edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3429] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I noted your words directly. When you ruled out a number of amendments you said it was because they were not a description of the geographic area of Auckland. Now the words may be similar but they are different in respect of their order. I do not see how based on your last ruling about and I say again it not being a description of the geographic area of Auckland there is a justification for not taking a vote on those two. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. These cover the same substance as the one we have already voted on and that is another reason why I have ruled them out.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3429] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment is ruled out of order because it is covered by the previous amendment. It is the same as the amendment we have just voted on. To clarify we have just voted on the amendments to substitute “Region of Auckland Council” and the “Auckland Regions Council”. The ones that I am ruling out are the next two to substitute “Auckland and Regions Council” and “Regions and Auckland Council” because they are the same thing. They are duplications. They have the same effect as the ones that we have just voted on. That is why they are ruled out.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3429] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3429] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Region of Auckland Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3429] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Regions Council”.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3426] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I seek your advice. I have had a look at  
McGee 
 page 379 which talks about “an amendment which is merely an attempt to criticise the contents of the bill will not be accepted.” and about as you have rightly pointed out the need for precision but I ask you to consider the issue of consistency. We have just voted on the amendment that attempted to substitute the words “Neighbourhood Plus Council” which you presumably ruled in order because we voted on it. You then ruled out an amendment to insert the words “Monarchy Council” referring to the sovereign. 
Although I accept absolutely that as you have said under the Standing Orders you are the sole judge of what is in and what is out I ask you so that there is not disorder as we go through these amendments for some indication of consistency. Where an amendment refers to the sovereign—to the monarchy—you have ruled it out but where it refers to “neighbourhood” you have ruled it in. In order to assist you with the smooth running and passage of the Committee we would be grateful for some sort of indication in respect of consistency; otherwise it becomes just an arbitrary process and we will repeatedly have to seek your guidance and ultimately recall the Speaker. So without being provocative I simply ask you to give us an indication of how your rulings are proceeding. Thank you.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3426] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next two amendments have been ruled out.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3433] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I hope it is a new point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a new point of order and it goes to your ruling that in your opinion a particular amendment was partly serious and then went into the spurious area that you ruled out. The question I have is whether you have any discretion to rule part of an amendment out of order rather than the whole amendment out of order. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I am advised that I do not regrettably but if that is something the member would like further consideration on I am sure that I could come back to him on it.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3432] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I apologise because I was not aware of the circumstances under which you took the Chair. The question I have now is particularly embarrassing given that you are one of my colleagues but it goes to the appropriateness of someone who is not elected to the position of Chair making rulings that take away the rights of a minority in this Chamber. With the other Chairs the Committee has taken a decision. I am familiar with the Standing Orders which indicate that you can take the Chair and you can make the rulings. 
I am asking you whether you think it is appropriate for you to exercise the powers yourself—whether in an acting position that has not been endorsed by the Committee it is appropriate that the rights of the minority be taken away or whether you should recluse yourself for a period of time until these rulings have been dealt with. I think it is wonderful that you are in the Chair; some of us think you would make a really good Speaker in time. But it is certainly my view that it is not appropriate for you to be ruling out these points of order. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I do not need any further assistance thank you Mr Carter. Thank you Mr Mallard for your kind words. They are always appreciated although I am not sure that best wishes for a future in the Speakership are something I would welcome. I think probably the answer is that as I have taken on this position temporarily by the leave of the Committee and with its endorsement and I am very mindful of the fact that I am not an elected officer of the House I think it is probably incumbent on me all the more in those circumstances to maintain rulings consistent with those who are. So I am going to follow that course of action and maintain the ruling.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3426] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3426] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Neighbourhood Plus Council”.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3422] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 If we could get a sense of where you are heading to at the beginning of the questions on the amendments it will make it easier down the track particularly as we will be having a change in personnel. I think the question that Metiria Turei puts to you is in addition to the Standing Orders which you rightly have to administer. To what extent is a bicultural view being taken? The member has said that in terms of Maui and in terms of sons and daughters in the very clear Maori context of taonga tuku iho and tupuna we are the descendants of those who have gone before. Sons and daughters of Maui is a very clear concept particularly for such a big city as Auckland. So I am asking about that bicultural aspect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I mentioned earlier and I will read the ruling out again: “An amendment must be drafted with some precision. There is a form of words which may be embodied in law.” We have had a number of preceding amendments and they were given quite a bit of latitude as to different names and what they could encompass. I have made my decision; that is where we stand. We will move on as there are a lot of amendments to get through. A lot of other amendments cover similar points.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3421] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will make it clear that I am not challenging your ruling; I am asking for your advice. The dilemma I think we find ourselves in as you rightly pointed out is that if you rule an amendment out of order for say being frivolous—and you have the ability to do that—the question then is one of interpretation by you. 
