Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3405] 
Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Auckland Council ( 
continued 
)  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Before we were temporarily diverted by the interesting case of Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga I was saying how important the creation of the Auckland Council is to our vision for the future of Auckland. There is no doubt on this side of the Chamber that we believe in a unitary authority; we believe that Auckland needs to speak with one voice. That is the area where we agree with the Government but there are many areas where we disagree. 
It is a shame that in this important constitutional process the National - ACT Government is in the process of gerrymandering the electoral format in order to permanently install its mates and its cronies in Auckland government. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government is going about gutting local democracy for one-third of this country’s population. It is completely blindly and wilfully ignoring the thoughtful recommendations of the royal commission about the second tier and is putting in place a cacophony of community boards with no real powers and no real resources. It is a shame that no thought is being given to the protection of local assets like the Port of Auckland the transport infrastructure and the water company. They are there like jewels in the crown ready for picking off by some future administration. It is a shame that the National - ACT Government has shafted its partner the Maori Party by completely ignoring the recommendations of the royal commission for Maori representation. 
But more than that there is the undemocratic way that this whole process has been managed by the National Government. It is bulldozing this bill through the House under urgency with no significant consultation which is in breach of the National Party’s campaign promise to consult the people of Auckland on the findings of the royal commission. Aucklanders’ democratic rights are being confiscated. This legislation is basically a coup against democracy. It is stripping the powers of dozens and dozens of officials who only 18 months ago were elected by Aucklanders. Now they will have to go cap in hand to Rodney Hide’s appointed mates and cronies on the Auckland Transition Agency if they want so much as a pencil sharpener. It is shame that the Auckland Council councillors eight of whom will be elected at large—[ 
Interruption 
] The “Little Emperor” from Epsom is telling 1.4 million Aucklanders where they can shove their democratic rights. When an Auckland citizen wants to get an audience— 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. Kia ora tatou; no reira te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. 
[ 
And so greetings to us the House the people the languages and the four winds. 
] 
It was a long night and it is certainly a short morning this morning. I want to raise the issue of and debate Part 2. I want to address clause 9 because some very good amendments have been put forward. They have already been debated last night by several of my colleagues. Part 2 establishes the territorial authority for Auckland to be known as the Auckland Council. What it does is gut Manukau Papakura Franklin North Shore Waitakere and Rodney. Worse it is an insult to democracy and the rule of law. Right from the outset Labour members have supported a unitary authority for Auckland but we disagree strongly with a number of key provisions of the Government’s proposal. That is why today we will continue this fight in Parliament in the name of democracy. We have to ask ourselves whether clause 9 is a good thing. What about the relationships with the other councils? How will this new council be able to work cohesively and to draw the other people in to make sure that it runs smoothly? What are the right functions of this proposed council? 
I want to know what the Auckland members on the other side of the Chamber have to say about it. I want to hear a call from Paula Bennett. I want to hear a call from Murray McCully from Maurice Williamson from Jackie Blue from Pansy Wong Nikki Kaye Judith Collins Wayne Mapp and Richard Worth. Where are they? I ask them to get off their hind legs. I say to Dr Paul Hutchison that Bill Birch the author of Think Big is opposed to this think-big city. I tell Paul Hutchison to get off his hind legs take a call and tell this Committee what he really thinks about this legislation which is going to gut the Franklin District Council. 
Does this proposed district regional council have the power to do the job? How will it do it? We have had none of those questions answered yet. When will it do it and who will actually do this job? What are the responsibilities and powers? They are not outlined in this legislation. I understand that this legislation replaces the Auckland Regional Council and the six city councils—Manukau Papakura Franklin North Shore Waitakere and Rodney. In fact what is does is take the power away from local people. It guts our local democracy. 
I know that I speak for the people of Manukau when I say that we are concerned. I represent part of Auckland City and now Manukau City. I know having represented part of Auckland City that it has neglected its southern suburbs. I am looking at the  
New Zealand Herald  
for 29 April where there is quote from John Key the Prime Minister—“Super city will think small”. The article says: “Prime Minister John Key has given an assurance that small grass-roots projects will not fall victim to the Auckland Super City structure.” Well I say to the Committee that it has already happened. Auckland City has slashed funding for two free community events in Onehunga which have been cancelled: $24000 was cut from the Onehunga Festival and $20000 from That Thing in the Park. Those cuts are totally contradictory to what was promised by the Prime Minister. Local democracy is being gutted. 
Clause 9(3) repeals section 23 of the Local Government Act which states: “(1) A territorial authority must be either a city council or a district council. (2) A territorial authority that is a city council must be described as the ‘[name of city] City Council’.” and it goes on. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 If the Government thought it was having a bad week it should believe me when I say that it is not over yet. 
Some issues around clause 9 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill which we are debating at the moment go to the very heart of the question of how a city the size of the wider Auckland region should be run. Those issues are epitomised in the way that this Government has brought this legislation to the House. The arrogance that has been displayed in this urgent measure which does not require urgency at all—and in fact would be better served by a more measured careful approach that involved the people of Auckland—is testimony to the character of this Government. You know Labour was accused at the end of its 9 years in Government of having become arrogant but if ever we were arrogant it took us 9 years to get there. This Government has taken 6 months to get there and Rodney Hide has taken a nanosecond to get there. 
In fact Rodney Hide’s comments even this morning indicate how little he understands the need for consultation and how much he relies on executive power to push through unpalatable and ultimately unworkable measures in local government. Mr Hide this morning on Radio New Zealand National said that it does not matter because the Government has the numbers and it just has to sit it out—it just has to sit out the Labour Party’s filibustering. There is a difference between filibustering and recognising that the Labour Opposition is the only line between the people of New Zealand—and in this case the people of Auckland—and the executive power of Government. The Opposition provides the only defence between executive power and the people and we are exercising that defence on behalf of the people of Auckland. 
Having lived nearly 30 years of my life in Auckland I care about how Aucklanders are responding to this issue. Of course Auckland needs more efficient and more effective governance—that is not at issue. That is why the Labour Government called the royal commission. And it called a royal commission because the issues are complex; these issues are never simple and a royal commission was deemed to be the best way of addressing the inadequacies the friction the dysfunction and the complexity that have occurred in the operation of local government across numerous district councils and city councils in that region. But the Government has come to this House with a half-baked proposal and without consultation despite its protestations that it intends to engage in or is engaging in consultation; it is clear that it is not because of the supreme arrogance attached to the urgency given to this measure. 
