Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3666 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
influence the Speaker’s decision on this matter. The matter that is currently before the
House has been argued by both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Gerry Brownlee,
and has already been ruled on by the Chair of the Committee. There are a number of
matters perhaps I should touch on in ruling on the question before the House.
The first one is perhaps to come to the substance of the argument that was given
greatest weight by the Chair of the Committee. It is a matter of some importance.
Standing Order 249 deals with the classification of bills. Members will see there that
there are different categories of bills, and we are dealing with a Government bill, and
with a matter of public policy, introduced by a Minister. Therefore, matters that relate to
private interests are not properly dealt with under a public bill; they are matters that are
dealt with under a private bill.
This is not the first time this issue has come before Parliament. Some members may
recollect that when the House was previously considering liquor legislation, individual
amendments were proposed to deal with the interests of each hotel and tavern in New
Zealand. The amendments were ruled not to be in order, as they dealt with private
business interests more appropriately dealt with in private legislation. So this is not the
first time this kind of issue has been dealt with by the Committee. That is the first issue
to cover. In terms of the substance of the decision made by the Chair, under the
Standing Orders there is an issue around the nature of legislation, and in respect of
previous precedent in the House the Chair’s ruling is absolutely consistent with those
previous precedents.
The other important issue is that the Chair is required to rule on the admissibility of
amendments. The Chairperson’s rulings are not to be corrected or reversed by the
Speaker. That is Speakers’ ruling 78/1. That change can be done only by the House by
resolution upon a motion with notice. Our Speakers’ rulings indicate that the standard
practice of the House is for the Speaker not to overrule the ruling of the Chair. But in
this case I must say that the argument accepted by the Chair is totally consistent with
the Standing Orders and with previous precedent, and the Chair’s ruling must stand. I
declare the House back in Committee on the bill at hand.
In Committee
Debate resumed.
New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets (continued)
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to
the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to:
to insert after “those Acts” “, of Parliament”.
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.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): We have just had a little bit
of confusion, and the whips of ACT and the Māori Party had to correct their votes. I
think it would help if you named the person putting the amendment.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies. We have three amendments
in the name of Sue Moroney, and I will mention her name each time I put the question.