Standing Orders

I move, That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted and come into force on 10 February 2004. That last date indicates the intended date of resumption after the adjournment. I will speak very briefly, because these are probably the most limited changes to the Standing Orders we have seen for quite a long period of time, and are certainly more limited than the last three or four rounds of changes to the Standing Orders.

Firstly, the fact that there are very limited changes points to the fact that there is relatively little need to change the Standing Orders. The changes are relatively minor ones, often re-ordering or technical changes, in order to line things up with either current practice or interpretation of the Standing Orders—for example, in terms of the putting of amendments in Committee, the rights of the mover, and the default mechanism. That restores previous practice after it was found that that practice was actually in conflict with the existing Standing Order.

Secondly, the Standing Orders Committee is an unusual committee in that it operates according to a high level of consensus. There is a clear understanding on the Standing Orders Committee that if there is significant objection to any proposed changes, then those changes are not proceeded with in the agreed changes that come forward from the select committee. One does not have simple majority voting on the Standing Orders Committee, despite the fact that on some occasions there was clear support for certain changes. Those changes were not carried through, because there was some objection. I indicated very strongly to the select committee that as long as I am in charge as Leader of the House, that will be the view of the Government members on the committee, so that we do not simply ram through changes by simple majority in the House—even when that majority exists.

The major issues I want to dwell on very briefly are, firstly, the indication by the committee of the degree to which there should be dedicated television coverage of the proceedings within the Chamber, and that that coverage is then made available to all the news media. No doubt the Minister of Finance—that is, myself—will be looking very carefully at the financial implications of that particular proposal, but I can indicate that I have some degree of sympathy with it, but not, obviously, to the exclusion of other important matters such as hip-replacement operations, the needs of young children in schools, the needs of the elderly, and so on and so forth.

Secondly, there is a minor change in relation to proxy votes that assists all parties, but which is also a clear recognition of the difficulties for very small parties of keeping somebody in the House at all times able to cast their votes. I thank the members of the committee for the rationality and good sense that prevailed on that particular occasion.

Thirdly, there is a change in relation to urgency on a Thursday, whereby if notice is given at the Business Committee of the intention to take urgency on Thursday, the House can now sit from 7.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Thursday evening—as opposed to simply lifting at 6 o’clock and not resuming until 9 o’clock the next morning. I think that is sensible. It is a constraint upon the Government to give early notice, and my own preference, as members know, is to wait until we have enough of a build-up of business to be done to take a Tuesday through to Friday urgency sitting, in any case.

Finally, there is a small but important change to omnibus bills. It means that it is now clear that an omnibus bill that deals with one issue, even though the principal Acts it amends do not deal with a single issue—and very few Acts do deal with a single issue—is still a legitimate omnibus bill, to be moved without any special provision. We still retain the other very strict requirement around omnibus bills, and we will see how those new procedures work in the meantime.

I will close with those few brief comments. I think it was an excellent select committee and one that has produced some very useful changes that will smooth the processes of the House while retaining the rights of all parties represented within it.

As this is very likely to be my last opportunity this year to make a contribution to the House, I want, before I move on to the debate on the Standing Orders, to take this opportunity of wishing you, my colleagues on both sides of the House, and all of those who work with us and have to put up with us a very merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I thank them all very much, and I hope they have a safe and pleasant holiday.

I want to comment on three interesting areas that were debated, or will need to be debated, given the events of recent times. The first matter I bring to the attention of the House is that of proxies. We have a system of proxies that we debated at the Standing Orders Committee, whereby at the moment each party is limited to 25 percent of its membership. It is my view that we need to expand that to 100 percent proxies. I know that a number of the whips around here agree with me, but unfortunately some of the caucuses, including mine, do not. All the whips in this House are honourable members, and when they vote, they do so knowing in their own minds that the records they are giving and the votes they are casting are absolutely correct. But I doubt whether there are any whips—with the exception maybe of the whips from one or two of the minor parties—who could stand here and swear 100 percent that every time they have voted the numbers they have, they knew personally that every member who was meant to be here was actually here. I doubt very much that the whips from the caucuses with bigger numbers could say they that knew absolutely that somebody was not down the street having a haircut, his or her teeth cleaned, or doing something else—even though some of us might not need to have haircuts.

