Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill

Under Standing Order 71, I move, That the Government order of the day for the third reading of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill be postponed. The reasons for this are obvious. This bill has been rushed—it has been rushed enormously. It has had a Supplementary Order Paper that is double the size of the bill. It has brought in a whole new area that has not gone to a select committee, and members—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): As I understand it, a procedural motion of this nature is not a debatable point.

I have not finished moving it yet.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I considered the member had finished moving it. The member was on to an explanation, and no doubt it would have been a lengthy one if he was given the opportunity. We now have a procedural motion. I have been advised by the Clerk that the member’s motion is out of order because it is not an order of the day. We now come to the third reading.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that there is a requirement for the Clerk to call the third reading, at which point it becomes an order of the day and we proceed from that point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The member is incorrect in that assumption. The Clerk is not required to call a third reading when the matter is being dealt with in urgency.

Point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am finishing my comments. From the moment I have said the bill is set down for its third reading forthwith, the next thing is for the Minister to take the call. There is no Clerk involved.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move, That the third reading of the Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill be discharged.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That motion fails for the same reason as the member’s motion to have the matter deferred, because it is not an order of the day.

I didn’t say it was an order of the day.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, the member is trying to amend the sheet that we have agreed to. We have agreed in urgency that the order is set and it has been agreed to by the House. We simply go on to the third reading.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will be aware that it is within the ability of the House to postpone matters, even under urgency, or to discharge matters under urgency. The fact that we have agreed to consider them does not mean that we have to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I suggest to the member that if it was the will of the House to alter the House’s resolution, passed by majority by notice from the Government, regarding the order of urgency, the only method that the member has to do that is by leave.

No, not at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I will just consult the Clerk.

I can give you some help while you are doing that, if you like.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): If the member is going to be helpful, the member can be helpful—the normal definition of helpful, by the way.

I am trying to be helpful. Quite often when business is being done under urgency, the Government and the House—because in the end it is the House that makes the decision, normally on the initiation of the Government, but possibly on the initiation of this sort of motion—decide that it will pull out. I think you will remember on a number of occasions in the past when a Government has had a long list of bills that it has chosen to vary the order of business.

Even with motions or legislation that has been agreed and set down, there is no obligation for us to proceed in that particular order. That was essentially the choice that was being given to the House, with the two motions. One was that it be postponed. Of course if it is an urgency motion and it is postponed, then we come back to it with an urgency motion. But, of course, if the bill is discharged, it means that it goes away completely. I put it to you that there have been many occasions when the House has made that choice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I draw the member to Speaker’s ruling 13/5, a decision by Speaker Kidd, a very learned Speaker and one whose decision we should follow: “A motion to discharge an order of the day and refer a bill to a select committee was ruled out of order where the House had accorded urgency to the passing of the bill.” It seems to me that that is very clear.

We’re not sending it to the select committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The point that I am making to the member is simply this. When the House has decided on urgency and a list of bills to be considered, those bills are then on the Order Paper. The member cannot move a motion to discharge or alter the order of the Order Paper in that manner. The motion is out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There then arises a very real question of how it is ever possible for the House, having accorded urgency to a set of matters, not to proceed or to review the order. It is something that has been regularly done over a period, and I accept it is much more often done on the motion of the Government. In fact, I think you set the bill down for third reading forthwith, and on occasions bills are set down for third reading presently, and that is often done on a nod or a wink from the Government, but there has always been flexibility. The Leader of the House can choose to pull out before we are finished. That is a choice. The House can choose to vary the order. It can choose not to proceed with particular pieces of legislation. I accept that a bill cannot go back to a select committee. There was never a suggestion that this bill would go to a select committee. I can remember the ruling; I think I might have been involved in having the ruling set up.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Kidd.

It was Mr Kidd, yes. I was probably standing about here at the time. The point I am making is that especially around the postponement motion, I do not think you can argue that this is not an order of the day. It is an order of the day that has been set up by the urgency motion. I can accept that it is not a debatable motion. It is fair to say that I might have taken the liberty in my support of the motion. You might just rule out the discharge motion, on the basis of the urgency motion, but postponement within an urgency motion does not contradict the urgency motion. It is consistent with it. It is a matter of order, not a matter of discharge.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 12/4, which states: “An urgency motion does not set out a binding order of business in the sequence named. It is indicative. It is open to the Government to vary the order.” The Speaker has ruled that it is up to the Government to set the order. The matters on the list are complete. It is not open to the member by way of motion to have the bill discharged.

Where does it say that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Speaker Kidd said that it is up to the Government to decide. I have been advised by the Clerk, just to reconfirm what I said before, that the motion to discharge is out of order because it has been agreed to pass the legislation in urgency.

I have sort of accepted that. It is the postponement one that I am concerned about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): In my opinion, postponement is in the same nature.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is absolutely serious. My understanding is that the House is the master of its own destiny, with regard to these matters. You are absolutely right; the Government can decide the order. That has been well ruled on and well used by Governments during urgency in the past, at those times. What is not clear is that there is no ability for the House itself to take the decision, either by way of leave or by way of non-debatable motion, in order to reorder business. I think it is fair to say that from the research I did in preparing for this motion, I thought the discharge was in contradiction to an already agreed position of the House. I could find nothing to indicate that a postponement was such.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): If the member is asking me to make a ruling, I will make a ruling. My ruling is that if the member wishes to have a bill postponed, then the only avenue the member has for that is by way of leave. The member does not have available to him a motion of the House to postpone the bill. That is the only avenue. The House has decided that this is the business to be done, and, having made that decision, the House’s decision stands. If the member wanted to put that amendment, he should have done it at the time the urgency motion was put forward.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is wonderful advice, but I think you know that the urgency motion is not an amendable motion; therefore, that option is not one that is available to members at the time.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It backs up the point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I take the interjection from the Hon Gerry Brownlee that that simply reinforces the point. If the motion is put, it is either carried or not carried.

I seek leave to have the bill deferred.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Third Reading