Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament
Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) - New Zealand Parliament
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