Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2)

I guess the bill could be called the “Government Superannuation (And Other Things) Amendment Bill”.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It could be called the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”.

Yes, it could be the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”, when we consider just how much money this fund has lost.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The scope of bills these days is quite narrow. The member would know that, if he had consulted the Clerk’s Office. In the Committee stage when we are debating the title of a bill that has been to a select committee, we cannot discuss matters that would be relevant perhaps to a general Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill. The bill we are debating is confined solely to the issue of widows and widowers who remarry. In fact, I would be out of order in moving any other amendments that went beyond that particular matter. So to get into that dual issue, I am afraid, is totally out of order.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. One thing a member is allowed to do in a debate on the title, is discuss whether it is appropriate. That is exactly what was being done by Mr Hide. In fact, he might have been getting to the point of even moving an amendment. To say with regard to the Government Superannuation Fund that it is a gamble, is perfectly reasonable. The fact that it only applies to widows, probably makes the fact that it is a gamble even more shameful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): This is a small bill. I would ask the member to come back to the point.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for your advice. I am talking exactly about the title of this bill. As I pointed out, the bill is the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2), and we are discussing the title. I suggest the title is something of a misnomer. In the last 14 months we have discovered that this fund, operated under the Act that this bill seeks to amend, has lost a staggering $380 million in 14 months. What I suggest with the new title—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The investment record of the Government Superannuation Fund is simply not relevant to this debate, in the slightest. Indeed, the member would have difficulty in justifying a reference to this issue in a second reading debate. We are debating the title of a bill that has been to a select committee. I suggest that he will have to confine himself to debating whether the title reflects the content of the bill itself, not something else that he might want to refer to.

Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I want to rule on this point of order. During the second reading debate Dr Cullen’s point of order on the same point was ruled in favour. I have asked the member to come to the point.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are debating the title of the bill. If the title was the “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses) Amendment Bill (No 2) there would be no problem, because it would be quite clear what the bill is about. When we are debating the title, we are not at liberty to go into other parts of the bill. The debate on the title is general. The debate on this title could cover anything to do with the Government Superannuation Fund, because the bill specifies nothing beyond the fact that it is an amendment bill and that its principal Act is the Government Superannuation Fund Act. Although we are debating the title, as distinct from the other parts, I am afraid your ruling is not consistent with the Standing Orders.

Speaking to the point of order, I remind the Chair that we do get to debate the title. That is set down in the Standing Orders. We are doing that. The question then is whether the title is appropriate. That is precisely what I want to debate. If the Chair is going to rule out that debate, then why have the debate on the title in the first place?

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: More precisely, is the title appropriate in relation to the content of the bill, not to some other matter the member might want to discuss? This bill is solely about widows and widowers remarrying.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: If I take what Dr Cullen says, it may well be that the bill is about spouses and widows. The point Mr Rodney Hide was making was that he was discussing whether the title was correct. I thought that I heard him say that he thought that instead of the bill being called the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2), it should be called the “Government Superannuation Gamble Bill”, or words to that effect, and he started to explain why he thought that should be the title. If he is right that it is a complete gamble, it may well be that no widow or spouse will receive any money. In that case, Parliament probably should change the name of the bill to the “Government Superannuation Gamble Amendment Bill”. Mr Cullen may not like the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund under his stewardship has lost more money than it has ever done before, and no doubt wants to close it down. But this is Parliament, it is a debate, and we should be allowed to say those words. Provided that members direct their words to the title, there has never been a Chair who has said that we cannot discuss whether a bill should be called something different.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That was not the point. The scope of the debate on the title is whether it adequately describes the bill. As I said before, this is a narrow bill and deals with specific issues. Members should confine themselves to debating whether the title adequately describes such a narrow bill.

