Mark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8322. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Likewise I just want to take the opportunity on behalf of New Zealand First just to sum up and again affirm that we are supporting this bill. But I have to say that at this very point given the way in which proceedings have played out given the seriousness with which we have tried to address this bill and to raise genuine concerns genuine questions about what we see as gaps in the legislation that could have been easily tidied up to remove any degree of uncertainty—I guess given the way that it has been dealt with here today and the fact that we know that this bill was introduced in September it could have actually been referred to a select committee.We have a wonderful select committee the Local Government and Environment Committee very well chaired by Scott Simpson—a most collegial committee. I know for certain that if the bill had been put there we would have got it through the process allowed submissions enabled a report to be produced and offered up some suggested amendments to the Government well in time to actually have this legislation enacted so that the Auckland Unitary Plan could progress in a more expeditious manner. We are always trying to be helpful where we can on matters where we actually agree. But you know this process could actually have put me in this position where I could recommend to my caucus that like the Greens we vote against it purely on the principle of the process that has been followed here over the last how many hours which has been seriously disappointing.I want to say that there is one area where we will move into the third reading with New Zealand First still seriously concerned about the question of the quorum. I predict this: just as this legislation has been back to the House 13 or 16 times for amendment since it was enacted in 2009—just as it has been amended 13 times we predict that this will come back for the toilet stop clause. The toilet stop clause will be when people realise that having a quorum of two does not allow one to let a member of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel leave the room without adjourning proceedings. We raised a number of serious issues around having a quorum of two and we are saying that if we had kept the quorum at three then we would have overcome those points that we have raised in the debate today.So whether we come back to amend the quorum and put it back to three or not will remain to be seen. But we are predicting that it will create some questions in the hearings when you have submitters sitting there and you only have a quorum of two—only two members sitting there—and one has to leave the room. Does that mean that we are now accepting here when this legislation goes through that in Auckland City when those hearings panels are working they will call a halt to proceedings at that moment at that time to allow that member to go off and do whatever they may want to do?Just a cautionary—we could have resolved that more easily. It would have been nice to do that but here we go moving to the third reading and I guess will we not do it until the same legislation comes back for the 17th time for its next amendment. It is quite sad really.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.