The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
Mr Speaker, during the course of this afternoon we have attended to a number of amendments. The question was put that Part 1 stand part. We have had subsequent amendments to that. A member has suggested that he could take a call. There have been no other members seeking the call. We still have a number of amendments to put to the vote. My ruling is that when the debate concludes, the Chairperson proceeds to put the question as it was proposed at the commencement of the debate. That question was that Part 1 stand part. That is the question referred to in Standing Order 135. But before reading the main question, the amendments must be dealt with. The debate was concluded because no further member sought the call. That is the ruling I made.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I think it is a relatively simple issue of what the question before the Committee was. In my opinion, the question before the Committee has been, on each occasion, a number of amendments, and then, finally, the substantive question of whether Part 1 stands part. We have not yet got to the Committee being asked to vote on whether Part 1 stands part. We have been dealing with amendments. There are five or six of those left. Earlier, members made it clear that the debate had run out on the first few hundred—or most—of the amendments, and chose not to take a call then. The question is whether the question that is now before the Committee is that the amendments stand part, or whether the question is that the part stands part.
My submission to you is that the question that is about to be put by the Chairperson is that the amendments stand part. That is what was to be voted on. We have not yet had a closure motion. The effect of a closure motion, of course, would be to cut out the possibility of further debate. That is the objective of a closure motion. That means that the amendments are all taken together. There is no opportunity to move further amendments, or to withdraw them. There is no opportunity for further debate when the Committee has dealt with parts of an issue. So, in the end, the question goes to what we are debating, and what we are about to vote on now. Are we about to vote on an amendment, or have we absolutely concluded the debate?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) Link to this
I think it is, perhaps, relevant to look at the range of Standing Orders that range from 292 right through to 296. Each of those Standing Orders will give you a clear idea of how amendments to any particular part of a bill are to be dealt with. It has long been the practice of the Committee, of course, that when a member is speaking to a part, and wishes to make an amendment, he or she indicates that intention, and tables that amendment as the debate progresses. There was a very clear end to the debate earlier this evening, at about 10 to 6. We have been voting through the amendments that have been tabled in the preceding 1½ hours, 2 hours, or perhaps 3 hours of that debate. Once the debate is concluded, the assumption certainly should be that once the Chairperson says that, the question will be put; that is the deal. Consequently, everyone needs to know whether the question is amended. The reference is then to the Committee’s will to amend the question, having heard all the arguments in favour of the amendments during the body of the debate. Of course, the democratic process is to vote through those amendments; then, once that has all been cleared away, to proceed to the question itself.
For Mr Mallard to argue that the two are somehow separate is quite irresponsible and, I think, quite unreasonable. I say it is irresponsible because the House has to be a place where there is a function that is understood by all who participate in it. That function is to pass legislation. The Opposition certainly has a role to question that. It has a role to put up opposition to that function by way of those amendments. But the question is always put, and then there is the debate. During that debate, the question is altered, theoretically, by way of the amendments claimed by members. Those amendments by members are tabled subsequent to the end of the debate. Today there was a clear period of time when no one was taking the call. The Chairperson then proceeded to put the question. Of course, the question is undecided at that point because the amendments are not dealt with. We are in the process right now of putting the question. It is not conceivable that someone should be able to take a further call once that procedure has begun.
Mr SPEAKERI thank honourable members. It is an interesting issue that has been raised by the honourable member, and it is, I think, worthy of proper consideration. I was watching the proceedings very carefully on television to make sure I was aware of what was going on. The question was that Part 1 stand part, and the debate on that question concluded earlier today. There is no question about that. That debate did conclude. When the Committee is debating the question that Part 1 stand part, members may also debate the amendments that have been tabled as part of that process. Once that debate concludes—and I think I have to accept the point made by the Leader of the House—the motion that is then being put is that Part 1 stand part but, before that can be dealt with, the amendments have to be dealt with first. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for there to be any further debate on any of those amendments, because the question that is being dealt with is that Part 1 stand part. So I have to rule that there can be no further debate on those matters. The amendments are being dealt with, and once those amendments have been dealt with, the question that is before the Committee, that Part 1 stand part, will be dealt with. The Standing Orders do not provide for any alternative to that. I thank honourable members.