edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:12] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:11] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:10] 
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 May 2010”.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:9] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:8] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
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 May 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:7] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:6] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:5] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:4] 
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 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
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 13 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
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 14 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
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 15 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:3] 
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 16 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
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 17 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
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 18 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:2] 
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 19 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
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 20 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
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 21 June 2010.
Vote:  
Vote:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
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 22 June 2010.
Horomia Parekura:  
Horomia Parekura:  
[Volume:654;Page:1] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I seek leave to mihi and welcome the youngsters in the gallery this afternoon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is wonderful to have you in the gallery watching the members of Parliament performing and it is great that you have turned up here this afternoon. This is the bastion—the Parliament—of our country and we are certainly getting through our work well this afternoon. It is good to have you here. Kia ora. 
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 June 2010.
Mapp Wayne: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3756] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Mr Hughes is incorrect in the way he has put it. He has surmised under Standing Order 281 that there actually was a question to be put. In fact there was not a question to be put in the sense that it was not complete; it required the date to be added—as was indicated by you Mr Assistant Speaker. It was only when that part was added on that the question itself was complete and only at that point was there a question that could be decided by the House. There was the initial statement by Mr Hide; with your addition about the date Mr Assistant Speaker the question was completed and it could then be put. So I believe that it is perfectly in order for this House to deal now with the totality of the question—both the referral and the report-back date.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3756] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I want to add to my point earlier. I have had a chance now to study the Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Trevor Mallard is referring to—24/7. The ruling comes under the heading “Motions (SOs 93-100)”. Clearly the rulings under that heading concern motions that are before the House in writing. That is what Speaker’s ruling 24/7 in particular refers to and that is backed up by the reference to Standing Orders 93 to 100.
Peachey Allan: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Peachey Allan: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3746] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is a privilege to once again stand up in this House to speak in support of this very fine Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. We have just had points of order from members who said they would actually like to hear what the speakers are saying. Can members keep their interjections focused. They should be rare and reasonable not interchanges with people across the House. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given your comments is it is appropriate for me to ask whether I could give my speech again so that people could actually hear it? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No it is not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the voting record of Tariana Turia which shows that she voted many times with the Government over the Auckland reorganisation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: It is a privilege to support this bill. The bill is one of a package of measures that will unleash the great potential of Auckland and of the Auckland region to contribute to the growth and prosperity of all of New Zealand. Nearly one-third of New Zealand’s people live in the Auckland region. Auckland is the base of some of the most significant business commercial and educational functions in this country. It is the key to the growth and prosperity of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3746] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I also seek leave to table a comprehensive list of all the amendments prepared by the Maori Party in order to ensure Maori representation. It is a blank piece of paper. That party moved none. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3746] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I concur with the comments of the Associate Minister of Local Government but when a member uses words like “betrayal” in his speech about a political party that is provocation. 
Following on from that I seek leave to table the draft amendments prepared by the Labour Party for stand-alone dedicated Maori seats. I advised the member for Te Tai Tokerau that we had done that earlier in the day but they were ruled to be not in order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3746] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Speaker. I know that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We are on a point of order and points of order are heard in silence. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. That is actually the point I was about to make. I know that it is getting later in the evening on Saturday night and we have been here for a long time and I know that the debate at times has been robust—and so it should be. However I was sitting here not far from my colleague from the far north and I had difficulty in hearing him. I actually did want to hear what he had to say. Unfortunately it was rather difficult because there were a lot of interjections from that side of the House. I am not saying we have not also interjected but I suggest that the House let the last three or four speeches be heard. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those comments.
Macindoe Tim: Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill — Third Reading 
Macindoe Tim: Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3733] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Methinks they do protest too much. When we look over at that side of the House those members all know it. We have had not just a disappointing Opposition but also a disgraceful performance for 3 days as Opposition members have trivialised and hijacked one of the most important and widely supported measures affecting the greater Auckland region for many many years. Let us not delay it a moment longer. I commend this bill to the House.