I have spoken in the House on this issue before, and I say again that it worries me that there might be times when, inadvertently, the whips breach the Standing Orders because somebody has ducked out, thinking that there will not be a vote, and then there is one. The whips might vote without knowing that a member is absent, because leave has not been given. We tried to address the matter this time, and I think it is one that we will have to come back to and address.

I want to raise two other issues that are relevant to today’s debate. Indeed, they are as a consequence of one or two issues that have been raised just recently—that is, the issues around the snap debate procedure. I think it is Standing Order 376 that allows for an application for an urgent debate. I think that is something that perhaps the next Standing Orders Committee might well be advised to look at, given the circumstances that are arising. I give notice to the House, and to the Clerk particularly, that I intend to put that up for our next Standing Orders debate, which, of course, will now be during the next term. I presume I will be here, but if I am not, somebody else will put it up on my behalf. I do think it is important that we look at the rules around the issue of which snap debates can be allowed, because as it stands at the moment, those rules are quite restrictive. I suspect that they may have well been formed in days gone by, whereas things are changing and the Standing Orders should be reviewed.

The other matter I want to raise is in reference to Speaker’s ruling 5/33, which was made by Mr Kidd in 1998. That ruling links up with Standing Order 117. It relates to a speech that was made by the Hon Tariana Turia—as recently as yesterday, I think—in respect of which we might have to look at the Standing Orders in the context of the questioning. For instance, the questions that were put down today were quite correctly ruled outside the scope of her designation as a Minister. I think we need to look at that. If speeches made by Ministers, or indeed members, bring imputations against members in the House—even though they are not made in the House—there may be reason for us to look at the Standing Orders that allow us from time to time to debate those matters.

This place is a fascinating place—there are always new things coming up, and every time anyone thinks that he or she has seen it all, they never have. I am certainly one of those. Like the Deputy Prime Minister, I felt that the Standing Orders Committee went very well—chaired by yourself, Mr Speaker. I thought it was a good, constructive committee, and I too join with the Deputy Prime Minister to recommend that we accept the recommendations in the report.

In looking at the review of the Standing Orders and the report of the Standing Orders Committee for December 2003, I want to go through a few points in a chronological order. I want to express one or two concerns about the way in which this report has been drafted—and perhaps causes confusion—and make about nine or 10 points on it, if I have sufficient time.

The first page of the review states: “We recommend that the House adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A, with effect from 10 February 2004.” There are, in fact, two Appendix A’s. There is an Appendix A on page 83, and within Appendix A there is another Appendix A. From a drafting point of view that should have been either Appendix AA, or Appendix 1, and the terms “AA”, “BB”, and “CC” and the figures “1”, “2”, or “3” should have been used. As it stands it creates confusion. I accidentally turned to page 127 and could not understand why those were the only amendments. I started again at the beginning and discovered that, in fact, the true Appendix A started at page 83, and the other Appendix A was a reference to something that is already in the Standing Orders. That is one point. The other little point—and I know the speed with which the Clerk’s Office had to prepare this document—is that an index would also have been helpful.

These reviews are not just for the benefit of members of Parliament. Some members may know more about the Standing Orders than others, and there are members who know more about the Standing Orders than I do. But it is usual these days to turn to an index to try to help one through. There is no index in this document, which is unfortunate, and something that might be considered—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Could the member tell us where the two Appendix A’s are?

They are on page 83 and page 127. I hope this is not coming off my time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No.

