriously at new Part 11 and take a call to debate it, rather than just being annoyed that they are being made to work on a Saturday.

Another very important point is that clause 50, “Hearings”, states: “The Commission shall meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition period.” This is a very interesting clause. When we go back to Part 3, which was voted on last night and was opposed by members on this side of the Chamber, we notice all kinds of clauses on the requirement for the Auckland Transition Agency to report to the Minister, but nothing about its need to represent the community. There is clause after clause about how the agency must report to the Minister at regular intervals on progress, and must provide a final report. What does the bill say the agency must do for the people of Auckland? The Government members have gone quiet now, because none of them have actually read this legislation. They have their research unit notes and they have been trotted down here to take closure motions, but none of them have read the legislation. Well, there is nothing in the bill about representing the people of Auckland. In fact, the agency is “to provide information to the public of Auckland … as it thinks fit,”. If we look at the process of this bill, which is going through the Committee stage without it having been to a select committee, we can probably guess that “as it thinks fit” will be never, unless the agency tells the councils not to buy toilet paper, as one of the Auckland councils suggested in the newspaper the other day.

That raises a very important point. The Auckland Transition Agency has the power to veto any kind of spending a council wants to do. The agency will ask the Minister whether it is OK for the North Shore City Council to buy toilet paper this week, and the Minister will say no, because he is worried that the council will go over to Mount Albert and use it to block the bulldozers. The council can then say to the agency that, actually, the toilet paper is important for tourism; it needs to buy toilet paper for a lot of public toilets, and it is worried that without it people might not want to come to Auckland.

Labour members are proposing a review commission. It will have to meet, it will have to be accountable to the people of Auckland, and—this is a really good part—its members will actually have to have experience in local government. Unlike the members of the Auckland Transition Agency’s governing body, these people will have to know what they are doing, and they will be there to serve the people of Auckland in a local government capacity. The review commission will be able to review the Minister’s decision about toilet paper.

I think that is a really important safeguard for the people of Auckland. A transition agency is being set up to hand power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime Minister’s mates until a council structure can be put in place, which will then hand power over to the Minister’s mates and the Prime Minister’s mates. We need a check and balance, and the review commission is that check and balance. As I said, the review commission will have to meet every Monday and Tuesday of every week for the duration of the transition period. There is no requirement on the Auckland Transition Agency to actually meet with the people of Auckland. There is no requirement at all for it to be accountable to the people of Auckland.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you for the chance to take a call on new Part 11 in the name of my colleague the Hon George Hawkins. There are two great questions in politics—only two. The first is: how on earth did Gerry Brownlee get that job? How on earth was Gerry Brownlee given that job? And, the second great question is: who guards the guardians?

This morning, considering the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill in urgency, we have to ask ourselves some questions about the basics of politics—some of the great questions about how it is handled for citizens and by citizens. This new part considers the question in this particular way: it appoints a review commission to oversee the work of the Auckland Transition Agency.

I draw members’ attention to new clause 52, which sets out the powers of the commission that George Hawkins is recommending in this new part. It states: “The Commission shall have the ability to direct the Transition Agency to reconsider a decision taken.” That is a very important point. I am not sure members opposite understand just how much power Parliament is devolving in urgency at the moment. They have been briefed at caucus that this is a simple bill, but it is not a simple bill. This bill shifts power in New Zealand not to more people but to fewer people. And those fewer people are not elected; those fewer people are appointed. They are not appointed by the lead party in the Government, the National Party; they are appointed by a Minister from a party that enjoys about 3 percent of the party vote in our country.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: And a fine Minister at that.

Well, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga is very easily impressed through his community board meetings, his council meetings, his district drainage board meetings, his annual plan meetings, and his draft long-term council community plan meetings. He is very easily influenced by power; he tries to collect every job that is going. Goodness knows whom he is invoicing for today for his being here, but I hope it is not the people of Auckland.