Hutchison Paul: Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3733] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I speak in the third reading of the Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau) Bill a timely and important bill. There is one thing I would like to remind this House about. Paragraph 89 of the executive summary of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance states: “The Commission respectfully urges the Government to view its recommendations … which needs to be adopted with urgency so that changes can be implemented in readiness for the October 2010 local body elections. The Commission has consulted widely and believes that overwhelmingly Auckland is ready now for positive change.” That is exactly what this excellent National Government is doing. I commend this bill to the House.
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:3696] 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that what was suggested by the previous speaker is unnecessary. Mr Tisch has very generously taken Sue Kedgley through his reasons for ruling out her amendments. He could have invoked the provision of Standing Order 294 which is that he simply has to read some numbers out in order to satisfy the requirements of the House. The issues that deal with each individual amendment have been adequately covered by the principle that Mr Tisch has decided to adopt in approaching this matter. 
I do not want to speak further other than to say that the Government endorses the approach that the Chair has taken. There must be a separation between governance and operational matters. The specifics of this ruling were well elucidated to the member by Mr Tisch. Naturally members will appeal and appeal. It is a little like question time: one keeps asking the question but may not like the answer. Mr Tisch has been generous in giving a series of reasons; I do not think you should require him to go through all that again.
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:3696] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 In order to be helpful Mr Tisch was diligent in giving a very detailed series of justifications in the report back as it were to the member. Quite a number of technical and individual issues were contained within that description. It is of course your call Mr Speaker but I mean this in all seriousness. I say that it may be helpful given the nature of this matter if Mr Tisch could outline in detail those matters for you in order for you to make an informed ruling because they were very very individualised and were quite technical. As I say he was very diligent in his description in order to give the justification for the member. I think it would be difficult for you to give an informed ruling without that information.
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:3663] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank members. That has clarified matters quite considerably for me. The first point I make is in response to the point raised by Mr Brownlee about the House looking stupid. That is a fair point but it is not entirely for the Speaker to prevent the House from looking stupid—that is up to members and how they deal with things. The second point I make to Mr Mallard is that members do have the right to move and that is what has been exercised here. Mr Mallard said that the Committee should decide whether these amendments are right or wrong. The question before us is whether we will do this collectively or individually. If we were going to make this decision collectively then I could put it to the Committee to test the will of the Committee as to whether we accept these amendments. However that is abrogating the role and responsibility of the Chair and I am not about to do that. 
Regarding the issue raised by Mr Brownlee about fairness to Aucklanders I think it is almost like a bill of rights test as to whether this should be a consideration. I think that gets closer to the point. There is no doubt that the amendments as they stand are in the legislative form. There is no doubt that they could be written into legislation. The Clerk said to me that one of the considerations I should have as a Chair is about consistency. There are many examples in legislation of inconsistent bills and Acts. I ask the members to look at the smoke-free legislation. Parliament has not always been consistent and I do not think that consistency is entirely the right test. 
I think that we are getting closer to the point which was made by Mr Brownlee that this is a bill about all Aucklanders. That point has been re-emphasised by the Hon Rodney Hide—that one interest group should not be superior to another. The bill we have before us is a public bill about setting public policy for all Aucklanders. It is not about setting policy for the interests of private individuals. I think that the issue here is that these amendments as they stand will be setting policy for private individuals and private interests. It is about individuals who are private residents in particular streets that is they are residents in those streets as private individuals. Therefore I am of the view that these amendments are about private interests and not about the interests of Auckland or about public policy for Auckland. The amendment to insert new Part 9 that has been put up Mr Chauvel was in order because it was about public policy that treats all Aucklanders in the same way; it was about public interests. But the interests of individual property owners in a street are private interests and they should be dealt with by way of another bill—a private bill. I therefore rule the amendments out of order.