Thank you for that guidance, Madam Chairperson. What I am saying in this debate is that the title does not adequately convey what the bill is about in respect of spouses who remarry. This bill is saying that those spouses will come under the Government Superannuation Fund. My point is that the title should be pointing out to spouses who remarry what a risky fund it is. The experience, and this is factual, is that the Government Superannuation Fund—as much as Dr Cullen does not like this fact to be pointed out in Parliament, or in public, or in the media—has lost $380 million in 14 months. That is why I say that the title of this bill, which deals with spouses who remarry, does not adequately convey what the fund is all about. Because it is a gamble.

I make this point in all seriousness. When one sees the words “Government Superannuation Fund” one has a sense of some certitude, some certainty, but there is none. The fund has lost 10 percent of its value in a little over a year. That is a staggering loss. I say to the Committee that we should consider renaming the bill. I look across at Dr Lockwood Smith. We know that markets go up and markets go down. Why do we not convey that fact in the title? The bill could be called the “Government Superannuation Fund (Let’s Risk Money on Overseas Markets) Amendment Bill (No 2)”. Dr Cullen does not like that title. I would be interested to know why he does not like it. He can take a call and explain. I suggest that it would be far better for him to contribute to the debate, rather than trying to take pointless points of order to close it down. I tell Mr Cullen that the point of having a Parliament is to have precisely this debate, even though the Government might find it uncomfortable. [Interruption]

Steve Chadwick yells out about looking after widows. How can the widows be looked after when this fund loses $380 million? I ask the member how many widows would it look after. How does she feel about the widows who lost $380 million in this fund? Does she think that is not important? The Minister shakes his head. He says: “It’s only $380 million; so what?”. He is saying it is 10 percent in a year. If it was his big fund, it would be $6,000 million. [Interruption] Given that Dr Cullen cannot shut Parliament down, we have David Benson-Pope calling from the sidelines. He is not prepared to take a call, because the ninth floor has shut him down, like it has shut down John Tamihere. He flies all the way up from his electorate in Dunedin, and all he does is chip—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please come back to the title of the bill?

I would love to, if David Benson-Pope would pipe down and let me explain what this title should be saying. This bill is designed to help spouses who remarry. Under the old rules—and the ACT party says that is wrong—if they remarry, they lose their pension. How about a bit of truth in the title of bills? [Interruption] David Benson-Pope is allowed to whip, whine, and groan away in this Chamber, but he is not allowed to give a proper speech.

That speech on the title was unfortunate for two reasons. First, what Mr Hide was saying about spouses missing out on entitlements because of losses on the sharemarket is totally untrue. As the one person who has campaigned against the Government Superannuation Fund being invested on the sharemarket, rather than staying in Government stocks, I have always made it very clear to any beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund—whether a retired public servant, or a spouse of a deceased public servant—that their entitlements are not at risk. As taxpayers, everyone in this room and everyone listening in this country will have to make up for that loss. But there is absolutely no risk of the Government’s ridiculous investment policy affecting the beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund.

The second unfortunate point about Mr Hide’s speech on the title is that he was not prepared to listen to my concerns back in the year 2000. He actually voted for the change in investment policy for the Government Superannuation Fund. I congratulate him on waking up 2 years after the event, but I do wish that he had joined the Greens at the time in pointing out what a ridiculous strategy it was to take money out of Government bonds, and gamble it on the international sharemarket.

I do not think there are any grounds at all for Mr Hide to call for any of the changes to the title that he was asking for. In hindsight, it might have been better to have a clearer title that read: “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses, Annuities, and Children’s Allowances) Amendment Bill”, as we would have then had a much narrower title debate. But given the nature of the title, I simply take the opportunity to say that the partners of deceased public servants, whom this bill benefits, do not need to worry about future entitlements. They are entitled to be concerned about their deceased partners’ hard-earned savings being squandered on the sharemarket, but they can rest assured that the fact that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million over the last 14 months on the sharemarket—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come to the title.

—I am coming to the point—will not in any way affect their expectation of benefits under this bill. I look forward to this bill becoming an Act in the very near future. I am happy to leave the title as it is.

The Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) is a small bill, of no more than three pages. It affects a very limited number of people—about 800 adults and some 19 children. However, that does not mean to say it is not an important bill. It affects the very lives of those few people in a very significant way.

The Government should realise that the title of the bill is not very helpful. If one looks at the development of the titles of bills in recent years, one will see there has been a movement to try to make sure that the titles are helpful to those scanning them to try to understand what they are about. If, for example, one looks at the titles of taxation amendment bills, one will see they have helpful words in them, to help people understand what the bills are about. There is an income tax bill in front of the House at the moment that has tax rates for Māori in it, and the title says that; it talks about tax rates for Māori, among other things. But this bill is called the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2). That gives us no guide as to what this bill is about.

I understand that what Rodney Hide has just been telling the Committee is absolutely correct: the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million in the last 14 months. What Rod Donald has just told the Committee is absolutely true: beneficiaries of the Government Superannuation Fund do not have to be particularly worried about that, because their entitlements are guaranteed. It is the taxpayers of New Zealand who should be saying to this Government: “What the hell are you doing, losing all this money that we taxpayers then have to make up?”. That is a hugely important issue, but the title of this bill should make it clear that, for example, the bill is not designed to remedy that problem. Given the fact that the fund has lost $380 million in the last 14 months, anyone could assume this is a bill designed to remedy that. Why would someone not assume that? It is the most significant issue affecting the Government Superannuation Fund in the last 12 months, and if people see that there is an amendment bill, maybe they will assume that it is designed to remedy that problem, but it is not. If I recollect correctly, there was an amendment bill to the Government Superannuation Fund within the last 2 years that actually freed up the investment of funds in the Government Superannuation Fund.

That is the problem with this title. It does not remotely indicate what the bill is about, and that is not good enough. I think Rod Donald had a fairly useful recommendation for the title. It should be the “Government Superannuation Fund (Spouses, Annuities, and Children’s Allowances) Amendment Bill”. That would be a useful title, because it would help those who use Acts of Parliament in their professional work, and the citizens of this country who need to refer to the laws of the land, to find legislation that is important to a limited number of people. Anyone searching titles in future will have no idea what on earth this title means. There is nothing in either subclause (1) or subclause (2) of the title clause that says what this bill is about.

Rather than Dr Cullen standing up and protesting about Rodney Hide mentioning that the Government Superannuation Fund has lost more money under his stewardship than under that of any other Minister of Finance in, probably, all time, rather than his being embarrassed by that and getting testy about it, I would have thought that, as Minister, it would be useful for Dr Cullen to propose an amendment to identify the bill. It would not be very difficult. It would have been quite simple to amend the title, to make the bill readily identifiable, and to make it more useful to those who may need to read it in the future. I suggest that, instead of raising points of order, the Minister should be doing that.

The difficulty of a title like this in the short term—apart from the fact that, in the long term, people will not know what the legislation is all about—is that the Government cannot close down what members say about it, because it is a totally general title. We are not permitted to debate Parts 1 and 2 of the bill in the debate on the title—that would be outside the Standing Orders—so we are debating what is probably the most general title I have ever seen. There will be a lot of debate on it.