On page 127 there is an Appendix A, and on page 83 there is the actual Appendix A. It is referred to twice. I just make the point that if the document had been drafted better, it would not have been done in that fashion. There is a heading Appendix A at the top left-hand side of page 83 of my copy—

💬 Darren Hughes: That is not the report.

I know what is intended—and there is a heading Appendix A at the top of page 127. It is quite simple. So I just draw that to the attention of members. It will cause confusion to lay members if Appendix A is inserted twice, and one should not have that. I know what is intended, but this report is not written just for the benefit of a few members of Parliament, it is written for the benefit of the public, and there is clearly an ambiguity. There should also be an index. If Mr Speaker is paying attention, I am pleased that I have drawn this to his notice.

In so far as the other aspects of the Review of Standing Orders is concerned, I think that from the point of view of members of the public who are interested in constitutional matters there is a question of the way in which privilege is to be regarded. It may be easy enough for the Leader of the House to skip over some of these matters, but I think the way in which the Standing Orders Committee looked at privilege requires attention. Chapter 8, “Parliamentary Privilege”, refers to Standing Order 397, “Examples of contempts”. I am sure that most members of Parliament have never read this Standing Order and would not know quite what was meant by the new change, “parliamentary precincts”, and certainly the new amendment (ea).

New paragraph (ea) of Standing Order 397 states: … “the House may treat as a contempt any of the following—(ea) as a member, failing to declare, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, any pecuniary interest that the member has in that business:”, not to mention all the 10 or 15 or so requirements of examples of contempt. In fact, there are more than that. There is a requirement about failing to produce papers. New paragraph (pa) states: “failing to obey an order of the House or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker:” I suggest paragraph (pa) is too harsh. It could be enforced very strictly, because if one fails to obey an order of the House, or a summons issued by order of the House or by the Speaker—it may be issued quite lightly in some cases—then before one knows it he or she is in a parliamentary privilege situation.

I turn to private bills, local bills, and local legislation bills and tell members that a considerable redraft has been done in Appendix B. I wonder what negotiations or discussions have taken place with local government, local authorities, and those law firms that have an interest in matters such as private bills, local bills, and local legislation bills. If any of them are interested in this matter I suggest that they get a copy of the report on the Review of Standing Orders very quickly because this area has been totally rewritten. All members of the House know that from time to time they introduce local bills, and they may have private bills from time to time, and the procedures, as I say, have been rewritten. It is important for the public to know that this is the case, so that they can take some action on it. One area that has been skipped over too lightly by the House is Standing Order 398, “Member absent without leave”, which states: “A member absent from the House on more than seven consecutive sitting days without obtaining leave of absence commits a contempt of the House.” That Standing Order has been deleted. This means that in future the Alamein Kopu’s of this world—

💬 Rod Donald: There is a replacement noted here.

I take the member’s point, and appreciate it. Whereas in other parts of this report the replacement amendment has been shown, this particular provision does not show the replacement. I appreciate Rod Donald’s comment that there is a replacement. The report states in another part that a Standing Order has been “shifted to SO 397(ea)”, but there is no such reference to the replacement in the case of the deletion of Standing Order 398. I am very pleased that Mr Donald has raised that point. Maybe someone will tell us what Standing Order 398 has been replaced with. Because, in the first instance, a member of the public who is reading Standing Order 398 would get the clear impression that the Alamein Kopu situation is being supported by this House when, in fact, Mr Donald quite properly tells me that that is not the case. I look forward to hearing from him on that particular issue.

I move to Standing Order 145(3). This is the Progressive Coalition amendment. I believe that opposition was expressed by New Zealand First to this Standing Order in the Business Committee but, of course, if there is a very big group in favour and only one group opposing, that is regarded as being enough to put the amendment through. I appreciate how the Business Committee works, but it is clear that this provision in Standing Order 145(3) is a Progressive Coalition amendment, enabling its members to be able to vote on a proxy, presumably by the Government whip, so that Mr Anderton and Mr Robson can be elsewhere without actually having to be in the House to vote, although I believe they must be in the precincts of the building. That matter could perhaps be confirmed—that is, that they are not outside the precincts of the building when that is done.

