Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt typescript amendments to clause 51 in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard. That amendment is very, very important. Although it may well be that there will be no decision to rule it out, I think it is important that we have a belt and braces approach and ensure that the Committee has the ability to discuss it and that there be no question of it being ruled out. The amendment is designed to ensure there is a system put in place whereby a Minister is unable to adjust a recommendation of the Rugby World Cup Authority, such that he or she ends up approving something that is not otherwise approved by that authority. In relatively simple terms, the amendment is to ensure that there are proper checks and balances placed in the system.

I will use an example. In the case of an urgent application post-August, it would mean that under the current legislation there could be a full hearing of an authority. We could have witnesses, council people, and all sorts of experts—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I need a bit of clarification from the member who is on his feet. It is my understanding that this amendment is in order; therefore, it does not need an instruction of the House for it to be debated. It is in order. Please acknowledge that there has been a change of presiding officer while this has been happening. I need to understand what the member is doing, because it is my understanding that the amendment is totally in order.

I think you are almost certainly right, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I have also checked this. Notwithstanding the fact that it is likely to be in order, that does not prevent this motion being moved in order to make absolutely certain of that. There is no restriction on this motion. It is something that has been checked through very carefully over the last 24 hours, and I have had an absolute assurance that this motion and the next few that will come before the Committee are in order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am just trying to think through the precedent of what the member is actually doing. The discipline of this House is that it lives by precedent. It would occur to me that although this step might be in order, it may set some precedents that take the House in a direction that the House does not want to go in. Having given the member an assurance that his amendment is in order and will be acceptable to the Committee of the whole House, I am perplexed as to why the member is seeking this particular course of action.

I think members on the other side of the House are well aware of the reason for us doing this. There has been quite a lot of discussion between members from both sides of the House on the way that this bill is being handled. It is my understanding that although this is unusual, and may even be unprecedented, it is within the Standing Orders. I think you are right; it is probably identifying a loophole within the Standing Orders and could well set a precedent that people may want to close off through a change to the Standing Orders, but that does not mean that it can be ruled out.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that you have ruled that the amendment that the Hon Trevor Mallard has put on the Table for debate is within order and will be debated as part of clause 51 within one of the parts of the bill this afternoon and this evening, it seems to me that the Hon Trevor Mallard is attempting to trifle with the House’s time and to delay our progressing to the bill. I think that is trifling with the House’s time, and I ask you to rule that this be out of order.

Speaking to that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will listen to the member, then I will respond.

Yes, sure. I think that what the member should know is that one of the honourable roles of the Opposition is to delay. It is a longstanding precedent. The term “filibuster” is well known in both United Kingdom and United States politics. When bad law is being made, one of the roles of the Opposition, and one of the very few tools of an Opposition that does not have the votes to stop particular legislation, is to make sure that it is subject to a debate that is as extensive as is possible in order to ensure the best possible examination of it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Standing Order 172(1) states: “An instruction may be given to a committee of the whole House extending or restricting its powers …”. What the member is seeking to do is not actually extending or restricting. He has assured me that he has done some work in the last 24 hours. I have not had the opportunity to do that work. These are the options open to me: I can rule that the member is having a debate that is not necessary and therefore it is out of order, I can let the debate take its full course, or I can perhaps indicate to the House that a closure motion might be considered at some near time in the future, when a considered decision from the Speaker might be the best way forward. But I will allow the member to finish his speech.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think a problem has now developed. It probably has been caused by the fact that there was a change of Speaker. Mr Speaker accepted this motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is what I have done.

I am pleased to hear that, because it is very, very important. The amendment that has been discussed is important, and by way of extension I just want to make it very clear that in my opinion this does make an extension because it provides both belt and braces in this arrangement. [Interruption] Well, Peter Dunne is the person who probably understands belt and braces better than anyone else. As I indicated earlier, the danger that we are facing is that there is a full hearing of an authority, which takes a decision to decline a particular application. It says that no, that should not happen. It might, for example, be the demolition of a historic building. On the basis of the evidence, a decision is made not to demolish that historic building. The way the bill is at the moment, and without consideration of my amendment, a Minister could then say: “It does not matter what the judge said, it does not matter about the fact that there was a hearing, I am going to allow my mate’s house to be demolished.” They might have a party central, or a little “party not central” there, for a period of time, but afterwards the section becomes available for building on, in a way that would not otherwise be the case under current planning legislation because a demolition would not previously have been allowed. It goes to the ability of a judge to make a decision, and whether the House should be considering that they have the ability to consider it.

