Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3648 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 we think we need that! I think the events of the last week have been very, very difficult for the National Party candidate for Mt Albert, and many, many questions are still to be answered about the making of a particular video that stars a particular National MP who is now a Minister. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions, but I want local government employees of the Auckland Council and the Auckland Transition Agency to be assured that they will not be required to make political videos for Rodney Hide or for the transition agency, with goodness knows who being in those videos. The type of employment practice that National favours was, I think, confirmed last night when it did not support our amendments to Part 3. When it came to giving a voice to workers in the transition authority, National’s call was “if the face fits”—if the face is white, male, and rich. CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put. A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put. Ayes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. Noes 53 New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4. Motion agreed to. The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the amendment to add new Part 10 in the name of Carol Beaumont be agreed to: to omit clause 101. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. Noes 53 New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4. Amendment to the amendment agreed to. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Further amendments in the name of Charles Chauvel and Darien Fenton are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. During the period of the extended speech when you did not take a call from the Opposition, that amendment was tabled. I want to tell you that the effect of your action was to cause these amendments to be ruled out. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Mr Chairperson, I ask you to have a look at Standing Order 85, because the repeated questioning of the way in which this process is being conducted by a presiding officer is in fact extremely disorderly. Everyone knows that great effort is being made by the Opposition to put up a fierce fight against this bill. That is perfectly reasonable, but it does have to be within the rules. Mr Mallard himself said that his party is paying particular attention—pedantic attention—to the rules, in order to prolong this debate. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a procedure, Mr Chairperson, that works in this Parliament and that is yours to preserve, and I think that it is time Mr Mallard was informed that his repeated
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3649 questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): Mr Chairperson, I want to take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said, and assure you that your integrity has not been questioned, at all. But, obviously, as the Committee has undertaken its proceedings, there are differences between the Government and the Opposition about the way things should be handled, and the only recourse we have is to you, as the Chairperson, and the other chairpersons as well, to protect the minority. The notion of disorderly conduct, I think, is a red herring, coming as it does from a man who once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures should not be going that way, at all, and to try to put words into Opposition members’ mouths, because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we are concerned about, I think is ridiculous. The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you, as the Chairperson, did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it, so for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for those comments. I act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill. There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that and move on, but I just make that point. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time, because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is a new practice, because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House, that when more than one Government member is seeking the call, as was the case when you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in Parliament. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): A quick perusal of the Hansard of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a similar practice. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We do not need to go into that. It is entirely at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time, and I exercised that prerogative. I will now put the amendment. The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to: to omit clause 104.
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 31: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 83 and 84:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Index to 13 May 2009 (continued on
Page 145 and 146:
HIPKINS, CHRIS— Bills— Local Go
show all

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?