I look again at broadcasting, on page 12 of the report. The question of television coverage will have to be looked at very carefully. Whilst it may be appropriate to use excerpts from what is happening in the House, I suggest that those excerpts should be used only in relation to the debate or discussion involved at the time and should not be used on totally unrelated issues because, as I know personally, one can perhaps be enjoying some humour in the House on a particular issue, and then before one knows it that particular point is used in connection with something totally irrelevant, which may give the wrong impression. I will leave it at that particular point. I think members know what I mean. There needs to be some control on how that excerpt can be used.

One issue that concerns me is in relation to a quorum in select committees. As I read the amendment that is being put through, a quorum is half the select committee, or the higher number, so that if, as with the Justice and Electoral Committee, we have 11 members, the quorum would be six. The Government is struggling these days. It has five members on that select committee. Technically, it could have no quorum at all if other members do not cooperate. Whilst New Zealand First generally will cooperate, when we have been forced into a select committee when the House is sitting, that cooperation is not forthcoming.

I have barely begun my speech, but I have obviously run out of time. I appreciate being able to make this speech, and I am sure other members of New Zealand First will want to continue this interrupted contribution from me.

I am pleased that the review of the Standing Orders has finally come to fruition, having started over 3 years ago, before the last election. I would like to join with other members in thanking my colleagues for their contribution and for the way that we were able to work together. It is unfortunate that we were an all-male committee. Hopefully, the next Standing Orders Committee will have a better gender balance. I would like to thank David McGee in particular for his comprehensive submission to the committee, and also David Bagnall for the sterling work he has done in trying to pull together the diverse range of views of the members of the committee, and also the comprehensive submissions from members of the public and political parties.

However, I have to say that the Green Party is disappointed with the outcome of the review. While there are a number of positive changes in the document that we are debating, many necessary reforms proposed by the Green Party, and others, have failed to win backing from all the parties. I guess this is inevitable, given the committee’s decision-making process that Dr Cullen outlined. The approach essentially is that we do not divide on Standing Orders’ matters. This does not mean that all of us support every measure, but, on the other hand, a number of significant proposals that might have attained majority support have not been adopted. As a result, rituals that became redundant last century are still retained, despite the best efforts of this party’s representative in particular.

I would like to highlight a few key areas where I believe the committee has failed to do its job. The first of those areas is New Zealand’s treaty ratification process. That is where we reserve our strongest criticism. New Zealand continues to be locked in an era where kings and queens controlled foreign policy. We believe it is simply not acceptable for minority Governments to retain the Crown prerogative, and with it the power to bind future Governments to international treaty commitments.

All treaties should receive approval by Parliament before New Zealand becomes a party to them. In that regard I would like to acknowledge the comprehensive submission from Professor Jane Kelsey to the Standing Orders Committee. She outlined very cogently all the arguments in favour of changing the treaty-making process. In particular, she said: “A range of multilateral regional and bilateral economic agreements now constrain the domestic regulatory policy and legislative options of domestic Governments in unprecedented ways. Unlike many other international treaties, these are enforceable through the imposition of retaliatory economic sanctions. The behind-the-border effect is to circumscribe a nation’s economic and political sovereignty and the powers of its domestic Parliament, courts, and the executive. These agreements often have an effect equivalent to entrenched legislation, yet they can be signed and ratified by the executive in power at a particular time and are not subject to the constitutional requirements that apply even to an ordinary statute.” That is why Keith Locke introduced his International Treaties Bill to Parliament, and why the Green Party made strong submissions on the Standing Orders that relate to international treaties.

