Points of Order — Motion of No Confidence—Leave to Move

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ motion No. 3, standing in my name on the Order Paper, which reads as follows: “That this House has no confidence in the Speaker given her ruling in the matter of privilege made out against Taito Phillip Field, for the reasons that, having been given the responsibility of exercising the very wide discretion under Standing Order 399 of determining matters that should be referred to the Privileges Committee of this Parliament, she has chosen to exercise that discretion in such a narrow, legalistic and technical manner as to make it impossible for the Privileges Committee to ascertain the truth regarding the allegations against Taito Phillip Field, or to uphold and protect the standards and reputation of this Parliament.”

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

I seek leave for a debate to be held on members’ notice of motion No. 3 in the name of Dr Donald Brash, the debate to be held in conjunction with the debate on Government order of the day No. 2, and with the vote on that motion to be taken at the end of the vote on Government order of the day No. 2.

The proposal by the Leader of the House is that we should hear not only the imprest supply motion—the confidence motion on the Government—but also the motion moved by Dr Don Brash, and that the 3 hours set aside for the imprest supply debate should be a debate concurrent with Dr Brash’s motion, thereby allowing the House no additional time to consider Dr Brash’s motion. If Dr Brash’s motion were put, it would be an unlimited debate. If Dr Cullen wants to indicate that the imprest supply debate may now become an unlimited time debate, then, of course, that would affect our decision on this matter. But we are not about to have our democratic rights trampled on by a Leader of the House who is playing fast and loose with the Standing Orders.

If the member understood anything about the Standing Orders, he would not have had that motion moved in the name of Dr Don Brash in any case, because that motion has no virtue in relation to the Standing Orders of this Parliament. The imprest supply debate is a 3-hour debate. National members will have some seven or eight speeches in that particular debate, and they may shout as much as they like—[Interruption]

💬 Madam SPEAKER: If members wish to remain to hear this point, I ask Dr Cullen to start again so the rest of us can hear his point. We heard Mr Brownlee in relative silence. I therefore ask the House to respect Dr Cullen in his comment.

The imprest supply debate is a 3-hour debate that can cover any matter in front of Parliament. National will have some seven or eight speakers in that debate—far more than the normal ration under a so-called open-ended debate, when the closure is usually taken after two National speeches, two Labour speeches and one speech each from the other parties around the House. I have also offered Mr Brownlee to extend the general debate tomorrow by an extra half an hour—so there would be some 18 speeches in that debate—and to take the vote on Dr Brash’s motion at the end of that. Given that the motion has absolutely no virtue, it is extraordinarily generous that I have offered the Opposition members the chance to debate it. They are the ones interjecting during a point of order, yet they claim that others are bringing the House into disrepute.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No, I have heard from both sides, and although clarification of the point of order can be sought, it is not a matter of debate. Leave was sought. Is there any objection? There is.