I have another point I would like to make, and I do not think I am doing this by way of a point of order. I think I am doing it by way of debate, although it does do it by way of referring to the comments that you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, made when you were on your feet. It is not for the Speaker to rule whether something is in or out, at the Committee. It is a matter for the Chairman. The Speaker cannot give an assurance, because it is not his role to give an assurance on something that he must rule on when sitting in the Chairperson’s Chair, while he is sitting in the Speaker’s Chair. In fact, I think there could be some question of conflict if Speakers attempted to take that sort of approach. Although I do not think there are many men who are more honourable than you are, as far as the House is concerned, and we do of course rely on your word, I think we have to be very clear that the role of the Speaker is different from the role of the Chairman, and in fact the only—

💬 Chris Tremain: Is this a speech or a point of order?

No, I think it is entirely within order. The only circumstance where the Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have told the member to continue with his speech. This is not a point of order.

No. I made it clear it is not a point of order, but I am referring to your comment, just to make it clear.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member should not litigate my ruling.

No, I am not litigating; I am adding to it. I am saying how much I trust you. The point I am making is that the House is unable to be given assurances by the Speaker in this matter, because the role of the Speaker will be to consider the matter if in fact the Chairman in error ruled it out. That then would be a case for bringing the Speaker back to the House in order to debate the issue. I think you could see that it would be more than slightly incongruous for you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, to rule on a matter as Speaker and then to rule on it as Chairman. There is the possibility of ruling on your own ruling as Chairman. I think that sort of approach is the one taken in the Fijian Parliament or some other place where democracy is non-existent. That is probably the only place where that would occur.

I want to make clear that the Labour Opposition is very firm that it is important to have this debate. I know that my colleagues are very keen to outline to you why they think a belt and braces approach is necessary on this particular legislation. I might say also that because there has been a lot of debate about this matter of power within the select committee and within the media, and because there has been a lot of discussion about the powers in the Canterbury legislation, following the earthquake, the issue of the limits of ministerial power are very much alive in New Zealand now. That is why it is important that this debate is held on this subclause.

At this stage, and without going into the substance of the debate, because I think we will get to the debate on Part 4 today or possibly after the adjournment, I say that this is very important. I am slightly ambivalent on this argument myself, but I think there is a certain lack of trust in the current Minister and the way that he might exercise the powers. I think it is fair to say that the Minister has a growing reputation, which has been highlighted by my colleague Phil Twyford, inter alia, of being involved in micro-management across portfolios. I think it is fair to say that the fingerprints are not always left there, but there are a few greasy marks on the piece of paper. There are signs on the piece of paper of a Minister becoming involved in areas that he should not be involved in. That is why we think it is important that a Minister should not get the power, without any consideration from the Regulations Review Committee. I know that my colleague Lianne Dalziel is involved in that committee, and certainly Chris Hipkins is involved in that committee. If the decisions of the Minister were, for example, reviewable by a committee of this Parliament, then I am sure—

💬 Chris Hipkins: Sounds like another amendment.

Well, I think there will be an amendment; there will be amendment after amendment and we will take about 10 minutes to deal with each of them, as the day goes on. But if these are not to be considered by any court, because there is not time, and not to be considered by the Regulations Review Committee, then it is important that the Minister not be left with this power. I want to remind the House of what we are doing. We had someone who is an experienced judge—with a panel—hear the evidence and make a decision, but at the end of that the Minister said that declining that position—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member’s time has expired.

I move, That the question be now put.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will accept the closure, for this reason: I think it is a novel approach and an interesting one that the Hon Trevor Mallard has promoted. I know I do not have to give a reason why I have accepted it. I will bring back a considered opinion. I do not believe the honourable member in his speech proved the case that this did extend or restrict, so the question is that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly the Opposition wants to put up another couple of amendments and go through the same charade that we have just been through. In speaking, the Hon Trevor Mallard has acknowledged that he is doing this to filibuster. He has acknowledged that that is a tool that the Opposition has at its disposal. I bring it to your attention that this can be used only within the rules of the House and within the Standing Orders of the House. If the amendments that the member is seeking to have debated before we get into the Committee stage are in fact already to be debated and have been agreed to be in order, then I think the process of going through the charade that we have just seen in the last 10 minutes is a complete waste of the House’s time and I think you should rule them out of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Firstly, I cannot prejudge what or what may not happen. I assure all members that I will assiduously enforce the rules of this House, as laid down by both Speakers’ Rulings and the Standing Orders.

