Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

3702 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 16 May 2009
(a) there will be a review of the ethnic make-up of the Transition Agency
(including its governing body) on 30 May 2009; and
(b) the review will include a review of the Māori, Pacific, Pakeha, Chinese, and
Korean representation of the governing body.
(2) Despite any other provision, community boards of existing local authorities will
be consulted on any Māori, Pacific, or other ethnic representation of the Auckland
Council.
(3) Despite any other provision, representatives from all ethnic groups will be
consulted on 30 May 2009 about the activities of the Transition Agency.
(4) Despite any other provision, the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to
appoint a board of Indian members, a board of Pacific members, and a board of
Māori members to advise the Transition Agency.
(5) Despite any other provisions the Minister has the power on 30 May 2009 to
appoint a board of experts to advise the Auckland Council on matters of ethnic
affairs.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment
be agreed to.
Ayes 64
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.
Noes 39
New Zealand Labour 28; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The following amendments are now out of
order: amendments in the name of Jacinda Ardern, amendments in the name of Dr
Rajen Prasad, amendments in the name of Su’a William Sio, and amendments in the
name of the Hon David Cunliffe.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr
Chairperson. Because this is happening relatively rapidly, can we ask you to elaborate
on why those amendments are out of order? The one I am particularly interested in at
the moment is that of Mr Prasad, which refers in particular to Indian representation, and
I am not sure that the fact that there are to be reviews on ethnic issues cuts out that
amendment. I am sure there will be parallel arguments for some of my colleagues’ other
amendments, but the fact that the Government has lined up an amendment to have a
review generally does not cut out that specific review—
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for those comments.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): In support of my colleague, and
as a member who has put forward a series of amendments here, I say that your rulings—
which we are not seeking to question; I want to make that clear—have been on two
grounds: either because of inconsistency with the previous decisions of the Chair or the
Committee, or because they are matters related to operations rather than governance, in
the case of a large quantity of amendments, including whole parts. So, in fact, two
grounds of precedent are in play here. It is not clear to us from the way in which you
have issued your latest ruling, Mr Chairperson, which of those decisions applies to the
various amendments. It is a serious matter, because we are dealing here with whole new
parts, which are debatable amendments, by precedent from the Chair—from all
Chairpersons—and it is important for us, as we report back to our constituencies, to
understand the reasons why these amendments are outside the Standing Orders.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Sure. We have just passed an amendment
in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide, which covers all the points you have just made.
The other amendments are of the same substance. That is why the other amendments are