We regret that the committee has not implemented the two unanimous specific recommendations of last Parliament’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to change the Standing Orders, which were made when it considered Keith Locke’s bill. The first was to widen the scope of treaties to capture any bilateral treaty. The final decision on whether such a treaty should be considered by Parliament is to be made by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and not the Government as is currently the case. The second was that the interim report of that committee suggested the national interest analysis on international treaties be expanded to include Waitangi obligations, human rights, local government, and existing international obligations. We are very disappointed that this recommendation, made over 2 years ago, has still been left with the ministry. It is time for Parliament to take charge of its own destiny in this regard. While we are pleased that there is now a 6-monthly list of treaties that is circulated to the committee, we need to go much, much further than that when it comes to the treaty-making process.

We also believe that this Parliament needs to go much, much further with the position of the Leader of the Opposition. This position is an historical anachronism that has no place in an MMP Parliament. National does not even represent a majority of the Opposition members in this House. We have a situation where the official leader of the Opposition does not command the support of a majority of the parties that that person is supposed to represent. Further, under current rules it is entirely possible for the so-called Leader of the Opposition to have a confidence and supply agreement with the very Government that it is meant to oppose, which is why we recommended an amendment to the Standing Orders to add the words: “or with a formal confidence and supply agreement with a Government party”, so that any party in that position would not be eligible to provide the Leader of the Opposition. While expressing no ill will towards Don Brash, it is patently ridiculous that he should represent the Green Party in Parliament, at public functions, and on bodies such as the Intelligence and Security Committee. I suggest that United, ACT, and New Zealand First may share our concerns about that particular matter.

However, we are pleased that the review looks beyond the demise of the draconian Electoral Integrity Act, to define how members are represented if they cease to be a member of the party for which they were originally elected. Party recognition will now include members who stood for a component party of an umbrella party that they leave after the election. That is a step forward that United Future might find useful at some future point.

A number of other positive suggestions have been adopted, particularly from the Green Party. The bells now ring when the House rises, and not until it rises. That was one of our early suggestions and it has been in practice for some time. The Thursday urgency is another one of our suggestions. We are pleased to see that apply. The change to proxy voting is something that we were pleased to have contributed to. I think that is a step in the right direction. However, I am disappointed that the committee declined to adopt several other Green Party initiatives, including an investiture vote, Parliament sitting in alphabetical order until the Speaker is elected, constructive votes of confidence, and the proportional distribution of select committee chairs and deputy chairs. I am particularly disappointed that the Clerk’s proposal for select committee orders was not adopted. I encourage members to read page 11 of the Standing Orders Committee report. It states: “The Clerk submitted that a genuine prospect that inquiry reports will be debated in the House and the establishment of a transparent mechanism for this to occur would enhance the scrutiny offered by committees.” It is a shame that we have not gone there.

I am also disappointed that Matt Robson’s attempt to modernise the prayer has been rejected. It was time we did that. It should be reviewed, especially in the light of the growing diversity of society and Parliament over the last 40 years. I am equally disappointed that the committee refused to modernise the dress code. Members’ standard of dress should be at their own discretion, subject, of course, to the Speaker’s responsibility to maintain order and decorum. Insisting that male members wear ties and jackets does not ensure order and decorum—in fact, quite the opposite. Some of the most vile, insulting, and unparliamentary statements that I have heard in this House have emanated from members known for their high standard of dress. I am sick of trying to explain to schoolchildren, as I did in Blackball yesterday, that the behaviour of some MPs is unbecoming and that those members are disrespectful to their colleagues and to the Speaker. I urged those children not to follow our poor example in the way they treat each other and their teachers. The onus is on the Standing Orders Committee to take seriously the submission from Wellington High School, set out on page 23 of report, to improve our behaviour in this Parliament and to return to the question of a code of conduct, which was proposed by Ross Robertson.

For me as a first-term member of this House it has been a unique and rewarding experience to be so closely involved in this major review of the Standing Orders—the first of its kind in more than 4 years. I would also like to pass on my compliments both to yourself, as the chair, and also to David McGee, as adviser to the committee, for the excellent way that you took us through a maze of, at times, very complex matters.

