Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3659
sell has the meaning it has in the Sale of Goods Act 1908
voting has the meaning it has in the Electoral Act 1993.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment
be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.
Noes 64
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:
to insert the following new clause:
38B Poll of electors before sale
Any authority this Act can only sell assets after conducting a poll of electors
under the Local Electoral Act.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment
be agreed to.
Ayes 52
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Māori Party 3.
Noes 64
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): That brings us to the substantive
amendment—
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr
Chairperson. I know there is quite a lot of movement going on to your left and to your
right, but many more amendments were tabled before the question on the first
amendment was put. Those amendments have been tabled to the Clerk’s Office; they are
on this part. It may take a few seconds for your staff to catch up with you, but I think it
is fair to say that there are hundreds of questions for you to deal with before you get to
the substantive question on the part.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. I cannot wait. It is
always good for people to try to catch up with me; it is not usual. I will ask the Clerk to
check the veracity of what the member has said, and to ensure that all the amendments
to the amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel are being considered, before I put the
question on the Charles Chauvel amendment to insert a new Part 9. We will just pause
for a moment in silence, unless someone has a very good story or a humorous yarn to
amuse us with while we sort this out.
Members, I will do something unusual here. The amendments to proposed new Part 9
that were moved by Moana Mackey follow a very similar form, which is:
“Notwithstanding any other provision the residents of [Dominion Road] in [North Shore
City] shall be understood to have a public interest in any Auckland Council owned
assets.” The test for relevance of an amendment is that it has to be serious, has to stand
in law, and has to be accurately described. The Clerk and I have been backwards and
forwards across this issue, and it seems that a judgment call needs to be made. I invite
someone from the Opposition, which has put forward these amendments, to put the case
for why the amendments should stand. I also invite Government members to make a