This Government needs to recognise that the people of Auckland have an opinion and that that opinion will be expressed. It will be expressed in 2010 and further to that it will be expressed in 2011 when the mess that this Government is proposing for the governance structure of Auckland proves to be unworkable and dysfunctional. Having a dysfunctional local government arrangement across a city as large and as important to the economy as Auckland is a travesty. It is a terrible mistake. This Government did not need to ram this legislation through under urgency. This measure required more consideration more consultation and more opportunity for the people of Auckland to have their say. 
I wish to address in particular two amendments to this clause. The first amendment in the name of George Hawkins amends Part 2 by inserting a new clause 9(4): “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”. That should have been done at the outset. Why is the Government so frightened of a poll of political opinion? Why is it so frightened of that? The answer is simply that it probably is not frightened; it just cannot be bothered. It is using arrogance as a constitutional device here. This is an outrage. It is an outrage in process. It is an offence to the people of Auckland. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I shall address my comments to the amendment that inserts a new clause 9(4): “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”. 
Firstly I acknowledge the Hon George Hawkins the Opposition spokesperson on local government. He has introduced to the Committee on behalf of Labour a number of amendments that reflect our determination as the Opposition to hold this Government to account. They also reflect our determination to ensure that this Government takes the time to consider asking Aucklanders to have a say on this legislation. After all it is Aucklanders—the people throughout the Auckland region—who will be affected by it. 
Part 2—clause 9—is the core focus of this entire debate. This particular clause sets in motion what is the most significant and fundamental change in local government for not just the Auckland region but the rest of New Zealand as well. It is also the clause that gives life to a new creature: the monster that we now call the super-city. But at the same time it extinguishes the life of eight other living entities. It extinguishes the life of the Franklin District Council and we have heard in this Chamber that one of National’s own Sir William Birch does not want it to die; he wants the Franklin District Council to continue living and has sought from National and Mr Hide that it be allowed to continue to live. This part of the bill extinguishes the life of Manukau City extinguishes the life of the Rodney District Council and extinguishes the life of Papakura of Waitakere of Auckland City and the Auckland Regional Council. 
Ordinarily when we create a new creature most people would celebrate the new life. But in this particular case the life is being imposed; it is being shoved down the throats of Aucklanders whether or not they like it. In fact Aucklanders feel that they have had no consensual participation in the creation of this life. That is why this amendment is so important. According to some Aucklanders it would not be so bad if the Government had come and asked them but it had not. That is despite Mr Key declaring before the election that when the royal commission’s recommendations were made known he would go out and talk to Aucklanders. That has not happened. 
In Part 2 the Government also gives a name to this new creature. It calls it the Auckland Council. I ask the Minister of Local Government whether he consulted with the eight local territorial authorities in Auckland with the mayors and the councillors about the name of this super-city creature. Did he ask the mayors what name this new creature ought to be called? I doubt that very much. People might ask what is in a name. A name is so important that in this Chamber we are quite strict about the names we use. [ 
Interruption 
] I cannot call that member opposite a “big fella” and I cannot call other members a “brown fella” a “boldie” a “grumpy” or an “ugly fella”. I have to call those members by their names. That is how important names are. 
I ask whether the Government asked tangata whenua. I ask Mr Hide whether he consulted Ngati Whatua or Ngai Tai about what the name should be. According to Maori legend the name ”Tamaki-makau-rau” refers to a city of a hundred lovers. I invite members of the Maori Party to comment on that name because it is an important name; I am hopeful that my rangatira on the other side of the Chamber will speak to the name “Tamaki-makau-rau”. 
But there is another name and that is Greater Auckland Council. Why could the proposed body not be called the Greater Auckland Council? I am determined to ask the Minister to tell us whether he consulted people on the name because Auckland— 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It is important that I take a call on Part 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill because this part mentions the Chatham Islands—a very important part of my electorate. I am absolutely delighted that with the establishment of the Auckland Council it will be on the same footing as the Chatham Islands Council which is part of the Rongotai electorate. The Chatham Islands Council is already a territorial authority and Auckland will now be a similar authority but there has not been the same consultation or representation in Auckland that the Chatham Islands have had over decades in this country. I thank the Minister of Local Government for remembering the Chatham Islands. 
I listened to the Minister’s dulcet tones this morning as I woke up at the early hour of 6 o’clock. I heard Mr Hide tell the people of New Zealand how outrageous it is that we are wasting taxpayers’ money by debating this bill. I have a message for Mr Hide: if he had referred the bill to a select committee we would not be wasting Parliament’s time; we would be giving the people of New Zealand the opportunity to have a say. This is the man who when in Opposition would rail against anything the previous Labour Government did. He would say that it was not democratic that it was not long enough that it was too fast and that we should be sitting longer. I ask Mr Hide what happened. I think that what happened is that he now has a very thick hide. He is now able to pretend—or perhaps he always believed—that when he gets his hands on the lever of power anything is possible. 
This bill proves that anything is possible under a National-ACT Government. That Government is ramming this bill through under urgency on a Friday and moaning about the time it is taking and about the Opposition debating it. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: No. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes he is. I do not know what time of night Mr Hide gave his interview but I assure him that he was moaning about the time it is taking to get through this bill. I ask whether the Minister could not just pause take a little breath and allow democracy to work at least in Parliament given that he has denied it to the people of New Zealand. 
This bill is very typical of the arrogance that we now get from the National Government. The Ministers think that they are bulletproof. They think that nothing will happen to them. I have to share with the Committee evidence of just how arrogant the National Government has become as is portrayed in this bill. The “Diary” section of the  
Dominion Post 
 of 15 May states that the National Government’s Ministers do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of political correctness. It says that at an award ceremony just recently Minister Maurice Williamson decided to present an award to himself. He started off by giving himself a Mother’s Day award suggesting that Mr Key calls members of the party “mother-somethings”. He then went on to attempt a joke by talking about disabled people stealing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am talking about the arrogance of this Government in ramming through this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are actually on Part 2 “Auckland Council”. The member has had a fair go on that subject; I ask her to come back to Part 2 for her remaining time. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Government has chosen to start moving closure motions. I think the deputy leader of the Labour Party is well within her rights to cover the fact that the Government has made that choice and why she wants to see the debate continue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you should draw the attention of the Hon Sir Roger Douglas to the fact that his cellphone has been going off during the course of the morning. I do not think he is aware of what the little machine is that is making the noise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Cellphones are not allowed to be rung in the Chamber so if that is what is happening I ask the member to turn it off. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This part of the bill is a demonstration of the arrogance of a Government that does not believe it needs to consult. It is an example of the arrogance of a Government that thinks it can go out in public and say anything and do anything and of the arrogance of a Government that gets rid of a city that the Minister in the chair actually represents. This process has been done with no recourse to the people of New Zealand at all. They have no opportunity to have a say. It is not good enough. We oppose this whole process. 