I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour please say “Aye”—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot raise a point of order on the closure motion.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Who said, Madam Chair?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The closure is my call. Would the member please be seated.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: You don’t know what the point of order will be about yet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I say to Mr Prebble that points of order will be heard in silence. I will not warn again.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Madam Chair, I accept absolutely your right to accept a closure motion. What I do want to raise with you is that I gave the last contribution to this debate, and in that contribution I pointed out the fact that this title is probably as broad a title as can be conceived for an amendment bill. I have not seen a more broad title. Therefore, to accept a closure motion on a very broad title, after a very limited number of speeches, is provocative. I accept totally your right to accept that closure, but it is provocative, and as Chair you invite difficulty when you do that.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I have, on a number of occasions before, raised in this Chamber this approach of bullying the Chair by implying, as that last sentence did, that if you, Madam Chair, continue to do what you have decided to do, some kind of retribution is going to follow from members opposite. That is the only understanding that can be applied to a term like being “provocative”. We have had this ruled on many times by Mr Speaker; the Chair is the final judge and the decision cannot be questioned.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It better not be on this; I am going to rule on this point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: Who’s threatening whom?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. It is very clear. Standing Order 139 requires that the question on the closure motion be put forthwith, without amendment or debate, once accepted by the chairperson. The chairperson is the sole judge. [Interruption] I say to Dr Lockwood Smith that I did warn that there would be silence while we were dealing with points of order. Would the member please now leave the Chamber.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The chairperson is the sole judge of whether the closure motion should be put and accepted. That has been ruled on by the Speaker several times, and it cannot be debated. The question is that the question be now put.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is the point of order on what I have ruled on?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): All right; a new point of order, not on the closure.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No, not on the closure. It is completely out of order for a member of Parliament to suggest that the Chair is being bullied and that the Chair is being intimidated. You have had a point of order raised by Dr Cullen, where he has suggested that. He has put across the impression to the public of New Zealand that you are in some way being intimidated, and I say to you that you should now rule on that question. If you do feel that you were intimidated by Mr Lockwood Smith, then I think you had better have him back and ask him to withdraw and apologise. But if you do not, then you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw that very outrageous suggestion that you are being intimidated by the Opposition.

I put it to you that that cannot be so, because I have not seen a chairperson decide to close down a debate faster than you have. You clearly have no regard for the Opposition, and you cannot possibly be being intimidated by us, because if you were, you would have allowed us to have a reasonable debate. You did not; you closed it all down. The Government must be very happy with you. In fact, you must be the model chairperson from a Government’s point of view. So at that point I think you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw the suggestion that anybody on this side of the Chamber has any influence on you at all—because, clearly, we do not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member continued then to speak to the closure motion.

💬 Dail Jones: The point that the Hon Richard Prebble has raised does have some validity in the sense that the Hon Dr Cullen gave the impression that members opposite were bullying the Chair. Any member opposite may have given that impression, but not members opposite, and I ask that Dr Cullen be asked to withdraw and apologise in so far as an implication was given that any members opposite—other than the member who raised the point of order—may have been bullying you. That is absolutely incorrect, and it reflects on other members of the Committee. That is the point that the Hon Richard Prebble was making.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I was sitting just one row back, and in the direct line of sight of Dr Cullen, who is sitting on your right. As soon as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised a point of order—when you indicated that you had accepted the closure motion after, I think, three speeches—Dr Cullen started waving his hands around towards Dr Smith, sort of insisting that he sit down. Dr Cullen also started interjecting—and I am sure that that would have come over your microphone, because you did not have your finger on the microphone at the time—that the Opposition should not be bullying the Chair. At that point, Dr Lockwood Smith had only raised a point of order; you had yet even to call him. I do not think that you are being bullied, at all. I think that the reverse is actually happening in the Chamber. I agree with the Hon Richard Prebble. What is happening, though—and we saw it happen during the sitting before Christmas—is that any time someone takes a point of order against you when you are in the Chair, it is deemed by the Government that you are being bullied, or targeted, or picked on. That is not the case at all. I think that your role as an officer of Parliament in the Chair is undermined if the Government is going to adopt this attitude every time you face a point of order.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That would be a perfectly fair point if it were under a general point of order. But a point of order that is questioning a closure motion is itself out of order right from the beginning, and is an attempt to persuade you to change your mind. To say that your ruling was provocative is, in my view, clearly to suggest that some consequences may flow from your exercising your discretion as Chair. I cannot think of any other term, except “bullying”, to apply. But I accept Mr Jones’ point; I was merely making that reference to Dr Smith, not to any other member of the Committee.

