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:8289. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I am going to come back to an issue that I signalled was puzzling to New Zealand First when we first read this bill yesterday. It stood out quite glaringly. The proposal to move or—sorry I am just looking for it now. Clause 4 “Section 136 amended (Hearing procedure)” which seeks to reduce the numbers of members on the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel from three to two. Going back into the primary legislation this is dealt with there under section 136 “Hearing procedure”. Section 136(1) says: “At each hearing session no fewer than 3 members of the Hearings Panel must be present.” This bill under Part 1 clause 4 simply replaces the numeral “3” with the numeral “2” which raises some interesting questions.The member for the Green Party Gareth Hughes actually raised one of them. If we end up in a situation where you have two people sitting on that hearings panel and there is a disagreement—bearing in mind that under clause 5 of the bill this panel has had its powers amended through the amendment to section 144 of the primary legislation where the hearings panel is now able under this legislation to make recommendations on the proposed plan including any recommended changes to the plan at the end of the hearing of those submissions. If we end up in a position where now because the panel can report back in stages and it can make recommendations in stages as opposed to having to wait until the entire hearing process is over—can the Minister in the chair Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga tell the Committee how you break that stalemate if at the end of that phase of the hearings the two members sitting there disagree on a recommendation?Normally Minister anywhere else in the world people recognise the need to have an odd number so that you can have a debate and someone can adjudicate and there is a casting vote in there. But now we are going to report back in stages—and I am surprised that Mr David Seymour has not raised this matter. Being such a bright lad he would have picked up on this very very quickly I have no doubt.But reading back into the primary legislation that Part 1 is amending in clauses 4 and 5 we know two things now: the rules around the hearings have changed and the members on the panel can report back and make recommendations at the end of a session on a topic. When they have concluded hearing submissions on that particular topic everyone has left the room and they are sitting and discussing “Should we put through our recommendations now on that topic?” if on the weight of the evidence they have drawn different conclusions and they disagree then where does the tie-breaker come in? Where? I am going to ask the Minister because this is very important. We are reducing the quorum from three to two.There is also another issue. If you go a little deeper into the primary legislation—I think you have got to go to section 144. If I might just whip back there briefly and have a look at section 144 “Hearings Panel must make recommendations to Council …”—no I think it is under a different section. There is another little issue that pops up. For there to be a hearing there has to be a chair of that panel. Under the unamended legislation you had a quorum of three and if the chair did not turn up the two of them could vote for one person to be the chair. Now if there is a quorum of two and the chair does not turn up where is it in the legislation that says that the other person who did turn up automatically becomes the chair? I do not know—well if you do not have a quorum you do not have a quorum and you cannot convene. I guess the question around the appointment of chairmanship might not be relevant in there but under the rules where you had—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Next page.RON MARK: Yes it is over the next page. I know I was looking at it and I thought: “Well where does this work?”. If you have a quorum of three coming to a decision is easy. It might not be to everyone’s agreement but it is easy. I would like the Minister to please take a call. I would like the Minister to have a ponder on that and to consult because I think we have a wee problem: you might end up with a stalemate.One of the things that is very important—because New Zealand First agrees that amending the legislation so that the panel can report back in stages is very important. Those of us who have done this sort of work in the past know that you get a pile of submissions. You can get submissions if you take Rodney for example on land use or if you take central Auckland they will be on housing. There will be issues that will be quite contentious but at the end of the hearings on that topic a number of drop downs will be obvious. To wait until the entire hearing process is over before one reports back on that is maybe not the soundest idea and that is why I am assuming the Government has really gutted out section 144 of the primary legislation and trimmed it down—simply deleting the words “after it has finished hearing submissions” in section 144(1).I understand that—I understand that. The ability to hear the evidence take the stuff that is immediate and obvious make a recommendation and report it back there and then when it is timely fresh in the mind and it is current—that is all good stuff; I understand that. But it is a problem if the quorum has dropped to two and people cannot agree.So I think the Minister might want to have a think about that and maybe have someone scratch out an amendment or maybe change that idea and stick with the three because moving out the size of the panel from seven to 10 is a good idea. Given the size of Auckland City given the complexity of the problems that Auckland faces and given the varying views that will come before those hearings panels—you have got 5000 submissions yet to be heard—I understand about having more people on the panel having panels sitting concurrently and being able to appoint chairs to other panels that are sitting concurrently. I understand all that. It is all about expediting. It is all about moving things forward quickly in a timely manner and efficiently without undermining the democratic process and without undermining people’s rights to have a say. So I would just ask him to have a look at that please and make a comment to us. Give us some satisfaction that things will not be messy at that point.The Phil Twyford amendment—we would just signal at this point in time that we think it is a very good amendment. We think that the democratically elected representatives of the people of Auckland—this is a really simple point—should have a say in who the Minister for the Environment appoints on to that panel. It is really simple: this is about democracy. This is not about the Government having people appointed to the independent panel who fit the Government’s agenda and the Government’s thinking and who are able to produce results policies decisions and directions that just coincidentally fit with the philosophical belief of the Government of the day.Having said that I have to put my hand up and say that I was always surprised and grateful that the Government selected me and appointed me to a couple of district health boards in my time while I was out of the House reflecting that it was able to take on board people with differing views and different philosophies looking for that mix. We would hope that if this legislation goes unaltered from what is before us right now the Government will make sure that those people who are appointed to that independent panel are not political lackeys but we would prefer that the Phil Twyford amendment goes forward to allow the people of Auckland through their democratically elected representatives to have the say in who is appointed to that board.It seems to me from some of the speakers before—and I refer to Chris Hipkins’ comments—that those of us down here in the Wellington basin do not understand everything about Auckland. We know what we know through people whom we know and our own family who live up there and from what we read. I am one of those lucky people. My partner is an Aucklander and so I probably understand a heck of a lot more than I did before I met her but I would not dare to stand up and say that I would be eminently qualified to sit on an independent panel looking at the Auckland Unitary Plan or to say that I understood intimately and in detail the issues that were vexing the people of Auckland.So we come back to the Phil Twyford amendment and say that we believe it is a good amendment. It is worthy of the Government’s favourable consideration—well worthy of Government approval; it is as simple as that. Not consideration—it is worthy of approval in the interests of enhancing democracy. Thank you.