Power Simon: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Power Simon: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3636] 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I appreciate the member’s wanting some elucidation on some of the finer detail around some of these judgments and the shadow Leader of the House’s views on these matters. It has always been my understanding that when a closure motion is taken by the Chair is a matter for the sole discretion of the Chair. It has been my experience over the last short while that whenever an attempt is made to try to define those parameters the fall-back position is the Standing Order in that regard. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is absolutely correct. It has always been and will always be the sole discretion of the Chair whether a closure motion is taken and the Chair will take it as he or she sees fit. I do not want to get into a long debate about the matter the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. Although members put up amendments and call them parts that is only the way they themselves have described them. Those proposed new parts could in another way be looked at in substance in effect as amendments. 
Hon Annette King 
: You can’t make that decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I can make that decision about substance. For example members get up and quite often say: “I am raising a fresh point of order.” when in fact they are not. They say that simply to relitigate the same matter; they describe it as a fresh point of order when it is not. I think everybody has been guilty of that at some stage. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can you elaborate on the notice thing Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: On the notice thing the bill was put on the Table and members have had a long time to read it in terms of hours. But these proposed new parts have turned up—they have just appeared. The point I make is that I consider the bill as tabled by the Government of the day as being the issue we are here to debate. That is the main focus of this debate. When members table amendments to the bill they are of lesser concern to a degree than the actual bill. When members table amendments that they put up as new parts they may describe them as parts but when one reads them one could describe them as amendments because they are not as significant as what we would normally have as a part of a bill. We will be flexible about this matter. 
I say to members that regardless of all that is going on around the edges it will remain the sole discretion of the Chair how long the debate goes on for. There will be no correspondence entered into. The Committee will determine closure motions by vote and the content of the speeches will be the Chair’s consideration. If speeches are on target and are discussing and elucidating the amendments we are considering then the debate will tend to go on for longer. If people get off task and we are on to everything else but the part or amendment we are discussing then the Chair will consider closure motions much more quickly. Members should be assured of that.