2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement on the proposed council-controlled organisations for the new Auckland super-city “we like the structure …”; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because the changes to the Auckland super-city will improve the coordination and delivery of services to ratepayers, and accountability. I am a bit surprised that the member seems surprised about the council-controlled organisations. Auckland city has had 40 council-controlled organisations, and these council-controlled organisations are being set up with a structure similar to that of those that were in place during the whole time that that member was in Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Prime Minister support a structure that Aucklanders from right across the political spectrum have condemned as removing democratic control and accountability from agencies that will be spending 75 percent of the Auckland Council’s—and the ratepayers’—money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Many of those who have expressed an opinion have run councils with council-controlled organisations. All those 40 council-controlled organisations have been overseen by existing Auckland councils. They had an opportunity to present their views to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which is fine-tuning the third Auckland governance bill. We await its report.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has he allowed the introduction of legislation setting up the Auckland Transport Agency, when all four key Government departments involved advised him in a Cabinet paper that they were against it because it would mean a lack of proper accountability to the Auckland Council and to the ratepayers of Auckland, whose money it will be spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may know that the changes in Auckland will take, currently, I think, nine transport organisations and turn them into one. He will be familiar with the operations of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which exists under the current structure, with appointed directors, its own statement of intent, and full public accountability. The member must explain why 40 council-controlled organisations were right in the past and a smaller number of them now are wrong.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a Cabinet committee paper that sets out that the four Government agencies that are involved in this process, which include Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Economic Development, all oppose the model that this Government has imposed on Auckland.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Phil Goff: Why are the agencies being called council-controlled organisations, when the Auckland Transport Agency, for example, is not explicitly required in legislation to act in accordance with the requirements of its shareholder, the Auckland Council, when the council has no power to appoint its chair or its deputy chair, and when the council is not empowered to change the structure or to disestablish it—is that not an oxymoron?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I say to that member that if he was worried about the structure of council-controlled organisations, he had 9 long years in Government to fix it, and he never did.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very clear point of order. Precedents have been set, even in recent days, by Mr Speaker about Ministers starting replies to reasonable questions in a way that attacks the Opposition and does not address the question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. It is a fair comment. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to come back to the question, and not to bring those sorts of innuendos into the answers.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The current structure of the new council-controlled organisations is very similar to that of the 40 council-controlled organisations that were in place during the term of the last Government. Of course, we have the opportunity to fine-tune the structure through the third Auckland governance bill, which is going through the select committee, but, in essence, these entities are controlled totally by the councils.

Hon Phil Goff: Why are the so-called council-controlled organisations able to hold their meetings in private, thus removing transparency and accountability to the ratepayers of Auckland, whom they are meant to be serving? Why are they not required to set out publicly what is in their agenda, or to publish their minutes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those requirements are exactly the same as the requirements that apply to the current 40 council-controlled organisations in Auckland, and to the council-controlled organisations that are operated by councils all around the country. I am a bit puzzled that the Opposition has now found out how council-controlled organisations work. Labour did not seem at all concerned about that when it used its influence when in Government to put Labour people on council-controlled organisations to get what it wanted.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the chair of Local Government New Zealand, Mayor Lawrence Yule, when he said, firstly, that there is a groundswell of opposition across Auckland to his Government’s legislation; secondly, that democracy is “fundamentally threatened”—I am using his words—by the changes; and, thirdly, that with control of three-quarters of Auckland’s assets being handed over to a few non-elected directors, Auckland ratepayers are deprived of accountability and transparency?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that where we agree is that the previous structure of 40 council-controlled organisations, with almost all of Auckland’s assets in the hands of a fragmented structure across eight councils, did not work very well. Even Auckland wants it changed. This measure is part of the process of change. In every case the council is free to appoint or dismiss any member of those council-controlled organisations, as has been the case for the last 15 or 20 years with council-controlled organisations all around the country.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this is a relatively simple point of order. The question started with, and was all about, what the Prime Minister’s response is to Mr Yule. Mr Yule was not mentioned in the answer, and there was no response to the three points that had been made by Mr Yule.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I consider there was, but I must remind Ministers that when they are replying on behalf of someone else they must say they are replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, for example, instead of going directly to the answer.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter dated 12 March 2010 to mayors right across New Zealand from Lawrence Yule, the President of Local Government New Zealand, setting out all of the fundamental criticisms that I outlined in the question, and that the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Phil Goff: Will he respond to the growing mood in Auckland, as articulated by its community leaders of all political shades and by newspapers in Auckland, that Rodney Hide is not fit to guide these reforms of Auckland local governance, and will he act on their lack of confidence in Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government by dismissing him; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, absolutely not. The Minister of Local Government has overseen one of the largest and most complex changes in public policy in New Zealand. The thrust of those changes is broadly supported in Auckland and is widely supported throughout the rest of the country. I challenge that member to show me any other such large change that has gone as smoothly as this one.