Points of Order — Extension of House Sitting Times

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order at the first available time open to me. I would like a ruling from you that the sitting times of the House are binding and cannot be altered from the Chair. I then want a ruling as to what happens to what I regard as illegal sittings. Do they stand on the record, or are they expunged?

The reason I raise this matter is that last Thursday, just before the House was to rise under Standing Order 43 at 6 p.m., the Deputy Speaker attempted to put the question on the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Bill. The Hansard record clearly shows that the Deputy Speaker had not put the question. In my view what actually happened was that the Government member sat down suddenly, as Government members try to do before the sitting time finishes—I will not suggest there was collusion—the Deputy Speaker rose to her feet and started to put the question, I rose, and so did John Carter. I see from the Hansard record that John Carter, the National Party member, went for the call well before the question was put.

The ruling is quite simple, and I remind everyone that that is so. For example, when we have a bill the Minister gets up and makes a speech, and then, before calling any person, the Speaker says: “The question is that the motion be agreed to.” If that stopped debate no one would be able to be called. The debate is not stopped until the Clerk calls the vote. Once the Clerk starts to call the vote, of course members cannot get a call. However, in this particular case we had not reached that point. I rose to my feet, and so did John Carter. I heard him clearly say: “Mr Speaker”. I indicated to the Chair that I wanted the call, and the Deputy Speaker continued.

I would like you to rule that, in fact, the vote had not been put. At that point that is very important. The House must stop at 6 o’clock. It is not a matter of discretion; it can only continue if a vote is under way. There should not have been a vote under way. That is important because after 6 o’clock the House purported to do a number of things, one of which affects me: it purported to suspend me. I say the House cannot suspend me when it is not supposed to be sitting. I was aware of that fact. I tried to get the Deputy Speaker to listen to me on a point of order, but she has a style of standing and refusing to take calls, which results in disorderly conduct as members try to draw to her attention that what the House is doing is wrong.

I want to know what happens to the Hansard. I have a copy of Hansard here that purports to suspend me at 6 o’clock. The problem with that is that it is just not true. I can prove that it is not true. If we go back to an earlier Hansard we see that it states: “John Carter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now we find ourselves in a peculiar situation. I know we are dealing with a procedural matter, but it is past 6 o’clock.” It appears to me that Hansard has decided that it is like urgency. If we go into urgency today, we claim on Thursday that the House is still in urgency. It appears that Hansard is trying to state that when I was suspended it was still 6 o’clock. It was not. The House should have risen at 6 o’clock, and that should have been the end of the matter.

That is actually important to me because if one has been suspended by the House and is suspended a second time, it is for a week. In fact, in that particular matter, where I tried to persuade the Deputy Speaker that the House was acting irregularly, if I had been thrown out by the Serjeant-at-Arms I would have been out for the rest of Parliament. I was aware that the procedures we were making were out of order and that Parliament cannot meet then. I make this point to you, too: we had a vote at 6.10 p.m., I think it was. I will lay any money anyone likes that that vote is invalid, because of course the whips get up and vote on behalf of the members who are still in the House. It was 6 p.m. on a Thursday. I have checked, and there were MPs leaving in taxis for aeroplanes. They were not waiting to hear what happened to Richard Prebble. Of course they were not. Yet people pretended—well, I am not suggesting that the whips, in casting those votes, realised they were wrong, but of course they were. Again, that is another reason that that part of the record should be expunged.

What I want you to rule is, firstly, that the vote on the Māori television services bill was not put—that is important, because the ACT party wants to speak on that matter—and, secondly, that everything that happened after 6 p.m. is expunged from the record, including my suspension.

I say to the member that the Deputy Speaker was in the process of putting the question, so Standing Order 51 does apply. But the question had not actually been put, so other members could still intervene and seek the call. The best result has been arrived at, in the sense that the interrupted debate is still before the House as Order of the Day No. 3. Whenever the House has taken a decision, whether it technically should or should not have been sitting is beside the point. The decision stands until rescinded by the House. I will have another look at that matter, but that is my initial ruling.