Robertson Grant: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8295. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much Mr Chair. You can rest assured that I am not going to be talking about my role in the history of the Auckland region. I want to start with a question for the Minister in the chair Louise Upston relating to the departmental disclosure statement which suggests to us that advice provided to the Attorney-General about whether or not there would be a section 7 report would be available prior to the introduction of the bill. I can find no evidence of such advice on the Table. I have had a quick look at the Ministry of Justice’s website and I can find no evidence of that there. Again this is an example of when in a situation under urgency we do not have a select committee process. We have an assurance here in the departmental disclosure statement that this would be available on the ministry’s website upon the introduction of the bill. It is not—it is actually not available. This is a serious matter because I do believe that when we are talking about hearings that members of the public will be participating in—which is what is covered throughout the substantive part here in Part 1—there are questions of rights of natural justice. That is one of the main issues within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the right to justice.The exact wording in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is about the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal that has the power to make a determination over the rights of the citizen. That is one of these hearings panels. That is exactly what these hearings panels are doing: they are undertaking work as a tribunal on a matter of the rights of Aucklanders and the way in which their city will be created. So we thought—well I certainly thought I would see a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet come forward on this matter. I think that the Ministry for the Environment which was responsible for the drafting of the departmental disclosure statement also thought that we were going to be seeing a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet and we do not. So I would ask the Minister in the chair to explain to the Committee what is going on here. I think it is a reasonable question.The reason I do think that that question of the observance of the principles of natural justice by a tribunal—the clause from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—is brought into the situation here is what is happening in clause 4. That is the amendment of the number of commissioners hearing is being reduced from three to two. What this bill does is increase the number of commissioners from seven to 10 which means that we are running into a situation where a hearing will be conducted by 20 percent of the membership. I want a Minister or a member of the Government to stand up and tell me whether they think that upholds the principles of natural justice. Actually making it a percentage figure somewhat masks the problem that emerges here—and Mr Mark raised this—which is that 20 percent is two people. That is just two people in a room. Does that uphold the right of an Auckland resident to fairly be heard in terms of their right of natural justice under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? We have already discussed the fact that once you get down to two it is not so much a quorum as potentially a collusion. If there are actually only two people in the room it is quite easy for those two people to be coming from a very very specific point of view.There is both a constitutional point and a very practical one which is that when someone has come forward with their submission and they are confronted by two people and one of them is playing on their cellphone are they actually being treated fairly and well when they are in the room? That is the practical point. Is that the best that we could expect for Aucklanders who have taken the time to make a submission about the Auckland Unitary Plan? But if we move to the constitutional end of it having only two people there out of a group of 10 runs I believe some considerable risks.The Labour Party is supporting this legislation but as a member who has not had the opportunity to hear from my colleagues who were on a select committee I have not properly heard any actual justification for this. I can guess what it is. I can guess the fact that it is because—and I cannot really talk about this; oh no I can actually talk about this in this part—they are going to expand the number of commissioners to 10 and then run concurrent hearings. So I can understand that but I do not believe that any Minister or any—