Robertson Grant: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8305. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I do want to pick up on Mr Mark’s contribution. He should have become a lawyer judging from that contribution. He could defend himself from time to time as well which might help. But I believe his analysis was spot on. I do thank the Minister for answering the questions that were raised because as Mr Mark noted she did that genuinely on the basis of the advice she got from the officials.But there is an issue here and it does require us to look at the substantive piece of legislation that is being amended the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act. This Act establishes—beginning at section 128 and running all the way through to section 150—how the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel will work. The problem with the advice that the Minister gave us is that there is only one type of hearings panel. There is not a different range of hearings panels. There is not such a thing in law as a site-specific hearings panel. That is what the Minister said.She said there would be decisions made about whether there would be three or two members on that panel as clause 4 of this bill allows for on a site-specific basis at the discretion of the chair. There is nothing from sections 128 to 150 to create that. There is simply a thing called a hearings panel. If that is the case the hearings panel then has to do all of the things that the Act asked which as Mr Mark has just told us under replaced section 144 the title of section 144 is “Hearings Panel must make recommendations to Council on proposed plan”. It does not have an option. If there are two people at a site-specific meeting where we do not know who the chair necessarily is that group of two people is obliged by law to make a recommendation. So in respect of what the Minister has told us it is simply not the case in law.It may be the intention of the officials or the intention of the Government to create a situation where a panel of two would not make a recommendation but the problem is that is not what the law says. Mr Mark’s original question asked now nearly 2 hours ago still stands. The original question stands. What do we do when there are two people serving as the hearings panel who disagree on a recommendation? That is quite possible. That remains quite a possible situation. Under the law under section 144 even as amended by clause 5 of this bill they will be obliged to make a recommendation.So I ask the Minister again to stand up and explain to us how in fulfilling its role under the law a hearings panel now potentially made up of two people will resolve a conflict because Mr Mark’s question stands. I understand the practice that the Minister believes will now take place but that is not the law. A hearings panel of two who fail to make a recommendation on the proposed plan will be in breach of the law. They will be in breach of section 144 of the law. This is the difficulty caused by moving from three to two members as the quorum. We have not had an adequate explanation as to how the law will be fulfilled. I think the Minister might be able to get further advice about that because I suspect that the officials have talked about it. I am happy to give a bit of time for the officials to have their conversation about this.Dr David Clark: A coin toss.GRANT ROBERTSON: My colleague Dr David Clark suggests a coin toss. I think Aucklanders deserve better than that. I think Aucklanders actually deserve to know how this will work. We understand why parties in this Chamber with the exception of our colleagues in the Greens are supporting the principles of this legislation. We know that the unitary plan process needs to speed up. We know that there needs to be a more efficient process. But what we cannot be doing under urgency is passing law that is contradictory because we will be back yet again saying “Hang on a minute. Actually we don’t want a hearings panel of two to have to make a recommendation because what if they can’t? What if they can’t agree?”. So perhaps there does need to be an additional clause that says exactly what the Minister told us in her intervention—that if there is—