Goff Phil: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGoff Phil: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8282. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Before starting discussion on the provision itself can I join with my colleague Su’a William Sio in acknowledging the fifth anniversary of the tragedy at Pike River. I had the occasion at that time to go down and visit the families. I know the absolute tragedy that that represented for them—the loss of their loved ones the 29 men who put up their tickets going into the mine and never came out to collect them. I acknowledge also the tragedy that there has never been closure for those families—those bodies remain in the mine. So today as we debate this bill we are also thinking of those families 5 years out and would want to express our condolences to them for their loss and hope that the measures that were put in place will stop any further avoidable tragedy which is exactly what happened at Pike River.As we get into Part 1 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill which contains the substantive amendments I want to make the point that it would really have been good to test out the provisions that are set out in Part 1 at a select committee so that we could get feedback from those parties that are most immediately involved in this process. The tragedy of this debate in urgency at 9.45 in the morning is that we are debating measures that we have never had the chance to test against the experts in the field the people who should have been here in Parliament to give their view on the changes that are being proposed.Auckland Council members should have been heard before a select committee hearing so they could spell out what their views were on it. I know that they are generally in favour of the changes that are being recommended. We should have had David Kirkpatrick the chair of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel before us to explain how that process had worked and whether these are precisely the measures that are needed to facilitate the timely and effective hearing of the submissions being made on the draft unitary plan. We should have had the chance to hear from the officials from the department. They are in the Chamber but they cannot answer our questions here. However they could have answered our questions before a select committee. That is why we have select committee hearings.These are significant changes. By and large I am in support of the changes but rather than support them blindly without having heard the arguments around them I would like to have tested those arguments and questioned the officials before a select committee. I note that my colleagues from the Green Party are opposing this bill and they are opposing this bill not so much because they oppose the substantive provisions but because they oppose the process.What we have not been told and what the Minister in the chair Mr Lotu-Iiga may be able to tell us this morning is why we are having urgency. I know that on the surface we are having urgency because it will be really good to get this bill through before Christmas so that the amendments can be implemented. But my question is slightly different from that Minister. My question is this: if the Minister the Hon Nick Smith was able to announce what the bill was doing and the bill was drafted on 16 September—more than 2 months ago—why was it introduced yesterday at 10.30 I think it was at night? Why is the management of this House so bad that the introduction was left so that we could not have the normal procedure of looking at the provisions of this bill before a select committee? That is a straight question. It deserves a straight answer.The bill was drafted and the Minister announced it months ago but now it is being pushed through under urgency and we do not get the chance for a proper select committee process to make sure we have got it right. That is bad process. There is no one in the Chamber who could stand up and justify having urgency as good parliamentary process. It is not. Mistakes happen. They are not picked up. The public is not given the chance to have their say. We heard members of the Government wax eloquent about the importance of this hearing process so the public could be heard. What an irony. What a contradiction when we are debating something where the public has not been allowed to be heard. That is wrong. Everybody in the Committee knows that it is wrong and because we did not have had that select committee—