Click photo to enlarge
John Carter
The Labour Party is absolutely correct.
With the connivance of Act New Zealand, the National minority
Government is riding roughshod over parliamentary convention
by dictating a junior minister, with portfolio
responsibilities for local government, chair the special
select committee dealing with one of the two Auckland "Super
City" Bills.
When National's decision to rush the first enabling Bill into
law under urgency last week, and without prior select
committee consideration, is also taken into account; the
Government's decision to place Associate Local Government
Minister John Carter in charge of the select committee's
scrutiny of the second Bill is a further disturbing
development.
Select committees are supposed to be creatures of Parliament,
not toadies of the executive.
That is the case even though there are no rules preventing
ministers outside the Cabinet such as Mr Carter from sitting
on select committees.
There is much precedent.
Dover Samuels sat on the primary production committee during
Labour's term in office.
In Parliament, Internal Affairs Minister Richard Worth is on
the justice and electoral committee, while Mr Carter himself
is a member of the primary production committee.
But that is about as far as their involvement should go.
It would be unconscionable for one of those ministers as a
member of the executive to chair one of those standing
committees.
That would draw the executive too closely into Parliament's
role of scrutinising how ministers spend the money that
Parliament votes for the running of their portfolios.
Likewise, it would be intolerable to have a minister chairing
a select committee inquiry into some failing on the part of
another minister.
National would argue that Mr Carter is not setting a
precedent in chairing a special select committee which is
dealing solely with a legislative or policy matter.
Peter Dunne, another minister outside the Cabinet, chairs the
special committee charged with revising the emissions trading
scheme.
However, his appointment reflected the Government's
confidence in him as an effectively independent MP, to
arbitrate between the different factions on the committee.
Climate change has nothing to with his two portfolios of
Revenue and Associate Health.
He is therefore not open to charges of having a potential
conflict of interest, whereas Mr Carter's ministerial
responsibilities are directly relevant to his role as chair,
and thus further stretch the boundaries in terms of
precedent.
Normally, Auckland local government legislation would be
handled by Parliament's local government and environment
committee, which is chaired by National's Chris Auchinvole.
Diverting the Bill to a special committee and giving the job
of "minder" to Mr Carter is being done in the expectation
this highly experienced, down-to-earth and level-headed
politician will ensure the committee's proceedings do not
turn into a political circus.
The Government's timetable for abolishing the plethora of
local authorities in Auckland and replacing them with a more
rationalised structure of a mayor and single council is
extremely tight.
It cannot afford delays if the new structure is to be in
place for the 2010 local body elections.
Mr Carter's appointment is thus motivated by short-term
political expediency and should not be interpreted as some
longer-term constitutional conspiracy to bolster the
executive and weaken Parliament.
However, that is the effective outcome.
In National's defence, the independence of select committees
is more a mirage than reality.
In most cases, Government MPs make up the majority.
Membership is determined by their party's hierarchy.
Knowing they hold their positions at the leadership's
pleasure, those MPs consequently act as obedient ciphers for
the executive.
Adding to the charade of independence is that Cabinet
ministers are expected to actively liaise with the chairs or
senior Government members of select committees that have
their legislation before them.
Cabinet ministers are expected to be aware of progress and to
personally identify any intervention or other action
necessary to advance legislation.
Despite that, there have been indications of albeit slow, but
discernible, progress in Parliament's select committees
acting more independently of the executive since the
introduction of MMP.
The treatment of the two Auckland Bills is a serious step
backwards.
However, the Government is terrified that the local authority
restructuring will get bogged down if it takes its foot off
the legislative accelerator - and with reason, given past
experience of consultation with Auckland's fractious, warring
councils.
In its hurry, though, the Government is copping a public
backlash.
Its handling of the Royal Commission's report into Auckland's
governance has somehow managed to unite disparate groups who
oppose the restructuring, for different reasons; for example,
whether there should be a quota of Maori seats.
National argues that sending the second Bill to the special
select committee provides ample opportunity for the public to
have a say.
But in going down this track, the Government has displayed
political ineptness.
Putting Mr Carter in the chair sends a pretty awful message
to people or organisations making submissions opposing or
questioning aspects of the Super City restructuring: that
they are wasting their time.
It would be difficult to come up with another means of making
it so easy for opponents to attack the restructuring,
especially in the heat of the Mt Albert by-election.
Along with the Waterview Connection, the "Super City"
proposal is a millstone around the neck of Melissa Lee,
National's candidate, one she will not be able to shake off
this side of voting day.
Labour, in contrast, has been able to milk criticism of the
Super City proposal for all its worth, even though in
principle it too backs the concept of a single council
running Auckland. National has organised public meetings in
the Auckland area co-chaired by Mr Carter to try to reduce
the political temperature and reassure people about what
National is doing.
The stakes are large.
Lose Auckland and you lose the next election.
Labour's Trevor Mallard has been praising Mr Carter as
National's new Mr Fix-it, deserving of a place on National's
front-bench.
If Mr Carter extracts his party from this mess, he will
deserve such promotion.
It looks more likely, however, that he and his colleagues
will have to grit their teeth and soldier on
