Mark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8303. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I want to start by thanking the Minister in the chair the Hon Louise Upston for the explanation to my questions on the issue of reducing the size of the quorum from three to two. I was writing frantically Minister trying to get it all down but from what was explained to the Committee the Government is saying that this relates to site-specific areas is at the discretion of the chair and is for the hearing of evidence not for decision making. It is not a decision-making process; it is for only the hearing of evidence.I have got that and I think I understand what was said. My difficulty is that I have got the primary legislation open on my laptop and I am going through it clause by clause trying to marry up what I have just heard with what I am reading in this legislation. So I am going to have to unfortunately ask the Minister to explain again for me. I am not a lawyer. I never went to university. Actually I started my trade as a mechanic in the army and worked my way through to end up commanding troops but it seems to me that something is not matching in here. So I am really going to need to defer back to the lawyers in the Chamber at the moment. I am looking at Mr Grant Robertson now and hoping that he will get a call to validate or maybe argue against what I am trying to propose.I have looked at clause 4 which amends section 136 “Hearing procedure” in the principal Act. If I go to section 136 of the principal Act I would assume that the entire authorised procedure for this Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel would be laid out clearly there. It makes no mention in there of the hearings panel being restricted to site-specific considerations only. It makes no mention of it only hearing evidence. In fact in subsection (1) it says: “At each hearing session no fewer than 3 members of the Hearings Panel must be present.” Well it is going down to two. It goes on to say: “(2) If the chairperson is not present he or she must appoint another member as chairperson …”. That is going to be interesting.As I said before if there was a quorum of three and the chair was not there then three would decide who was going to be the chair. If there is a quorum of two and the chair is not there we are probably going to spend half our meeting arguing about who is going to be the chair. It just seems a whole lot easier if you leave the quorum at three and then we can get a clear majority appoint a chair and move on. That is the first point.As I go through the hearing procedure provision I can see nothing of what the Minister has explained to us—and I absolutely accept that the Minister will have taken advice from officials. So what I would like now is for us to get advice as to where that advice we have just received appears in the legislation or is cross-referenced in the legislation because it appears to me that it does not appear in the legislation. If I go to section 164 “Functions of Hearings Panel” in the primary legislation what do I find? It is clear that section 164 “Functions of Hearings Panel” does not in any way in that very short section—section 164(a); (b)(i) (ii) (iii); and (c) (d) and (e)—restrict the hearing of a quorum of two. Help me please because I cannot see it.The Minister of Local Government is here. She is having a quiet chat so she might be able to take a call and help us understand this but I cannot find it. I find no reference within the legislation to the explanation we have just received—that it empowers and enacts those thoughts into reality. So I am asking for help guidance so that we in New Zealand First can continue to support this legislation through and support the Government in doing that.New section 144 inserted by clause 5 is very specific. We will just stay with the amendments to section 144 not what I have got in front of me on my laptop which is the primary legislation. New section 144 is very clear. It is headed “Hearings Panel must make recommendations to Council on proposed plan”. It says it must make recommendations. It does not say: “unless it is a quorum of two and therefore they can’t.” It says: “The Hearings Panel must make recommendations on the proposed plan including any recommended changes to the proposed plan.” It says “must make”. It does not say: “unless there’s only a quorum of two.”Subsection (2) of new section 144 states: “The Hearings Panel may make recommendations …”—may make recommendations. It does not say that it is not for decision-making purposes or recommendation-making purposes if there is only a quorum of two. It does not say that. I hate to be a pain but I am struggling and we want to support this legislation through—