Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3662 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
the preparation of these 500-odd amendments was a last-minute thing, which leads me
back to the point that Labour members are very much engaged in a trivial pursuit.
If members go back to Part 3, which has been dealt with by the Committee, the
interests of the people in Auckland and the assets that will be part of the new Auckland
City are extremely well-protected as far as transitional arrangements are concerned.
This Committee cannot pre-empt what might be in the bill that is expected in
September, and where some of these matters may be made more clear. The reason for
having a transitional agency is so there can be consideration about how things will go
forward.
I think three points are relevant. The first point is that this is an amendment to
Labour’s own proposed amendment to the bill by way of a new part, and is therefore
very poorly considered at this late point. The second point is that the transitional
arrangements in Part 3 already make the protections for all Aucklanders, and the
Committee has dealt with that matter. The third point—and it must be upheld—is that in
a bill dealing with an entire region, to single out individual streets as apparently having
some greater interest for no reason other than that they are a street inside the proposed
Auckland Council area, cannot be allowed to stand. It is a great effort in trivialising the
activities of the Committee, and I think it would be appropriate if these amendments
were ruled out of order.
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I have taken some time,
because we have been directed to page 379 of McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New
Zealand. The point of that particular reference is that the Chair or Speaker has the
power to rule out amendments that are frivolous, vague, or lack legislative form—that is
to say, they lack precision. Amendments must be in a form of words that may be
embodied in law.
I suggest there is no other course of action but to rule these amendments out, because
when one goes through them, one can see that a map of Auckland has been used, and
that each clause picks out a street name at random and says that particular street is
understood to have a public interest in Auckland Council - owned assets. That has to be
regarded as frivolous, because street after street is named. When taken in the context of
the amendments that have been put up, that has to be frivolous, and it would cause this
Committee to become a laughing stock.
The proposed amendments are also vague. It is not quite clear how it is possible for
one street to have a particular interest over and above that of any other street. I say that
what that would mean is a mystery to all and sundry. The proposed amendments are
vague and therefore lack legislative form. Of course, there is the final problem: no one
street in the Auckland Council area has any greater interest than that of any other street.
That in itself makes the amendments a nonsense. The primary bill that members are
here debating does not threaten anyone’s interest in publicly owned property.
I submit that there is no option but for the Chair to rule these amendments out of
order.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I have three points to make.
The first point, Mr Chairperson, is where your call, on balance, should go. It is my firm
view that generally it is the right of Oppositions to put amendments. It is the democratic
right of all members of Parliament to put amendments. If there is any doubt at all, then
it should be the House that decides whether an amendment is put. The second point I
would make is that the arguments we have heard from both Mr Brownlee and Mr Hide
are arguments—which some members might find compelling—on the substance of the
amendments. They think that the amendments are bad, that they are wrong, and that
people should not vote for them. There is a pretty clear answer to that, and it is to vote
against the amendments when they come up. This is not a debate about whether they are