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:8317. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): Well here we go again. Sometimes it seems a little bit like Groundhog Day in here does it not when we find ourselves addressing legislation for the umpteenth time because it was incorrectly passed in the first instance or it was fundamentally flawed because it was rushed through rammed through because the Government of the day had a view had a majority and simply ignored or did not allow a full and proper process to take its path which might have seen some of these wrinkles ironed out along the way.Part 2 again reinforces the value of having the select committee process no less than Part 1 did. I am still a little disappointed—I will remain a little disappointed—that I still have not had satisfactory answers from the Government to the questions that I put regarding Part 1. Hopefully here in Part 2 we might get some engagement from the Government particularly bearing in mind that we are wanting to support this legislation because although we may argue that it has been done poorly the process has been flawed and it is not democratic we are here and this will help Auckland in its current bind and the Auckland Council which at the very least is made up of duly elected people supports the legislation.So again if I was to look at Part 2 I would recognise a couple of things. We have a new Part 2 to the primary legislation—there was no Part 2. Part 2 of the bill consists of new sections 170 and 171 which seek to validate certain things that were done before the enactment of this bill that we are processing now. It validates the closing dates of submissions. It validates any hearing session of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel that was held concurrently with another session by providing that the provisions of the principal Act as amended here must be treated as having applied in relation to the hearing session. And the chairperson of the hearings panel must be treated as having made the necessary directions under these provisions—except that the chairperson did not and the hearings were not in compliance with the legislation of the day. New section 170 deals with the closing dates of submissions to councils on the proposed plan. It talks about how “Despite section 123(7) and (9) 28 February 2014 must be treated as if it is and always was the closing date for submissions …” as opposed to 14 January 2014—except that it was not.Once again we have fundamentally flawed legislation. Despite 16 attempts by the Government to patch up its dodgy primary legislation we still have flaws here we still have problems here and here we are in urgency seeking to validate actions that were illegal. We are seeking to say things that happened were legal when they were not. Fundamentally bad lawmaking—fundamentally bad process.Go to new section 171 “Concurrent hearing sessions held before 2015 amendments”—and what am I looking at? My note says “Ron go and have a look at the bill”—chiding myself. Here we go: “Concurrent hearing sessions held before 2015 amendments (1) This section applies to any hearing session that was held concurrently with another hearing session before the commencement of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Act 2015 (the 2015 Act). (2) The hearing session must be treated as if—(a) this Act as amended by the 2015 Act applied in relation to the hearing session; and (b) the hearing session was—(i) held in accordance with a direction given under section 165(aa) … and (ii) chaired by a chairperson appointed under section 165(b) (as amended by the 2015 Act) if the hearing session was chaired by a member other …”—it goes on and on except that what this new section raises is a series of questions as to the situation that arose the issues behind those situations and the reasons for adding Part 2 and these two new sections sections 170 and 171.That again reinforces the value of having select committees. If this bill had gone to a select committee we would have had the opportunity to look at these two sections and ask the Auckland Council what happened. We have had no such opportunity. The questions we might have asked—