Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3665
test, would have been much more frivolous than these amendments. On the standards of
frivolity, these amendments cannot be ruled out.
The point I will go back to is that it is my submission to you that the judgment of my
friend and colleague the Chair of the Committee Rick Barker in this particular case is
wrong because he has gone to the merits of whether it is appropriate to grant a private
right by way of a public bill. There is nothing that prevents this Parliament from doing
that. People might think it is wrong. People might not like it, but my submission is that
for groups of people it happens all the time. When we have bills that deal with local
authority matters it happens quite regularly that groups of individuals gain, and other
groups of individuals lose. I will go back to the point about the substance that the rights
are not transferable rights.
As a final point I say that the Chairman made a very good argument on the
specifics—one that I might even find rather compelling, if I were considering it
carefully—but it is not the basis on which items should be ruled out.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think it is very interesting
that part of the argument advanced by the Hon Trevor Mallard is some assessment
against a frivolity scale. We should remember that this proposed new part that Labour is
attempting to insert is to protect the assets of the citizens of Auckland. To then amend it
to protect the interests of residents in particular roads I think trivialises the point of the
part in the first place. In all other respects—not wishing to prolong proceedings—I
think the Chairman of the Committee, Rick Barker, outlined extremely well for the
House why he was choosing to rule these amendments out of order. I am sure you will
have noted the comments he made in his address to you, in which he was explaining
why he had reached this conclusion. Without wanting to prolong proceedings I simply
want to say that we concur wholeheartedly with his decision, and accept fully the
rationale he has applied.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I think the judgment you have to make as
Speaker in this situation must take into account the context in which this debate is being
held. It is pretty clear from the conduct of the Committee that the Opposition is trying to
delay progress—we are trying to filibuster this bill—and that the Government wants to
bring the debate to an early end. I want to cause the Speaker to reflect on the fact that
the fourth estate has actually been commenting on whether this filibustering is an abuse
of parliamentary process. I suggest that it is not. It is already clear that although the
progress that has been made on this bill is slower than the Government might like, none
the less it is substantial.
This bill has been considered under urgency, and even at the current rate of slow
progress it is very clear that this bill will be completed in accordance with the
Government’s agenda within a week, which is far, far quicker than would be the normal
process were it not for urgency. It is the right of the Opposition to use the Standing
Orders to filibuster. Filibustering does not bring this place into disrepute. It is not an
abuse of process. It is not frivolous. We are using the rights we have as parliamentarians
in the Opposition to slow down the progress the Government wants to make under
urgency. I make the point again that substantial progress has been made. I do not think
anyone thinks this debate will go on for weeks or anything like that. This is the only
opportunity we have to scrutinise the bill. Many other jurisdictions use filibustering. We
have a practice now whereby we do not get even to the end of debate where new points
are being raised on proposed new parts, yet closure motions are taken. It is completely
appropriate that the Opposition be able to filibuster this bill.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members. Dealing with the previous
contribution first, the Speaker may well have views about whether filibustering is taking
place and whether time is being wasted, but those views should not in any way