I move that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt the typescript amendment to amend Subpart 3 by adding new clause 72(1)(a)(iii), set out in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway. Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, I have indicated to the member that I will bring back a ruling on these matters. Although the member did raise at an earlier time that it is not for the Speaker to give an instruction or to presume what the Committee as a whole may or may not do with amendments before the House, there is also—and I commented on this earlier—a well laid-out set of rules that we abide by, both in Speakers’ rulings and in the Standing Orders. It is those same rulings that the presiding officer of the House will judge any amendment on at the time. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the motion that the member was about to move.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am in a very difficult position, because we now have a Speaker ruling differently from the senior Speaker, who ruled on the very same issue about 20 minutes ago. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, you know that I have considerable respect for you and for your integrity. Certainly there is no doubt that you as Speaker—because you are sitting in the Chair as Speaker—have the ability to make rulings, as has Mr Speaker. So I am not debating your ability to do that; the question I ask is whether precedent applies in this House, and whether precedents set by a Speaker on consideration not 20 minutes ago—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Let me truncate this somewhat: the member is out of order because Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, by David McGee, page 369, states: “A member may move only one instruction in relation to the same bill.”

Therefore, I declare the House in Committee for the Rugby World Cup—

I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt typescript amendments to clause 72 in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have said that I will bring a ruling to the House. I realise that members want to progress this matter now, but the case really has to be made for an extension of, or change in, the restriction to a motion, and the rules are quite clear. Although the member earlier said that it is not for the Speaker to give an instruction to the Chair, the rules are quite clear about whether there is an extension or limitation. I cannot see where that occurs, so I have said that I will bring a ruling back to the House on this matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a way, the ruling you have just given would have been fair for the previous amendment, when there was debate about whether there was an extension or restriction. But there is no doubt in the case of this amendment. It is a question of whether it is within scope, and my view is that this amendment is also probably within scope. There is no doubt whatsoever that this amendment extends the bill into an area that is not otherwise considered, because it extends it to details of transportation options available near the premises. My firm view is that the amendment is within the broad scope of the bill, but, notwithstanding that it is within scope, it is an extension from the point at which it currently sits. Again, I hope that you will continue to seek advice on this amendment, Mr Assistant Speaker, because it is my firm opinion that it involves an extension. It goes into an area that, although within the broad parameters of the bill, is something that is not currently touched on. It is something that goes beyond what is in the Sale of Liquor Act, because requirements on transportation are not part of that Act. But in this one, having these transportation details—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

I am making very serious comment to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I accept that as the Speaker in the Chair you would automatically rule on the previous amendment, but it is fair to say that within this amendment there is at least a modicum of doubt about the issue. I will repeat the comment I made before: it cannot be for a Speaker to rule on the role of a Chair, unless by way of appeal; that would prejudice the right of the Opposition to then take things to the Speaker later.

There is no modicum of doubt in that respect. This amendment is part of the scope of the bill. It is within Part 5 and can be debated there. The present debate is totally superfluous and is trifling with the House’s time. I ask, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you rule against these amendments.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think the member makes a point, which I will pick up on. How can the Speaker possibly make a ruling when he has not been presented with the amendments, or given the opportunity to give consideration to them, in the same way a Chair would when amendments are tabled in the Committee of the whole House? For that reason, since 1856 we have had a process by which the House in Committee makes these rulings. I understand that members have raised a serious point. I have given an assurance that these matters will be considered, and that a finding will be brought back. For that reason, I am ruling that I am not prepared to accept debate about instructions to the Committee in the manner in which that has been raised. I therefore declare the House—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Now this gets to something that I think is very serious—that is, what happens when there is doubt in the Speaker’s mind as to his role. You have said—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Let me answer that point.

No, I have not finished—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Let me answer that quite clearly. There is an option: if the House is in any way displeased or has a question, it has the right to recall the Speaker.

