Business Statement

Next week the House will go into a 3-week adjournment, which covers the Easter to Anzac Day period. When the House resumes on Tuesday, 1 May, priority will be given to the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, and the remaining stages of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, and the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. The first Wednesday, of course, will be a members’ day.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for telling us what the business will be when we return. I did not pick up what he intends to do about the merger bill in respect of AgriQuality Ltd and Asure New Zealand Ltd. We heard this morning that there is some commercial urgency around this particular matter. The Government sent the bill to the Commerce Committee on Tuesday for report back by 30 April. That is a very, very, short report-back time and, certainly, a difficult proposition, given that the committee had not anticipated receiving the bill, and that most members have diary engagements that make meeting that commitment exceptionally difficult. The prospect of report back to caucuses, as required by a coalition partner, is also difficult. Of course, if the period were to be extended by 1 week, then because of the Tuesday arrangement we would effectively need 2 weeks to get that done; even then, we would be pushing it. So I wonder whether we might allow the Leader of the House to explain what those commercial imperatives are.

That is certainly not a matter for a point of order. My understanding is that as the chair of the Commerce Committee, Mr Brownlee has expressed a wish for the select committee not to meet during the 3-week adjournment, as that might be somewhat strenuous for him. I understand also that he will be seeking leave to extend the report-back date by 2 weeks. I have no objection to that leave being sought and granted, and we will proceed with the bill after that.

There is no agreement to extend the bill by leave for 2 weeks. [Interruption] Yes, I know he has offered. There has been a long discussion in the select committee, and there is no agreement to do that. But if there is some particularly pressing commercial reason why that should happen, I find it surprising that the National Party has not been told what that is.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to take some care in what I say now, because this bill is being considered at a select committee. There has been some discussion in closed hearings. Both myself and a lawyer from the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit briefed the committee on the reasons, and I do not think it is appropriate to repeat them in the Chamber.

I think it might assist members if—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I want to clear that up, if I may. There was no reason given for—

No, I am sorry. I am sure it would be helpful, Mr Brownlee, but I have a more fundamental issue, and that is these matters should be raised at the Business Committee. That is the whole purpose of the Business Committee. They were not raised at the meeting on Tuesday.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The reason they were not raised on Tuesday is that the bill at that point had not been dealt with by the House. Secondly, there is no Business Committee meeting before the next report-back date. If there is something very pressing, we should know about it. I have listened to the briefings, our people have listened to briefings, and despite the protestations from the Minister that he had someone from the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit giving appropriate advice, no reason was given for the speed and haste around this bill.

There are two points. Firstly, of course, if leave is not sought, then the Government is not going to be distressed by that. It means the bill will come back when the Government wants the bill brought back, and these matters can then be discussed at that point.

But, of course, the select committee is perfectly capable of dealing with this bill, given its very limited nature and content, if it actually meets during the adjournment. I think it is worth saying that adjournments are not times when all those except Ministers simply disappear to the four winds, and put their feet up and enjoy themselves.

I am not prepared to accept that comment from a Government that is having an adjournment only because it has not got enough work to keep Parliament going. Everyone knows that, because most people in this country can read an Order Paper. So the Minister should not start that sort of nonsense.

The second point I would make—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Brownlee; please be seated. I listened to your point of order and say that it is still not a point of order within the Standing Orders. But I tell the member that he was perfectly entitled to seek leave if he wished to do so. That is the correct way to proceed.