I would suggest to you that if you do not feel it is appropriate to elaborate as to why an amendment may be for instance frivolous then that will leave no option but to recall the Speaker to make a judgment. I do not think that is necessary but the problem we have as the Opposition is that it is entirely your interpretation. You may view a word as frivolous but if you do not stand and give us a justification recalling the Speaker may be the only option we have.
Turei Metiria: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3421] 
METIRIA TUREI (Deputy Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I would then make the point that I take great exception to any amendment that contains te reo being ruled out of order without an explicit description as to why reo words would be ruled out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is challenging my ruling. I have made a decision and it stands. We want to move forward.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3427] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I ask for your guidance in respect of consistency because I still do not get the point that when one makes a reference to “neighbourhood” it is viewed as being serious but when one makes a reference to “monarchy” it is viewed as not being serious.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3427] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I think the member quoted page 379 of  
McGee 
 which states “Any amendment that is proposed … must be a serious or objective description of its contents.” That is why I have ruled out the “Monarchy Council” amendment. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is challenging my ruling. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No I want to raise a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will call the member on a point of order.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3427] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to get a complete understanding of your ruling. You are saying that in your order of priority as it were it is acceptable for us to vote as we have done on an amendment to insert words such as “Neighbourhood Plus Council” but that if a reference is made to the sovereign which I would have thought would be a higher priority you are ruling it out on the grounds that you do not believe it is serious. Is that correct?
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3427] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The “Monarchy Council” amendment is not a serious attempt to set up a council. There have been plenty of amendments previously that describe in better form what is trying to be achieved through the amendments. The “Monarchy Council” amendment is certainly not one of those and I have ruled it out.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3426] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Plains and Vents Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3426] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Fast Track Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Super Basin Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Super City Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Supercity Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Consulting Council”.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3424] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes the ones I have ruled out are the amendments of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 substituting the “John Key Memorial Council” the “Rodney Hide Memorial Council” and the “Melissa Lee Memorial Council”. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Roads and Tunnels Council”.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3424] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As you know I was liaising with the Deputy Leader of the House. Can you tell me which three amendments have been ruled out? I have lost track.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3424] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment is ruled out because it is the same in substance as a previous one. 
The next three amendments are ruled out. We now move to—
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3424] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3424] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Supercity Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3424] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Super Cone Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3423] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Ring Road Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3423] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Vents Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3423] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “City of Vents Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3423] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Coast to Coast Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3422] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Mayoralty Council”.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3422] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I absolutely accept your ruling. Part of the difficulty was describing those words as frivolous. If you could quote the Standing Order that will not cause the same offence—although we accept your ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If I said that an amendment was frivolous then that was only an example. I guess this comment should be directed to Metiria Turei—and I offer my apologies. Frivolous is one of the reasons for ruling an amendment out of order but in this case it was certainly not that reason. My apologies if I have offended the member. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Heart of the City Council”.
Turei Metiria: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3421] 
METIRIA TUREI (Deputy Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to get some clarification from you. As you are not describing which amendments you are ruling out and why it is then very difficult— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well— 
METIRIA TUREI 
: I just want to make my point that it is very difficult then to feel confident that your ruling is correct. I will take your word for it but— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You cannot challenge my ruling. 
Metiria Turei 
: I am not.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will answer your question. 
Metiria Turei 
: I have not finished my point of order yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I know what the member is saying. The amendments are tabled on the Table here. We are going through them in order. I have mentioned the ones that have been ruled out of order. It is up to the member to look to see which ones I have referred to. That is the position we have been in. Four amendments have been ruled out of order because of the reasons I mentioned and explained earlier.
Tremain Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3421] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just politely suggest through the Chair that the senior Opposition whip speak with his senior Maori MPs when he talks about Te Ika a Maui so he gets an understanding of what it actually means? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3421] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not wishing to challenge your ruling but I would have thought that given the time that has been spent on the amendments you need to be able to say to the Committee specifically why you have ruled them out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are challenging my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I am not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am seeking clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. The amendments that I have mentioned as being ruled out have fallen into the category of not being serious amendments and I am able to rule out those amendments. That is a decision that I have made and it is not debatable.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3420] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am aware that the Committee is dealing with a number of amendments designed to encapsulate just how large this new authority will be but I am interested as to what process you are using to rule out amendments. For example the previous amendment referenced Maui. Of course the Maori name for the North Island is Te Ika a Maui the fish of Maui. Why would that not be considered a serious amendment just because it is a Maori reference? I would like some advice on that. The most recent amendment to clause 9 refers to “North East South and West Council”. This clearly is an authority that directionally takes in the whole city as the next amendment regarding the compass of Auckland takes into account. These amendments are so designed because Auckland Council has a connotation like the current Auckland City Council has. Our amendments are designed so that people in Auckland know that this is a new authority much like when we moved to MMP and there was a very clear reference for new electorate names. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes you have made your point; thank you. An amendment must be drafted with some precision. There is a form of words that may be embodied in law. Its form must offer serious alternative forms of words. An amendment that is merely an attempt to criticise the provision will not be accepted. Amendments that are vague or frivolous are out of order and I have so ruled. 
