Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before you put the House into Committee, I want to raise a matter that was canvassed the last time this bill was before the House. You will recall that on at least one occasion during the evening you were recalled to the Chair. On one occasion you were asked to rule on the scope of the debate. If I recall your ruling correctly, you ruled that because this bill was, one, being taken part by part, and, two, because it had some controversy attached to it and was not a Government bill, the widest possible debate should be allowed in the Committee. I want to confirm that that was the ruling you gave, that it still applies, and further, that you have advised the Chairperson of the Committee that that is your expectation.

I repeat what I said before. As we are going into debate on Part 2, which is a large chunk of the bill, of course there should be full debate on that particular part. After there has been a full debate, it will be up to the Committee to decide whether that debate will carry on. However, I did make that comment, and I expect the Chairs to take note of what I said.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep doing this, but I think it is better that we have the advantage of your wisdom now, because I can see this matter occurring probably in the first speech. It is an interesting problem, and I am sure you know what I am going to say. What has happened now is matters that would have most certainly been canvassed in the second reading—had we known—have become known. So we now know that the Government paid $2.1 million—corruptly, in my view—to get members of Parliament to swing their votes. I am sure I would have been allowed to raise that matter on the second reading. Now we will have a situation that, because the Government has managed to keep it secret and did not tell us about it, when we raised it at the Committee stage, the Chair will then say: “Well, of course, you could have raised that at the second reading, but the Government kept it secret and did not tell you about it, and now you are not allowed to ask whether this is why Māori members in particular are voting in favour of this bill”.

I will rule here and now that that issue can be canvassed in the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite different from the points you have just heard. You might recall that towards the end of the last debate on this issue, I requested that you be recalled because of my concern about a member in this House referring to people as “health Nazis”, or some such term—certainly the term “Nazis” was there. You took the view that Mr Prebble took, and I quote Speaker’s ruling 44/2: “There is nothing which prevents a member from commenting, if necessary in severe terms, on the conduct of people outside Parliament, but the member should do so only if it is necessary for the argument being put forward.” You seemed to support that. There is another ruling, Speaker’s ruling 43/5, which states: “Temperate and decorous language should be used with regard to persons outside Parliament.” I personally take total exception, and I know my colleagues might not share my absolute concern, that we in Parliament can refer to people as “Nazis”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point.

I have a little point to make.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, hurry along, please, very briefly.

If it is good enough for us to be allowed to call people outside the House “Nazis”; people on whom we will impose responsibility by a majority vote on this bill, then it is good enough, in my view, to refer to people in this House as the Fuhrer, Gestapo, and goodness knows what else.

The member might think that, but that is not what the Standing Order said. There is a different approach when people are referring to members, than when referring to people outside the House. Members should be temperate, but on the other hand, members can say things about people outside the House. They must reflect on whether they are really wise to make those comments, but that is their judgment. As far as inside the House is concerned, it is a very easy matter to rule on.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a completely different matter, and I ask for your guidance before you leave the Chair, so that we are not in a position where perhaps it may be necessary to recall you. In this particular section of the debate, I have worked hard with an industry and will present a large number of amendments—around 100—to the legislation. I intend to seek the opportunity to speak to a significant number of those amendments, because they are all quite individual, and I want your guidance as to the time that I would then be allowed before the question is finally put in this debate.

There should be a wide discussion held, but the member will not get a hundred calls or anything like that. He is entitled to only four, but whether he gets that number is a matter for the Chair and the Committee to judge. As I have said, there will be a wide debate. I declare the House in Committee for further consideration of the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Amendments to Part II of principal Act