Standing Orders

Further to discussions in the Business Committee this week, I will now seek leave for a number of procedural matters relating to House business.

I seek leave that the Clerk of the House of Representatives, when reprinting bills at any stage during their passage through the House or when preparing them for the Royal assent, after consultation with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel or (as the case may be) the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, may make amendments to bills currently before the House or its committees—(a) to incorporate the changes in drafting style adopted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office referred to in the document Changes in drafting style: List of proposed changes in drafting style in legislation, presented to the House on 15 March 2006; and (b) to amend bills by omitting where applicable any clause 1(2) (relating to the principal Act) and substituting a new clause that describes the principal Act being amended—but, in each case, not so as to alter the meaning of the provisions of those bills.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

I seek leave for the Abortion Supervisory Committee, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and Air New Zealand Ltd to be public organisations for the purposes of the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

I seek leave for the financial review debate to be held on 7 April 2009, notwithstanding Standing Order 338(5).

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

I seek leave for all parties to be allowed to comment on ministerial statements, despite Standing Order 348.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed?

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I confess that we did not raise this at the Business Committee, but I think that in the past we have not allowed 5 minutes for those parties that do not have six or more members. I think we have allowed, rather, a 2-minute speech for members of small parties, who do not qualify under the Standing Orders to comment on a ministerial statement.

I should explain to the House that the current Standing Orders provide that basically only three parties qualify at the moment to comment on such statements: National, Labour, and the Green Party. This would extend the privilege beyond that, and it would seem to me that a 2-minute speech is more appropriate than a 5-minute speech for the very small parties.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Would the honourable member seek leave again.

Notwithstanding Standing Order 348, I seek leave for all parties with membership of five or less to be able to comment, with a speech time of 2 minutes, on ministerial statements.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Five or fewer.

Five or fewer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the House has understood the leave being sought fairly clearly. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.