Business Statement

Next week in the House I will be moving urgency for the following business to be debated: the remaining stages of the Aquaculture Reform Bill, the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), the Taxation (Annual Rates, Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill; all first readings on the Order Paper; the introduction and first reading of the Prisoners and Victims Compensation Bill; the Government notice of motion relating to the setting up of the special select committee to review the constitution; and the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and possibly the Identity, Citizenship, and Travel Documents Bill. The Law Society has requested that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill be done under urgency next week. If the above business is concluded, the adjournment debate will be moved. The motion will include the House sitting dates for 2005.

Can the Leader of the House tell members whether he is saying that the adjournment debate will be included in the urgency motion. Further, can he indicate for how long he would expect a bill like the Aquaculture Reform Bill to consume the House’s time?

I would imagine that bill would take the longest of the list of matters on the Order Paper that I have outlined. It is a matter for, obviously, the House in Committee and the Chairs of the Committee how long the debate will take. It is very largely, also, in the hands of the Opposition. But now that the Opposition is committed to 4 weeks’ annual holiday, I am sure it would be keen to finish next week.

💬 Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Leader of the House when the Police Amendment Bill (No 2) will be coming up, because I note that we are now past the third anniversary of the interrupted debate on the second reading.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Please be seated. There is a convention that the leading Opposition spokesperson asks questions on behalf of the Opposition. If the member wants a question asked, I am sure that if he approached Mr Brownlee, Mr Brownlee could encompass that question. I did that often when I had that particular role when I was in Opposition. That is my ruling and that is the way it stands.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It does raise an interesting point. How can the interests of the minor parties under an MMP Parliament be represented in the regime that you have just outlined?

Speaking to the point of order very briefly, I say that there is no requirement at all for any questions to be allowed of the Leader of the House on the business statement. That itself is only a matter of convention and courtesy, effectively, on the part of the Government. Certainly, I think it would become ridiculous if we had a round robin of every party in the House asking questions about items on the Order Paper.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We are doing this by leave of the House. Technically, we should not be doing it. It has always been a tradition that we do it. I suggest that if members want to change the rules, they have a Standing Orders Committee that sits, and it can change the rules. But I am required to have the rules adhered to.