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. 
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. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I think that historians will look back in a few years’ time and ask how this happened. How did eight councils in New Zealand get obliterated by Parliament get expunged from the face of the earth in 24 hours without one of the 1.4 million Aucklanders being consulted or being asked whether they wanted to get rid of their council and their democratically elected councillors? Where is the mandate for Part 2 of this bill? The mandate does not come from the royal commission. The royal commission recommended that the councils continue to exist. So the mandate does not come from the royal commission. Where is the mandate? It does not come from the people of Auckland. Aucklanders have never been asked whether they want their local councils obliterated from the face of this earth. This is absolutely extraordinary. 
We have the Local Government Act 2002 which solemnly enshrines as it should that if we are going to do a reorganisation—or in this case a massacre—we have to ask the people who are governed and they have to agree by a majority to the abolition of their councils. This is enshrined in legislation. So what is this Government doing? It is doing what it did with the royal commission’s report; it is ripping it up. The Government put the royal commission’s report into the bin then it put the Local Government Act 2002 into the bin and totally ignored all of its requirements for consultation. Aucklanders will have their democratically elected councils wiped off the face of this earth without their ever being consulted. 
I think that the reason we are having what amounts to a protest in Parliament today is that the legislation is an example of utter undemocratic proceedings in this House. Democracy is being wiped out by the stroke of a pen with the ramming through of the legislation. Not only will Aucklanders not be given a poll as to whether their councils should be obliterated which is what will happen with this legislation but they are not even being given a chance to be consulted on this legislation. Rodney Hide goes on that all Aucklanders will be able to be consulted later on in 3 months’ time when we will have the nice little committee but by then it is too late—the die is cast; the super-city has begun. Five of Rodney’s cronies who will be appointed directly by Rodney—they will not even have to go through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee—will be overseeing everything in Auckland. They will even oversee toilet paper supplies. Rodney’s mates will be in total and complete control. They will paralyse Auckland councils and Auckland governance for the next 18 months. 
Aucklanders will wake up and ask how this happened. Historians will ask how this happened. This is what happens in a dictatorship. Rodney Hide’s goal first of all—mark my words—is to shrink democracy. He is using Orwellian double-speak. He is saying that it is all about bringing the local back into local government but it is not. It is about shrinking democracy destroying eight well-functioning councils overnight eliminating all of that democracy and replacing it with this incredible concentration of executive power in the Auckland Council. The pitiful little crumbs called local boards which will not even be in statute— 
Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Toothless! 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: They will be absolutely toothless and are frankly a joke as others have said. Mr Hide thinks that he can ram through this agenda of shrinking and wiping out democracy in Auckland without protest. The second hidden agenda is that once this new structure of local government is in place with the executive control of the strong mayor—the tsar of Auckland—once the tsar of Auckland is completely in control dominating the Auckland Council— 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou i tenei ata tatou kua rauika mai ki roto i te Whare nei ki te wananga i te take nei. 
[ 
Greetings to us assembled here this morning to debate this matter in this Parliament. 
] 
Since the Maori Party has been in the relationship with the National Party since the last election there has been a heap of positives and from time to time a few little hiccups. I suppose when one considers the way in which politics happen one has to say that that is just how it rolls. I have appreciated the openness and willingness of Ministers to seek advice and guidance from us in the Maori Party. I have appreciated the relationships that have been built up with members like Mr Finlayson Mr Power Mr Brownlee and Anne Tolley. They are Ministers whom we have been working with on a number of projects. I think the scene was set by John Key in opening the door to the Maori Party. He did not have to do that. He chose to allow us to contribute. He believed in a strong independent voice having something to offer. 
On Waitangi Day Ministers met with iwi leaders from throughout the country and the iwi leaders on their part have come back to the Prime Minister to offer some guidance some assistance and some discussion. At Ratana Ministers again turned up acknowledging the importance of a Maori view. I understand that Treaty settlements are premised on the relationship between the Crown and Maori and I note that many of the settlements include that statement. The relationship between the Crown and Maori is clearly important. Mr Hide the Prime Minister and other colleagues acknowledge that the Maori Party has made and continues to make a valuable contribution to the parliamentary process as an independent party. 
In those circumstances I am struggling—as is the Maori Party I think—to understand why the recommendation from the royal commission that there be Maori seats has not been adopted and more important why Maori and most important mana whenua may not be a part of the decision-making process. This bill has huge ramifications for the country because like the banning of gang patches from the central business district of Wanganui by my colleague Chester Borrow’s legislation the pattern of leaving Maori aside may well move throughout the country. That is the fear. 
Why should Maori be at the decision-making table? Firstly we would argue that the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—provides a starting point. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—and we hope that in the near future we might have a statement about Aotearoa’s position on it—provides an international view. Can Maori contribute? Hell yeah! But Maori advisories do not work in our estimation. They are toothless animals who are well-intentioned who want to do some good but in the end they simply cannot because a process that provides for majority rule on councils and excludes a Maori voice does not provide us with that platform. 
I find that some New Zealanders even some in this House struggle to come to grips with the Maori view; thus many of the discussions in this House have sought a Maori view from a Maori party. 
Is it likely that those who will get elected to the Auckland Council have any understanding about a Maori view? I doubt it. Will the Maori voice be marginalised with only two or three Maori on a larger council? Some have stated that Maori would be marginalised if there were dedicated seats. I put it to members that that is what happens right now in any way shape or form—perhaps even in this Parliament. Does it stop us from contributing? I do not think so. Does it stop us from advocating? No. 
Above all if there is one compelling reason why it is important for Maori to be involved at a council level with dedicated seats it is mana whenua. Mana whenua are people of that land—not Christchurch not Rotorua but Tamaki-makau-rau. Their tupuna lie there their tupuna arrived there and if there is any reason why Maori should be at the table with dedicated seats surely the issue of mana whenua gives us cause to think about that. 