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:3662] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have three points to make. The first point Mr Chairperson is where your call on balance should go. It is my firm view that generally it is the right of Oppositions to put amendments. It is the democratic right of all members of Parliament to put amendments. If there is any doubt at all then it should be the House that decides whether an amendment is put. The second point I would make is that the arguments we have heard from both Mr Brownlee and Mr Hide are arguments—which some members might find compelling—on the substance of the amendments. They think that the amendments are bad that they are wrong and that people should not vote for them. There is a pretty clear answer to that and it is to vote against the amendments when they come up. This is not a debate about whether they are good amendments or bad amendments or whether the propositions that are put are right or wrong; the question is whether the House has the right to consider to them. It is my submission to you Mr Chairperson that they are serious relevant in the right form and serve to emphasise a point that is very important to all Opposition members. They were lodged properly— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s covered. The matters are covered in Part 3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Chairperson is the member allowed to make a running commentary? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think the member is quite right. I want to hear just Mr Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: So in summary your discretion should be exercised very sparingly. These amendments are substantive and if members disagree with them they have the right to vote against them.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3662] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I have taken some time because we have been directed to page 379 of McGee’s  
Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand 
. The point of that particular reference is that the Chair or Speaker has the power to rule out amendments that are frivolous vague or lack legislative form—that is to say they lack precision. Amendments must be in a form of words that may be embodied in law. 
I suggest there is no other course of action but to rule these amendments out because when one goes through them one can see that a map of Auckland has been used and that each clause picks out a street name at random and says that particular street is understood to have a public interest in Auckland Council - owned assets. That has to be regarded as frivolous because street after street is named. When taken in the context of the amendments that have been put up that has to be frivolous and it would cause this Committee to become a laughing stock. 
The proposed amendments are also vague. It is not quite clear how it is possible for one street to have a particular interest over and above that of any other street. I say that what that would mean is a mystery to all and sundry. The proposed amendments are vague and therefore lack legislative form. Of course there is the final problem: no one street in the Auckland Council area has any greater interest than that of any other street. That in itself makes the amendments a nonsense. The primary bill that members are here debating does not threaten anyone’s interest in publicly owned property. 
I submit that there is no option but for the Chair to rule these amendments out of order.
Quinn Paul: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Quinn Paul: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3641] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:654;Page:3640] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I am sorry that we have to take time to debate part of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill that was actually passed last night but the Opposition members who are introducing new parts are sowing confusion. I think it is because they are genuinely confused. Let me be very very clear. Paid parental leave is a statutory entitlement. Nothing in this bill changes that and I would have thought that members opposite understood that.
Barker Rick: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3758] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I take this opportunity to wish members safe travel home. No reira tena koutou tena koutou. Po marie.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3758] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be considered by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 4 September 2009. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3757] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will make a final quick statement. I clearly had a right to be on my feet because I had the authority of the Speaker—Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. You specifically asked me and invited me to get to my feet. I actually did have the right to finish the motion because you Mr Assistant Speaker had invited me to do so.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3757] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to make the point absolutely clear Mr Assistant Speaker just while you are finally looking at the matter. I remind members that it is a longstanding convention in this House that unless one can have the call unless one has the right to speak one cannot move a motion. There is no ability to move something in this House—or in fact as far as I am concerned in any Parliament of the Westminster system—unless one has the call to speak. People get the call in different ways in different debates but it is very very clear and it is something that I think is quite important; otherwise democracy could be trampled on relatively easily. If a member cannot be on his or her feet to speak—and the Minister could not be—then that member cannot correctly move a motion of that sort.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3757] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank the Hon Trevor Mallard for drawing our attention to what is set out in  
McGee 
 but I draw his attention to the fact that if he reads the entire paragraph that he is referring to and the one preceding it he will see that they are talking about making a speech rather than moving a motion. Trevor Mallard is saying that once a member has sat down after moving a motion that member does not have a right to give a speech. That is not what we are dealing with here; it is something different. I was not asking to give another speech on the motion; I just wanted the motion to be put properly.
