Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

New Part 9 Protection of Public Assets (continued)

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 “those Acts” “, of Parliament”.