Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3698 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009 There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4, “Transition Agency and Environmental Rights”. That amendment has been ruled out of order as it is outside the scope of the bill. The bill deals with governance, and not operational matters. There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4, “Transition Agency Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. This is ruled out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, and not operational matters. I have ruled that those amendments are out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Ka mōtinihia ahau kia whai rīpoata mō tō tātou kōkiri whakamua. [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] [I move that we report progress.] The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Progress cannot be reported on a point of order. Schedules The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the schedules stand part. [Interruption] There is no debate on schedules. The schedules are not debatable. We will go to the vote. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Because we are now moving to consideration of the schedules, I take it that all the additional parts that have been submitted by way of amendment have been ruled out of order by you—that the series that you have just ruled out were all the remaining parts that there were to be amendments. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is correct. Hon DARREN HUGHES: I also seek a second assurance. It was not while you were in the Chair, but there was an outburst from the Leader of the House directed at the Clerk’s Office. I just want an assurance that that outburst is not linked to the fact that, all of a sudden, every single amendment that created a new part has been ruled out. The convenience of that for the Government is not lost on the Opposition. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I am the sole judge of that. I can assure the member of the integrity of the Clerk’s Office and the hard work it has done over the last few days. I will be here to protect the Clerk’s Office at every opportunity, and I am the sole judge of such things. I heard that comment. I was not here, but I did hear that comment. Any criticism of the Clerk’s Office goes through the Chair, but I want to give you the assurance that I have full faith in the integrity of the way that the Clerk’s Office has been operating. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I want to absolutely endorse those remarks. I think you would find that absolutely everyone in the Chamber shares those views. The Clerk’s Office has worked remarkably hard, and it has people of integrity and professionalism. That is why the Opposition objected so strongly to the way it was addressed by National’s Gerry Brownlee. My next point of order relates to the suspended amendment to insert a new Part 5, “Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, which also deals with Asian representation in the Auckland super-city. That part was suspended by the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rodney Hide. We have to take that before the preliminary clauses. I am just checking that you will do that after the schedules have been voted on. Is that your intention?
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3699 The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. Your assumption is correct. That is the process that we would go through. A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedule be agreed to. Ayes 64 New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. Noes 43 New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4. Schedule agreed to. MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We actually voted 32 opposed, but the interpreter said 42 opposed. I just want to correct that. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The new result for Labour is 32 opposed. Members the Ayes are 64, the Noes are 43. The motion is agreed to. Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wonder whether you can help on a point of procedure. I assume, now, that we have done the schedules. There are two points that I want to ask about. We have a postponed amendment to insert a part—I think it is Part 5, “Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, in the name of Shane Jones. I understand that when that was postponed there was a motion from Darren Hughes before the Committee that was to be considered. From memory, I think it was a closure motion. I wonder whether that situation still stands or is that the next thing we go to. That is the first thing that I want to understand. The second thing that I wonder about is a matter of procedure. After the part that has been postponed is considered by the Committee and a decision is taken, we move to the preliminaries, as I think they are called. While we are still considering the postponed Part 5, is there an opportunity for anyone in the Committee to put another part to be considered, because we have not yet got to the preliminaries? I wonder whether that is a possibility. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Just further to that, I am a little confused myself, because Standing Order 293(1)(c) is not often used. If we go down to 293(4) we see that “Unless otherwise specified, consideration or further consideration of—(a) any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with, other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. What I am not clear about, after all the amendments that have been tabled here today, is what your ruling is in respect of just what the preliminary clauses are. It would be helpful to the House if you could detail the preliminary clauses that are still there. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think I can advise on the last question first. I think clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses. But on the substantive matter that was raised by John Carter, which is what the position is with regard to further parts, when Mr Barker was in the Chair and he was contemplating accepting closure, he had not accepted the closure, and it is my understanding that further parts can be submitted until the time that closure is accepted. The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the first point about the preliminary clauses is correct. Clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses of the bill. On the second point, no, the closure motion for Part 5 was postponed. We have before us a closure motion that was put forward by the Hon Darren Hughes. It is still appropriate.
Page 1:
First Session, Forty-ninth Parliame
Page 5 and 6:
16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 81: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckl
Page 103 and 104: 16 May 2009 Local Government (Tamak
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?