Hughes Gareth: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8286. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to oppose this bill the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill. I am sadly and reluctantly declining to answer the member Chris Hipkins’ challenge. He asked whether any member in this Committee on either side who is an expert on the Auckland Unitary Plan could stand and make a contribution. I do not claim to be an expert on the unitary plan; as a former Aucklander though I know the city is an amazing lovable city. It is one of the most livable cities in the world. Although often the arcane world of unitary plans and how the Resource Management Act applies and the minutiae of the Auckland Council is somewhat far from the everyday experiences of Auckland in that sense in the physical sense it is the footpaths the paths the public transport the State highway network that the council is involved in part-funding—that is what Aucklanders experience. It is important that it gets done right gets done democratically and we have an efficient but democratic process.So I am not an expert but as a former Aucklander I want to make a contribution. I have got a few substantive points on Part 1. The first is that I would also like to respond to Chris Hipkins’ question around clause 5. This amendment bill amends the way the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel can form its recommendations. Previously I assume in the original transitions legislation it implied that the hearings panel could make a single report with a series of recommendations no matter how many hearing panels or topics it discussed. What clause 5 in this amendment bill does is allow the panel to make a series of recommendations on a series of topics.I guess I am asking for Government members or the Minister to make a contribution on this question because I believe it is debatable. What is the best way to engage and consult the people of Auckland and the constituent communities? Is it easier to have a single report with a series of recommendations that you can go through one time and then make a single submission on or is it more convenient and more open in terms of consultation to have a series of reports coming out? You know I genuinely believe it is debatable. Is a single series of recommendations easier to follow or a series of individual topics? I would invite the members to weigh in and share their views on it.In terms of the other substantive points on Part 1 of this bill the first is the quorum being dropped from three members to two. I think I would like to echo some concerns we have seen from the Labour members on this point. We as a parliamentary chamber I doubt would restrict our select committee or parliamentary House quorum requirements. It is a question of the seriousness that the public see in terms of the reputation of the panel members. I think it is a live question: what is the importance of going from three to two? When you are debating recommendations with those hearings panels obviously it is hard to break a tied vote if you have only two members. A third member makes sure clear decisions and recommendations can be put forward.Second we see an increase in the possible number of appointed hearings panel members from seven to 10. In this clause which I believe is clause 7 it furthers a track record of the current Government to move from having independently appointed or separate consultation appointment processes for important decision-making members such as on the hearings panel which can issue recommendations to having an appointed policy approach. I think we have got to have a debate on this issue because when you see the Government stacking appointed members alarm bells should be ringing. When you have a body such as this hearings panel which is hearing from the Auckland communities hearing from the council and making recommendations on the Auckland Unitary Plan it is important that we have hearing members who are representing diverse communities.When you look at the Government’s track record particularly the member Steven Joyce’s track record when it comes to the university and polytech councils what we have not seen is diverse communities or multi-gender positions granted. What we have seen is—I do not know whether this is in order—old male pale and stale. People from the business communities are dominating those appointed boards. [Interruption] I definitely was not talking to you Mr Chair. So I think we have got big concerns around further appointed members. Obviously it is good that we have got greater consultation requirements including the Independent Māori Statutory Board along with the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for the Environment. However I would question the Government members again: why only those two Ministers?I would like to support the amendment in the name of Phil Twyford which comes to include the mayor as well in the decision-making consultation requirements to appoint new members or a new chair to the decision-making committee. I think it is critically important we get Auckland voices involved in those conversations and I think it is entirely appropriate entirely legitimate and entirely consistent with good decision-making to make sure that we get the Auckland mayor involved. At the moment we have got a Minister for the Environment based down in Nelson involved and I think Aucklanders when they are seeing new hearings panel members appointed would ask questions. Why do our democratically elected Auckland Council members not get a say but the Minister for the Environment based in Nelson does?Now my third substantive point comes to clause 8 which is the concurrent hearings. Currently the hearings panel does a hearing hears from the public and makes a recommendation. This amendment bill allows for concurrent hearings. Again this is a serious issue for debate. I think we should have a debate on that in this Committee stage because I can see both sides of the argument. On one hand it is more efficient. We can have multiple hearing panels having multiple public hearings so that the public can have their say I guess in a more timely and efficient manner.Efficiency and timeliness are good values to espouse but they can come into conflict and run up against the values that this House shares of having good decision-making and open consultative democratic input from the public. If you have two concurrent hearings—there are numerous stakeholders and communities involved in Auckland that have a wide variety of views on a wide variety of issues. Just take someone involved with a housing development which is a very topical issue in Auckland. You could have concurrent hearings dealing with the same issue happening at the same time and it would be impossible for the same person to be in two locations at the same time so let us have that debate. Do the efficiency benefits of allowing concurrent hearings outweigh the potential consultative and democratic pitfalls or is that a decision where that has been thought through and a balance has been found?Looking at clause 7 in Part 1 which inserts new section 161(8A) we see the Minister for the Environment not the conservation Minister—and I would like to flow on from this. I know there is a genuine feeling in Auckland that Auckland is being run not from Auckland of course but from Wellington and there has been a historical level of concern I know in this House. More than a hundred years ago there was actually talk of an Auckland party forming to make sure that Auckland interests were adequately represented and when you see a Minister for the Environment based in Nelson making these key appointments to the hearings panel and not the Auckland mayor or the Auckland Council it continues this.When you see a bill which is what we are debating in front of us that is around decision making and that is around consultation with the public and you have a legislative process that does not give those Aucklanders or the public a say with no select committee process—I would like to touch on the irony that we see in this. We are debating a bill around having good process and doing it in a terrible process which of course is under urgency with no select committee process. Hopefully a Government member can explain why on earth we are in urgency for this bill—a bill that was announced more than 2 months ago but a bill that was only tabled and introduced in this House at 10.30 p.m. last night. If we are going to take Auckland seriously and if we are going to get Auckland moving which is what I believe this House genuinely values genuinely wants why can we not take good process and consultation seriously? Why can we not have a more considered and deliberative approach not just seeing a bill late last night that was to be debated the next morning through all stages? Why can we not have a good deliberative process?What we see—and this is my last substantive point—is that this bill also validates previous errors in law. This is exactly what happens when you go through an urgency process. Mistakes get made they do not get picked up they do not get amended in the Committee stage and the country is worse off as a result. The people are poorer both in a financial sense from longer operating hours for this House and also in terms of respect for this House where we should be putting good lawmaking and considered deliberative legislative processes up there as aspects we aspire to. This House is united in its support for Auckland. We want to make sure there is a good unitary plan one that the majority of Aucklanders can get behind through a good consultative democratic process. There are legitimate questions around having appointed panel members. There are legitimate questions around whether the drive for efficiency over democratic input—