Points of Order — Standing Order 38—Minister Not Present

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek clarification. The Government has generously given leave for the time that was lost last night to be made up next Wednesday. But I suspect that the Government’s intention is to subvert that as well by moving the House into urgency on Tuesday, which means that Wednesday technically will not occur because, as we know, we have this archaic ritual whereby Wednesday is not recognised during urgency. So can I seek clarification from the Leader of the House as to whether he is actually acting in good faith, allowing members to have the 2½ hours, or whether it is just another tricky deal? Is he intending not to give members the time he took away from us last night and simply to subvert it by urgency?

In the business statement at the start of today’s sitting I said that the Government intends to take urgency on Tuesday. If the business I outlined is finished by 1 o’clock on Wednesday, I will be very happy for the member to have his 2½ hours of members’ time.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Has the matter been clarified for the member?

I seek leave, in the event that the Government does not allow for the 2½ hours of members’ time to be granted on Wednesday, 13 April, for the House to set aside the time to make up the 2½ hours on Tuesday, 3 May.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is an important point here about the leave. The member referred to the Government not allowing the time. It is in Parliament’s hands, once urgency is moved, as to how long the business takes, not the Government’s hands.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave was sought to put that matter—it shall be put first. Is there any objection? There is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I advise you that yesterday I had the benefit of seeing a delayed broadcast of Parliament’s question time. I want to put New Zealand First’s position very, very clearly. Frankly, I believe that some members of this House are wasting question time seriously. Although the issue today is very, very important, nevertheless it is 35 minutes since the House was called, and it means that some of us are having our right to put our issues seriously compromised. I believe, Madam Speaker, that if you look at Hansard over a long period of time, you will know who the main offenders are.

With the greatest respect, we are getting frightfully sick and tired of it. If members cannot make their points of order succinctly, then we should move on with parliamentary business. Around the country hundreds of thousands of people are waiting on New Zealand First’s questions, and I think they should have an answer.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I agree with the member. I have reviewed Hansard. As the member well knows, last week he made three spurious points of order that occupied some time in this House. But as I indicated yesterday, the rules will now be applied rigidly.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In that regard, during the course of Dr Nick Smith’s previous point of order there was an interjection that I noted from your body language you did see.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I could not hear who it was, though. I knew there was an interjection.

Even during Mr Peters’ point of order just a few moments ago, a number of people perhaps only laughed but, none the less, interrupted that point of order. It certainly was not heard in silence.

The Hon Bill English has a question set down for later in question time. He made one comment during a point of order—we do not challenge your ruling, but he probably was unlucky, in the circumstances, to have been slung out of the House. We would appreciate it, Madam Speaker, if you would consider allowing him back into the House to ask that question. Certainly, the custom has been that when Ministers—and I can think of a number—have angered the Speaker in the past, they have been given a great deal of leniency because of questions addressed to them.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I take the member’s point. The Hon Bill English will be allowed back into the House for that question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, and I apologise to Mr Peters. I am forced under the Standing Orders to raise my point of order at the first available opportunity, and, again, this is it. I draw your attention to Hansard, which I have sent you a copy of, and to the comments you made to the House last night. I invite you to correct the record, because you told the House last night that you had had no advice of what Dr Cullen was proposing. I have now learnt that at the Business Committee, which you chaired, he in fact made that very threat. I think you should have told the House that you knew he was intending to use that mechanism, instead of leaving me with the impression that you were as stunned as I was by his action in staging a walk-out.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I will take one contribution on this.

As a person who spoke at the Business Committee, my recollection is that I gave a general indication that the Government would look at other mechanisms to achieve its objectives, not specifically this one. I can certainly say, and can assure the House, that I had no communication with the Speaker about the action I took at 7.30 last night.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am happy to review Hansard. My recollection is that the allegation was of collusion, and that is what objection was taken to. Of course, the matter was raised at the Business Committee, but no decision was taken. I looked for members when I came into the House and when the point of order was raised by the National whip.

Urgent Question—Leave to Ask

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that we set down an urgent question for your consideration today, but on the balance of things, and on the advice you have received, you have decided that it should be turned down. However, we believe that it is a matter of particular importance. It relates to a ministerial action that has possibly led to a breach of a suppression order. We therefore seek leave to ask an urgent question in the House this afternoon.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the urgent question. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection. The urgent question will not be put.