Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3663 good amendments or bad amendments, or whether the propositions that are put are right or wrong; the question is whether the House has the right to consider to them. It is my submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that they are serious, relevant, in the right form, and serve to emphasise a point that is very important to all Opposition members. They were lodged properly— Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s covered. The matters are covered in Part 3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Chairperson, is the member allowed to make a running commentary? The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think the member is quite right. I want to hear just Mr Mallard. Hon TREVOR MALLARD: So, in summary, your discretion should be exercised very sparingly. These amendments are substantive, and if members disagree with them, they have the right to vote against them. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank members. That has clarified matters quite considerably for me. The first point I make is in response to the point raised by Mr Brownlee about the House looking stupid. That is a fair point, but it is not entirely for the Speaker to prevent the House from looking stupid—that is up to members and how they deal with things. The second point I make to Mr Mallard is that members do have the right to move, and that is what has been exercised here. Mr Mallard said that the Committee should decide whether these amendments are right or wrong. The question before us is whether we will do this collectively or individually. If we were going to make this decision collectively, then I could put it to the Committee, to test the will of the Committee, as to whether we accept these amendments. However, that is abrogating the role and responsibility of the Chair, and I am not about to do that. Regarding the issue raised by Mr Brownlee about fairness to Aucklanders, I think it is almost like a bill of rights test as to whether this should be a consideration. I think that gets closer to the point. There is no doubt that the amendments as they stand are in the legislative form. There is no doubt that they could be written into legislation. The Clerk said to me that one of the considerations I should have as a Chair is about consistency. There are many examples in legislation of inconsistent bills and Acts. I ask the members to look at the smoke-free legislation. Parliament has not always been consistent, and I do not think that consistency is entirely the right test. I think that we are getting closer to the point, which was made by Mr Brownlee, that this is a bill about all Aucklanders. That point has been re-emphasised by the Hon Rodney Hide—that one interest group should not be superior to another. The bill we have before us is a public bill about setting public policy for all Aucklanders. It is not about setting policy for the interests of private individuals. I think that the issue here is that these amendments as they stand will be setting policy for private individuals and private interests. It is about individuals who are private residents in particular streets, that is, they are residents in those streets as private individuals. Therefore, I am of the view that these amendments are about private interests and not about the interests of Auckland or about public policy for Auckland. The amendment to insert new Part 9 that has been put up Mr Chauvel was in order, because it was about public policy that treats all Aucklanders in the same way; it was about public interests. But the interests of individual property owners in a street are private interests, and they should be dealt with by way of another bill—a private bill. I therefore rule the amendments out of order. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): As you anticipated in your preliminary remarks, this is something that, in my opinion, requires a Speaker’s ruling. I move, That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the judgment given by the Chairperson.
Page 1: First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 45: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 97 and 98:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
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?