💬 Rodney Hide: I certainly accept Dr Cullen’s apology to the rest of us, but I do think that we have a problem, and it is this: Dr Cullen used the device of a point of order to accuse Dr Lockwood Smith—he has identified him specifically—of bullying, or attempting to bully and intimidate, the Chair. That is a breach of privilege. [Interruption] Yes, it is; I can read it if members would like. Standing Order 397(i) states that it is a clear breach of privilege to assault, threaten, or intimidate a member or an officer of the House acting in the discharge of the member’s or the officer’s duty. What we had then was Dr Michael Cullen in the Minister’s chair, sitting beside the chairperson, standing up and using the device of a point of order to accuse Dr Lockwood Smith of breaching privilege. That cannot be allowed. Every time I have been in this House when anyone has done that by a point of order or by a speech, the Speaker quite rightly has sat them down and said that there is a proper procedure for that. Dr Michael Cullen can take a breach of privilege to the Speaker, but he certainly cannot raise one as a point of order. I suggest, Madam Chair, that you should have Dr Lockwood Smith back now—he has been out for 10 minutes, although you did not specify a time—but, more particularly, you should ask Dr Cullen to withdraw and apologise for his accusation, which is clearly false, by the way.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank members for their comments. I certainly am confident in my decision on the closure. It was properly put. It was properly dealt with. The points of order were properly dealt with, and now I will put the question.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have not ruled.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Would the member please be seated. I have ruled that Dr Cullen raised his point of order correctly. I have ruled on that.

💬 Rodney Hide: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am warning the member; I am on my feet. I have ruled correctly on that matter, and we will now proceed.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Is the point of order continuing this argument? If it is, it is out of order because I have ruled.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I would like you to rule on whether it is acceptable, under a point of order, to accuse another member of Parliament of intimidating the Chair. Yes or no.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): A matter of privilege is not raised on the floor of the House. The member knows that. As far as I saw it, in the Chair, Dr Cullen properly pointed out that the closure motion had been taken. There was not any debate on the closure motion—that was the point—and there should not be any debate, and members have brought up that debate. I have ruled on that, and we will continue.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order?

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: It is following on from that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given my ruling on this point of order, and we will now continue.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it the same point of order?

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: It is following on from your ruling

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Once I have ruled on a point of order, the member knows that it cannot be disputed.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: That is right. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It has to be a new point of order.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: The point of order that Dr Cullen took was in two parts. The first part was seeking to state to the Committee that your decision to take the closure could not be challenged. You have ruled on that; I accept that. The second part, you have not ruled on. The second part of Dr Cullen’s point of order, which was the part he spent the most time on, was where he accused Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, in using the word “provocative”, of bullying the Chair. If one stands in the Chamber and accuses someone of bullying the Chair, that by its very nature, under the Standing Orders, is accusing someone of a breach of privilege. Dr Cullen went to some lengths and showed a degree of anger in that part of the point of order. What I am seeking, and what the Committee is seeking from you, is whether you are going to accept members making accusations about other people having an influence over the Chair. Is that acceptable or not? That is the ruling we are seeking.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I think the Committee is going to get into a lot of difficulty when a senior member of the Opposition is thrown out by the Chair, which the Chair of course can do, for a matter that Chairs do rule on but is relatively minor—having spoken during a point of order—and then we discover that, in relation to a member who made statements during a point of order that were very serious, alleging a matter that by itself, if correct, would be a breach of privilege, because intimidating the Chair is a breach of privilege, and the whole Committee heard him make the accusation that there had been an attempt at intimidating you, you are not going to rule on it because you were not worried. No doubt you were not intimidated, but that is not the point. The point is it is a reflection on the whole of the Committee when a Minister in the chair can suggest that a senior Opposition member is, in effect, committing a breach of privilege. It is not for you to pass it over; it is for you to be consistent. Indeed, I believe that you have not treated fairly Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who, of course—not of his choice—is no longer in the Chamber. I believe that he ought to be apologised to by Dr Cullen, and, frankly, I also think—but it is completely within your discretion—that he should be allowed to return to the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): On the matter of Dr Lockwood Smith, I made that judgment and I made that call, and it was properly given. Dr Cullen made certain comments. They are not for me to judge, but I certainly did not judge that they were offensive. As far as I was concerned, the call was properly given. Dr Smith made his comments. It is not acceptable to reflect on the Chair, and I did not consider them to be such, and I do not consider that this matter needs to be pursued any further. If there is a matter of privilege, there is a proper way to deal with it. The closure motion—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Are you going to still discuss this point of order that I have ruled on? I will rule it out of order if you are.

