edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Harawira Hone: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Harawira Hone: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3680] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. On a proposal about whether Maori Pacific Island and Asian seats will be put forward on to this council why is Labour denying its own Pacific and Asian speakers the opportunity to speak on this amendment? Or is it trying to bury this proposal in order to try to dig its Maori MPs out of a hole for sacrificing the Maori seats and downgrading the status of Maori to that of other ethnic groups in Auckland? It is absolutely unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members we are in a very interesting position here. We have had three closure motions put forward by National members that the question be now put. We are in the remarkable position of having the Opposition move that the question be now put. It is a procedural motion— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I’d like to speak— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not think there is anything to speak about. The member may raise a point of order about the order of this matter but not on the substance of it.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3680] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. All morning all afternoon— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —I am allowed I am making my point—all last night all day yesterday and right from the start of this debate Labour members have said “We want to debate this bill fully.” This afternoon shortly after David Parker spoke those Labour members have been trying to shut down debate on what they are describing as the most important bill for Auckland. My point is this— 
Hon Members 
: What’s the point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think the interjections are fair in that the member should come to his point of order. There is a question before the Committee which is that the question be now put. It is a relatively straightforward question. I am more than happy to hear the member’s point of order providing it is about the question being now put. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My apologies. It is actually a point of irony.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3680] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Macindoe Tim: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Macindoe Tim: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3678] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tremain Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tremain Chris: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3674] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Guy Nathan: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Guy Nathan: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3672] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Jones Shane: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Jones Shane: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3671] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for those words of assistance. The point remains however that during the course of the debate on this particular part there will be a great deal of bilingual debate. We need reassurance. When we lapse from one language to the other the timekeeping will be essential. This debate is the only chance that that portion of Auckland’s population will ever hear their language being spoken in defence of their rights. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you for that point. In terms of the timekeeping there are two of us here who keep the time. In fact in relation to the member who spoke before—I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard is keeping his eye on the clock—I gave the member about 10 seconds extra because we had not turned off the clock as quickly as we might have.
Ririnui Mita: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3670] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A kai te Heamana ki taku nei mohio mena ka huri te tangata ki te korero i te reo Maori i roto i te Whare nei ka katia te wati tae noa atu ki te mutunga o tana korero. Otira ka huri atu ki te reo o tauiwi ka timata ano. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Mr Chairman my understanding is that when one speaks in Maori in this House the clock is stopped until the end of that address in Maori. It is turned on again once one starts speaking in English 
.] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a very good point and I thank the member for bringing it to my attention. The interpretation is in addition to what the member is saying so the time allocation is not reduced. In the case of the previous speaker Shane Jones the clock was turned off while we had the interpretation.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3668] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to move a motion to report progress that includes an instruction that select committee consideration take place and that the select committee report back to the House within 4 weeks of it receiving the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3668] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move that progress be reported and that there be an instruction to the House that this bill be referred to the special select committee for Auckland legislation for it to have hearings on it and to report back to the House within 4 weeks. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: A member can only move that progress be reported; an instruction cannot go with it. If the member wishes to move that progress be reported I will accept that proposition but he cannot include with it an instruction about what will happen after that.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3668] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 9 not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3668] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to add the following new part: 
Part 9 
Protection of Public Assets 
38Protection of Public Assets 
Nothing in this Act the Local Government 2002 the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 the Local Government Act 1974 the Local Electoral Act 2001 or any regulations made under those Acts shall permit the Transition Agency to— 
(a)sell or otherwise dispose of or sell any equity securities in; or 
(b)surrender any voting rights in: 
(c)relinquish any right to appoint trustees directors or managers of any asset or organisation listed in Schedule 2 during the transition period.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3667] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
40This Part 9 is made for the purposes of— 
(a) providing for peace order and good Government of the Auckland region: 
(b)protecting public assets vested in Council from damage accelerated deterioration or abuse: 
(c)ensuring future generations of Auckland citizens have the use of public assets: 
(d)protecting important public assets from privatisation which may limit the access of future generations of Auckland citizens.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3667] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to add the following new clause: 
39The local government together with the citizens of Auckland both present and future generations have the right to— 
(a)realise the benefits of fixed and variable public assets including those held by Crown corporations and Crown agencies: 
(b)full public disclosure and unfettered public access to information regarding the financial and legal status of Crown corporations and Crown agencies held in the public trust: 
(c)be consulted about any planned changes to Crown corporations and Crown agencies.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3667] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert before “Transition Agency” “the unelected group of friends called”.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3666] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 We have just had a little bit of confusion and the whips of ACT and the Maori Party had to correct their votes. I think it would help if you named the person putting the amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My apologies. We have three amendments in the name of Sue Moroney and I will mention her name each time I put the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Moroney to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert after “Transition Agency” “of only 4 people”.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3666] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3665] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. Dealing with the previous contribution first the Speaker may well have views about whether filibustering is taking place and whether time is being wasted but those views should not in any way influence the Speaker’s decision on this matter. The matter that is currently before the House has been argued by both the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon Gerry Brownlee and has already been ruled on by the Chair of the Committee. There are a number of matters perhaps I should touch on in ruling on the question before the House. 