I urge the Minister to keep an open ear. I urge the Minister to keep the discussions going right through to the end of the process. I am hoping that throughout the discussion provided that people are able to engage in honourable discussion and debate the notion about the importance of Maori having seats on the council is taken up with some fervour and is listened to by the Ministers in charge of this particular bill. Kia ora tatou.  
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Let me take a call to respond to Mr Flavell. First of all I thank him and his party for their patience and goodwill and for the time they have taken to help us understand these complex issues. Let me respond to the vexed issue he mentioned. First of all let us see the problem for what it is. How do we live in a Western society with the benefits of— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What a load of rubbish Rodney! Western society? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about the other cultures? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Well that is my point: how do we live with the benefits of a Western society and a democratic tradition while respecting other values and beliefs? For myself I cannot begin to get there and that is what is so hard. Maori have spiritual views and beliefs that the majority of people cannot grasp and can easily override. We have this difficulty in local government in central government and through the Resource Management Act and its processes. We have a variety of suggestions for dealing with it such as the proposal for co-management in the Waikato. 
The royal commission came up with a proposal which was to have two ward seats and one mana whenua seat. That was problematic and complex because it did not recognise the other major tribe represented in Auckland. There was also concern about the general electoral roll being used for local body politics. Also the royal commission did not provide for Maori representation on the local councils. 
We looked very hard at the issue—and Pita Sharples was on the Cabinet committee and made an enormous contribution—but the difficulty with what the royal commission proposed was that it would not solve the problem. We felt that there is an ongoing issue that successive Governments have struggled with and that is how to adequately take into account the views of hapu iwi and tangata whenua and particularly spiritual values relating to history and to natural resources. Many of us see natural resources just as things to use not as something that is part of our history—[ 
Interruption 
] Labour members do not want to hear do they? 
I have appreciated working with Mr Flavell. I have accepted his point. I have a clear understanding that a special advisory group will not cut it with Maori. I also believe that if the Auckland Council is to succeed we have to provide a mechanism by which Maori views and particularly mana whenua views can be properly heard and taken into consideration. That is the challenge for us the challenge for councils and the challenge for Parliament. I look forward to hearing Labour’s contribution on how to do that. I am certainly very very happy to engage with the Maori Party—and with Dr Pita Sharples in particular—on this issue. I should say that it is a tough issue to consider and I am interested in hearing whether Labour’s view is that mana whenua seats should become the norm in local government. That would be a big step for local government and it is a step that would require some consideration. Thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Mr Chair tena koe. E mihi kau ana i a ratou e mau ana te ahua o te mana whenua i Tamaki-makau-rau. I tino wiriwiri haere te tinana mo te pohehe noa iho o te mahi o te Kawana. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Chair. I acknowledge those who have authority over the land in Auckland. I am somewhat nervous at the duplicity of what the Government is doing 
.] 
I kite atu tatou mai rano mai i te tae o Pakeha i konei i puru atu ratou i to ratou pou i runga i te whenua i Tamaki-makau-rau i kite atu te noho tahi e korero atu ratou ki a Tainui ki a Whatua ki a Hauraki ki a ratou katoa i reira. Since the time of Pakeha arriving here in New Zealand we have seen them put their pole in the ground in Auckland and continually work their way through issues with local iwi. Each of those boards and councils has made a strong effort to do that. 
Na te mea i roto i wetahi o tatou nga kanohi Maori i mau kaha te karanga mo te whakatikatika a te mahi o te Kawana nei ki a ratou ma. The call from all Maori and Kiwis around this country resounds through the valleys and hills of Auckland. It is that this situation should be corrected. The Government should have the courage to stop this madness right now. 
I mihi to the Maori Party. Hone was throwing barbs around in relation to what Labour did not do when we were in Government. 
When I listened to Mr Hide just then it really made me wonder what he was up to. Our deputy leader Annette King is dead right: at six o’clock yesterday there was a huge charade another attempted jack-up of the press about Labour wasting taxpayers’ money. 
What is this bill about? It does not have the niceness to recognise the basic fundamentals of what happens to taxpayers’ money. Maori Pacific Island people and other cultures sweated through the generations to ensure that Auckland was built. It was not built by National’s rich mates; it was not built purely from investment. Issues that are relevant to efficiencies and restructuring do not mean that National should get away with everything else because it is Big Brother. This is low-down skanky “Papa State” stuff. That is what “Papa John” and “Papa Rodney” are into. You should be ashamed of yourselves. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You cannot bring me in to the debate. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I say to the Maori Party that Rodney Hide has replaced the moko. In Maori culture as in the Pacific culture one understands that one’s moko is one’s imprint and one’s territory. It is about rights surety and heritage through generations. I ask the Maori Party what Rodney has replaced the moko with. He has replaced it with the hoko. Hoko is about selling off partitioning off rights and ensuring that the purest sense of capitalism prevails. 
What are we doing? We have heard all this talk about efficiency of the Public Service. Yesterday—I believe under the drive of this Government—we got rid of 16 regional managers of community development. That is a sin. One reads here about enabling democratic decision-making by and on behalf of communities within the local board area. The Government got rid of them! I want to mihi Deborah Teece one of the officials who used to work with me. She is a great policy writer and a great manager and she understands community development. This is a sad day for this State—it really is. 
It was very interesting to hear Hone Harawira mihi to Rodney Hide and say great things about National but the Maori Party members have voted with Labour against the legislation because they know that it is wrong. What is that gutlessness about? [ 
Interruption 
] What is it about? 
Hon Members 
: Shame! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I say to them do not pour shame on us Maori members here. They will not do anything. National has conned the Maori Party and those members know it. They know it full well. 
There is a game of ping-pong where everybody is talking about mana whenua. There is mana whenua there. The major population is rawaho— urban Maori. 
Paul Quinn 
: Have you read it yet? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member can squawk all he likes but I have read it inside out and I understand that councils around the country are shamed by this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have a number of amendments and I ask your indulgence in that we deal first with the amendments to clause 9 that were tabled yesterday so those will come ahead of amendments to earlier provisions as would normally happen. We have a number of amendments and the Clerks are checking them. It is my intention to put the votes on the amendments in the order they were tabled. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) “Subject to subclause 5” before “The Auckland Council”. 
