Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have obviously just got a copy of the Minister’s amendment, and I wanted to test with you whether in fact these are inconsistent or whether both could happen. Clearly, there is a review to be set up in the name of the Minister. That is correct; there is no doubt about that. But the question then is whether there can also be the reviews that are set up according to the amendments in the name of Parekura Horomia.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I think you are looking at a further amendment, and not the one that I have—

I am sorry. Which one have you put? The trouble is that we cannot tell which of the Minister’s amendments you are referring to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister’s amendment we just voted on is this one here.

The short one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): And that is tabled. So that is the amendment we have just voted on.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to the amendment to add new Part 5 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to:

to omit clause 72.

A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just for clarity, so that we are quite clear what we are voting on, could we have clarified as to what this clause 72 is. I cannot seem to find it.

Can I assist the member—and it might mean that we need another minute or two for the member to have a look at it. It is part of the Horomia amendment to add new Part 5. If one can find it amongst the papers, that is where it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that. This is the amendment that we are referring to. It is tabled.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Because this is happening relatively rapidly, can we ask you to elaborate on why those amendments are out of order? The one I am particularly interested in at the moment is that of Mr Prasad, which refers in particular to Indian representation, and I am not sure that the fact that there are to be reviews on ethnic issues cuts out that amendment. I am sure there will be parallel arguments for some of my colleagues’ other amendments, but the fact that the Government has lined up an amendment to have a review generally does not cut out that specific review—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for those comments.

In support of my colleague, and as a member who has put forward a series of amendments here, I say that your rulings—which we are not seeking to question; I want to make that clear—have been on two grounds: either because of inconsistency with the previous decisions of the Chair or the Committee, or because they are matters related to operations rather than governance, in the case of a large quantity of amendments, including whole parts. So, in fact, two grounds of precedent are in play here. It is not clear to us from the way in which you have issued your latest ruling, Mr Chairperson, which of those decisions applies to the various amendments. It is a serious matter, because we are dealing here with whole new parts, which are debatable amendments, by precedent from the Chair—from all Chairpersons—and it is important for us, as we report back to our constituencies, to understand the reasons why these amendments are outside the Standing Orders.

Sure. We have just passed an amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide, which covers all the points you have just made. The other amendments are of the same substance. That is why the other amendments are now ruled out of order—because we have just passed that amendment in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Could you elaborate?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. It is written down here, and the member has a copy of this. We are not getting into discussion on this, because we have just passed it and it is not debatable. I refer the member to the amendment we have just passed, which now means that subsequent ones are out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a new point of order, and it goes to the wording of the Rodney Hide amendment—the longer one—where throughout it there is mention of “provisions”. Probably unfortunately for Mr Hide, within at least one of the new part’s amendments “provisions” are not mentioned but there are “sections”. So although “provisions” is widely used within a number of the amendments, one particular set of amendments has “sections”, and it is my submission to you, Mr Chairperson, that that set of amendments is not ruled out by the Hide amendment.

The substance of the amendments and the substance of the Minister’s amendment are the same. That is why the others have been ruled out.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You advised that the Minister’s amendment ruled other amendments out of order. Are you able to tell us what the other amendments were?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I say to the member that the other amendments are tabled. They are available for the member to peruse; they have been on the Table for some time. They are there for him if he wishes to have a look at them.

The same amendment that we have just passed means that other amendments have been ruled out. They are in the name of Jacinda Ardern, Dr Ashraf Choudhary, and Raymond Huo.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia be agreed to:

to insert the following new part:

Part 5

Mechanisms to ensure representation of Māori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council

Subpart 1

Guarantees Māori representation on the Auckland Council by directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish Māori seats

71

(1) Two Māori members are to be elected to the Auckland Council by voters who are on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll

(a) The 2 Māori seats shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless—

(i) a referendum of Māori voters on the parliamentary Māori electoral roll is held; and

(ii) 75% of those voters vote in favour of removing the seats.

(2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Mana Whenua Forum, the members of which will be appointed by mana whenua from the district of the Auckland Council

(a) The Mana Whenua Forum should—

(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council:

(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to mana whenua:

(b) The Mana Whenua seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless 75% of Mana Whenua Forum members vote in favour of removing the seat.

Subpart 2—Pacific and Minority Representation

Guarantees representation and participation by Pacific and Minority groups by directing the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum and an Ethnic Advisory Forum and allows the members of those forums to appoint one member each to hold a seat on the Auckland Council

72

(1) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish a Pacific Advisory Forum, the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in consultation with Pacific communities and pacific leaders based in the Auckland district

(a) The Pacific Advisory Forum should—

(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council:

(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Pacific Communities:

(b) The Pacific Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless—

(i) 75% of members of the Pacific Advisory Forum vote in favour of removing the seat.

(2) Directs the Auckland Transition Agency to establish an Ethnic Advisory Forum, the members of which will be appointed by Councillors on Auckland Council in consultation with Ethnic communities and Ethnic leaders based in the Auckland district

(a) The Ethnic Advisory Forum should—

(i) appoint a representative to be a councillor on the Auckland Council:

(ii) through its representative on the Auckland Council, advise the Auckland Council on issues of relevance to Ethnic communities:

(b) The Ethnic Advisory seat shall not be removed from the Auckland Council unless—

(i) 75% of members of the Ethnic Advisory Forum vote in favour of removing the seat.