The first one is perhaps to come to the substance of the argument that was given greatest weight by the Chair of the Committee. It is a matter of some importance. Standing Order 249 deals with the classification of bills. Members will see there that there are different categories of bills and we are dealing with a Government bill and with a matter of public policy introduced by a Minister. Therefore matters that relate to private interests are not properly dealt with under a public bill; they are matters that are dealt with under a private bill. 
This is not the first time this issue has come before Parliament. Some members may recollect that when the House was previously considering liquor legislation individual amendments were proposed to deal with the interests of each hotel and tavern in New Zealand. The amendments were ruled not to be in order as they dealt with private business interests more appropriately dealt with in private legislation. So this is not the first time this kind of issue has been dealt with by the Committee. That is the first issue to cover. In terms of the substance of the decision made by the Chair under the Standing Orders there is an issue around the nature of legislation and in respect of previous precedent in the House the Chair’s ruling is absolutely consistent with those previous precedents. 
The other important issue is that the Chair is required to rule on the admissibility of amendments. The Chairperson’s rulings are not to be corrected or reversed by the Speaker. That is Speakers’ ruling 78/1. That change can be done only by the House by resolution upon a motion with notice. Our Speakers’ rulings indicate that the standard practice of the House is for the Speaker not to overrule the ruling of the Chair. But in this case I must say that the argument accepted by the Chair is totally consistent with the Standing Orders and with previous precedent and the Chair’s ruling must stand. I declare the House back in Committee on the bill at hand.
Parker David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3665] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I think the judgment you have to make as Speaker in this situation must take into account the context in which this debate is being held. It is pretty clear from the conduct of the Committee that the Opposition is trying to delay progress—we are trying to filibuster this bill—and that the Government wants to bring the debate to an early end. I want to cause the Speaker to reflect on the fact that the fourth estate has actually been commenting on whether this filibustering is an abuse of parliamentary process. I suggest that it is not. It is already clear that although the progress that has been made on this bill is slower than the Government might like none the less it is substantial. 
This bill has been considered under urgency and even at the current rate of slow progress it is very clear that this bill will be completed in accordance with the Government’s agenda within a week which is far far quicker than would be the normal process were it not for urgency. It is the right of the Opposition to use the Standing Orders to filibuster. Filibustering does not bring this place into disrepute. It is not an abuse of process. It is not frivolous. We are using the rights we have as parliamentarians in the Opposition to slow down the progress the Government wants to make under urgency. I make the point again that substantial progress has been made. I do not think anyone thinks this debate will go on for weeks or anything like that. This is the only opportunity we have to scrutinise the bill. Many other jurisdictions use filibustering. We have a practice now whereby we do not get even to the end of debate where new points are being raised on proposed new parts yet closure motions are taken. It is completely appropriate that the Opposition be able to filibuster this bill.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3665] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think it is very interesting that part of the argument advanced by the Hon Trevor Mallard is some assessment against a frivolity scale. We should remember that this proposed new part that Labour is attempting to insert is to protect the assets of the citizens of Auckland. To then amend it to protect the interests of residents in particular roads I think trivialises the point of the part in the first place. In all other respects—not wishing to prolong proceedings—I think the Chairman of the Committee Rick Barker outlined extremely well for the House why he was choosing to rule these amendments out of order. I am sure you will have noted the comments he made in his address to you in which he was explaining why he had reached this conclusion. Without wanting to prolong proceedings I simply want to say that we concur wholeheartedly with his decision and accept fully the rationale he has applied.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3664] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first point I would like to make is that I think the process that was followed by the Chair in calling for members’ comments on this issue is a good process. Unfortunately I think we have reached a point where we do not agree. The decision goes to the question of whether these amendments are frivolous. We have had acceptance that they are not vague; in fact they are very specific. They do not lack form; we have had acceptance that they can be written into the law. The Chair of the Committee has indicated that in his opinion these amendments are not appropriate because they give private rights to individuals. We could have a debate about that matter. They are not private transferable rights. If someone leaves a street he or she does not take those rights with them. There is not ownership of rights. But if I were to have that debate I would be getting into the substance of the debate. 