Hon Member 
: Which ones were frivolous? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The ones that I have said were ruled out of order. That is my ruling so we will move on with the other amendments.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3420] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next two amendments are ruled out of order.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3420] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next two amendments are ruled out as not being serious amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “City of Sails Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3420] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Environment Auckland Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Catchment Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Ngati Whatua and Friends and Families Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Ngati Whatua and Others Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Ngati Whatua and Friends Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3418] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Outsized Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3418] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Plus Regions Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3418] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Plus Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3418] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Regional Auckland Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Auckland Regional Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Wider Auckland Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Greater Auckland Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3417] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “Te Ropu Tamaki Makaurau Council”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3416] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Noes 64 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Paker to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(5)Because of the concentration of powers in the office of the Mayor of Auckland Council— 
(a)any current or former Minister of the Crown is prohibited from standing for or holding the office of Mayor: 
(b)no person may hold the office of Mayor for more than two terms.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3416] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(5)The changes in this Part will not take effect until a poll of electors has approved the changes in line with Schedule 3 section 49 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3416] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Noes 64 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) all words after “consequently amended” and substitute “by repealing section 23(1) and (5) of the Local Government Act 2002 and substituting the following: 
(1) A territorial authority must be either a city council or a district council with the exception of the Chatham Islands Council or Auckland Council.”
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) all words after “consequently amended” and substitute “by repealing section 23 of the Local Government Act 2002 and substituting: ‘A territorial authority has the power to determine its own name’ ”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) “as defined by the Local Government Act 2002” after “regional council”.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3410] 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I have been reflecting on the issues around the set-up of the unitary council called the Auckland Council and I am very concerned about the impact on all the local authorities in Auckland. I stand up to support especially my Labour leader Phil Goff and all the other Labour MPs who actually come from Auckland. 
The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is fundamentally an attack on democracy but also more important an attack on the spirit of being a Kiwi. Auckland has built its foundations on the commitment and contribution of tangata whenua of New Zealanders and of many many immigrant populations. Within those local territorial authorities there are communities that are passionate about their local rugby league clubs passionate about their cultural organisations and passionate about their identity. This bill is a fundamental insult to the people and citizens of Auckland. To bring in this legislation and ram it through the House in this way is an absolute undermining of the foundations of what it is to be a Kiwi. All those communities and all those cultures are strong because they build nationhood. The impact of this legislation on all those groups and communities will be to fundamentally undermine the diversity—including the Pacific community—that makes us beautiful New Zealand. 
We are very very disappointed in this Government. When one thinks about the philosophies of National and ACT one understands that they are about opposing nanny State—yet they are behaving like the nanny State—they are about individual choice about freedom of opportunity and about having a voice. There also are all the residents’ associations that make up those local authorities. It is an insult that Government members have not thought very deeply about what the impact of this bill will be on the fundamental Kiwi spirit. In New Zealand everyone likes to have a say and have a voice. 
The legislation is an absolute attack on the royal commission report. The royal commission undertook consultation. It consulted all the many diverse communities of Auckland and the many organisations. What does the Government do? It rams this legislation through. It is a very very sad day indeed for New Zealand but also more important for Auckland which is the heart of our country.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3410] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Let me take just a couple of minutes to respond to the comments of the deputy leader of the Labour Party. She must have been a bit groggy when she woke up this morning after her late night. In my interview I was clear about the fact that the Government is more than happy to debate the issues; what we are struggling with is to discover from the Opposition what its issues are. I was concerned— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why are you moving closure motions then? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Members opposite ask for the answer then they do not want to hear it. That is the Labour Opposition’s approach to debate. When other people try to speak members of the Opposition try to use the force of the law or their loud voices to shut them down. 
I say to the deputy leader of the Labour Party that I am happy for the debate to take place but the concern I had and still have is that the Opposition has spent 8 or 9 hours of precious parliamentary time on putting up amendments that Opposition members themselves do not want to pass. That was my concern. I wanted to clear that up because it was clear that at 6 a.m. the deputy leader of the Labour Party just back from her run was still a bit groggy. Thank you.
Macindoe Tim: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3409] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3407] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.