Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, we have had 2 hours and 40 minutes of debate on Part 2. National for the third time moved a closure motion, which I was about to accept. The Opposition members, sensing the mood of the Chair, decided to raise a number of points of order, and as a consequence of the rulings I gave on their points of order they wish to dispute my decision.

One point of order was about the place of Mr Bennett, who stood to move the closure from a seat other than his own. The Opposition claimed that Mr Bennett could not move a closure motion from a seat other than his own. I ruled that a member could, for two reasons: firstly, the convention is generally in this House that people can move about and give speeches from various places other than their actual allocated seat; and, secondly, Mr Bennett was in one of the whips’ chairs, and it is not unusual for both party whips to be out of the Chamber and for another party member to conduct the party vote, and to do so from a whip’s chair. Without that practice, it would be a very difficult situation; a member would have to retreat to his or her seat in the Chamber and then start to cast the party vote. That has never been the practice, and I felt that in this particular situation the convention was well established, no one had disputed it, and I was perfectly happy for Mr Bennett to move his motion from the whip’s chair.

The second point of order that was raised was that Mr Bennett had prefaced his motion with “Mr Chair”. After having called “Mr Chair” and being given the call, he said: “Mr Chair, I move that the question be now put.”—and then said some other words—“Mr Chair, thank you.” The contention from the Opposition is that by adding those words Mr Bennett had changed the nature of the resolution, and was therefore not strictly compliant with the rules set down in the Standing Orders. I have ruled that Mr Bennett’s being courteous in addressing the Chair appropriately and in thanking the Chair was to be applauded, and I was not going to rule against him on that.

The third point of order is that Mr Bennett had moved the motion previously. Mr Bennett is entitled to four calls. He had moved one closure motion before; I had declined to accept the closure motion. He then took a second call and moved the closure motion for the second time. That complies with the rules, in that he is entitled to four speeches. Each closure motion is a speech; therefore, he had used only two calls, and he was entitled to two further speeches.

But I think the more pointed point being made by the Opposition is that Mr Bennett, having moved a motion previously and having been declined, is not entitled to move a second motion. I think the general view that the Opposition would put forward is that if a member moves a motion, and the House declines that motion, the member is not able to bring that motion back to the House a second time within a period of 12 months—that is my recollection of the Standing Orders. I responded to the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard by saying that the first closure motion by Mr Bennett had not been rejected by the Committee; it had been rejected by the Chair. I in the Chair did not accept it. Therefore the Committee did not have the opportunity to consider the closure motion and to accept or reject it. It was not a decision of the Committee; it was a decision of the Chair. I felt at that particular time that a number of other speakers in the Chamber were indicating that they wished to speak, and to be fair I wanted to give them that opportunity. Once they had spoken, I felt it was time to accept the closure motion and test the will of the Committee.

That is my recollection of it, and I am happy with all the rulings I have made.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the Chair; I think it was a good summary of the facts. It is not my intention to take up either the first or the third point of order with you, Mr Speaker, although my colleagues may. The reason I asked for you to be recalled relates to a very narrow question on which there is considerable precedent. It goes to whether, when people are invited to move a closure, they are allowed to add words. As the Chair has indicated, words were added. I have had experience in the past of closure motions that I have moved being ruled out because I had thanked the Chair for giving me the call. Moana Mackey has indicated that she—obviously, in much more recent times; I made my mistakes in this area a long time ago—when Mr Hunt was Speaker, had a closure motion ruled out because of her adding a courtesy before moving it, and therefore being held not to have used the strict form.

I know the current Chair is a stickler for courtesy, and he thinks it is very important; generally, I accept that it is important for the House. However, there is longstanding precedent on this particular issue that nothing—nothing—should be added to the closure motion, because when something is added to the closure motion it changes it from being a closure motion to being a speech. That is the difference: a member cannot speak and then move a closure motion as part of the same call. If one makes a speech, one has to get the call on a separate occasion in order to move the closure motion. It is a relatively simple thing. I am not criticising Mr Bennett for being polite, but just saying that in this particular case his form of the closure motion meant that his moving of it was not within the strict rules. Certainly, the precedents that I am aware of have all been in that direction; certainly, I and Ms Mackey have had closure motions ruled out for exactly the same thing—for thanking the Chair.

My request to you, Mr Speaker, is on that point. I will leave it there, because I do not want to argue the positioning point of order, which I happen to disagree with, but there is clearly a differing view on it, as well.