That is the problem with the Chairman’s ruling. He has actually got into in making his ruling a view on the merits of the amendments rather than whether they should be ruled out under the areas that are very well outlined by  
McGee 
 on page 379. My submission to you is that no one has made the case that these particular amendments are frivolous. Given the tests that have been applied in this Chamber by Chairs today—in parliamentary terms or during the last 4 days in temporal terms—these amendments could not possibly be frivolous. A whole series of date changes and a whole series of name changes have been accepted by the Chairs which if one were applying a frivolity test would have been much more frivolous than these amendments. On the standards of frivolity these amendments cannot be ruled out. 
The point I will go back to is that it is my submission to you that the judgment of my friend and colleague the Chair of the Committee Rick Barker in this particular case is wrong because he has gone to the merits of whether it is appropriate to grant a private right by way of a public bill. There is nothing that prevents this Parliament from doing that. People might think it is wrong. People might not like it but my submission is that for groups of people it happens all the time. When we have bills that deal with local authority matters it happens quite regularly that groups of individuals gain and other groups of individuals lose. I will go back to the point about the substance that the rights are not transferable rights. 
As a final point I say that the Chairman made a very good argument on the specifics—one that I might even find rather compelling if I were considering it carefully—but it is not the basis on which items should be ruled out.
Barker Rick: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3664] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Speaker the Committee has asked for you to consider the matters that I have ruled on and for you to make some decisions. It extends from an amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel to insert a new Part 9 “Protection of Public Assets”. In his amendment Mr Chauvel wants the bill to reflect a register of assets that should be protected in a variety of ways. That is not the issue here. Subsequent to that the Labour Party moved a range of amendments—I have not counted them but they are substantial—to amend Charles Chauvel’s part. Objection was taken to those amendments and I was asked to rule them out and I invited comments from both Labour and National on them. 
It seems to me that it gets down to a particular issue which the Clerk has raised with me that the bill before the House is a public policy bill. It is not about establishing rights for individuals. The Clerk’s view of this bill is that although the amendments are consistent in form and could stand in legislation they have to have some form of consistency. However I did not think that was a turning point because this House has passed legislation before that has been inherently inconsistent—like the liquor legislation and so on. I did not see that as a particular test. The particular test that I did put weight on was that these amendments would give private individuals and businesses in particular areas rights or interests that would not be available to the general public of Auckland and that therefore the amendments sought to be about private interests and not public interests. 
The bill is about establishing public policy for Auckland—it is a public policy decision. On that basis I ruled the amendments as being out of order. There are many other points that could have been made in submission but I am sure representations will be made by both National and Labour on those other particular points. That is the summary of the position as I see it.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3663] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 As you anticipated in your preliminary remarks this is something that in my opinion requires a Speaker’s ruling. I move  
That the Speaker be recalled to give a ruling on the judgment given by the Chairperson. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3660] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Yes Mr Chair. I am working on the assumption that the consideration is not whether the amendments are vague or lacking form. I just want to test that with you—that the question before you I presume is not a question of vagueness because the amendments are not vague; they are quite clear. I think they are in the proper form for amendments and for incorporation into law and I want to make sure before I start this discussion that that is accepted. If that is not accepted then we could come back again with more discussion. 
We then go to the question of whether the proposed amendments are frivolous. That is an important question and I accept that there could be a discussion on the question. The particular amendment we are talking about concerns Dominion Road in North Shore City and whether the residents of that particular road have a public interest in the Auckland Council - owned assets. I am working on the assumption again that there is not a lot of debate around the Auckland Council and that it owns assets that they are public assets and that the public has an interest in them. 
