Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2)

I rise with a degree of surprise to speak to Part 1. I start by saying that the Minister in the chair, Dr Cullen, really has presided over a shambles on this bill. I say to him that in Bill Birch’s day this situation would never have occurred. In Bill Birch’s day, this bill would have been rammed through the House under urgency, and the people who are the beneficiaries—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do feel I need to point out that Bill Birch refused to introduce this bill into the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, that is not a point of order. It is a debatable matter.

In Bill Birch’s day, any bill in his name was put through under urgency, and people such as those who are to benefit—because we agree with this bill; it is a good bill and we are going to vote in favour of it—

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I seek leave that the Committee return to the House so that leave can be sought for the bill to be given urgency.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is not granted.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I had considered raising a point of order when Dr Cullen broke up Mr Sowry’s speech the first time by making a frivolous point of order, but now Dr Cullen, the Minister in the chair, has raised, I think, seven points of order on a bill that he says is not controversial. When anybody is trying to speak to it he raises points of order. It seems to me that we are getting very close to the point where you ought to be asking him to leave the Chamber. If we are to have that applied to Opposition members who raise just one interjection under provocation and are thrown out, then we should have it applied to a Minister in the chair who is disobeying all the Standing Orders but against whom no action is being taken by the chairperson. I think he should be asked not only to withdraw and apologise but also to leave the Chamber and have someone else sit in the chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I ruled against Dr Cullen’s previous point of order. There have been constant points of order tonight that have been disorderly, as I have pointed out.

I make the point to Dr Cullen that one would have thought that he, as Leader of the House, could organise to get this bill through pretty quickly. After all, it was introduced on 29 May last year. It had only about 13 minutes in the select committee. It has a commencement date of 1 July of last year, and he introduced it a month or two before it was due to come into force. I was making the point that previous Ministers of Finance, such as the Rt Hon Bill Birch, would have got this bill through and got the job done, and they would not have found the House debating Part 1 the following year—a part that includes a commencement date that is now retrospective. I say to Dr Cullen that we have people waiting in our area who want to see this bill passed and who have been writing to me asking why the Government does not get on with passing it. Now we find ourselves here not being able to get it passed tonight, because the Government has been hopelessly organised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but it is time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the Chair had actually left the chair, Dr Lockwood Smith had raised a point of order. I know that you were striding back, but I do not believe that the Chair had acknowledged that point of order. I happen to know what it was in relation to. It is a serious matter that reflects the honour of a member, and it appears to me that the Chair should not leave the chair if a point of order is being raised at the time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Chair had announced that the time had come to leave the chair, and she had left the chair.

Progress reported.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.