I want, today, to speak briefly about a matter that the committee has decided, with my full support, to continue with—that is, the parliamentary prayer. The first question I would like to ask is whether we should open Parliament each day with prayer. The decision to do that was taken by the New Zealand House of Representatives on 26 May 1854, and, accordingly, our daily prayer continues a tradition that has now lasted for almost 150 years. I believe we should continue that tradition.

It never seems to occur to people who, with the zeal of a rebellious teenager, want to “throw off tradition”, that a practice becomes a tradition because it has survived the test of time. Therefore, when we are looking to change tradition, our initial approach should be one of great caution, since tradition links us back to something that our culture has valued through many successive generations. Prayer, in my view, is important because it is a specific recognition of the transcendent dimension of life. When each of us—from the Prime Minister to back-benchers—takes a moment to bring the transcendent to mind, we not only demonstrate our essential equality of dignity as fellow New Zealanders—something that is a strong part of our egalitarian ethos—but also we deny ultimate authority over our nation to merely human opinion. When we deny the transcendent we have moved from secular without a capital “s” to secular with a capital “s”. We then immediately place ourselves among those States that are closed to the transcendent—we become a closed State. We saw examples of that in the 20th century in fascism and communism. I do not think any of us want to go down that road.

The next question is what form should the prayer take. I suggest we should continue with a Christian prayer. I say that, based on my examination of the 2001 census figures, and the breakdown of religious affiliation. I find from those figures that 55.7 percent of New Zealanders identify themselves as Christians. The next-largest religious grouping in New Zealand is Buddhists, who make up 1.08 percent of the New Zealand population, followed closely by Hindus on 1.04 percent. No other single religious group is more than 1 percent.

New Zealand, in terms of its religious affiliation, is overwhelmingly a Christian nation today, as it has been continuously since the prayer was first introduced almost 150 years ago—in 1854. Accordingly, in my view, there is no clear case to be made for a change, and those who propose a change fail to recognise that a minority of the population would then be imposing its view on the majority. Are we to settle for the tyranny of the minority? I think not.

The answer to this little dilemma, I think, can easily be found and explained through the virtue of tolerance. If I, as a Christian, were living in a Muslim country, such as Indonesia or Turkey, or a Hindu country, such as India, I would certainly expect, and also respect, the opening of their Parliament with a Muslim or a Hindu prayer. Likewise, to be consistent with my logic, if another religious group—be it Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever—were to become the majority in New Zealand, then tolerance would oblige me, at that point in time, to support a change. With those few remarks, I commend the revised Standing Orders and the committee’s recommendation to this House.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise for the ACT party to commend this review to the House. The report properly reflects a precedent that could well be followed by other committees. A number of matters were exhaustively investigated, certainly with enough detail for a sense of what might be, and opportunities there might be to further improve the Standing Orders. They have been recorded in this committee report, notwithstanding the eventual decision not to recommend them. The committee operates by consensus, or by a form of majority, that recognises the undesirability, as the Hon Dr Michael Cullen said, of a Government using its majority to force through changes to the Standing Orders. I therefore was pleased, as a relatively new member, to see that the discussion foreshadows changes that might well come when the mood of caucuses might have changed.

I look, for example, at the areas of functions of select committees, the recognition of the position of smaller parties in allowing for non-voting members on a more routine basis—I am sorry, that is actually a recommendation, which I welcome for ACT. Mr Rod Donald spoke on the provisions for treaty review and treaty examination. The ACT party endorses the position that the Green Party took on that matter. We believe that the view that anything that looks like a treaty is a matter for Crown prerogative is a dated view. That position has been taken on domestic treaties—that is, settlements of treaty grievances. It draws on the precedent of a Crown prerogative to enter into foreign treaties. For Parliament to simply approve, or not approve, is inappropriate. I hope that, the next time the Standing Orders are substantively reviewed, this is addressed by this House in a way that properly reflects that Parliament should be sovereign. The effect of international treaties these days on domestic law is very much greater than when the convention was laid down. it was a matter of executive prerogative.