No, we don’t now—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member will just listen; he will not interrupt me when I am giving a ruling on a point of order. When the House is in Committee, if members who put an amendment or a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table feel that an inappropriate ruling has been given by the Chair, it is the right of the Committee of the whole House to then call the Speaker back, and the Committee can do that. I have given an assurance that there will be a ruling, so that gives us some time to do that. It seems to me, also, that to ask the Speaker to rule on amendments that are not tabled in front of the Speaker is a totally inappropriate way to do business; it is for that reason amendments are tabled in the House. I therefore declare—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you have missed the point. We are not asking you, as Speaker, to rule on amendments; we are asking the House to make a decision. It is the right of members to ask the House to make a decision. I am not asking you, as Speaker, to rule something in or out. That is something for the Chairman to do. What I am asking the House to do, and what my colleague is asking the House to do, is for the House to make a decision. One of the rights of the Opposition is to put motions that are within the Standing Orders. I do not think you have argued that these amendments are not within the Standing Orders. I think they are—in fact, the Speaker, Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, has accepted one amendment. You have had another come before you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and you have quite rightly ruled. I was not aware of the McGee ruling on the ability to move only one instruction to the Committee, but my colleague then moved another instruction. No one is asking you, as Speaker, to rule on these amendments. In fact, it is my view that you cannot, unless these are clearly—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Let me respond to that, because I am bound to apply the Standing Orders. Standing Order 172(1) states: “An instruction may be given to a committee of the whole House extending or restricting its powers …”. So I have to rule whether the debate is in order, because that will either extend or restrict the powers of the amendment. That is what I have to rule on, so in effect I have to rule on the amendment. In that respect, and as a way forward, the member is saying that the House should be able to vote on that. My thought, perhaps—because as Speaker I should take a ruling—is that I will apply the same procedure that I applied in the first instance, so on this occasion I will accept that procedure on this amendment, which is that the member can take a call.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Speaker—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have been through this process, and clearly it has been accepted on the Opposition’s side of the House that this is simply a filibustering technique. The amendments that have been tabled, which the Opposition is asking to be debated, are within scope, as the member has admitted, and therefore will be debated as part of the bill in the Committee stage. But these amendments should be ruled out of order, and we should move on to the Committee stage.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I ask the member just to give me a moment. Members can observe that I have taken some advice on this. I am troubled by the fact that I have to apply Standing Order 172. I understand that these amendments are all within the scope of the bill, and therefore the process that we are taking is now unnecessary. What I can do is put the motion to the House, without debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just called my colleague. You cannot interrupt his speech in order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Let me make the point quite clear. I have not called the member. He made a bid for a call and I ruled it out completely. I have not, at any stage in this debate, given a call to that member.

I invite you to take some advice and review your decisions, Mr Assistant Speaker, because you did say that you would hear from Ian Lees-Galloway. He stood up, he took the call, and he was just starting when Chris Tremain interrupted him with a point of order. I am checking with my colleagues, but I think I can give you an assurance that you gave the call to Ian Lees-Galloway. Once you have done that, it is my view that you cannot rule the debate out of order at that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member is correct in that if I had given a call, I had given a call to Ian Lees-Galloway.

The reason I have asked the House to instruct the Committee to consider this amendment—and I accept that it is on the bounds of the scope of the bill—is that the amendment offers an excellent opportunity to reinforce public safety. The amendment seeks to amend clause 72, “Conditions applying to all licences”. Clause 72(1) states: “A licence granted under this Part is, unless expressly stated otherwise, subject to the following conditions:”. Clause 72(1)(a)(i) refers to the signage available in a licensed premises and outlines that that sign must be “easily read by persons immediately outside the principal entrance of the premises or within the area;”. That offers up an opportunity that this amendment would address. I recognise and accept that it is something of an extension to the original bill, and that is why I ask that the House consider at this point instructing the Committee of the whole House to consider it.

The opportunity that lies here is to reinforce public safety using the signage that the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will require to be in place in licensed premises. It gives the opportunity for that signage to offer a public safety message that patrons should seek out safe transportation options, and the options available to patrons should be clearly made available to patrons who are enjoying the entertainment within a licensed premises.

This is an important issue to cover in the current environment where we have a very high blood-alcohol level tolerance in New Zealand. In fact, a number of patrons within those establishments would get to see this message if this amendment was accepted. They will come from countries where the blood-alcohol level tolerance is lower, and perhaps the adjustment they will have to make on coming to New Zealand may lead to some unsafe practices and unsafe situations on our roads, particularly in Auckland—where a number of the games are and where there are already a number of transport issues—but also in communities right across the country.

As I said, I accept that this is something of an extension to a clause about licensing, the licence that is granted, and the requirement to publicly display a message that shows that the licence under which that premises is operating is a Rugby World Cup licence rather than the standard licence under which a premises would ordinarily operate. In those terms, clause 72 is actually quite narrow, and in its original form it does not allow for these sorts of safety messages to be included.

