Civil Union Bill

Before we commence the third reading of the bill, I want to say that when I called the second reading I said there were to be no injections and I thought that the resulting debate was a first-rate one, with all points of view expressed. I am now applying that rule to the third reading. Further, when I am asked for calls, I will call in the order of the usual third reading party list, but I will give preference to members who did not speak in the second reading, if two people seek the call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I, clearly, was not here when you applied that ruling, but my real point is this: we are members of Parliament engaging in public debate in a debating chamber, so surely members should have the right to interject if they feel moved to do so, rather than have a restrictive environment in which no one may interject, at all. Some of the views about to be expressed today are offensive to various members. I think that, in the true tradition of a parliamentary democracy, members have the right to reflect what their opinions might be, even if that be by way of interjection. With the greatest respect, I think to do anything less than that is to deny people their rights in this Parliament.

I do not. I applied the rule at the second reading of the bill, and every single member of Parliament agreed with me—every single member who was present.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I don’t.

Well, the member is wrong on this occasion. If he has a different point of view, he can raise it with the Standing Orders Committee. I am the Speaker and I am applying the rule.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I spoke to the second reading, and I can tell you that the rule was not applied throughout the course of my speech.

It was while I was in the Chair. I will be applying it in this debate and asking the other officers of Parliament also to apply it while they are in the Chair.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the second reading of the bill, you permitted people to split their normal 10-minute slot into two 5-minute slots. Would you be prepared to adopt the same procedure during this debate, as well?

That is actually part of the Standing Orders. It can be done very easily. I have already been advised by one party that it will split some of its speeches. All the member has to do is to advise me and I will announce that there will be two 5-minute speeches. I will give a brief ring on the bell at 4 minutes, and then at 5 minutes I will give a longer ring.

Third Reading