02.12.2012 Views

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

16 May 2009 Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 3715<br />

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />

Ayes 64<br />

<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />

Noes 36<br />

<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />

Amendment agreed to.<br />

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): As a consequence of that amendment to<br />

the Minister’s amendment, Sue Kedgley’s amendment is ruled out of order as it is<br />

inconsistent with the previous decision. Secondly, there are two amendments in the<br />

name of the Hon David Parker that are inconsistent with the previous decision, and,<br />

therefore, are ruled out of order.<br />

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Am I to<br />

take it that my third amendment is within order, notwithstanding the prior vote, and that<br />

it could be put?<br />

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I wonder whether the Hon<br />

David Parker could explain for us what his third amendment is. It is a bit confusing with<br />

so many amendments.<br />

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): My first amendment was to delete the word<br />

“reorganisation” and substitute the words “concentration of power”; my second was to<br />

delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “democratic deficiency”; and<br />

my third was to delete the word “reorganisation” and substitute the words “facilitating<br />

the privatisation of council assets”.<br />

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I have considered the three<br />

amendments, and I wish to change my ruling to say that not just two amendments are<br />

out of order, but all three are out of order as being inconsistent with the previous<br />

decision.<br />

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney<br />

Hide to clause 2 be agreed to:<br />

to omit subclauses (1) to (3) and to substitute the following new subclauses:<br />

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) this Act comes into force 2 days after the date<br />

on which it receives the Royal assent.<br />

(2) Part 2 comes into force on 1 November 2010.<br />

(3) Sections 27 and 28 and subpart 3 of Part 3 come into force on the close of 31<br />

December 2010.<br />

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.<br />

Ayes 64<br />

<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> National 58; ACT <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 5; United Future 1.<br />

Noes 36<br />

<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Labour 25; Green Party 7; Māori Party 4.<br />

Amendment agreed to.<br />

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): There are a number of amendments in<br />

the name of Jacinda Ardern. I have to confess that I have not personally read each of<br />

them, but I have been told by the Clerk’s Office, which has worked through each of the<br />

amendments, that they are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision<br />

of the Committee.<br />

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr<br />

Chairperson. I seek your assurance that you have sought the assurance of the Clerk’s

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!