One could argue that a whole range of safety messages could be included, and that is probably why the original clause is so narrow in its definition. But I seek the House’s approval to consider this amendment because I think it would have a significant impact on the community and would probably be the most important message we could get through to people. I do not think, for instance, that there would be much point in putting forward an amendment about the proximity of hospitals, the proximity of police stations, the proximity of drug treatment facilities, or anything like that. But in all likelihood most people will require some form of transportation so this is the most relevant and most obvious change that could be made, and signage in the licensed premises offers us as a Parliament the best opportunity to address an issue of considerable debate in the public at the moment.

The public want to see Parliament taking the issue of drink-driving seriously. So, again, even though this amendment is something of an extension in the current environment—we have an active campaign by one of our leading national newspapers encouraging respected members of the public and parliamentarians to get on board with the drink-driving message, to consider safe options for transportation, and to be aware of the options that are available to them—it is entirely relevant and appropriate in this bill.

We know that the Rugby World Cup as a tournament, as an event, will offer up far more opportunities for people to go out and enjoy themselves, probably become intoxicated, and get themselves into a position where knowledge about the options in terms of transport available to them becomes very, very important in terms of public safety and the safety of the wider community—including those who choose not to be in the licensed premises, those who are simply out on the road, undertaking business that has nothing to do with the Rugby World Cup whatsoever. Those people will be very concerned—

💬 Sue Moroney: What are their names?

I could list them—but those members of the public will be very concerned that although the majority of the impacts are positive, there is the opportunity for some of those impacts on our communities to be negative. This amendment would address and mitigate one of the potentially negative impacts that the Rugby World Cup could have in the wider community.

It is not currently incumbent on the licensee who has to display the sign referred to in clause 72(1)(a)(i) and (ii) to make available to patrons information about transportation options. It is a requirement that they have low alcoholic drinks, non-alcoholic drinks, and food, and that those things are all clearly on display. However, although there is a requirement to ensure that transport options are available, there is no requirement in the bill at the moment to make sure that those options are clearly on display and that that information is available to patrons. So by recommending to the Committee of the whole House that this amendment be considered, the House is dealing with an issue not currently provided for in the bill.

All the other measures to mitigate the potential harms of alcohol will be on display and available to patrons, but there is no provision for this measure—which is probably the most relevant and would have the most impact—to be on display. I accept and acknowledge that the amendment is probably on the outer limits in terms of the scope of the bill, but I ask that the House consider this motion, vote in favour of it, and direct the Committee of the whole House to consider the amendment in the interests of public safety.

I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Is this in relation to the ruling I have given?

Yes, it is.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Well, I have made a ruling.

I have heard you, and I am taking a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will hear the point of order, but I caution the member that I have ruled on this matter. I am not going to entertain any discussion in relation to the subject matter.

I think there is a slight problem. I think there is a problem ruling points of order leading to motions as out of order when you have not yet heard whether those motions extend the bill. I think you are attempting to prejudge motions that members may be moving, and prejudge Supplementary Order Papers that you have no knowledge of. You cannot know, Mr Assistant Speaker, that a motion to be moved is out of order. Once it is moved and once you have examined the particular Supplementary Order Paper to which it refers, of course you have the right to do that. But for you to say, Mr Assistant Speaker, that something is automatically out of order before you have heard what is moved is, in my view, beyond—I know you are prescient, but it does not go quite as far as that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I thank the member for his point of order. I say that in the two debates that we have had, the members have absolutely been unable to convince me that they were extending or restricting the Supplementary Order Paper. I take that into consideration. The next point I make is that we have a process that has stood in this House since time immemorial, and I have reinforced that process. I have not created or instigated it on this occasion; I have simply affirmed the process by which the House has taken place. If the member has a justifiable concern, the appropriate place for that concern is at the Standing Orders Committee. As I say, the process by which the House has taken place has served the House for some time.

Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will hear the member, but he should bear in mind that I have been extremely tolerant, and that will diminish very quickly if members seek to challenge the ruling I have just given on consideration, which I promised. I gave the members the opportunity to demonstrate that their Supplementary Order Papers were actually an extension or a limitation. I am now at the end of my patience.

I move that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill that it have the power to consider and, if it thinks fit, adopt an amendment in my name that extends this bill in order to consider gaming matters not otherwise considered by the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): You are out of order, because a member can move only one instruction to the Committee.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, I am not taking any more points of order on this matter.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): If the member wishes to raise a point of order in relation to Supplementary Order Papers, he will leave the Chamber. The member will.

Point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The same applies to that member.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to get this absolutely clear. You are ruling that a member cannot take a point of order in order to move a matter in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper that you have not seen.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is correct.

In Committee

Debate resumed from 26 October.

Part 2 Establishment of Rugby World Cup Authority (continued)