Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Because we are now moving to consideration of the schedules, I take it that all the additional parts that have been submitted by way of amendment have been ruled out of order by you—that the series that you have just ruled out were all the remaining parts that there were to be amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is correct.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I also seek a second assurance. It was not while you were in the Chair, but there was an outburst from the Leader of the House directed at the Clerk’s Office. I just want an assurance that that outburst is not linked to the fact that, all of a sudden, every single amendment that created a new part has been ruled out. The convenience of that for the Government is not lost on the Opposition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you. I am the sole judge of that. I can assure the member of the integrity of the Clerk’s Office and the hard work it has done over the last few days. I will be here to protect the Clerk’s Office at every opportunity, and I am the sole judge of such things. I heard that comment. I was not here, but I did hear that comment. Any criticism of the Clerk’s Office goes through the Chair, but I want to give you the assurance that I have full faith in the integrity of the way that the Clerk’s Office has been operating.

I want to absolutely endorse those remarks. I think you would find that absolutely everyone in the Chamber shares those views. The Clerk’s Office has worked remarkably hard, and it has people of integrity and professionalism. That is why the Opposition objected so strongly to the way it was addressed by National’s Gerry Brownlee.

My next point of order relates to the suspended amendment to insert a new Part 5, “Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, which also deals with Asian representation in the Auckland super-city. That part was suspended by the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Rodney Hide. We have to take that before the preliminary clauses. I am just checking that you will do that after the schedules have been voted on. Is that your intention?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes. Your assumption is correct. That is the process that we would go through.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We actually voted 32 opposed, but the interpreter said 42 opposed. I just want to correct that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The new result for Labour is 32 opposed. Members the Ayes are 64, the Noes are 43. The motion is agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just wonder whether you can help on a point of procedure. I assume, now, that we have done the schedules. There are two points that I want to ask about. We have a postponed amendment to insert a part—I think it is Part 5, “Mechanisms to ensure representation of Maori, Pacific and Ethnic groups in the reorganisation of the Auckland Council”, in the name of Shane Jones. I understand that when that was postponed there was a motion from Darren Hughes before the Committee that was to be considered. From memory, I think it was a closure motion. I wonder whether that situation still stands or is that the next thing we go to. That is the first thing that I want to understand.

The second thing that I wonder about is a matter of procedure. After the part that has been postponed is considered by the Committee and a decision is taken, we move to the preliminaries, as I think they are called. While we are still considering the postponed Part 5, is there an opportunity for anyone in the Committee to put another part to be considered, because we have not yet got to the preliminaries? I wonder whether that is a possibility.

Just further to that, I am a little confused myself, because Standing Order 293(1)(c) is not often used. If we go down to 293(4) we see that “Unless otherwise specified, consideration or further consideration of—(a) any postponed clause or part is taken when all other clauses or parts have been dealt with, other than preliminary clauses that are considered together,”. What I am not clear about, after all the amendments that have been tabled here today, is what your ruling is in respect of just what the preliminary clauses are. It would be helpful to the House if you could detail the preliminary clauses that are still there.

I think I can advise on the last question first. I think clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses. But on the substantive matter that was raised by John Carter, which is what the position is with regard to further parts, when Mr Barker was in the Chair and he was contemplating accepting closure, he had not accepted the closure, and it is my understanding that further parts can be submitted until the time that closure is accepted.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the first point about the preliminary clauses is correct. Clauses 1 and 2 are the preliminary clauses of the bill. On the second point, no, the closure motion for Part 5 was postponed. We have before us a closure motion that was put forward by the Hon Darren Hughes. It is still appropriate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Can I just get absolute clarity here. My recollection—and I am absolutely clear on this—is that Mr Barker, when in the Chair, had not accepted the closure motion. He had not said he was going to put the question, and he had not started to put it. Many of us are of the view that it would have been better if he had put the question, but that is not the case. He was thinking about whether he was going to accept the motion. He had not accepted it in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. Therefore, the parts that are being lodged now are valid.

I do not think it would be too hard to go directly to Hansard to clear up this matter. My clear recollection is that Mr Barker said the words “The question is that the question be now put.” At that point, Mr Hide raised a point of order to suspend the proceedings. Once the suspension has been lifted, clearly we should go back to the point at which the Chair was about to proceed with the vote. I do not think there is a question about whether the Chair intended to take the motion. He, in fact, accepted the closure motion and was in the process of putting the question. Hansard will show that the words “The question is that the question be now put.” were uttered. Mr Hide’s postponement at that point means that, naturally, we would go back to that point once the suspension has been lifted.

I do not feel any need to go back to Hansard at this point. My recollection is different from that of Gerry Brownlee. I know that Gerry Brownlee is an honourable member, and I am prepared to accept his word. If that was what happened—I cannot remember it—then I accept his word that that was the case.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have been advised that the closure motion was still live. That was where the debate on new Part 5 was postponed. We now come back to the position where the Hon Darren Hughes moved the closure motion. We will continue from that point.

New Part 5 (continued)

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I put the closure motion on Part 5.

Motion agreed to.

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 71.