We then go to the definition of “frivolous”—and a number of people will be looking in their different dictionaries. A key part of the definition goes to the words “not serious” “trifling” and “futile”. I want to make it clear that Opposition members are absolutely serious on this particular issue. There is a fundamental debate to be had here about the assets and about who has an interest in them—whether it is the residents including the residents of particular areas who have an interest in the assets or whether the assets should be available for transfer away from the residents of those particular areas to others. 
That is my view and it is certainly the view of the Opposition. I am not suggesting that it is automatic that the Committee will necessarily agree with this amendment. It is a question of whether the Opposition should have the right to test the will of the Committee on this amendment. It is my view that the amendment is a serious amendment and one that deserves the attention of the Committee. It is something on which the Committee can express its view and it should be allowed to do so.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3660] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Speaking on your course of action I think you are doing the right thing. There needs to be some consideration of this matter. Certainly on the face of it this side of the Committee will have an opinion. I wonder how you feel about putting yourself in this position. I do not want to be in the position of recalling the Speaker because we are questioning your course of action; we are not. I just wonder given the nature of this particular ruling—you are not in a position to recall the Speaker; that is not how it works—how you feel about it. Are you comfortable progressing with this course of action? If you are then I think we would leave it there at this point. Otherwise if you indicate you wish to have the Speaker back then we will cooperate with that course of action as well. That statement is not meant in any way to detract from the course of action you have proposed; I think it is probably the right way to go about things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I just say to the member that it is a line call. I have outlined the criteria for amendments and I have outlined that I am about to rule but I thought that before I make a decision I would invite opinions from either side of the Committee. I have indicated where the terms of McGee and the Standing Orders are in relation to what I am interested in. I know from past experience that when I make a decision—as I will do—it will be litigated so I am just turning it round and suggesting that we have some litigation in front and then the issues will be a bit clearer rather than having endless points of order after the ruling. If at the end of that discussion members are unhappy with my decision I accept that you can recall the Speaker but at that point the issues will have been much better clarified. I do not have any ego about this; if you want to challenge my ruling I am OK about that. I presume that Mr Mallard will put forward a case as to why these amendments should stand.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3659] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know there is quite a lot of movement going on to your left and to your right but many more amendments were tabled before the question on the first amendment was put. Those amendments have been tabled to the Clerk’s Office; they are on this part. It may take a few seconds for your staff to catch up with you but I think it is fair to say that there are hundreds of questions for you to deal with before you get to the substantive question on the part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. I cannot wait. It is always good for people to try to catch up with me; it is not usual. I will ask the Clerk to check the veracity of what the member has said and to ensure that all the amendments to the amendment in the name of Charles Chauvel are being considered before I put the question on the Charles Chauvel amendment to insert a new Part 9. We will just pause for a moment in silence unless someone has a very good story or a humorous yarn to amuse us with while we sort this out. 
Members I will do something unusual here. The amendments to proposed new Part 9 that were moved by Moana Mackey follow a very similar form which is: “Notwithstanding any other provision the residents of [Dominion Road] in [North Shore City] shall be understood to have a public interest in any Auckland Council owned assets.” The test for relevance of an amendment is that it has to be serious has to stand in law and has to be accurately described. The Clerk and I have been backwards and forwards across this issue and it seems that a judgment call needs to be made. I invite someone from the Opposition which has put forward these amendments to put the case for why the amendments should stand. I also invite Government members to make a submission on whether they think the amendments should stand—I will not prejudge what they think. Following those submissions I will make a decision. 
Before I make a decision and we have some discussion about it afterwards I want members to make a submission as to why they believe that these amendments meet the requirements not only of the Standing Orders but also of the interpretation of Dave McGee who wrote  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
 and is well known to members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can you give us the reference? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Page 379. [ 
Interruption 
] Just to answer the question by Gerry Brownlee when I make a ruling on this matter there will no doubt be some controversy because people put a lot of time and effort into these amendments. I thought it would be better to have some discussion about them before I ruled than to have a continuous stream of points of order after I rule. I thought we should get the issues on the table and have a bit of a discussion about them before I make a ruling.
Barker Rick: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Barker Rick: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3659] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That brings us to the substantive amendment—
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3659] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3659] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
38BPoll of electors before sale 
Any authority this Act can only sell assets after conducting a poll of electors under the Local Electoral Act.