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”. 
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’ ”. 
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.” 
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. 
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. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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 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— 
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. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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 have been ruled out. 
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. 
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. 
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? 
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. 
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. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The monarchy is not an accurate description of the geographic area about which we are talking. I have made my decision and we will move on. 
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 Supreme Council”. 
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 Supreme Council”. 
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 appears and substitute “Aotea Te Ropu Tamaki Makaurau Council”. 
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 appears and substitute “Greatest Auckland Council”. 
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 “Widest Auckland Council”. 
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”. 
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”. 
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 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. 
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. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am reluctant to raise a point of order but you say that the amendment has the same effect whereas this is an amendment with reference to the name— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is challenging my ruling. He cannot do that because I have made a ruling. I have given an explanation for it and we will move on. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is just a question; I am not challenging you. You made reference to documentation. I wonder if you could just advise us exactly where that is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If the member has  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 it is on page 378: “No amendment may be proposed that is the same in substance as an amendment that is agreed or defeated in the committee …” and that is the reason I have ruled those out. 
The next amendment is ruled out as well as not being serious. 
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 Associates Council”. 
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) 
: We are just going to have a change here. Leave was sought by the Leader of the House earlier on for a replacement for me and Charles Chauvel will be chairing the session for the next half an hour. If members would bear with the new Chair while he comes to grips with what needs to happen. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: Thank you members. We thought we should make sure the substitute Chair is of similar stature to the outgoing Chair. 
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 Other Peoples’ Council”. 
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 TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: The next amendment is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment. 
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 “Environmental Auckland Council”. 
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 TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: The amendments that propose to substitute “Cousins and Aunts and Uncles of Maui Council” or “Step-Sisters and Step-Brothers of Maui Council” are ruled out of order as not serious. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You say these amendments are not serious? 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: That is correct. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Can we have an explanation for your ruling on that? A lot of work has gone into these amendments— 
Colin King 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Hon Member 
: Sit down! 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I beseech you to bring that rabble over there under control. They are trifling with you. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: That is not a point of order. I will hear the Hon Mita Ririnui. I am sorry I did not realise he had not finished. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 Please explain to members on this side of the Chamber what you mean by “not serious”. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 It may help the Committee to say that the previous Chairperson has ruled that the title needs to relate to an area and region rather than to individuals or families. In this case amendments using the words “Cousins and Aunts” are actually about individuals or families as opposed to amendments about Auckland City or an Auckland region which have been ruled and then voted on. A number of amendments have been ruled out previously. The Chair is just being consistent with the previous rulings and we should continue to be consistent in that regard. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I am sure you will thank the Minister in the Chair for his assistance to you on this matter but when you say these amendments are not serious we are talking about Maui—Te-Ika-a-Maui—and so te whanau of Maui. I take from your ruling and the explanation from the Minister in the Chair that this belief essentially does not exist. Maybe it is in the imagination of Ngati Whatua and other Maori in the district. Well I can tell you now that that is not the case. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: We will maintain the ruling of the previous Chair. My understanding is that ruling relating to the amendment being not serious does not relate to the expressions concerning the Maui Council but rather to the cousins aunts and uncles reference on the one hand and the step-sisters and step-brothers reference on the other. So we will maintain the ruling. [ 
Interruption 
] No I have heard enough thank you. The member will resume his seat. 
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 Boats Council”. 
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 TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: The following amendments to omit the words “Auckland Council” and substitute the words “Everyone Belongs Council” “Big Chiefs Council” “Head and Heart of the City Council” and “Auckland ex-Mayoral Council” are ruled out of order as being not serious. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the last amendment that you ruled out of order. I draw your attention to that one because clause 9 in Part 2 talks about the eight local authorities that will be expunged. Each of those local authorities has a mayor as its head. I put it to you that you may wish to consider that particular amendment as relevant because it talks about ex-mayors and eight of them will be out of a job as a result of the local authorities mentioned in clause 9 being disposed of. That is particularly relevant. I will not comment on the other clauses you have made your ruling on but I think that does indeed have some relevance. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I thank the member for his point of order but I will maintain the ruling of the Chair. The section to which he refers does indeed do what he described but I do not think it is in order to then go on and expect the new body to be referred to in the way that is contended. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As you are aware I have just relatively recently come into the Chamber and I am not aware of the earlier rulings. When you indicated that you were maintaining a ruling were you saying that you were maintaining a ruling that you had given or that one of your colleagues in the Chair— 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I beg your pardon for the novelty of my position but what I intended to say was that the previous Chair has given a series of rulings; I am trying to maintain the spirit of those rulings relating to what is serious and what is not. I believe that to rule the words “Auckland ex-Mayoral Council” out of order is consistent with the spirit of the previous rulings. 
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. 
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. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This might be quite opposite to the point of view I put to you before but you are flexible and so is the Committee as far as we are concerned. I invite you to make a new ruling. It may be that you could make Speaker’s rulings relatively early in your career in the Chair. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The member in the Chair competent as he is is not a sanctioned officer. He is there by leave and does not have the authority to make such rulings. Therefore he is bound by the previously established conventions of the House. I also say that the entire series of points of order around this matter are out of order because Mr Chauvel was at all times as he has said obliged to uphold previous rulings. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I am not sure that that is an entirely helpful response actually. I am reasonably clear in my mind on the point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard: it is not for the Chair to attempt to dissect proposed amendments and rule on whether they are either wholly or partially in order—either they are in order or they are not. It is certainly not the role of the Chair to amend proposed amendments to try to bring them into order. I will not take that point any further. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. One of the concerns I have is that as you go through the list of amendments the use of the word “seriousness” is something that I would like you to think about. The issue is about “Cousins and Aunts and Uncles of Maui Council” and “Step-Sisters and Step-Brothers of Maui Council”. In the sense of the English idiom and English culture that amendment may not be serious. But in Maori culture it is very very serious. The concepts of whanaungatanga of whangaitanga—of adoption—and of all of that in the cultural context is very very serious. I do not want to challenge your ruling but I certainly want to mention that. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: No I do not need any assistance thank you Mr Brownlee. I thank the member for his point of order but unfortunately I have already ruled on those matters and for that reason I am not going to revisit them. If we come to further amendments proposed—and I do not know whether we will—relating to the whanaungatanga of the Maui Council I will certainly bear those comments in mind. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very technical point and it goes to the leave that was sought for you to take the Chair. I am now informed that in fact the leave of the House was sought for you to take the Chair. I ask whether that was accurate. In fact if what I am informed is accurate— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it was leave of the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am briefed that the leave of the House was sought rather than the leave of the Committee. 
