Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3696 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
organisation:”. I will not keep reading. Very, very detailed operational matters are
enshrined in the bill, and therefore I do not think that it is adequate to dismiss any
amendment on the grounds that it deals with operational matters. Although the
Chairperson said this bill deals only with governance matters, quite manifestly it deals
with operational matters as well.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): In order to be helpful,
Mr Tisch was diligent in giving a very detailed series of justifications in the report back,
as it were, to the member. Quite a number of technical and individual issues were
contained within that description. It is, of course, your call, Mr Speaker, but I mean this
in all seriousness. I say that it may be helpful, given the nature of this matter, if Mr
Tisch could outline in detail those matters for you in order for you to make an informed
ruling, because they were very, very individualised and were quite technical. As I say,
he was very diligent in his description in order to give the justification for the member. I
think it would be difficult for you to give an informed ruling without that information.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I think that what was
suggested by the previous speaker is unnecessary. Mr Tisch has very generously taken
Sue Kedgley through his reasons for ruling out her amendments. He could have invoked
the provision of Standing Order 294, which is that he simply has to read some numbers
out, in order to satisfy the requirements of the House. The issues that deal with each
individual amendment have been adequately covered by the principle that Mr Tisch has
decided to adopt in approaching this matter.
I do not want to speak further, other than to say that the Government endorses the
approach that the Chair has taken. There must be a separation between governance and
operational matters. The specifics of this ruling were well elucidated to the member by
Mr Tisch. Naturally, members will appeal and appeal. It is a little like question time:
one keeps asking the question but may not like the answer. Mr Tisch has been generous
in giving a series of reasons; I do not think you should require him to go through all that
again.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: Please be as brief as possible.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will try to be brief, but I think there are two points.
The first concerns process, and I refer you back to your earlier ruling as to the role of
the Chair. I make it clear that we are not challenging that ruling about the Chair’s role
and his or her ability to make these decisions. I am not asking you to reverse those
decisions but more to act as a Privy Counsellor of a Court of Appeal, and refer back to
the rulings of the Chairperson for further consideration. I do not mean all of the rulings
he made, because some of them were very clear and correct. For example, there were
substantive amendments to Acts other than Acts that were already being considered in
the bill. I do not want to disagree with my colleague, but it is pretty hard to argue with
those rulings.
Secondly, a number of amendments were ruled out effectively because they were
operational matters, not governance matters. I reinforce the comments that Sue Kedgley
made: this bill is riddled with operational matters, such as lines being drawn as to what
the transition authority can do and what it cannot do. Sue Kedgley’s amendments were
absolutely consistent with the substance of the bill, and therefore, in my opinion, it
would be proper for you to invite the Chairperson to reconsider his position on that
point.
Mr SPEAKER: I will deal with the matter in maybe two steps. First, I reiterate what
the Chair has said to the Committee of the whole House—that is, that the scope of this
bill is quite narrow and deals with structure and governance issues. It would be my