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3756] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am working my way back from  
McGee 
 to the  
Hansard 
 of 1996. I would like to refer you Mr Assistant Speaker to Volume 556 at page 13643 which I think apposite in this particular case. While that page is being found for your reference I think it also important for you to look at  
McGee 
 at the third paragraph on page 175 which clearly states: “Once the member sits down after moving a motion the member’s right to speak is ended.” That is very clear. I am looking at the third edition which is the latest one. In 1996 the Speaker was Mr Speaker Tapsell. There were a number of rulings at that time but he was the Speaker at the time referred to in footnote 22 on page 175 of  
McGee 
. He was the Speaker responsible. It is very very clear that once a member sits down after moving a motion the member’s right to speak has ended. Of course once a member’s right to speak has ended his or her right to move anything is forfeit as well. Other than by way of leave of the House or a motion of the House the member cannot recover the right to speak. If the member cannot speak of course the member cannot move a motion in the House.
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3755] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I shall pick up on the point made by the Mr John Carter. Speaker’s ruling 24/7 refers to notice. In a sense the Minister foreshadowed in his first reading speech that he would be moving a motion. Mr Assistant Speaker you said that the situation was similar to that of questions of the day. The difference is that when the question is read out that is the question; when the Minister foreshadows that he will be moving a motion at the end of a debate he is not moving a motion; he is simply signalling to the House that that is his intention. 
Mr Hide referred to changes to party votes. Our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings specifically make the opportunity available for a party vote to be corrected before the result is announced by the presiding officer. That specific reference is in there. 
Mr Assistant Speaker we have referred to the advice you have received. Really it was not advice; it was a reminder. The Clerk at the Table prompted you about a mistake that the Minister had made. It was not proper advice that you received; it was a helpful reminder. It did not have the effect of making the original mistake by Mr Hide right in any way shape of form. 
My final submission to you Mr Assistant Speaker is that the Minister moved his motion and sat down. That was the motion before us. The two precedents for this are firstly the one I have already referred to where the previous Government faced such a situation. The point was raised by the National Party and the Government of the day paid a procedural price for it. It had to come back and fix it up later because the Opposition of the day had insisted that we were wrong—and it was correct—in that the motion had not been moved as had been foreshadowed by the Minister of Justice. An incorrect motion had been moved by the Minister on duty at the end of that debate. 
I would wrap the whole thing up by referring to the first day that this Parliament met when the Leader of the House incorrectly moved a motion and sat down. Dr Cullen took a point of order to point out that the motion had not been put correctly and it was only through the indulgence of the House on the very first day—the cooperation of the House—that that mistake was fixed. Such a level of cooperation of course is not present today.
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Carter John: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3755] 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I want to add to the comments made by both the previous speakers with regard to Speaker’s ruling 24/7. Mr Assistant Speaker I am sure you have noticed that the ruling refers to a motion of which notice has been given: “A motion of which notice has been given cannot when before the House be altered by the mover without the unanimous consent of the House.” However in this case the motion was not a motion with notice; it was a verbal motion. So that Speaker’s ruling does not apply in this particular case. We all know that notices of motion are on the Order Paper. In this particular case the motion was not on the Order Paper. 
Indeed if we think about it Mr Assistant Speaker—and I believe that you are absolutely right and I support your view—we will recall that the Minister had indicated that he would be moving a motion in the way that he finally did. There is a requirement to give such notice in the first reading speech and for the previous member to suggest that the Minister could do something within the bounds of that notice is actually not true. The Minister is duty-bound then to put to the House the motion that he verbally gave notice he would put and we need to now follow that. Mr Assistant Speaker your ruling and indication to the House are in my view absolutely correct.
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3755] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I have two points. The first is that it was not a motion on notice. The second point is to note the number of times throughout the day when members have given votes then sought to correct them. That practice has been accepted by the House. That is exactly what happened here Mr Assistant Speaker. I admitted my mistake and I thank you for pointing it out. The motion had not been put. It can now be put.