The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The Speaker has been recalled because Opposition members and the senior Labour Whip, the Hon Darren Hughes, believe they had other members who wished to speak, and that I did not give adequate time for Opposition members to be part of the debate. My reasoning for accepting the closure motion was that this debate had been going for an hour and 43 minutes. Twelve Labour members, three Green members, and two Government members had spoken, and the Minister had spoken three times. There was a lot of repetition; no new material was being debated. It was my view that the debate had run its course. I accepted the closure motion.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this
Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on the motion of the Opposition, which is not something that we have at all made a practice of. The reason is that in the normal course of parliamentary business there is an unspoken tariff for how long a Committee stage should take and how long the debate on parts should take. The formula is set down in both Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders. There is also an understanding between the Government and the Opposition about how long the debate on different parts should take. In urgency it has always been accepted that a longer period will be given, for the fact that normally Parliament would be moving through on a much slower process. Urgency brings that into a much tighter focus. A longer period of time is normally allowed for that.
What makes it so critical on this particular bill is that the bulk of the bill sits in Part 1. The bill makes enormous changes to an important part of the State’s responsibility, putting aside the different political differences. Everyone agrees that this is important legislation. We believed that there were members on this side who had not been given a chance to make a contribution. The presiding officer is under no obligation to call every single member, but there were members who had been called ahead of those who had not yet made a contribution.
The Opposition has put up amendments to this part—not a ridiculous number in order to slow things but a serious number for a bill on which there are sharp differences across the House. Government members began taking the closure motion quite early, and it is well within their rights to use their call in that respect. But we would assert that the Chairman accepted the closure motion far too early, given the importance of the bill, the fact that the House is in urgency, the fact that members of the Opposition had not spoken, and the fact that we have put up amendments that we wish to speak to.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I have been watching proceedings this evening from my office in the Beehive. I think the difficulty we have here is that the presiding officer has made a determination about the value of the debate continuing. I think it would be very unfortunate if that were to be in any way discussed or, should I say, overturned as a decision. There may be a way through this matter, though, because I do appreciate that members have pretty strong views on this issue. It is probably one of the strongest ideological divides that we have had in the House almost all year. I think it is important that all views are canvassed.
I suggest, Mr Speaker, that you make your decision based on the pleadings that are in front of you. I suggest that if the whips were to confer, we may well be able to make the debate on the next two parts quite wide ranging, with the questions taken at the end of that. That would facilitate people being able to express their views, without impugning the integrity of the officer in the Chair who has made, in his opinion, a proper decision that the Committee should accept with regard to the debate so far. If the Committee grants leave for the debate to be wide ranging, then that is another matter. I do not know what the shadow Leader of the House thinks, but we may confer and be able to come to some arrangement around that.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
I thank members for their contribution. Let me address these matters in no particular order of importance, starting with the last point. Of course, the Speaker cannot make an assumption based on an interaction between whips, or anything else, but I think the House is appreciative of the comments made by the Leader of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
With regard to the expectation about how much of an urgency motion will be devoted to a debate, that is the sole prerogative of the presiding officer. Irrespective of the stage a bill is at, it has always been tradition that members who would like to continue to debate have to, by their actions, persuade the presiding officer that the debate will be relevant, not repetitious, and a whole range of other things. It is solely the presiding officer who determines whether to accept a closure motion at a particular time. Ultimately, the test is when the House has to vote on that motion. There have been times when closure motions have been defeated. When the House has seven parties, as it does now, that is more likely to occur.
I will acquaint the House with a couple of Speakers’ rulings that I think are quite pertinent on this occasion. Speakers’ ruling 77/1 states: “The chairperson is judge of all matters arising in committee, and the Speaker will not interfere …”. The ruling goes on with some points about that. There is particular reference to closure in Speakers’ rulings 65/3 and 65/4. Speakers’ ruling 65/3 states: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion, and it must be left entirely in his hands. The [chairperson], who has been presiding and has listened to the debate in committee, must be the best judge whether the closure ought to be put.” There is a bit of a rider: “I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.” The Leader of the House has given some indication that there is some flexibility to address the desire of the House, going forward. In that case, I report to the House that I will not interfere with any decision made by the Chairperson in determining whether the closure motion should be put.