Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3637
will find there is much more substance in these amendments than there was in Part 2,
and therefore the debate should be proportionately longer.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member could make that argument,
but I have read quite a lot of the proposed amendments and I think some of them have
not added to the fountain of wisdom in this place. I also mention to the member that
substance is quite often more than just the number of words counted on the word
processor.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr
Chairperson. I reassure you that this is a fresh point of order and has nothing to do with
the timing of debates. This point of order is about a comment you made that I require
some explanation on. It is the point you made that the proposed new parts we are
dealing with should be seen just as amendments. When amendments to parts were
debated previously they were stand-alone, single, one-clause amendments. The
difference with this proposed new part—if we take, for instance, the part we considered
for a little over 30 minutes in total, Mr Hawkins’ proposed new Part 11, “Auckland
Transition Agency Review Commission”—is that it contains 25 new clauses. Yesterday
we were voting on amendments to clauses. I think to consider an entire new part as
being just the same as an amendment leads to some confusion in the Committee.
Clearly, proposed new Part 11—with 25 clauses—will be much more substantial than
an amendment to omit a certain date and substitute another. Much more work goes into
developing these proposed new parts. They cover a much larger ambit of issues, and I
think to just dismiss them as being the same as amendments that the Committee has
seen previously is neither fair nor correct, because these proposed new parts contain a
substantial number of clauses. I just ask your advice on that matter, because I think it
could lead to some confusion as the Committee considers proposed new parts this
morning.
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): The attempt to define the
nature of the debate by what it is labelled and how many words are involved, rather than
by the content of what is involved in the debate itself, is leading to confusion. I submit
that it seems to me that an attempt to define these types of debates puts you in a very
difficult position, Mr Chair. As I understand it, the position under the Standing Orders is
simply that your discretion—and your discretion alone—determines when the closure
motion is taken. That should be the end of the matter.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): My friend the Deputy Leader
of the House misinterprets what I mean. I am not discussing closure motions. We have
dealt with that issue, the Chair has ruled on it, and we accept what you said. We are
talking about the difference between proposed new parts and amendments.
The Committee of the whole House used to consider a bill clause by clause. Indeed,
if the Government forgot to move a part by part motion, then we would be subjected to
hours and hours in Committee as it worked through clauses. It was always a challenge
for Government whips to make sure a Minister moved a part by part motion. We have
moved away from that situation to an assumption that the Committee of the whole
House will always consider bills part by part, and that amendments relate to clauses—as
we have seen so far. It is completely different when amendments are put down that
create new parts, as we see here. An amendment to create a new part is a separate,
debatable question, as opposed to individual amendments on clauses, which are not
debatable questions; they are questions taken at the end of a debate alongside the
Minister’s amendments and other members’ amendments. It is a completely separate
area. Your comments that these proposed new parts are just like amendments is the
point the Opposition is raising with you.