Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill

I would like to seek leave to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say that humbly and sincerely as National’s science and associate health spokesperson. During the moments of confusion that, Mr Chairman, you have described, I observed that the members in front of me, in their enthusiasm to talk on this very important debate, actually made it difficult for you to see that I was seeking a call. I had not done so during this part of the debate. I have had very strong views in favour of this very important bill. I believe that there has been considerable excess of emotion in respect of the views on this bill. Perhaps partly because of that, individuals such as myself who hold a strong view about this bill have been prevented from having the opportunity to speak. The Hon Peter Dunne pointed out that Part 2 had 40 speakers, but this part has had only 19 speakers.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member that under Standing Order 84(3) points of order are to be terse and to the point.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I seek leave to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

I would just like to point out that over the last two sitting days I have been present during the debate on this bill and have received only one call. I therefore seek leave to have a further call on this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.

In this entire debate I have had the privilege of just one call. I went to the trouble, though, of obtaining a lot of material under the Official Information Act about what the Government had been up to. I indicated to the Committee after that call that I had information that would be quite revealing to the public about what had been going on, and was, in fact, verging on the scandalous. The perception evolves that Government members sought to close down the debate so that I could not do that. That is a very unfortunate flavour to be left. I have official documentation here that I think the Committee deserves to hear about, and I seek leave to have a further call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have been out of the Chamber but listening to a succession of points of orders that are out of order. When one seeks leave, one seeks leave. One does not give a speech either before or after the seeking of leave. The seeking of leave is done precisely—that is, “I seek leave to take a speech.” One’s history, marital relationships, and various other things are irrelevant to the matter of seeking leave. A very formal procedure is adopted in this House that has been used for many generations.

Thank you very much. I just say to members that members may seek leave, but leave has been denied on a number of occasions already this evening. I remind members that constantly raising points of order can itself be seen as being disorderly. When a matter has been the subject of a decision of the Committee, that situation stands. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am not seeking leave to—

It had better be something different, because I have already ruled.

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Yes, it is a completely fresh point of order, Mr Chairperson. I submit that the entire procedure from the time of the acceptance by you of the closure motion is out of order. I cite as my authority Speaker’s ruling 53/6 from 1931, and I want to quote it to you, with particular reference to Mr Hughes: “The closure must be moved by a member rising in the member’s place pursuant to the Standing Orders.” Mr Hughes was not sitting in his place at the time that he moved the closure motion. He was therefore completely contrary to that Speaker’s ruling. It should not have been accepted. The procedure from that point on is entirely out of order, and the Committee should have lifted.

Thank you. There has already been a ruling on this. A number of rulings outline that a member may sit in any block of seats that are held by that particular party. I now intend to put the vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This book—

I have already ruled on the issue.

💬 PETER BROWN: This is a new point of order.

Continuing points of order—

💬 PETER BROWN: It is a new point of order. Throughout this evening you or other members have referred to this book and Standing Orders, to the letter. Now, when the Hon Peter Dunne has pointed out a clause, are we seeing some sort of flexibility? I am asking you to rule to the letter, and if not, I am asking for the Speaker to come back.

I will do that, Mr Brown. I would like to refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 7/1: “Within the areas allocated to each party group or caucus in the Chamber, the allocation of particular seats to individual members, by practice of the House, is left to the party leaders and whips and the Speaker does not intervene.” That means that members may sit in any seats that are allocated to that particular party. I refer members now to Speaker’s ruling 17/3. Members are free to raise points of order, but where things start to get out of order, and members are asked to desist, it can lead to disorder, and members can be asked to leave the Chamber. We have had a number of points of order on this issue already.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I respectfully say that Speaker’s ruling 7/1 does not relieve Speaker’s ruling 53/6 of the responsibilities. It simply states that a member can sit anywhere, but Speaker’s ruling 53/6 states that when a member wants to move the closure motion, that member has to be in his or her correct seat.

I refer Mr Brown to Speaker’s ruling 17/3. The member is persistently challenging the Chair, which makes it a highly disorderly situation. He should also refer to Standing Order 85(1). He has his first yellow card.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is a fresh point of order that is utterly unrelated to what has gone before, and it arises out of the Speaker’s ruling, with particular reference to Standing Order 51. It is a complex point, and I will pause while you look for the Standing Order.

Thank you, Mr Worth. I refer members to Standing Order 139 and also Speaker’s ruling 54/2. Standing Order 139 states: “If the Speaker accepts a closure motion, a question is put on the closure and decided without amendment or debate.” The question now is that the question be now put. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye”, and to the contrary will say “No”. A party vote called for?

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I will ask that the Speaker be recalled, if you are not prepared to listen to my point of order. It is neither frivolous nor vexatious.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): In that case, I will listen to the member’s point of order.