The point here about new clause 52 is that under the bill as it stands, Mr Hide gets to appoint an authority whose actions cannot be reviewed by anybody. Mr Grant Robertson will talk about the process by which the review commission will do its work, and there is an important part around hearings. But my point is that the powers of this commission are important safeguards for our Parliament. We are trying to decide who will guard the guardians. One-third of our people will be governed by the transitional authority—one in three New Zealanders’ lives will be affected directly by a bill that members opposite do not want to debate.

After 15 minutes’ consideration of a commission that could review and be a backstop to this agency, National members want to move closure on it. They are shutting down debate on a topic that affects the lives of over 1 million New Zealanders. Over 1 million people’s lives change as this bill goes through, yet National members are not interested in that. They think it is no problem. They trust Mr Hide. Mr Hide has been doing over the National Party since 1996, but they are too stupid to even realise it. Rodney Hide runs rings around these people, and he will find ways of getting his people into the agency. He even smartly put up a new amendment yesterday to give the transition agency five people, not four, so that he could appoint another of his people to run all this. That is how smart the Minister of Local Government is. The Leader of the House is so stupid, he cannot work that out.

There are two great questions in politics. First, how the hell did Gerry Brownlee get that job? And, second, who guards the guardians? The Labour Opposition, through proposed new clause 52, gives an answer to the question of who guards the guardians.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Wasting taxpayers’ money.

Sam Lotu-Iiga has the cheek to talk about wasting taxpayers’ money. He is so good at wasting money that he wastes not only taxpayers’ money but ratepayers’ money as well. That is efficiency! It is machine-like efficiency to, in the same hour and on the same day, waste both taxpayers’ money and ratepayers’ money! I do not know any other member in this Committee who can do that. Do members know the sad and terrible thing about it? Although he is getting money off both sides, both sides are getting poor value for money. I wish Sam Lotu-Iiga wore a big receipt on his chest so that we could rip if off him and get our money back. The Minister of Consumer Affairs is from the ACT Party. We know that the ACT Party is running rings around the National Party, so why does the Minister of Consumer Affairs not get our money back from Sam Lotu-Iiga? That is the question we want answered here this morning.

I am in favour of new clause 52. It will be good for the decisions of this transition authority to be able to be reviewed by the commission, which will be set up to check these things. You know, after the one term that Paul Quinn is getting in Parliament, maybe he could be on this commission, because every commission needs a secretary. Everybody needs somebody who is useless, and he could be the person to make sure things are going well in that particular regard.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is very good to get a call for the Green Party, after many attempts, on this excellent amendment in the name of my colleague George Hawkins to insert new Part 11, which appoints a review commission for the Auckland Transition Agency. If ever an organisation needed judicial oversight by a review commission chaired by a judge, this agency does. Three people—the Minister and two of his henchpersons appointed by him—will be able to countermand every decision made by every council in Auckland, and make them do something different.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: So it could be a squash player and a dancer who has been dropped on her head?

Well, the mind boggles at just who those two people might be, but regardless of who they are, they are clearly subservient to the Minister.

Our largest city is not run as a dictatorship by one Minister in Parliament who, incidentally, had the support of some 3 percent of the population when his party was elected. That is what we call a dictatorship, and that needs judicial oversight and a review commission. Although the debate yesterday talked about the councils still having decision-making powers, it is very clear here that they do not actually have any decision-making powers at all, unless the Minister happens to like the decisions that they make. They will be completely neutered organisations for 18 months, they will be completely subject to the will of the Minister, and that could include doing anything. As colleagues have said, it could include selling assets, it could include taking a different approach to implementing the plan—the possibilities are limitless as to what these councils might be required to do by this transition agency.

This review commission is a very sensible idea. It will be chaired by somebody who is, or is eligible to be, a District Court judge. That means that there is some respect for the law in what is going on there, and I think that will be a useful thing, as well. It is a five-person commission, so it is actually somewhat larger than the body that it is reviewing, which, I think, just reflects on the stupidity of having a mere three people able to run the whole of Auckland for 18 months. So it is a very well-worked-out amendment. It has all the detail in it about the appointments and the oath of office. The commissioners will even have special advisers to help them with proceedings. My colleague has thought of all the details about the remuneration of commissioners and their procedures and hearings. There is no doubt that they will also have staff and that they will be protected.

