Business Statement

When the House resumes next week priority will be given to the Committee stage and third readings of the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advanced Voting) Amendment Bill, the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill, and the Electoral Referendum Bill. Depending on progress this week, the House should expect to adjourn some time next week.

I wonder whether the Leader of the House could be a little more fulsome in his explanation of the House’s programme as we come to the end of the year, particularly in respect of the legislation that he hopes to progress through urgency. It is clear that all parties regard the electoral bills as being urgent matters that need to be passed by the end of the year. But why is it necessary to take urgency on other bills that are not as urgent and leave bills that are urgent out of the urgency motion, given that previously in his business statements, when we have taken him on his word, he has sought the cooperation of parties for urgency on non-controversial bills in order to avoid exactly the kind of urgency that he is about to subject the House to before the end of the year?

I will make a number of points. First, the way in which urgency has been conducted this year has been designed to give the Business Committee a great deal more input into when urgency occurs and what is to be covered during that time. But that does not take away from the fact that we are a very busy, very active Government, which has a very active programme. The Speaker, more than anybody, will be aware that the House is due to rise shortly for a 7 to 8-week adjournment. Therefore, when we come back there will be a Prime Minister’s statement, and much of February will be taken up in the reply that is made to that statement. So we need to get a whole lot of first readings done in order to get those bills to select committees. There is nothing wrong with doing that. I think most New Zealanders would be rather shocked to hear Labour complain about having to work for more than 17 hours a week in the House. We think that that is not enough time; that is why we are taking a few extra hours.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of the business statement given by the Leader of the House is to outline the programme, and then there is a response from the Opposition. I asked him some questions about why he was going down a certain path, in respect of some bills that are urgent not being taken under urgency, and of other bills that are not urgent being taken under urgency. I asked him those questions, and instead of his replying to them we got a stream of abuse, saying Labour does not want to work a certain number of hours. That is an abuse.

I was happy to listen to the honourable member, but he must not use the point of order process to start to get into a debate about who has been abusive. I must confess that I acknowledge that the questions the member put were not answered as fully as he would have liked, but that is a matter for the Leader of the House. I cannot intervene in that process.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did answer those questions. I answered them in very straight terms. I am sorry if you did not understand what I said, but I gave the senior whip an answer to the question that he asked. The fact is that the House is going into an 8-week adjournment. We think doing a bit of extra time ahead of that is not a bad idea.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the whole House for my stupidity.