It is founded on Standing Order 51, which the Speaker gave a ruling on. The point, as most tersely stated as I can put it, is that it is not possible to complete the Committee stage this evening. The reason is stated in Standing Order 51, which the Speaker drew our attention to: “Whenever, at the time for the Speaker or the chairperson to interrupt business, a question is being put to the House or a vote is in progress or the closure is carried,”—which is the relevant part—“the interruption of business is deferred until the question (in the case of the closure, the main question)”—which is the part I am emphasising—“is determined.” The only remaining business that the Committee can transact tonight is whether Part 3 shall stand part. The consequence of that—and I am seeking that the Speaker be recalled if you do not agree with this proposition, because I believe it to be correct, and I do not offer it in any but a sincere and determined manner—is that the Committee stage cannot be concluded tonight, with the consequence that the farthest point to which we can get is a vote on whether Part 3 stands part.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The vote was in progress.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The point the member was making was a different one. It is an interesting point, but it is drawing an extraordinarily long bow, and one that is likely to remove his own kneecap when he starts to think about it as it comes back again. Standing Order 51 states that once we have begun the process of voting, whether the closure motion or subsequently, we have to continue until the main vote is decided.

💬 Hon David Carter: No.

Yes. The interruption of business is deferred until the question—in the case of the closure, the main question—is determined. The reason it says that is because all amendments have to be put before the main question is determined. After the closure vote is determined—if the Committee agrees on the vote for closure—then the amendments are put, then the main vote is put, and once the main vote is put the Committee is adjourned, the Chair of the Committee reports progress, and the Speaker declares the House adjourned until tomorrow. [Interruption] We cannot have two members standing at once. Mr Worth should sit down. I have the floor. So, Mr Chairperson, the facts of this case are very simple. If the member had been here slightly longer, he would know that this procedure has been followed many, many times, where a closure motion is put before a normal time for business to be interrupted—whether that be 6 o’clock, or 10 o’clock at night, or, indeed, 1 o’clock when the House is under urgency. Voting then proceeds; it proceeds through to the amendments before the Committee of the whole House at that point, then on to the main vote. At that point, business is interrupted as normally provided for in the Standing Orders.

What Dr Cullen has not bothered to answer is the primary question that I put, which was to assert that the main question was whether Part 3 should stand part. He has not answered that. He has been glib in his response—and abusive.

The question that was put was that the question be now put. The main question that that referred to was that Part 3 stand part.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I want to make a ruling on this matter. The vote on the closure was in progress. The Committee must continue and decide that vote. The vote was a closure. After it is determined, the remaining votes on Part 3 must be decided, and then the Committee reports. The question now is that Part 3 stand part. As many of that opinion will say “Aye”, the contrary “No”—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You know that I have been seeking a point of order, so deliberately to pretend you did not see me is totally unacceptable.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member please get to his point of order.

I seek that you make this a personal vote, because given the time now—17 minutes past 10—and the propensity for certain members to leave the Chamber dead on the dot of 10 o’clock, I do not believe in any way, shape, or form that the Government whip would have any idea about how many votes he has got right now.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is not a conscience issue; it is not a personal vote. The question will be put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This whole matter began over the timing of a closure. I want to ask you to advise the Committee why, if we commenced the vote at about a quarter to 10, when this process got underway, and if the vote is already, therefore, ongoing in the sense that we have started it so we cannot stop until we finish it, you are now proceeding to put the vote again.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There has been a lot of going backwards and forwards, and I did it to try to clear matters up. I want to reiterate for the member—

In now putting it again you are accepting that it was not put in the first place—which is the problem we have got into. Either we put it, and it has been disposed of, and we are about to commence voting on the amendments, or, at 20 past 10 or thereabouts, we have not put it, in which case the Committee rises.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I tell the member that the vote had not been completed; it was in progress. I want to read this again. The ruling is that the vote on the closure was in progress. The Committee must continue and decide that vote. The vote was a closure. After it is determined, the remaining votes on Part 3 must be decided, and then the Committee reports.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just confirm that the vote was 61 in favour and 56 opposed, which means a differential of only 3 votes would have had a large impact. Given the closeness of the vote it is my view that the absence of one or two members from the Chamber, because of the timing of and the confusion about the vote, would have had a very serious impact on the passage of the bill. Therefore, after looking at the Standing Orders pertaining to personal votes, I seek that you call a personal vote.

The vote was 61 to 56. That is quite clear, and we have already had a number of votes like that this evening. I repeat that this is not a conscience issue; it is a party vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You cannot rule that this is not a conscience issue, when it is a conscience issue. As far as the Opposition side of the Chamber is concerned, this is a conscience vote. How can you say it is not a conscience vote, when we regard it as being one? The Labour members have been drilled into having the vote as a Government vote, and that is a different matter. But you are taking part in the debate if you start to make that ruling, and I believe you are not supposed to do that. It is not up to you to decide whether a matter is a conscience vote; that is for the members of Parliament to decide on. We in New Zealand First regard this as a conscience vote. You are entering into the debate, which you should not be doing. You should be here on the benches if you want to do that type of thing.

The member has made his point. There is a wide margin. The vote is 61 to 56. It has been that way, and we have had votes like that, before. There was no need for a personal vote, and I have ruled against it.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 7C be agreed to.

The next amendment, which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor, is to clause 8, and it is out of order because Ms Chadwick’s amendments have been agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to new section 23A(1) in clause 8A be agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I did not hear why the amendment was ruled out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is inconsistent with previous decisions, given that the honourable member Steve Chadwick’s amendments were agreed to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek some clarification, in terms of the sequence of when the Supplementary Order Papers were lodged and when they should come before the Committee for consideration.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Amendments in the name of the Minister or the member in charge of a bill always come first.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 in the name of Richard Worth to new section 23A in clause 8A be agreed to.