Electoral Finance Bill

Madam Speaker, you have been recalled to rule on whether the question should be put. There have been speeches and points of order against putting the question after 27 speeches, which I consider have covered the debate on Part 2.

It is interesting that the number 27 comes up, because that is how many amendments the National Party is moving on this particular part. I make the point that a number of those amendments are being agreed to by the Government.

National has taken the time on this bill to produce a single Supplementary Order Paper, in order that the House might expedite its business in a reasonable manner and so that no surprises would be dropped on the Table at various times. Our hope was that that approach would be respected during the progress of this debate, and that the opportunity to speak would be given to all of the members on our side of the Chamber who had prepared speeches on each of those amendments. Apparently, there was some sort of misunderstanding last evening that led to a bit of a change in that tactic today. But I do not think it is particularly useful that we go down that track too much further, because this is far too important a bill.

So here we have a situation where, at about 7.35 this evening—some 15 minutes ago—the Minister stood in the Chamber to announce the introduction of new Subpart 9, a whole new part. The Minister, in her announcement that there would be an extra subpart dropped into the bill, said there would be plenty of time for all parties to debate the matter. Ten minutes later, after the Minister’s own speech and one speech from this side of the Chamber, there was a closure motion that looked as though it was about to be accepted.

All we are imploring of you, Madam Speaker, is the opportunity for the people on our side of the Chamber, who have taken these amendments clause by clause and prepared the arguments in favour of them, to be able to present those arguments to the Committee. I would also say that if there were to be a look at the proportional arrangement for the contributions on this very important bill, then it would be seen that we are certainly being sold well short in proceedings to date. I ask, Madam Speaker, that you consider whether there might be a little more time devoted to this particular part in order that the House might deal with the entire bill in a seemly manner.

It appears to me that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I just heard Mr Brownlee say that we need to continue this debate because the National Party put up one Supplementary Order Paper—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: Last night.

—last night. The member has obviously not been informed that over the tea break Tony Ryall dropped a large number of amendments on the Committee. That is not in line with what the member said, at all. He dropped them on the Committee in an endeavour to have a filibuster and to delay the proceedings of this House, which is something that his leader and deputy leader said he would not do. I also need to say that I took the word of the junior National whip, who spoke to us at the tea break. He said that there was no intention to filibuster but that he had a few more speakers. He obviously was not aware that Tony Ryall was going to spend his tea break writing amendments.

There is not one Supplementary Order Paper as the member said. I have moved an amendment tonight in my name, based on the amendment from the National member Christopher Finlayson. It has been available in this House under his amendment, and nowhere did I say that I expected long debate on it. I read what was in it, and people have been able to debate that part of Christopher Finlayson’s amendment right through this debate on Part 2 if they wished to do so.

The Committee, really, has been put in a position—and it has now had this clearly demonstrated—where it can spend time either debating the substance of the bill or voting on trivia about the bill. I think that to do the latter would be unfortunate. But given the way that the part was so unfairly concluded last evening, I think it is only reasonable that a demonstration was given of the opportunities that do exist to make a nonsense of the process. We are not happy with the process of this bill; there is no question about that. We do not want to make that process look even worse by the way the House conducts it. We would appreciate there being some more time to debate this particular part.

We began on this part last evening, and we have spent all of the time available today up until now on this part. As far as we in New Zealand First are concerned the issues have been fully traversed. We know full well that the National Party is not happy with this bill—and has never been happy with it—and that it has gone to extraordinary lengths out in public, with street marches and other things, to get rid of this bill. Now National is resorting to trying to filibuster in order to stop the bill’s progress. We in New Zealand First do not think that that is right, and we think that the motion should be put.

I want to made a brief comment about what the Minister said about my Subpart 2B, which she said could have been debated in the context of Part 2. What she has in fact done is pick up a little bit of my Supplementary Order Paper dealing with indexation, and include it in the bill as Subpart 9. So that is Subpart 9 of Part 2. That does not deal with many other matters, and it is a separate part yet to be debated.

We have had some 150 minutes of debate on this particular part. There have been 27 calls in total, 16 of which have come from the National Party. We feel that those members have had ample opportunity to traverse and canvass all of the issues on Part 2 that they have raised. I point out that only five of those calls have been taken by Labour members. In fact, since 4.30 just two of those calls have been Labour calls. So ample opportunity has been given to the Opposition to raise its issues on Part 2 of the Electoral Finance Bill.

I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to Speakers’ ruling 60/7, a Speakers’ ruling of some longstanding—Statham, 1931. Initially, the ruling states that “The [chairperson] is the sole judge …”, but the last sentence states: “I can only express the hope that it will not be applied too harshly.”

Part 2 is the most substantial part in the bill. It has over 120 clauses. There are a significant number of amendments, and in the view of the Opposition it would indeed be a harsh call if this closure motion were to be taken when only about 14 Opposition members have had a chance to participate. As Mr Brownlee has set out, there is very structured debate from our side. We have, very clearly, allocated clauses to individual people, so there will be significant omissions in the debate if the closure is to be taken at this point.

I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 60/8, and particularly to the last sentence, which I shall read out: “The Chair also has regard to questions of relevance and repetition.” I was in the Chamber last evening and this afternoon. The speeches have been relevant and there has been no repetition. A number of us have been in the Chamber all this time but we have been unable to speak, so I would be very grateful if you would reconsider the Chair’s decision.

I thank members. We have heard several comments from those who have called for and supported the recalling of the Speaker. I respect what members are saying in terms of the importance of this matter. However, as members do know, it is a tradition in this House—an extraordinarily important one—that when the House is in Committee it is Speaker’s ruling 60/7 that guides us in these matters, unless there are extraordinary circumstances when it should not.

The Chairperson has to be—and always is, whoever it is—the sole judge of whether the closure should be accepted. I have heard comments from all sides. There has been considerable debate. I have also watched the debate in terms of what is happening, but my judgment in that sense does not matter; I follow the Speaker’s ruling. The Chairperson is obviously the person who is responsible for listening to the debate and is therefore in the best position to be able to judge it. It is not for the Speaker to second-guess that. Of course, it is a matter for the House. Proportionality has also been mentioned by Mr Brownlee, and that is an important matter. That comes into play when, if the Committee of the whole House does not agree with the decision, then when it is voted upon it does not vote for the closure. That is the will of the House, and it is the will of the House that must prevail in these circumstances also.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: It has to be a fresh point of order.

It is very fresh. I make this point of order carefully and with respect to the Chair. I was the deputy chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee throughout the consideration of this bill. The Chair herself was a very active member of the committee, and indeed was very active when dealing with Part 2. Given that this is a procedural motion that is very closely tied to Part 2, I wonder whether it would be a counsel of wisdom for that particular Chair to recuse herself when dealing with procedural motions like this.

I find it an extraordinary suggestion that members of Parliament, because they have been involved in a select committee, should not therefore participate in the debate.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: Madam Speaker—

I have made my ruling. The member should just reflect on that and how it would actually be used in the future if what he suggests should apply. All members in this House are equal.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Election campaigns (continued)