Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

I have ruled out of order a number of amendments in the name of Sue Kedgley. In my opinion they are operational matters. The Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill is about structure and governance, and the amendments proposed by Sue Kedgley are operational matters. I ruled that the amendments are outside the scope of the bill. There are a number of them, and I will not go through them in detail. It is my view that they fall outside the scope of the bill because they are operational. Some of them look to amend other Acts, and that is inappropriate. I have ruled accordingly.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for coming back to the Chamber. I did not call you back lightly; I think an important precedent has just been set. There is a worry that the interpretation given by the Chairperson could be used as a way to prevent consideration of many of the Greens’ amendments, which we spent considerable time and effort working on and which we felt were well within the scope of the bill.

I am particularly concerned about the ruling that the Committee cannot consider those amendments because this bill deals only with matters of structure and not with operational matters. In fact, clauses 30 and 31, for example, deal entirely with operational matters. I do not think there is anything more operational than, in clause 31(3)(i), whether a council can enter into a contract “the consideration for which is … $5,000 or more:”. I do not think there is anything more operational than, in clause 31(3)(m), whether a council is allowed to appoint “a director of a council-controlled organisation:”. I will not keep reading. Very, very detailed operational matters are enshrined in the bill, and therefore I do not think that it is adequate to dismiss any amendment on the grounds that it deals with operational matters. Although the Chairperson said this bill deals only with governance matters, quite manifestly it deals with operational matters as well.

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.

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.

Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be as brief as possible.

I will try to be brief, but I think there are two points. The first concerns process, and I refer you back to your earlier ruling as to the role of the Chair. I make it clear that we are not challenging that ruling about the Chair’s role and his or her ability to make these decisions. I am not asking you to reverse those decisions but more to act as a Privy Counsellor of a Court of Appeal, and refer back to the rulings of the Chairperson for further consideration. I do not mean all of the rulings he made, because some of them were very clear and correct. For example, there were substantive amendments to Acts other than Acts that were already being considered in the bill. I do not want to disagree with my colleague, but it is pretty hard to argue with those rulings.

Secondly, a number of amendments were ruled out effectively because they were operational matters, not governance matters. I reinforce the comments that Sue Kedgley made: this bill is riddled with operational matters, such as lines being drawn as to what the transition authority can do and what it cannot do. Sue Kedgley’s amendments were absolutely consistent with the substance of the bill, and therefore, in my opinion, it would be proper for you to invite the Chairperson to reconsider his position on that point.

I will deal with the matter in maybe two steps. First, I reiterate what the Chair has said to the Committee of the whole House—that is, that the scope of this bill is quite narrow and deals with structure and governance issues. It would be my assessment that the Chair was on very good ground in making his rulings. But, more important, I make it very clear that on matters of relevance the Chair is the sole judge. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 78/1-3. Those Speakers’ rulings go back 100 years. They are some of the few Speakers’ rulings in our Speakers’ Rulings that go back that far, and they have been reiterated every few years many times. Speaker’s ruling 78/3 states: “It is bordering on an inappropriate use of the undoubted right to recall the Speaker to do so on the ground of relevance,”. So where the Chair has made a judgment on the issue of relevance and scope, the Speaker cannot overturn that judgment. I have taken the first step of saying that I believe that the Chair has acted on very sound ground, but 100 years of Speakers’ rulings make it very, very clear that the Speaker cannot overturn the judgment of the Chair on those matters.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a further series of transcript amendments in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert a new Part 4. The first of those proposes to insert new Part 4, “Transition Towards Greater Climate Protection: Amendment to the Resource Management Act 1991”. That amendment is outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects and targets. The next amendment inserts a new Part 4, “Transition to Simplified and Streamlined Dog Control: Amendment to the Dog Control Act 1996”. That amendment is also outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects.

There is a further amendment in the name of Keith Locke to insert new Part 4, “Transition Agency Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio)”. That amendment is also outside the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, not operational aspects.

There is a further amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a new Part 8, “Local Councils”, which would establish local councils. That amendment is out of order as being inconsistent with the decision made by the Committee last night.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will have an opportunity to contribute by way of a point of order when I finish.

There is a further amendment in the name of Moana Mackey to insert a new part 63, “Special Provisions relating to the continuation of obligations in Part 7 of the Local Government Act 2002”. But Subpart 2 of Part 3 of the bill dealt with that issue. Part 3 was dealt with by the Committee. That amendment is therefore out of order.

There is a further amendment in the name of Carol Beaumont to insert a new Part 163, “Special Provisions relating to the Electoral Act 2001 to apply while this Act is in force”, which relates to the Electoral Act and its application to this legislation. Clause 6, in Part 1 of the bill, dealt with that issue. Part 1 has been dealt with by the Committee. That amendment is therefore out of order.

A further amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to insert a new Part 32, “Establishment of transitional consultative councils” is out of order as it sets up another body. The bill sets up one body.

There are further amendments in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert a new Part 23, “Special Provisions relating to the Papakura District Council”, and a new Part 24 “Special Provisions relating to the Franklin District Council”. Those amendments are out of order as the bill deals with a specific Government structure across all of Auckland.

There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4, “Transition Agency and Environmental Rights”. That amendment has been ruled out of order as it is outside the scope of the bill. The bill deals with governance, and not operational matters. There is another amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert a new Part 4, “Transition Agency Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. This is ruled out of order as it is beyond the scope of the bill, as the bill deals with governance, and not operational matters. I have ruled that those amendments are out of order as they are outside the scope of the bill.