I think a point of clarification is important in reaching a ruling here. The words that were used were simply “Mr Chair”; there were no other words, and no thankyous. Those words were used at that point in time, when there was some noise in the Chamber, to make clear that the closure motion was read exactly as it should have been, following the words “Mr Chair”. The second point I make is that in reading through the Standing Orders, I see that at no point do they state that adding other words disqualifies the closure motion, and, as a result, I believe that what was said was in keeping with the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, and that the closure motion should have been accepted.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes briefly, and that will be the end of the matter.

Certainly, Mr Speaker. I will address just two very quick points that the Chair reported back to you. One was the ability of members located in seats other than those they have been individually allocated to move a closure motion, which had been a matter contested previously. The member was speaking from a block of seats allocated to his party but not his individual seat. The Chair has ruled on that and given you his explanation. There was also a question on the third point the Chair raised with you about the ability of a member, under the new rules, to move multiple closure motions within his or her allocation of four calls. The closure motion is treated as a call. Members can move up to the maximum number of calls—four—but it is treated as a speech. There was a question, which was not answered by the Chair, as to what happens in the case where there has been a mixture of calls—that is, a member participates substantively in the debate, using one of his or her calls as a speech to discuss the substance of the legislation, then uses subsequent calls on a procedural matter in respect of a closure motion. It would be useful to get some clear guidance from you on that.

On the second point, the middle point, which Mr Mallard has spoken to you about, he recalled his own experience, and Ms Mackey has offered hers through him. In fact, this very point occurred early in the term of this Parliament, when we were in urgency before Christmas 2008 and members were unable to get the correct form of words to put the closure motion. All of those motions were not accepted by each of the three Chairs in the debate. That was quite a feature of what happened at that point. The reason why I think it is important is that Standing Order 132(1) is one of the few Standing Orders where the precise form of words is prescribed in quotation marks for members of the House to follow. As it happens, there are two examples on that page, the other one being Standing Order 129(1) on adjournment of debate, which Mr Mallard referred to earlier. There are very few motions where the exact form of words is prescribed for us to follow.

Mr Speaker, I think that if you uphold what the Chair has said, that will overturn what has been a longstanding practice that members, sadly, have to learn the hard way. It has happened to nearly everybody—not getting the form of words right. Members say either “Thank you.” or “Finally, I’ve been called.”, or some other quite innocent phrase is used, but at the point that those very tight words in Standing Order 132 are not used it becomes a speech.

Finally, there appears to be some disagreement. The contribution of the chief Government whip indicated that he did not believe that Mr Bennett had used extra words. Of course, that is a matter of debate, because that is certainly what was heard on this side of the Chamber. The Chair himself in reporting to you, Mr Speaker, said that one of the reasons he had accepted the closure motion was that the member had used a courtesy. As nice and kind as that is, it is not what is permitted under Standing Order 132.

I thank honourable members. Let me preface my ruling by pointing out Speaker’s ruling 65/4, which states that it is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair’s judgment on a closure motion. I make that point at the start, because I will not make any comment in respect of the acceptance of the closure motion. That is solely the judgment of the Chair. I do want, though, to address quickly the technical issues leading up to that acceptance that members have raised. The first one is the question of whether a member can move the closure from a seat that is not the member’s allocated seat. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that prevents a member from doing that. As the Chair pointed out to the Committee at some length, there is nothing that prevents that, and members are well aware that the House would not work very effectively if everyone had to run back to his or her own seat before being able to do such things.

In respect of the second point on the actual words used, from what I understand took place the member moved that the question be now put in the correct form, as required by Standing Order 132(1). The Chair at the time accepted that. I think from what I have heard that there is no reason for me to rule that it was in any way out of order. To suggest that to say thank you is to make a speech is a little unfortunate. Courtesy in this House is something I have been trying to encourage. Having said that, I think it is worthwhile that members have raised the point. Members do need to be aware when moving the closure motion that there is a proper form and that it should be used. I am not in any way criticising members for raising the point, but I think the ruling of the Chair is absolutely proper on this occasion.

In respect of the third point about whether the member was entitled to move the closure motion, given that he had already had a call, the Standing Orders make it very clear that a member can make a number of calls and can move the closure in any of those calls, as long as the Committee has not already made a decision on the matter. I will hand back to the Chair at that point, having clarified that point.

Debate interrupted.