Hon John Carter 
: We were in Committee when it was taken. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know we are in Committee. 
Hon John Carter 
: We were in Committee when it was taken. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I absolutely accept the point that Mr Carter has made. He is just reinforcing the point that I have made: the Committee cannot take leave on behalf of the House. My understanding is—I am briefed—that instead of seeking the leave of the Committee as Mr Brownlee should have done he sought the leave of the House when we were in fact in Committee. If that is the case then the leave is incorrect. Mr Chair I am not saying that you cannot be in the Chair; in fact you can be in the Chair at the invitation of a Chair without the leave of the Committee. But if we are relying on the leave asked for by Mr Brownlee then he should have sought the leave of the Committee and not of the House. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Standing Order 168(3) deals with the matter: “At any time during the sitting of a committee of the whole House and without any formal communication to the committee any member may at the request of the chairperson take the Chair as temporary chairperson.” Leave was sought this morning just to reinforce—virtually to notify Parliament or the Committee that various people would be relieving Mr Tisch throughout the morning. I think that some members are starting to trifle with the Chair in ways that bring the Chair into disrespect. I think some firm action may need to be taken. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Just to finish that point if Mr Brownlee wanted to correct his “reinforcement” leave then there would be no objection from this side of the Chamber to him putting us back in the correct position. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: Thanks Mr Mallard. I do not think we need any further assistance on this matter. The reality is that the Chairperson asked me to assume his responsibilities on a temporary basis. It may have confused the matter to have referred to the issue of leave. I am satisfied that Standing Order 168(3) provides for the position on that basis. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There is no doubt about that at all. It’s just that Gerry got it wrong. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: Well I do not think we need to go into the rights and wrongs of that. 
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 “Beach to Beach Council”. 
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 Beaches Council”. 
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 “Beaches Council”. 
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 TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: In respect of the next eight amendments I am advised that they are duplicates of amendments already proposed. 
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 2009”. 
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. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you tell us exactly which one it is so that we can follow it? 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: Yes I am working through the list that I think members have in front of them. We come to the amendment proposed by the honourable member to insert the words “Auckland Super City 2009 Council”. That is the amendment that I have ruled duplicative. That brings us to the amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “Auckland Council” and substitute “Super Basin 2009 Council”. I am advised by the Clerk that we have already voted on that amendment so I will rule that out of order as duplicative. 
The next proposed amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “Auckland Council” and substitute “Fast Track 2009 Council” has already been voted on as well so I rule that out of order as duplicative. The same ruling applies to the amendment to clause 9 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to omit “Auckland Council” and substitute “Plains and Vents 2009 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 “Neighbourhood Plus their Neighbourhood Council”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 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 “Auckland Council” wherever it occurs and substitute “My Neighbourhood Council”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 64. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Again I seek some clarification. Although the themes of the previous amendment and this one are similar the wording is different. It talks about a “Greater Auckland” area. As you will be aware the previous amendment talked about Auckland itself. This one talks about the “Greater Auckland” area. As we know clause 9 expunges eight councils bringing together a series of councils into a greater Auckland city. I put it to you that it is a different amendment. It is not a duplication. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: My ruling on the amendment is that I find it to be substantially duplicative of the previous amendment. I probably ought to have ruled the previous amendment out of order as not serious but I decided to allow a vote on it. I do not think we will take that matter further. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I hear the vote counts again? I think it was said that there were 64 Ayes and 57 Noes. We voted against the amendment and we are being counted in with the Ayes. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I thank the member for the point of order. We will clarify the vote for the record. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I think it will be for the previous three votes. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I will take the honourable member’s word as to the vote of the Maori Party obviously on those last three votes. That means the Ayes were 52 and the Noes were 69 on each of those votes. On the amendments relating to the “Auckland Supremo Council” the “My Neighbourhood Council” and the “Neighbourhood Plus their Neighbourhood Council” the vote tallies on a corrected basis are 52 for the Ayes and 69 for the Noes. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is incumbent on you to declare each of those results separately. You cannot group a set of amendments and results. You have to declare each result again separately. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I think I made the rulings and the record sufficiently clear. I read out the particular amendments in full and I do not think that the record needs further clarification. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I do not think you read them out in full as you corrected them and you did not associate the votes with each of them as you read them out in full. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: Given that the votes are identical I do not think there is any requirement to be clearer in substance than I have been. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We had quite a discussion last night when Mr Tisch was in the Chair about the suggestion of Mr Tremain that votes could be grouped or taken as read. It was made quite clear by Mr Tisch that that could not happen and that votes had to be taken individually. My submission to you is that the results have to be declared individually as well. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: The situation was that there was an incorrect recording of the votes. The leader of a party pointed that out in respect of three votes. I have read out so that the Committee is very clear the precise nature of each of the amendments and I have recorded the corrected tally. I do not think it is the same matter to which the member refers but I thank him for his point of order. 
We come then to the amendment to subclause (2) in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order relates to the series of amendments that are proposed here. I submit to you Mr Chairperson that this part of the bill has just 150 words in it but we have in front of us some 825 amendments proposed by our opponents on the opposite side of the Chamber. That is great; they have been hard at work doing it. But to accept these amendments as being reasonable and to say that this is perfectly acceptable and not vexatious I think is a little bit of a stretch. This is particularly the case when one is asking to omit “powers of a regional council” and substitute it with “powers and muscle of a regional council” “powers and weight of a regional council” “powers and vigour of a regional council” “powers and brawn of a regional council” “powers and sway of a regional council” “powers and influence of a regional council” or “powers and dominance of a regional council”. 
This is totally misusing the Committee’s time. These are not serious amendments; they do not materially alter the intention of the bill. They are simply vexatious and designed to take up time and the Labour Party being able to exercise itself in this way adds to the extraordinary cost imposed on taxpayers. Considered amendments are being well treated by the Committee as was shown by the result yesterday when some 700 or 800 amendments were put up and one was accepted. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I make a couple of points to you Mr Chairperson. As we have gone through this process your predecessors have built up a body of precedent. In regard to the naming of amendments in respect of geographic areas they have talked about whether those amendments are serious. Whether a clause has 150 words or 1500 words in it we cannot get to a situation in this Chamber where a Government is truncating the process through urgency and then calls on the Chairperson to truncate or delete the right of the Opposition to put up amendments. If that is upheld then that creates a huge precedent whereby members of this Parliament can have amendments ruled out of order holus-bolus. That strikes at the heart of our process. Whether a clause has one word 150 words or 1500 words it is always the right of members of Parliament to put up amendments. 
