Clark David: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8311. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I want to speak a bit more to clause 9. I have found a remedy for my earlier concern in that Part 2 in relation to validations and consequential amendments effectively makes the past like the future is now intended to be. If members wish to bear in mind that this also could reflect the future—Hon David Parker: Very existential.Dr DAVID CLARK: A very existential way of looking at things. I shall speak to clause 9 but it does relate to clause 6 a clause that was not debated in the hour that I was seeking the call on Part 1. That goes to whether in the new world as in the old the bill will actually achieve its intended purpose because with the natural justice concerns that were raised by colleagues about two-person panels and whether or not they are making decisions—and bear in mind that we are now retrospectively making that OK in this legislation—we have got to acknowledge whether or not there are substantive decisions being made that the decisions that two people will make or in this case will have made are actually likely to have had a bearing on the outcome.For example there is a decision to extend the hearing of evidence or a decision to allow extra questions and answers. When those transcripts are recorded from hearings they become the basis of the reports so there are political calls made by those around the table. When there are very few people around the table there are very few people directing traffic and if it is difficult to ascertain who has the lead on that we may well find with that limited number of people on the panel that we end up with decisions that are shaped—even if they are not in substance taken—by the few members who remain on the panel.That I would suggest may lead to a situation where there are more appeals to the High Court on questions of natural justice which is something that was raised in passing—the issue of natural justice. If that is true and if there are more concerns raised about natural justice and more appeals to the High Court then we can imagine that actually the opposite of streamlining will be achieved. The purpose of this bill is to streamline the process but if it ends up in there being more court disputes it will achieve the opposite for those people who are trying to achieve a better way of doing things in Auckland.For example if there are only two people on a panel—and we are approving this retrospectively as well as being the future world—and one of those people attends to a text message does the person presenting to the panel have the ability to argue that their case was not heard by a quorum of the panel? I think we would all agree that if somebody took a phone call and went out of the room the quorum would no longer be achieved. But there are going to be points of dispute. When we get down to so few people hearing the evidence that is presented there is the potential for dispute and for litigious processes to tie up these hearings. I think that is a serious thing because if this bill is about streamlining and it actually achieves the opposite—because as members have pointed out in the debate on Part 1 there is nothing that limits decision making by those few people in the room.We have not had a convincing response from the Minister in the chair Louise Upston about how that might be so. Ron Mark raised the issue of the primary legislation making it clear that the panel can make recommendations and can make decisions along the way. How can we satisfy ourselves that those decisions will not be made by fewer and fewer people and be open to litigation because the quorum is so few? I think that this is a serious thing.If it is as serious as I believe it is—and the Minister I would hope might be able to allay my fears—I would hope it has been quantified by officials. Officials will say what the likelihood of litigation is as a result of these lower numbers of people hearing the cases. The chances of having more appeals will be “x” and that will increase the time taken to get resolution by “y” and we can estimate the cost to those who are making submissions and the cost to the council in presenting evidence in the High Court in appeals and so on to be “z”. It would have been quantified somewhere by officials surely—the cost of the risk of increased litigation.