Points of Order — Speaking Slots—Allocation

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I could have the House’s indulgence, because the House will not know of some of the circumstances on which I need a ruling.

As a consequence of the outcome of the last election, you ruled that for every third first reading New Zealand First was entitled to a second speaking slot, and it would come off the National Party’s allocation. However, it was agreed that rather than have that as a regular thing, there would be a discussion between the whips of New Zealand First and myself to decide the allocation of those speaking slots. Up until now that has worked very well; by mutual agreement we have given some and taken some, and it has worked out well.

Yesterday I received a call from the senior New Zealand First whip, Peter Brown, asking whether we would consider giving that party a second speaking slot on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I told him I would give it consideration and get back to him this morning. In the meantime a discussion ensued from Jill Pettis, who had put a proposal to all the whips in the House suggesting that we extend the debate by half an hour so that all parties could get an extra speaking slot of 5 minutes. I understand that, generally, that had been agreed to, except for one party, which I understand indicated to Jill Pettis that it would not agree to it. Jill Pettis emailed me and rang me back about midday to tell me that, unfortunately, the proposal had not been agreed to.

In the meantime, rather than the discussions that normally take place occurring between myself and Peter Brown, the senior whip—who is now in Dunedin—unfortunately, the acting senior whip for New Zealand First, Dail Jones, went directly to you, Mr Speaker, to ask whether you would give the third speaking slot in the debate to New Zealand First. The fact is that, under the understanding we have, the discussions should take place between the whips, and if we cannot agree, then, obviously, it is up to you to make a decision. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Mr Jones went directly to you and broke the agreement.

I just want to make two points. In whatever decision you make, firstly, you might consider that this will be the 95th first reading, and, as a consequence, if a speaking slot is to be allocated to New Zealand First on every third bill, then on this bill the slot would go to National; and, secondly, in this particular issue, given that the discussion that should have taken place did not take place, it would be fair for you to consider that the allocation of the slot to National would be appropriate.

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

I do not need any assistance on this matter at this stage. The Speaker calls members to speak under Standing Order 102. In the first instance, this must be negotiated with the whips—and we are talking about the 11th speaking slot only, and no other. I cannot impose, unless there is a complete and fundamental disagreement between the two whips, but I suggest they get together. If they cannot come to an agreement, then I will make a decision at that point. But I hope the whips can come to an agreement about it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to raise this when we got to the foreshore legislation, but since you have now turned your mind to this Standing Order, now is as good a time as any.

We also have been in receipt of some pretty extraordinary communications from the whips that I think you will end up having to adjudicate on, and it would be helpful if, before the debate, you were to do so. The information I have received is so incredible that I have difficulty believing it. If it is not right, I hope the Government will correct me. I have been told that the Government has decided that even though it has five slots in the debate, it will not allow Mrs Turia to speak. She will not be allowed to speak. The only way she will be able to speak is for her to seek the leave of the House. That means that I will have to make a decision on whether to allow her to speak.

I am in favour of allowing parliamentary debate, but if she is a Labour member, it would appear to me that under Standing Order 102, as she has some seniority, you could give her an assurance that she would actually get that call. I would not want to think that the Labour Party Government was manipulating the House just because it has some well-publicised divisions. That is not a reason to have extra slots given to it.

Mr Speaker, there is ample precedent for your resolving the issue in the same way as a similar issue was resolved back in 1992, on the question of the Sealord’s debate. You will recall that one evening saw an attempt by the then Labour Party, in collusion with National, to have its Māori affairs spokesman, Koro Wētere, speak, even though he was not the senior member in the House. You will recall that that was a debate I point-of-ordered out of existence that night, my having been denied a chance to speak on that issue, and the next day I was expelled from the National Party caucus. If we are to come to this case with a degree of justice and equity, then perhaps the precedent would apply this time as well.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I intend to apply this in the fairest way possible. I always listen to the Hon Richard Prebble carefully. Whoever speaks in Labour’s slots is not a matter for the House; essentially, it is a matter for the party. I have heard what the member said, I have heard what Mr Carter said, and I hope that the matter can be resolved before we get into the debate, which is still some time off.

I am going to seek leave, which may actually help with the point I raised earlier. Indeed, it follows on from the point that Mr Richard Prebble has made. I seek leave of the House to extend the debate of 2 hours on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to 2 hours and 20 minutes, to give two extra speaking slots—one to Mrs Tariana Turia and the other to the National Party. In the event that you make a decision, New Zealand First will get two and we will get three.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will put that leave to the House. Is there any objection? There is.