Sio William: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8332. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): That was a pathetic contribution by that member Matt Doocey. It had no reference whatsoever—no reference whatsoever—to what this is all about. This is about the people of Auckland.I want to read out an email that I picked up this afternoon from an Aucklander. It says: “I have been listening to the parliamentary debate all morning and I am not happy about this issue being passed under urgency rather than going through a select committee process. Once again the people and ratepayers of Auckland will have no say and once again we will have flawed amendments to fix flawed legislation.” That was from one constituent in the Auckland region Carol-Anne Armitage. But I suspect that that feeling and that mood is shared by many many people in Auckland. She is absolutely correct: we are fixing flawed legislation that goes back to when this Government came into power.This is the third and final reading of this piece of legislation. We have been denied the select committee process. We have been denied Parliamentary Counsel Office advice. We have been denied a regulatory impact statement. We have been denied also the benefit of receiving the knowledge the wisdom and the experience of people from Auckland. That is what we have been denied as reflected in the letter of Carol-Anne Armitage which hopefully this House will listen to. I can see the Government members hanging their heads in shame because in the last contribution about economics and efficiency Matt Doocey made no reference whatsoever to how this bill impacts on people in Auckland.The first impact is again Aucklanders were denied their opportunity to submit and have a say on how this bill impacts on them. This is not the first time. As the member of the Green Party said nine pieces of legislation have gone through this House with reference to Auckland. Four of those pieces of legislation have been done in urgency. We are fixing flawed legislation which was also done in a reduced process in 2010. Altogether there have been 48 pieces of legislation that have gone through this House in urgency and each time this Government continues to deny the general public their opportunity to have a say. That is wrong—that is wrong. That is a flawed lawmaking process. It is not good practice.I emphasise that because some of us in this House have had the opportunity of travelling in the Pacific region meeting up with parliamentarians from the Pacific and holding up our select committee process as best practice. What do this lot do? They deny our own people the opportunity of experiencing what democracy is about. This is a pattern that we have seen in the last 7 years of this Government and it continues to undermine democracy it continues to deny the opportunities of Aucklanders to have a say.There are a couple of things that I want to refer to in this legislation because I did not get the opportunity to speak during the Committee of the whole House. I want to make reference to clause 5 which inserts new section 144(4) (5) and (6). What this makes reference to is the scope of recommendations. Subclause (4) says: “The Hearings Panel must make recommendations on any provision included in the proposed plan …”. However new section 144(5) says “the Hearings Panel—(a) is not limited to making recommendations … within the scope of the submissions …” but “may make recommendations on any other matters relating …”. Because we were denied the opportunity of having the officials’ advice legal advice and the advice from the general public I cannot help but wonder. We have taken the right of Auckland City to appoint independent commissioners. Instead we are saying that the Minister will appoint the independent members of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.I am going to ask this question which I doubt the Government members will answer but I am going to ask it anyway. On whose interests will the independent members of the panel base recommendations that are outside the scope of public submission? Whose interests will drive those recommendations that fall outside what the people of Auckland will want? If the Government is appointing these members I have to say I am suspicious. I am suspicious that instead of the independent members being independent this Government will attempt as we have seen in other situations to influence the decisions that the independent members will make.I want to make another reference to new section 161(8A) inserted by clause 7. In this new section we see that “The Ministers may appoint an additional member or a replacement member only after consulting the Auckland Council the Independent Māori Statutory Board and the chairperson of the Hearings Panel … ”. I want to ask what the meaning of the word “consulting” is when used in this piece of legislation because we do not have an interpretation clause in this bill. And the reason why I ask is that I want to know whether the Ministers—when it says they are consulting the Auckland Council and the Independent Māori Statutory Board etc. does that mean that they will go with their recommendation and simply inform them that this is what is going to happen? Do they ask for their view? And if their view is contrary to the Ministers’ view whose view then dominates? It will be the Ministers’.But I also want to ask what that would mean in Auckland. Samoan language is the second-most spoken language in the city of Auckland after English. And the word that I would rather see used in this piece of legislation is the Samoan word of “soalaupule”. Soalapule means to share authority. So I am asking again whether any member of this Government is prepared to answer the meaning of “consultation”. Does it mean that they share authority with the Auckland Council and with the Independent Māori Statutory Board? Does that mean that they seek their view and it is generally acknowledged and accepted? Or is this really meaning that the Ministers impose the person that they want on this panel?As I have said before in earlier statements I have the greatest respect for people on the independent hearings panel. But this is about Auckland. And as I said before there were only two people whom I would recognise as Aucklanders. And granted this area is an area of expertise but community representatives can also get accredited to sit on the hearings panel. The University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology have done such courses so that elected members and others can be accredited to sit on these hearings panels. I do not see anyone there. In fact with the greatest respect to the professionalism of people who are on the board I often wonder do we not have people in Auckland with the same experience and the same expertise who ought to be on this panel? It almost seems that this Government is so content and so intent on treating Aucklanders with contempt and treating Aucklanders like they are second-class citizens.I want to come back to a point that Ron Mark made. We have a select committee that is very well and ably chaired by Scott Simpson. I wonder why it is that Minister Nick Smith does not trust the chair or that committee enough to pass this legislation in so it can consider it. I suspect the Minister is afraid that Scott Simpson may be too good and may become the Minister of Local Government. But this is the point. There are two reasons why the Government did not use the select committee process. One is Nick Smith is afraid of Scott Simpson taking his place and two is to show his sheer contempt for Aucklanders. This is not the first time.This is a Government as I have said before whose rhetoric sounds good but underneath it all is all this stuff. It has never been straight with Aucklanders. It has been talking about how this bill is somehow going to save Aucklanders. The reality is that this bill has also been about fixing the mistakes that this Government made. Every time it rushes into legislation it makes mistakes. It makes mistakes and when the pattern has been repeated it means that this Government is incompetent—incompetent as far as Aucklanders are concerned.