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3658] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 This amendment to insert a new Part 9 goes to the heart of this debate. If the inevitable happens and the National Government succeeds with the assistance of Rodney Hide— 
Hon Member 
: And Peter Dunne. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —and Peter Dunne thank you—in ramming through this legislation then this day will go down in history for Aucklanders as the day when National and ACT stole their democracy. The day will also go down in history as the day when National and ACT stole $28 billion of public assets and put them on the auction block for future administrations to flog off. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the amendment to add new Part 9 in the name of Charles Chauvel be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
38AInterpretation 
In this Part unless the context otherwise requires— 
sell  
has the meaning it has in the Sale of Goods Act 1908 
voting 
 has the meaning it has in the Electoral Act 1993.
Goodhew Jo: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Goodhew Jo: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3658] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Woodhouse Michael: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3657] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3657] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My colleague Mr Roger Douglas pointed out to me that he wondered whether you had noticed that we were here and were trying to take a call. He thought that maybe you had not noticed us. I just wanted to make the point that we are here and we are very very anxious to take a call on this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I assure the member that I am well aware that she and the Green Party are here.
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3657] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I point you to Speaker’s ruling 16/1 in regard to the use of cellphones. I ask you to ask Mr Quinn to remove the blockage from his ear. He has been using his cellphone for about the last half an hour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not really a point of order. Members know the rules about cellphones. They are not to be used in the Chamber although having said that there is some inconsistency because the Chamber is littered with other sorts of phones. I am not sure how we justify the distinction but we do.
King Colin: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
King Colin: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3656] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Bridges Simon: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3655] 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
McClay Todd: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
McClay Todd: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3653] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3652] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
New Part 10 as amended not agreed to.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3650] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3649] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We do not need to go into that. It is entirely at the discretion of the Chair as to who speaks and when to accept closure motions. It is entirely the prerogative of the Chair at the time and I exercised that prerogative. I will now put the amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to new Part 10 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 104.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3649] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 A quick perusal of the  
Hansard 
 of the Employment Relations Bill debate much earlier this decade will show a similar practice.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3649] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This a separate point of order that I deliberately did not raise at the time because I realised that it was a matter of your discretion. I want to ask you whether it is a new practice because it is unprecedented in the time that I have been in the House that when more than one Government member is seeking the call as was the case when you took the call from Mr Tremain for the closure—another Government member was seeking the call—you accept the closure. I have never seen that in my 25 years in Parliament.
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3649] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for those comments. I act in the interests of the whole of the Committee. We have had a fair run on this bill. There have been more speakers on this part than there were on the first one. We have had a fair range of calls and I have given opportunities to members who have not spoken previously. I quote from Speaker’s ruling 17/7 where it states: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government”. I take strong exception to that criticism. I think it is very inappropriate. We will leave it at that and move on but I just make that point.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3649] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I want to take issue with what the Leader of the House has just said and assure you that your integrity has not been questioned at all. But obviously as the Committee has undertaken its proceedings there are differences between the Government and the Opposition about the way things should be handled and the only recourse we have is to you as the Chairperson and the other chairpersons as well to protect the minority. The notion of disorderly conduct I think is a red herring coming as it does from a man who once put down a motion of no confidence in a Speaker. That was the kind of disorderly conduct that member believed in when he was in Opposition. So I think any lectures should not be going that way at all and to try to put words into Opposition members’ mouths because we are taking the opportunity to raise points of order about things we are concerned about I think is ridiculous. 
The Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban had concluded her call. Members on this side were calling. Colin King was calling from National. Mr Mallard’s point was that you as the Chairperson did not look at the Government side at all. That is the point that Mr Mallard was raising. That is the end of the matter and you have already ruled on it so for Mr Brownlee to go back and dredge up those incidents and say that somehow our raising points of order is disorderly conduct is actually a challenge to your authority.
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3648] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I ask you to have a look at Standing Order 85 because the repeated questioning of the way in which this process is being conducted by a presiding officer is in fact extremely disorderly. Everyone knows that great effort is being made by the Opposition to put up a fierce fight against this bill. That is perfectly reasonable but it does have to be within the rules. Mr Mallard himself said that his party is paying particular attention—pedantic attention—to the rules in order to prolong this debate. There is nothing wrong with that but there is a procedure Mr Chairperson that works in this Parliament and that is yours to preserve and I think that it is time Mr Mallard was informed that his repeated questioning—and Mr Hughes is no better—of the integrity of the person sitting in the Chair is completely unacceptable to this Committee. It is also very disorderly.