💬 Rodney Hide: Might I suggest, Madam Chair, that you hear it. I took a point of order where I asked for a ruling. Dr Cullen in the Chamber—and no one has contested this—accused Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, under a point of order, of intimidating you. My question to you is simple. I put it to you before. You keep telling me that you have ruled. What I want is clarification on that ruling. Is it acceptable to stand up in this Chamber, under a point of order, and accuse a member of Parliament of intimidating the Chair? Yes or no.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As I clearly said before, Dr Lockwood Smith made certain comments. There was a point of order raised by Dr Cullen. I have made my ruling, and I do not consider that there is any further matter to pursue. We will now have the—

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I warn the member that I have ruled on this matter. I am warning him now that I will not take his point of order on the same matter.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I ask you, Madam Chair, to rule.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on the matter. That is the end of the matter.

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The ruling is very clear, as I said. Dr Cullen made his point of order in response to some comments relating to the closure that had been made by Dr Lockwood Smith. I certainly ruled that I did not need those comments. I made my ruling very clear, and I stand by that ruling, which is the original ruling on the closure. I said I did not need the comments made by either Dr Cullen or Dr Lockwood Smith. The closure was given correctly.

💬 Rodney Hide: Point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. We are now going to continue because I have made that ruling.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Point of order on the same point?

💬 Rodney Hide: My point of order is this. I asked for you to rule whether it is acceptable under the guise of a point of order to accuse another member of intimidating the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have made my ruling on that.

💬 Rodney Hide: Madam Chair you have not made your ruling on this. You have burbled on about what Dr Cullen might or might not have said. You have not ruled on whether that is acceptable behaviour in the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment to the Chair.

💬 Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The ruling has been given. The question will now be put.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is it OK for me to stand in the Chamber on this point of order and say that Dr Cullen is intimidating you constantly tonight?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. I have accepted the closure, and I have ruled several times on the point of order.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. I will repeat the ruling. I considered the comments made by Dr Cullen and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. I considered that no further action needed to be taken on them, and I have moved on to the question.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: We take exception to them.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated, Mr Hide. I have ruled on the point of order. The member cannot raise that matter again.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a new point of order. I have grave concern over how this debate has been going. It is very obvious to members sitting here that the Chair is being intimidated by Dr Michael Cullen sitting beside her. He is intimidating the Chair and giving the Chair instructions about how to behave tonight, so much so that the Chair will not take the simple action of asking the Minister in the chair, Dr Michael Cullen, to apologise for accusing a senior member of this Committee of a breach of privilege. It is very clear to me that you are being bullied and intimidated by the member sitting beside you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I should warn Mr Hide that the Chair is not being bullied and intimidated. That is not acceptable, and I have ruled on that.

💬 Rodney Hide: Well, you just ruled it was OK. I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will desist from a reflection on the Chair. The member will now be seated.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

Would the member please be seated. I am warning the member now that raising constant points of order on matters that I have ruled on is in itself disorderly. If the member persists with that line I will have no choice but to ask him to leave the Chamber. That in itself is disorderly.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have given the member a warning.