We had concerns yesterday from the Government about 6,000 local government workers who were scared about their jobs. I have to ask who made them scared about their jobs. It is not the Green Party that is making them scared for their jobs, and it is not the Labour Party or the Māori Party that is giving them all this anxiety about their employment—it is the Government that is doing so. There is a very easy way to address their concern about their jobs, and that is to just get rid of this silly legislation or send it to a select committee so that we can hear from those people about whether they are adequately protected.

Again, this is the first of many good amendments to this bill. I strongly support it, because if we are going to have this stupid structure there are a lot of checks and balances we have to put in place. The Green Party has six proposed new parts coming up, which will ensure that this transitional authority does sensible things, sustainable things, fair things, peaceful things, and democratic things in Auckland. Maybe when we have passed all those amendments we will end up with a transitional agency that will actually do what the people of Auckland want it to do, despite this legislation being very poorly conceived in the first place. As I say, this is just the first of a number of parts that will improve this legislation enormously. It would, of course, be much better if it were sent to a select committee so that the people of Auckland could have their say about how they want this legislation to be improved, and that may yet still happen if we persist.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a very serious point of order that I bring to the Committee, and this is the sort of issue that arises when we are in urgency. Last night the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, moved amendments to Part 3 that could have some very far-reaching and unintended consequences. He moved that the employees of the existing staff of the eight authorities lose their current employment rights. Under this amendment, moved by the Minister in the chair, women currently employed by the Auckland authorities could lose the right to paid parental leave, and this is incredibly serious—

The member is raising a debating point. I know that the member feels strongly about this, but this is a matter for a call, and for a debate to be brought to the Committee’s attention. It is not a matter for order in the process of how the Committee conducts itself. If the member wants to continue with this, she will have to demonstrate that it is about order, not about substance. So far it has all been about substance.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not think my colleague was attempting to get into a debating matter; it is a matter of order of process in terms of what the Minister has advised the Committee of. We are seeking to find out whether the Minister is in a position to be able to supply us with a report or maybe a briefing from the officials about this issue of paid parental leave, because the employment relationship has changed, and we need to make sure we can get the information from the Minister, because the part has been dealt with.

Thank you. If the member wishes to have a briefing from officials, then I am quite sure the Minister would welcome the member approaching the Minister and having access to the officials. That is entirely appropriate, and it is what normally happens, but it is not necessarily a matter of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thank you for your advice in that particular area, but this is very serious, because it is my understanding that we will come up to a clause relatively soon that indicates that this amendment binds the Crown. It would be good if the Minister could supply to the Committee a written opinion on that particular area as to whether this amendment, in binding the Crown, overrides the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act.

I say to the member that I have just made the point that that is an issue of substance; it is not an issue of order. If the member wants to approach the Minister to get a written opinion from him, he is more than welcome to do that; this does not take up the time of the Committee. We want points of order to be on matters of order, not matters of process.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In the past, Chairs and Speakers have had reasonable latitude around points of order where there is a genuine attempt, as there is in this case, to avoid disorder. I am sure that if what has been indicated is the case, this has the potential to lead to gross disorder during the week. I am attempting to help you to avoid that.

Thank you. What I think I will also do is get the maintenance staff to check the member’s chair. It seems that there is something wrong with it in that the member does not seem to be able to stay in his seat for very long! I say to him that to imply that previous Chairs have done something quite differently is saying that I am not handling the job right. I am sure the member did not want to imply that that is the case. But I say to the member that my experience of being the Minister in the chair is that where members want information from the Minister and from officials, they approach the Minister directly, and the Minister makes the information available via the advisers he or she has in the Chamber. Points of order are to be about order, not about process.

I move, That the question be now put.