I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the House who has got his own way in ramming this legislation through under urgency would then seek to accelerate the process again by taking away the democratic right of members of Parliament to propose amendments. He is seeking to have whole bodies of amendments ruled out of order because he does not like them. It is inappropriate. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 There is a big difference between not allowing amendments and not allowing vexatious amendments such as these. I am opposed to this legislation but I am opposed to the waste of time in this Committee of vexatious amendments. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: The member is entitled to speak to the point of order. I called her and she will be heard in silence. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I want to reinforce what the Hon Tariana Turia has just said to the Committee and to explain to my colleague on the other side that I am not attempting to shut down the process that allows amendments to be made but I am imploring the Chair to take a view as to whether a series of amendments that choose to add the words “powers and muscle” “powers and weight” “powers and vigour” “powers and brawn” “powers and sway” “powers and influence” “powers and dominance” etc. are serious amendments or whether they are simply vexatious amendments designed to take up the time of the Committee. I submit that they are vexatious because they do not add anything to the bill. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I do not think I need any further assistance but thank you. I think we need to be clear about the fact that there is no arithmetic test just because the relevant part of the bill happens to have so many words. That does not have any sort of bearing on the right or entitlement of members to move the number and type of amendments that they see fit. I assure members that I will look at each of the proposed amendments with regard to the Standing Orders the Speakers’ rulings particularly Speaker’s ruling 112/1 and the commentary in  
McGee 
 at page 379. In fact I will take just a moment to do that now. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I make one other submission to you. I note that you are a lawyer— 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I have ruled on this matter. If it is a new point of order I am happy to hear it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a new point of order. I note that you are a lawyer and the Leader of the House is not and I just say— 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I am not sure that that is relevant. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: You will appreciate that the courts in interpreting legislation will find a difference in the term “power” as opposed to the term “power and influence”. As a number of these amendments have been put forward the courts will interpret a difference in those words. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I thank the member for the dissertation on that point. I will take that into account as the member would imagine. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. To further help the consideration that I know you are giving this matter I refer you to an amendment to clause 9(2) of Part 2 which states: “by omitting the words ‘the responsibilities duties and powers of a regional council’ and replacing them with ‘the power to ignore all community input as per the intent of this horrible legislation’.” That is a vexatious amendment and should be treated as such. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 If members do not like amendments which is fair they can vote against them. The Government is now taking more time complaining about these amendments than would have been taken if it had simply voted them down. I accept that Mrs Turia does not like the amendment; she can vote it down—she can vote against it. She interjects that it is stupid but she has been voting for these amendments all day today and all day yesterday. We do not need lectures from her about that. In the end what is open to members is the chance to vote against amendments that they do not like which is the process that the Parliament has. 
Finally some of these amendments are based on language that the Minister of Local Government has used in describing this legislation. He has described it as “requiring more muscle”. He has described it in these sorts of ways and our amendments are based on what the Minister himself has said he is trying to achieve by this legislation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will talk in two parts. Firstly I am supportive of the contribution that Mr Cosgrove made recently and I elaborate a little bit more on that by saying that I am sure that the courts are interested in nuance and that they will look really carefully at any amendment that is passed and at the intention of Parliament in that way. 
The more substantive question goes to what the parliamentary role of the Opposition is. The roles are opposing and proposing. Traditionally one of the best tools for proper consideration of legislation in the New Zealand Parliament the House of Commons the House of Lords on occasion and certainly in the Senate of the United States has been delay. This is something that Oppositions in democratic countries around the world have used when there have not been good processes—especially when there have not been good processes—or when legislation has not been sent to a select committee as in the case of New Zealand. One of the fundamental rights of an Opposition is to work to delay legislation. In doing that testing Parliament around nuances and having a more intense debate than would otherwise be the case is a fundamental part of the rights of the Opposition. 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I thank the member. I will signal in advance to members—so that hopefully we do not have debate on each of the proposed amendments—that on the basis of advice relating to Speaker’s ruling 112/1 and the commentary in  
McGee 
 at page 379 the intent is to declare the fourth amendment relating to the “powers and brawn of a regional council” out of order as being not serious and to declare the ninth amendment which is the matter that was referred to by the Hon Gerry Brownlee as out of order on the ground that it is not serious. I intend to invite members to vote on the other amendments that are proposed. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just so I am clear on which amendments you have ruled out would you please read them out? 
The TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Charles Chauvel) 
: I have ruled out the amendments to substitute “powers and brawn of a regional council” and “the power to ignore all community input as per the intent of this horrible legislation”. 
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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and muscle of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and weight of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and vigour of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: As previously mentioned by the temporary Chair the next amendment is ruled out of order. 