We have, I understand, more than 200 treaties that are now directly incorporated. The courts are seeking to interpret law, including statute law, in accordance with international treaties, even where that is a strained interpretation. Parliament should not allow the examination of treaties to be as confined as it has been in the past.

It would be presumptuous for me to comment too exhaustively on other aspects of the committee’s work. It was obvious on the couple of occasions when I was pleased to be able to sit on the committee, as a substitute, that the experience that was being brought to play on the Standing Orders was very necessary, and considerably more than the experience I had, and I too wish to add the appreciation of the role played by Mr McGee as a very experienced Clerk, in guiding MPs away from temporary enthusiasms and rushes of blood to the head. He made sure it looked at some of the things that, from his perspective as a manager of business and a manager of committees, should be looked at, even though members were not necessarily particularly interested in them. I commend his role in that committee.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There may be some misunderstanding about the Business Committee agreement on this matter. I consulted with my colleague Dail Jones and he has made it very clear to me that there was never any agreement on the part of New Zealand First to prescribe for this debate. In the nature of things, we have considerable time left for this debate to continue. I would like to know why we are being confined to one speech per party.

I thank the member for the point of order, but that is exactly as it has been for every report of a similar nature we have had before this Parliament in previous years. I have made my decision, and that is it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I will not have any argument on this. I have made my ruling.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you telling me that in previous years, on the question of a debate on the report of the Standing Orders Committee, there has been only one speaker from any other party?

No, I am not. I am saying that there has been a maximum of two speakers from the major parties, and one speaker from each of the minor parties. There has not been a change to that in recent times. The question is—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Please be seated. I will not have any further comment about my ruling on acceptance of a closure motion.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Please be seated.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The member will leave the Chamber if he raises a point of order that disputes my ruling.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Let me make it very clear to you, Mr Speaker, that a fundamental right of members of Parliament in our type of democracy is the right to raise a point of order, without being coerced out of it by threats of what might happen should a point of order be raised.

Once.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Now, you know full well that it is within your powers—and not outside the Standing Orders, or any other precedent that I am aware of, because I have been here a long time. I have heard lengthy debates on the Standing Orders, and what they mean, when there were just three parties in this House This is an open debate, and it is within your power to allow a proper discussion of the report of the Standing Orders Committee, which we are considering. To confine a party to one 10-minute speech, when other parties have not taken their time, in an open debate, unlimited, is by its very context, wrong. If it is unlimited, surely that suggests that there was meant to be more than one speech from any one given party in this House, otherwise it would be limited. But it is not.

I have made my ruling. The question is that the question be now put.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I will not have any further discussion on my ruling that I accept the closure motion. That is the end of the matter. The debate is not unlimited. There is no unlimited debate in this Parliament. This debate is limited by the closure motion. I outlined that to the Business Committee. There was no opposition to that from a member of that member’s party.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Please be seated.

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You can’t say that. I did not agree to that.

I did not say that the member agreed to that, at all. I said that at the Business Committee, where the member’s party was represented, I said what the tariff was and there was no comment on that.

💬 Dail Jones: Silence is not consent. I did not agree to it.

That may well be the case, but I have accepted the closure motion. The question is that the question be now put.

That is not a point of order. The decision of the Chair is not to be entered into when the Chair accepts a closure motion.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was seeking your advice and assistance as to why you had not taken my point of order. You would not know what my point of order would have been until I had opened my mouth. Indeed, you are only now aware of what it is I would have said to you, but you did not even give me the opportunity to have my point of order heard, and I would like to know why.

If that was the case, I apologise to the member. I made a mistake.