Mark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8259. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): This is a really interesting piece of legislation to come before the House. In fact when I first started looking through to find out exactly what it was the Government was wanting to put through the House under urgency I was quite surprised that I had to go all the way down to item No. 15 on the Order Paper dated 11 November. I had to go all the way down to item No. 15 Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. That led me to actually do what all MPs should do—that is we go checking our reference material. I went on to the parliamentary website and lo and behold what should I find but a list of Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment bills which added something to my confusion because clearly the legislation that this seeks to amend actually came through the House back in 2009 led through the House at that time by the Minister of Local Government who was Rodney Hide in what was known as the famous Auckland super-city bill.So reading into it it interested me that here we have another Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill and on the back of something like five or six others. In fact just going through it the number of times that this Parliament has amended the Auckland super-city legislation since 2009 I do not know whether members of the House even the members of the select committee have taken time to have a look at it. We are talking about legislation that went through in 22 September 2009 amended 14 June 2010 26 March 2015 11 December 2012 22 October 2013 19 September 2011 3 July 2015—it must have been a Statutes Amendment Bill amendment bill No 3. Auckland Council bills 19 November 2015—that is the one we are looking at now I guess—11 December 2012 3 September 2013 14 June 2010 and then there has been a number of attempts to amend this legislation also through members’ bills. The one that I did pick up was Darien Fenton’s Local Government (Council-Controlled Organisations) Amendment Bill which was defeated by the Government back in 2012.What it tells me is that we seem to have here a well-established track record of fixing things that were not right right from the get-go. In fact if I recall in my time as the mayor sitting outside—in fact I was not the mayor in 2009 I was just “Joe Blow” ordinary citizen out there doing what I was doing; listening to the debates reading the newspaper reports watching the television news and seeing the controversy around the 2009 legislation and if I am not mistaken there were often heard criticisms about the speed and the level of consultation that the Government of the day was engaging in with the public and the fact that the Government really was not interested in listening to what people had to say about their legislation. They just wanted to ram through a super-city piece of legislation and create the biggest super-city in the southern hemisphere or this part of the world certainly in New Zealand anyway.So here we are on the back of numerous Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment bills once again in the House addressing another problem that has been identified. I have to say that this time it appears as though—and other speakers before me have already said the same—the Government has listened to the Auckland Council and the independent Māori statutory board has taken advice from the chairperson of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel and is moving through legislation that is aimed at making the hearings process more expeditious more flexible and that it is able to get through what is clearly a massive workload required in producing the unitary plan for our nation’s largest city.I guess New Zealand First has to put on the record that we never were big fans of an Auckland super-city. We prefer democracy being delivered at the grassroots level in a meaningful way not all the rhetoric that the super-city would reduce rates; that super-cities would reduce the rate of increase of rates; that super-cities would be more efficient; that this super-city piece of legislation that we are now amending again was the end-all be-all to fix all problems in Auckland; that we would see greater efficiencies; that everybody would be happy ever after living in the never-never land of Auckland because the National Government had generated a “super super duper duper whooper” city that everybody would simply love.Here we are again amending the legislation for the umpteenth time in order to make perfect something that was touted as being perfect in 2009 was clearly criticised by many people up and down the country as not being perfect and in fact was criticised because it would create such a big monolith of machine that it would be slow bound with inertia and find it difficult to respond to the needs of the public. I guess that is what this very piece of legislation is all about: making that big monolith that is simply laden with inertia slow and difficult to turn around like the Queen Mary in the ocean into something more flexible so that they can actually get through the work that has been laid out.No one underestimates the seriousness of the work that has to be done. No one underestimates the amount of work that has to be undertaken by the commissioners and the hearing panels. We see that they are reducing the quorum. I have to say that the idea of reducing a quorum from three members to two made me sit back a little. I am not used to having committees with quorums of two but the fact that you are making it possible to have concurrent hearings run simultaneously does go some way to explaining that. At this stage we see no need to not support that.We are looking at the increase in the possible number of appointed hearings panel members from seven to 10. Given the workload it seems eminently sensible to us. Enabling the hearings panels to make recommendations on proposed changes in stages seems eminently sensible rather than waiting until the final report if one is trying to move the hearings along and meet the deadline and time line imposed by the perfect piece of legislation that was passed in 2009; which is clearly not perfect because once again the House is back here amending it. Clarifying that the hearings panels must hold hearings sessions concurrently and that an additional chairperson can be appointed seems sensible.What also struck me was looking at—peeling through my notes—the departmental disclosure statement. I have done a quick thumb through that. It is all pretty standard. Clearly the Hon Chris Finlayson has ticked it off with respect to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Well no surprises in there; consistency with the Treaty of Waitangi obligations—no surprises in there. What I did find a little surprising is: “For the policy to be given effect by this Bill is there analysis available on: (a) the size of the potential costs and benefits?”. Answer: “No.” Well I am looking forward to hearing some explanations as to why that has not been provided by the Minister in the Committee stage. And: “(b) the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?”. Well that would be interesting. The answer on that is a “no” as well. I would be interested in hearing why nothing has been provided to us in that respect.Regulatory impacts—extent of impact analysis available: “Has any further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?”. That is a “no”. Cost-benefit analysis—I think that is the one that really stuck out for me because I would have thought given the level of the rhetoric the volume of that rhetoric back in 2009 when people justified the formation of a super-city for Auckland on the back of reducing costs creating efficiencies making it cheaper; as we go into yet another amendment of that Act I am surprised that this Government which prides itself on being very prudent with the management of the books and fiscal understanding has not been able to produce for the House a cost-benefit analysis on this piece of legislation and how it is going to improve for—