Sio William: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’aWILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Thank you for this opportunity. I am happy to take a short call on Part 2 “Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010” of the Resource Management Reform Bill. My colleague Maryan Street identified that the theme that seems to be emanating in our debate here on Part 2 is the need to protect local democracy and also the need for central government or this Government to recognise that local government has a significant role to play—that local government does have a viable role to play in the development of our communities. I think that when talking about Part 2 it is fair that we need to reflect on how Auckland came to be a super-city. It was from this Government imposing upon Auckland a structure that many Aucklanders did not feel comfortable with. It was rushed at the time and really it was designed according to many of the communities to flock off the assets that the Auckland community has.Chris Hipkins: Flog off.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Flog off. It is fair to say that the community rejected the proposal by this Government and elected Len Brown as mayor. I think it is important to acknowledge the significant work that the mayor and Auckland Council including its chief executive officer have had to go through and undergo particularly when you consider they brought together eight local territorial authorities—significant units in themselves—and tried to make that work despite the difficult situation that they were in.I highlight two things—the need to protect local democracy and the need to recognise local government as a significant and viable partner in the development of our community—because I listened to the response of the Minister in the chair the Minister for the Environment and that gives away the focus of this particular Government. It does not at all want to recognise that communities have a right to make their local decisions. I think that we are recognising the importance of local government as a viable partner in development so I would ask the Minister whether she would be prepared to respond with regard to the submission made by Local Government New Zealand and say whether she considered any of the recommendations that were put to her in that submission and whether any parts of that submission were included in Part 2. The submission of Local Government New Zealand highlighted five key matters with reference to clause 122 in Part 2: the moratorium on variations under the proposed section 121; the hearings panel not being limited to making recommendations within the scope of submissions under proposed section 139; the weight the hearings panel must give to the Auckland Plan for its recommendations under proposed section 140; what rules in the Auckland combined plan will have immediate legal effect under proposed section 147 and the related question of what weight the plan is to have on and from notification; and the members of the hearings panel under proposed section 155. Those are what Local Government New Zealand in its submission highlighted as key factors pertaining to Part 2. I ask the Minister whether she would be prepared to respond as to whether any of those recommendations were considered in her papers to Cabinet and whether any of those recommendations have been implemented as part of the amendments to the Resource Management Act.With the proposed section 121 “Restrictions on amendments or variations to Auckland combined plan”—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in Part 1. Clause 121 is in Part 1.Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Oh sorry. Yes. I suppose what I am referring to is that although the 3-year notification that has been given to Auckland is I understand accepted by the Auckland Council the moratorium removes the tool which means “thatAuckland Council is unable to address the material information or a change in circumstances that arise after the plan is notified.”Let me go to proposed section 139 then given that that is in Part 2. The submission of Local Government New Zealand says: “These sections provide that the hearings panel is not limited to making recommendations within the scope of submissions and that Auckland Council may accept such recommendations. This is a significant departure from the existing law—clause 10(1) of Schedule 1 requires that a consent authority give a decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions. There is established case law on this specific provision.” That is a significant matter that Local Government New Zealand is recommending and its recommendation is to delete proposed sections 139(2) and 143(3). Again I would ask whether the Minister considered any of the recommendations made by Local Government New Zealand in the papers.My colleague Eugenie Sage has a Supplementary Order Paper about the make-up of the hearings panel. I think the proposal in the bill is a significant departure. If the Government refuses to accept the recommendation made by Local Government New Zealand which is that Ministers and the Auckland Council jointly establish the hearings panel that in itself sends a message that this Government despite what it might say about partnership continues to refuse to recognise that local councils—Auckland Council in this case—have a significant role to play and that they have a right to be able to be part of this decision making.So what we are saying is that the Government and Auckland Council should partner in appointing the hearings panel. I have often heard this Government talk about partnering with local government but from what I have heard the Minister say tonight—if she is saying that none of the recommendations made by Local Government New Zealand has been adopted and that none of the recommendations by Local Government New Zealand has been considered or included in any of the papers that she has tabled to Cabinet then that sends a very powerful message indeed that the Government is only talking about partnership but in reality the theme of this is that it is going to gut local government. It aims to not recognise at all that local government is a viable partner in the development in our communities.