Roche Denise: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8257. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Green Party on the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I always find it quite useful when we are looking an amendment bill to go and look at what we are actually amending. This bill amends another local government Auckland Council bill that was introduced in 2013. At the time that it was introduced it was one of three different parts of the Resource Management Reform Bill 2013 which was split into three bills at its third reading and voted on separately.At that time we had serious concerns that all three parts of that Resource Management Reform Bill were a serious attack on local democracy and basically eroded the protections of the Resource Management Act making economic imperatives a primary consideration when consenting for land use and the like. I mean it even removed protections on urban trees for example. What that bill was really about was the usual Government approach of delivering legislation that makes life easier for its mates—in this case essentially developers—all under the guise of really trying to do something about the Auckland housing market which by the way it failed to do.The Government at that time was saying that if it sped up the resource consent process then it would enable developers to get through the consenting process quicker and they would be able to build more houses faster and it would be cheaper for the developers as well because they would not have to go through the notification process. But the thing was it did not fix that because essentially what was happening was that about 90 percent of the consents that were going through Auckland were going through unnotified anyway. Essentially that was not what it was about; it actually was just about degrading the Resource Management Act.So yes the original Act was just another way to make life easier for developers. I cannot think of another reason for the constant meddling by this Government in the affairs of the Auckland Council. The original Act was about forcing the Auckland super-city to develop a unitary plan for the entire region and the Government was putting huge pressure on the council at that time to change its focus away from a compact city to extending the metropolitan urban limits. And we have heard the précis from the member Phil Twyford about the spatial plan that had been occurring up until that point.When the original bill which we are amending tonight came to this House we opposed it—not just because our vision for Auckland is for a livable city and for a more compact city with a mix of medium and high-density housing along public transport links where walking and cycling are part of the transport options not just roads and where we have affordable homes where we have a clean environment clean water a clean sea where we have affordable housing and where we have safe and thriving communities. That is our vision for a livable Auckland.We opposed that bill because we did not think that the measures that the Government was taking were actually ever going to deliver that but we also opposed that because we thought it was about taking yet another slice away from local democracy. The original bill said that the Auckland Council would have to deliver the Auckland Unitary Plan the planning document for about the next 30 years and that they would have to report back the recommendations to the council by I think September next year.Essentially what the bill did was it set out a 3-year programme to develop an incredibly complex planning document that will basically guide the future of the city for generations. Others have talked about it as well. It was about amalgamating the council plans from the previous seven councils the regional policies and regulations—so really really complex.We opposed the original bill because we saw that the council was having very little control over that process. We saw the Government’s interference in the democratic processes of the local authorities removing the right of the council to determine who would be hearing the submissions on that planning process and on being able to even decide whether they would be on those hearings themselves—whether there would be councillors on them. That right was removed from the councils. So instead of that the Government—and by that I mean the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation—was the one that essentially decided who would be on those hearing panels.We are concerned about the way that happens because it seems to be an ongoing theme from this Government. It does it all the time. The latest one today was the appointment of the former MP Tau Henare to the board of directors for the Housing New Zealand Corporation and today’s revelations as well about Paula Rebstock and her huge daily payment for reviewing the Child Youth and Family Service—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member but I had warned members earlier that it would be good to focus on this bill. It would be good if the member did.DENISE ROCHE: The point I am making is that I am surprised that the Government did not appoint either of those two to the hearings commission to be hearing commissioners. Never mind.Anyway so it is really not surprising that the bill we have got here tonight is designed to fast track the hearings process as there are still around 5000 submissions that are specifically site based with submitters who want to be heard. A previous speaker from that side of the House said that he was surprised by that number but actually that is just an example of democracy in Auckland. Certainly people who really really care about what happens to zoning in their communities submit on these issues and that is what creates the number of submissions.So once again this bill gives the Ministers the power to appoint hearing commissioners to speed up the hearing process so that the panel can meet the deadline that the previous Act set for the recommendations to be reported back to the council which is July next year. That is when they have to do it.So much of the legislation that this Government has introduced over the last 7 years is really about fixing a bunch of mistakes or adjusting for unrealistic expectations to more reasonable requirements. We agree that we do need a unitary plan and that it is critical for Auckland’s development. We acknowledge that despite our misgivings and worry about the lack of democracy around appointing the hearings commissioners to the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel they are doing a reasonable job.But for all that we are still concerned about the inroads into local democracy in Auckland the constant meddling and the number of pieces of legislation that this Government has introduced to hobble Auckland Council for things as far as the introduction of council-controlled organisations which have made a whole range of council assets and council facilities unaccountable to the local people—the people who are paying for them. We have got some strong misgivings about this bill. In order for us to remain consistent with our previous approach we will be opposing it because we think that it does not really do much for the democracy in Auckland.