💬 Rodney Hide: Yes. You said in your last ruling that it is unacceptable, on a point of order, to accuse a member of intimidating the Chair. But that was when I did it. What you have not been prepared to rule on is that it is unacceptable for Dr Michael Cullen to do it, but that is exactly what he did. My point is that if you allow that to stand we will have a disorderly Parliament, because at any time anyone can take a point of order and accuse a member of a breach of privilege. I do not think Dr Cullen wants the Committee to go down that chute, either.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

Would the member please be seated. I am trying to rule on this matter. Dr Cullen made certain comments, and this is my final comment because I have ruled on it before. I did not consider Dr Cullen’s comments offensive. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith made certain comments. I ruled that I did not consider them offensive, and I continued. I ask members to desist from reflections on the Chair generally. It is not acceptable. I do not need any further assistance on this matter. That is the end of this point of order.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Yes it is, actually.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the points of order, and I would remind the member—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I appreciate that, but I suggest to you that we cannot let the matter stay where it now is. I believe that Mr Hide, as strongly as he feels, was still wrong to suggest that you are being intimidated. I do not think it is for you just to say you are not intimidated. I think that comment requires him to withdraw and apologise. Even if you are not going to require that of Government members, I think Mr Hide should be asked to withdraw and apologise for suggesting the Chair is being intimidated. We cannot allow that to happen. I suggest to you that, even though you have ruled on the earlier point, I do believe that with regard to the remarks Mr Hide made, even though he feels very strongly about the matter, he should be asked to withdraw and apologise for suggesting that the Chair is being intimidated.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Are you speaking to Mr Prebble’s point of order?

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: Yes, I am. I tried to raise this before the Hon Richard Prebble got to his feet, because I certainly found Mr Hide’s comments grossly offensive. To stand in the Chamber and accuse the Chair of being intimidated by Dr Cullen is not a position that any member should find himself or herself in, just as I found Dr Cullen’s waving and yelling to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to sit down, and that he was bullying the Chair, equally grossly offensive.

I ask you to consider this. You are one of a small group of officers of Parliament charged with the responsibility of keeping order in this Chamber. To do that, not only do you require the confidence of the major party in the Chamber, you require the confidence of all parties. To carry out your role effectively, you must also ensure that you are protecting the role of deputy chair and Chair. It is just not acceptable for any member of any party, be it the Minister sitting beside you or Mr Hide down the other end of the Chamber, or anyone else by way of interjection, to carry on and imply that the Chair is being bullied or put under undue influence. If we allow this to happen tonight, it will, by its nature, creep into the parliamentary process. We will find another Chair sitting here tomorrow, and we will have speeches where people start to talk about whether the Chair is being influenced.

I put it to you that that is clearly covered in the Standing Orders and that it would be grossly out of order. Mr Speaker would not allow someone to give a speech and, during that speech, talk about whether he or she was being influenced by other members of this Parliament, and we should not allow it to creep into this House by way of point of order. It has happened twice now, once by Dr Cullen and once by Mr Hide. Both of the comments were offensive.

I take the point that you are strong enough to say you are not offended and you will let it wash over your head. But it brings your position into disrepute—not you as an individual, but the position. My appeal to you tonight is to uphold the principles around the position, and to require both members who have engaged in that behaviour to cease, and to withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his assistance. He does make some correct points, but I go back to the original point that I ruled on. Dr Cullen raised a point and Dr Lockwood Smith raised a point, which I did not feel I needed and I did not accept. As to the point that Mr Hide raised—yes, in retrospect I think he should withdraw and apologise. Speaker’s ruling 15/1 is very clear on this matter: “(1) It is out of order for a member to suggest that the Speaker is defending the Government—such a statement must be withdrawn unreservedly; (2) or that the Speaker has endeavoured to curtail the reply of a member; (3) or to bring the Speaker’s name and opinions into a debate.” That has happened. I think it is a point that Mr Hide should withdraw and apologise on, and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. To the person who took offence, I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.