Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3636 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The other point I make is to ask you to elucidate on
your ruling on one particular point that was not clear. You indicated that it would make
a difference whether the parts had been on notice or not on notice. I could not tell from
your comments whether something that had been on notice would have a longer debate;
whether because something had not been on notice members needed time to look at it,
and it would therefore have a longer debate; or whether something not on notice would
have a shorter debate because there had been no notice. Could you indicate which of
those you meant?
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): I appreciate the member’s
wanting some elucidation on some of the finer detail around some of these judgments,
and the shadow Leader of the House’s views on these matters. It has always been my
understanding that when a closure motion is taken by the Chair is a matter for the sole
discretion of the Chair. It has been my experience over the last short while that
whenever an attempt is made to try to define those parameters, the fall-back position is
the Standing Order in that regard.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is absolutely correct. It has
always been, and will always be, the sole discretion of the Chair whether a closure
motion is taken, and the Chair will take it as he or she sees fit. I do not want to get into a
long debate about the matter the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. Although members put up
amendments and call them parts, that is only the way they themselves have described
them. Those proposed new parts could in another way be looked at in substance, in
effect, as amendments.
Hon Annette King: You can’t make that decision.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I can make that decision about
substance. For example, members get up and quite often say: “I am raising a fresh point
of order.” when, in fact, they are not. They say that simply to relitigate the same matter;
they describe it as a fresh point of order when it is not. I think everybody has been
guilty of that at some stage.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you elaborate on the notice thing, Mr Chair.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): On the notice thing, the bill was put on
the Table, and members have had a long time to read it, in terms of hours. But these
proposed new parts have turned up—they have just appeared. The point I make is that I
consider the bill, as tabled by the Government of the day, as being the issue we are here
to debate. That is the main focus of this debate. When members table amendments to
the bill, they are of lesser concern, to a degree, than the actual bill. When members table
amendments that they put up as new parts, they may describe them as parts, but when
one reads them one could describe them as amendments because they are not as
significant as what we would normally have as a part of a bill. We will be flexible about
this matter.
I say to members that regardless of all that is going on around the edges, it will
remain the sole discretion of the Chair how long the debate goes on for. There will be
no correspondence entered into. The Committee will determine closure motions by vote,
and the content of the speeches will be the Chair’s consideration. If speeches are on
target, and are discussing and elucidating the amendments we are considering, then the
debate will tend to go on for longer. If people get off task and we are on to everything
else but the part or amendment we are discussing, then the Chair will consider closure
motions much more quickly. Members should be assured of that.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr
Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling; it was very helpful. I would like to extend an
invitation to you to make an examination of Part 2 of the bill and of the proposed
amendments. When you are considering your tariff in relation to substance, I think you