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 (9) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and sway of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and influence of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and dominance of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and capability of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and prerogative of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and authorisation of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins is the same as an amendment that has previously been voted on so we will rule that one out of order. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Are you sure of that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That amendment omits the words “powers of a regional council” and replaces them with the words “powers and hegemony of a regional council”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just ask for clarification. Are you saying that that particular wording has already been voted on? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No it is the same in substance as an amendment already voted on. “Substance” was one of the reasons given earlier as to why we would not proceed with amendments. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 If it is the same in substance which amendment is it the same in substance to? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The meaning of the word is the same. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I perhaps anticipated your ruling on this. The dictionary that was provided to me by one of the messengers talks about “leadership” as a definition of “hegemony”. The definition also talks about “ruling supreme”. I would like you if you would to point me to the previous amendment—the one where it is duplicated in substance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The words “hegemony” and “dominance” mean the same on my advice and that is why this amendment has been ruled out. We have already voted on the previous one. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 So I am to take it you are saying it is the same although the definition of “hegemony” that I have is “leadership” according to the authoritative dictionary I have here which does not appear to be the same meaning “in substance” as your advice is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I do not need any help. I have made a ruling and that amendment has been ruled out. We now move to the next amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins an amendment to clause 9(2) to— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not want to relitigate your ruling other than to ask you one question. Having made your rulings which of course are the first time that we get any notice of them are you prepared to entertain discussion on those or additional matters being put? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member knows there is no discussion on the amendments. I have made a decision and we are proceeding as per my advice. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you need to be a little bit careful in that members opposite are starting to trifle with the ruling that you have already set down as Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. It is my authority and at my discretion to make the decision and I have so done. We will proceed. There is to be no further discussion on this point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes it is. It goes to in fact two things that you have said. First in your last ruling you said that you would— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are challenging my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not challenging your ruling at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask you to sit. I have made a decision and we are proceeding because in my view you are challenging my ruling. We are moving on to the next amendment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think I am now challenging your ruling on the grounds of my right to make a point of order. That is something that I think is intrinsic to that of a member of Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have made a ruling that a decision on whether an amendment is proceeded with is at the discretion of the Chair. I have made that ruling and I have explained why I have made that ruling and that is the end of the matter. We are now going to proceed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I warn the member that if you are challenging my ruling then that is a serious offence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think what I am doing is maintaining the rights of traditional Chairs in the Chamber to make their own decisions and not to be rubber stamps as you indicated you were to the Committee—that you would always act on advice. That is not how a Chair should act. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a direct challenge to my role and my authority and the discretion that I have to rule out an amendment. That is the end of the matter. I have made the ruling. That is where it stands. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a new point. Whilst you were in the process of ruling and Mr Mallard was responding to you a call from Mr Henare was repeated on a number of occasions yelling out: “Sit down.” Whether he was talking to you or Mr Mallard I do not know. I just ask you out of respect for your office whether you could ask him to pull his head in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We do not need to have sort of language. When points of order are taken they must be held in silence so I would ask members to respect that rule. 
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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and handling of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment is out of order. We now move to— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Could you just clarify for us which one it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This is the amendment to clause 9(2) to omit the words “the responsibilities duties and powers of a regional council” and replace them with the words “the power to ignore all community input as per the intent of this horrible legislation”. 
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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and control of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and authority of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and energy of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers and might of a regional council”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 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 (2) “powers of a regional council” and substitute “powers of regional councils”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; Maori Party 5; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There are a number of amendments that follow that have been ruled out of order. The reason for that is that in Part 1 the Committee agreed that a single unitary authority be established for the Auckland region on 1 November 2010. Amendments that propose that the authority is merely a proposal after 1 November 2010 are not consistent with that decision made in Part 1. 
The next amendment for consideration is to insert new clause 9(5)—I will just read it so you know where we are—“The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 October 2010”. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have just ruled those amendments out because the Auckland Council is not now a proposal—and you referred to Part 1 where it says that the Auckland Council is the Auckland Council and therefore it cannot be a proposal. I put it to you that clause 4(3) which we have now passed states: “Part 2 establishes the Auckland Council as a unitary authority. This Part does not come into force (and therefore the Council does not come into existence) until 1 November 2010”. Therefore that means that until that day there is no Auckland Council. I put it to you therefore that anything that addresses this issue prior to 1 November 2010 is out of order because there is no Auckland Council until that day. 
We have actually passed Part 1 which states very clearly that the council does not come into existence until 1 November 2010. Therefore I suggest to you that we cannot make any alterations to something that is not in existence until that date of 1 November. These amendments suggest that the Auckland Council is in existence. Therefore I suggest to you that they too should be ruled out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It is relatively simple. There are two points. First you had called the amendment so you cannot now reverse that. Secondly I remind you of the advice that you gave the Committee not very long ago in respect of me which was that you would not entertain challenges to your rulings. By calling that amendment you have effectively ruled it in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. My interpretation is that these amendments are in order. Of course it is a proposal up until the date that is mentioned in Part 1. I am ruling that these amendments are in order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 29 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 28 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 27 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 26 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 25 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; 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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 24 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 23 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 22 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 21 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 20 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 19 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 18 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 17 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 16 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 15 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 14 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 13 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 12 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 11 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland City Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 10 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 9 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 8 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 7 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 6 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 5 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 4 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 3 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 2 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 1 October 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 29 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I was not clear from how that vote was cast whether the National whip was casting a vote on behalf of the Maori Party or United Future because of the way in which it was put to him. I might be missing something— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. The Maori Party did not exercise its right to take a vote and the only votes recorded were for National Labour the Greens ACT and United Future. So that was the vote. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could I ask that in future there be at least some pause so that we can tell the difference? Otherwise it is impossible to tell who is or who is not voting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I think it is very clear. One has only to look around the Chamber to see who is likely to be taking a vote so I do not accept that proposition at all. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am not trying to be unhelpful but I think the problem is simply that as the Clerk at the Table calls—and it is not her problem—before she has the words out my colleague stands up and votes. It is very difficult to hear which way that is going because there are two voices. If the member would just pause for a moment so that the Clerk can finish calling then the issue would be resolved. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: OK. No I do not need any help. There is a sequence of votes which is very clear; we have been doing this for much of yesterday and much of today. There is actually a sequence to how we vote; I do not accept the member’s proposition at all. But the member who is casting the vote for United Future might take just a slight pause before he casts that vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 28 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 27 September 2010. 
A party votewas called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 26 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 25 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 24 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 23 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 22 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 21 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 20 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 19 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 18 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 17 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 16 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 15 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 14 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 13 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 12 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 11 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 10 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 9 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 8 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 7 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 5 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 4 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 3 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 2 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 1 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Before I take the next amendment it has been drawn to my attention that one has been missed. I shall therefore take that vote now. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 6 September 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 29 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 28 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 27 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 26 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 25 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 24 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 23 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 22 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 21 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 20 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 19 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 18 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 17 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 16 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 15 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 14 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 13 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 12 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 11 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 10 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 9 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 8 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 7 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 6 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 5 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 4 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 3 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 2 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 1 August 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 29 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 28 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 27 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 26 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 25 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 24 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 23 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 22 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 21 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 20 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 19 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 18 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 17 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 15 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 14 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 13 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 12 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 11 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 10 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 9 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 8 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 7 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 6 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 5 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 4 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 3 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 2 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 30 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 1 July 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 29 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 28 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 27 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 26 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 8. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 25 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7. 
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 the following new subclause: 
(5)The Auckland Council shall also be known as the Auckland Supercity Proposal until 24 June 2010. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.