Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3660 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 submission on whether they think the amendments should stand—I will not prejudge what they think. Following those submissions, I will make a decision. Before I make a decision and we have some discussion about it afterwards, I want members to make a submission as to why they believe that these amendments meet the requirements not only of the Standing Orders but also of the interpretation of Dave McGee, who wrote Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand and is well known to members. Hon Trevor Mallard: Can you give us the reference? The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Page 379. [Interruption] Just to answer the question by Gerry Brownlee, when I make a ruling on this matter there will no doubt be some controversy, because people put a lot of time and effort into these amendments. I thought it would be better to have some discussion about them before I ruled than to have a continuous stream of points of order after I rule. I thought we should get the issues on the table and have a bit of a discussion about them before I make a ruling. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Speaking on your course of action, I think you are doing the right thing. There needs to be some consideration of this matter. Certainly, on the face of it, this side of the Committee will have an opinion. I wonder how you feel about putting yourself in this position. I do not want to be in the position of recalling the Speaker because we are questioning your course of action; we are not. I just wonder, given the nature of this particular ruling—you are not in a position to recall the Speaker; that is not how it works—how you feel about it. Are you comfortable progressing with this course of action? If you are, then I think we would leave it there at this point. Otherwise, if you indicate you wish to have the Speaker back, then we will cooperate with that course of action, as well. That statement is not meant in any way to detract from the course of action you have proposed; I think it is probably the right way to go about things. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I just say to the member that it is a line call. I have outlined the criteria for amendments, and I have outlined that I am about to rule, but I thought that before I make a decision I would invite opinions from either side of the Committee. I have indicated where the terms of McGee and the Standing Orders are in relation to what I am interested in. I know from past experience that when I make a decision—as I will do—it will be litigated, so I am just turning it round and suggesting that we have some litigation in front, and then the issues will be a bit clearer, rather than having endless points of order after the ruling. If, at the end of that discussion, members are unhappy with my decision, I accept that you can recall the Speaker, but at that point the issues will have been much better clarified. I do not have any ego about this; if you want to challenge my ruling, I am OK about that. I presume that Mr Mallard will put forward a case as to why these amendments should stand. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Yes, Mr Chair. I am working on the assumption that the consideration is not whether the amendments are vague or lacking form. I just want to test that with you—that the question before you, I presume, is not a question of vagueness, because the amendments are not vague; they are quite clear. I think they are in the proper form for amendments and for incorporation into law, and I want to make sure before I start this discussion that that is accepted. If that is not accepted, then we could come back again with more discussion. We then go to the question of whether the proposed amendments are frivolous. That is an important question, and I accept that there could be a discussion on the question. The particular amendment we are talking about concerns Dominion Road in North Shore City, and whether the residents of that particular road have a public interest in the
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3661 Auckland Council - owned assets. I am working on the assumption again that there is not a lot of debate around the Auckland Council and that it owns assets, that they are public assets, and that the public has an interest in them. We then go to the definition of “frivolous”—and a number of people will be looking in their different dictionaries. A key part of the definition goes to the words “not serious”, “trifling”, and “futile”. I want to make it clear that Opposition members are absolutely serious on this particular issue. There is a fundamental debate to be had here about the assets and about who has an interest in them—whether it is the residents, including the residents of particular areas, who have an interest in the assets, or whether the assets should be available for transfer away from the residents of those particular areas to others. That is my view, and it is certainly the view of the Opposition. I am not suggesting that it is automatic that the Committee will necessarily agree with this amendment. It is a question of whether the Opposition should have the right to test the will of the Committee on this amendment. It is my view that the amendment is a serious amendment, and one that deserves the attention of the Committee. It is something on which the Committee can express its view, and it should be allowed to do so. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): We most certainly have a view. If one thinks about the substantial bill, one will find that it is about the transitional arrangements that are to exist beyond the passing of this bill, for the integration of the various Auckland local authorities into one entity. I am pleased to hear the Opposition agree that there will be many assets across the city of Auckland, it is certain, that will come under some structure directly accountable to the Auckland Council, which will be the much wider body to look at these things. This amendment attempts to suggest that certain residents in certain roads—I believe that some 500 roads are nominated—have a greater interest in those council-owned assets than any other person in Auckland. That is simply not the case. The Auckland Council is there for the residents of the Greater Auckland City, whatever that configuration may end up being—that is yet to be determined. It would be quite inappropriate to suggest that the interests of one street, or these 500 streets, are greater than any others. I think the suggestion that we need to protect these particular streets because of a particularly special interest is quite wrong. I suppose these are attempts to call attention to the part that Labour is attempting to insert in the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, which, in National’s view, is an unnecessary part. We most certainly think that it goes back to a single point: are the interests of any one resident, in any of these streets, identified in successive amendments, any greater than the interests of another? That would, on its own, suggest that this is an utterly frivolous way to go about considering these matters. The protections of Aucklanders are intrinsic in the transitional arrangements that have been dealt with by the Committee so far. For Labour members to come along and suggest that they are doing some great and good work for particular residents is an extreme stretch. Putting up amendments in the names of a mere 500 streets inside the Greater Auckland area does indicate an act of trivial pursuit in this particular debate. A Parliament cannot be made to look stupid by things like this. We cannot be put in a position where, having dealt with the substantive part of a bill, we then insert some part or amendments that tend to second-guess the intention of Part 3. It is also interesting to note that these are amendments to one of the extra parts that Labour itself wishes to submit. I would have thought that, in the consideration that clearly would have gone on during the preparation of this particular part, that reference might have been raised about the need to protect particular streets. I cannot believe that
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 43: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 95 and 96:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?