Motions — Auckland Mosques—Attack

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I intend to seek leave shortly to move a motion condemning the attacks on several mosques in Auckland, like the motion we passed when the Jewish graves were desecrated. But I would first like to point out that I brought this motion to the Business Committee yesterday, so the party whips have been informed—because I know that the House does not like such things to be sprung on it. I seek leave to move without debate members’ notice of motion No. 2, which reads: “That this House condemn the attacks on several mosques in Auckland on 10 July, extend its sympathy and support to the Islamic community in New Zealand, and declare that expressions of religious hatred have no place in this country.”

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

The Business Committee agreeing to the moving of the motion is not the same as the House agreeing. The point New Zealand First wishes to make as a point of order is that if we are to condemn attacks on mosques, what about burial places, churches, synagogues, and other places around this country that have been similarly attacked, if we are to have some balance and fairness? My point, again, is that it is one thing for the Business Committee to agree, but other members of this House may have a different view and a more neutral and fair one.

I am responding in part to Mr Peters. I was at the Business Committee meeting, and I think it is fair to say that the Business Committee did not agree to this motion being moved. At least two parties indicated that they would disagree with the motion being moved—not the Labour Party, I may say, or the Progressive Party.

I first point out that there is a precedent. I mentioned in my introduction that we had a specific motion directed at the Jewish community over the desecration of their graves. It is true that there was objection at the Business Committee yesterday, but I was phoned subsequent to the Business Committee meeting by a representative of the party that had objected the most, who said that the party would not be objecting to this motion.

Thank you. I have noted those matters that have been raised in the context of the point of order. I shall put the matter again, and then members will either agree or not agree, but they will not debate the matter. Is there any objection to the motion being moved? There is no objection.

I think we are all shocked at the vandalising of several Auckland mosques on 10 July, and the—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Point of order—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The member needs to move the motion.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member in full flow, but this issue arose yesterday. Yesterday the Prime Minister sought leave to move a motion without debate, and after that motion had been moved, 40 minutes of speeches followed. Today we have just granted Mr Locke leave to move a motion without debate, and he is about to make a speech. I think there needs to be some clarification. If we are going to have motions accompanied by speeches, then they are with debate, it seems to me. We cannot have a motion moved without debate that then invites everyone to make a speech about it.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think the member makes a very good point. We have fallen into a bit of a habit over recent weeks of seeking leave to move a motion without debate and then every party speaking to it, which to some extent makes a mockery of the term “without debate”. It does seem to me that perhaps it would be helpful at this point if we did revert to a stricter interpretation, and if members are really seeking leave for a motion to be moved with party leaders making brief comments, then it is appropriate to seek leave in that form rather than seeking leave without debate.

Speaking to the point of order, I did contact that Clerk’s Office yesterday to clarify this matter. As Dr Cullen has indicated, there is a precedent of moving motions without debate. The interpretation seems to be that it is not a full 2-hour debate with all kinds of speakers, but allowance is given for a representative from each party to contribute. The Clerk’s Office gave me that explanation. If I should use a slightly different wording in my seeking of leave, I am quite happy to accommodate that, but that was the interpretation I was given, because of the precedents in this House.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The sort of motion that was moved yesterday, I think, falls into quite a different category, because the motion itself, as I understand it, was circulated prior to the House sitting, and agreement was sought from all parties for the Prime Minister to move the motion on the basis that it would then be spoken to by party leaders, in the main, or representatives, and that Parliament would then want to support such a motion with some unanimity. Now, Mr Locke brought his proposals to the Business Committee, and they were not progressed in that manner. What he has sought is leave to move his motion without debate. He should simply be required to stand on his feet, read his motion, and sit down.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thank members for their contributions, and I certainly agree that there is a contradiction in moving a motion without debate and then debating it. However, I think in this particular instance, because the understanding has been that that is the convention that has arisen, we should proceed and see this as the last time upon which there will be an opportunity to do so.

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Quiet, please. I have not finished my ruling. We should do that in the interests of fairness, because the member was led to believe that in fact that was the convention and the practice when he took the trouble to raise the matter, and it was not raised at that point in the Business Committee. But I do think that in future, if leave is sought it is to be either without debate—meaning no debate—or with debate. That will be the ruling for the future. [Interruption] No—that is my ruling. I want no further discussion on it. I just ask members to please make their contributions brief.

💬 Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to suggest that the motion should be put again. This is members’ day, and there are some important bills set down. I listened very carefully to what Mr Keith Locke said, and he said he wanted to move the motion without debate. On that basis, the ACT party agreed. We did not deny leave, because we thought it would take 2 minutes. We now see that it will potentially take half an hour or 40 minutes and cause us some trouble further down the track. What I respectfully ask you to do—now that it has been clarified that when a member moves a motion without debate, it actually means that there will be a debate—is to ask Mr Locke to seek leave again, with everyone understanding, not just Mr Keith Locke understanding, that when leave is sought without debate, it means with debate.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I have much the same point. The reason why we did not object to Mr Locke moving his motion is that the term of this Parliament is running very short. Otherwise he would have had the opportunity to put his motion on the Order Paper in the way that most members do. This is not a motion that has come from the Government where there is an expression of a particular view that is held by the overall Parliament of New Zealand; it is Mr Locke’s own motion. I think Mr Hide is quite right. Had we known there was going to be considerable time taken over this the result of the leave request would have been different.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: New Zealand First agrees with Mr Hide on this matter, with the exception of his closing conclusion. I think that anyone out there who heard the suggestion that a motion be moved without debate for debate will wonder what we are getting up to here. So perhaps he should move a motion for debate and see what the House thinks of that. Then it will look marginally sensible.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think we are in some difficulty in that the leave has already been sought and granted, and—

💬 Hon Members: Without debate.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, the leave to actually move the motion has been sought and granted. We have moved beyond that point, and we cannot un-grant that leave at this stage. If that were the case we would be in considerable trouble on any number of occasions in this House. There is no basis for putting the leave again. That has been done in the past when leave has been denied, and then some clarification has ensued and the leave is put again. But one cannot keep revisiting leave once it has been granted.

I suggest to the House that first of all it is in our own hands how long the debate takes, and I certainly intend to be extraordinarily brief in response to this motion on behalf of the Labour Party. I think the ruling you gave, Madam Speaker, is actually about as close to the wisdom of Solomon as one can get in these circumstances. What you said is that the member was led to believe that he would be able to speak, and therefore you should respect that indication he has received from the Clerk’s Office, but from this time on, people will have to seek leave in the appropriate form if there is to be any debate and revert to the more rational position that if leave is sought without debate then there is no debate—the motion is simply moved and put to the House.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: May I suggest that a solution around this might be for the member to seek leave to have the debate. I agree with the member; leave has already been granted twice for motions without debate. Then members have an opportunity, in the light of what we have said, to keep it a constrained debate, if they wish, or to object.

Yes, I will accede to your wishes. I seek leave to debate the motion; I hope the debate will be very brief. I move, That this House condemn the attacks on several mosques in Auckland on 10 July, extend its sympathy and support to the Islamic community in New Zealand, and declare that expressions of religious hatred have no place in this country.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be debated.

Motion agreed to.