Taxation (GST and Remedial Matters) Bill

Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, you have been recalled in regard to whether I as the Chair of the Committee had the authority to accept a closure motion from a member when other members of the Government backbench were seeking the call to speak. I believed that I was the sole judge of who got the call. I accepted the call from the senior Government Whip, who then moved a closure motion. I subsequently put the closure motion, and it was voted on. The question was that Part 3 would stand part. At that stage the Hon Trevor Mallard asked to recall the Speaker. On that basis, Mr Assistant Speaker, you are asked to adjudicate.

Mr Assistant Speaker, the facts as the Chair of the Committee has put them are entirely accurate. I would like to start off by referring you to the Waring case in 1984. I think the Speaker’s ruling in that case is still the current ruling—certainly, it is the one that I can remember—as to the precedence for calling members. There is no doubt that there have been some changes in the rules since that time, but the rule that was set out quite clearly then was that, within a particular side, someone who had not had a call on a particular question had precedence over someone who had already had a call on it.

It is my understanding, and I have checked with colleagues, that Mr Tremain had previously moved a closure motion. I know that in the past members have been allowed to move such a motion only once, but there is now no doubt that members can move it more than once—that rule has changed. If Mr Tremain had been the only person calling from the National Party side, then of course this discussion would not be happening, but another National member, Cam Calder, was also calling, as loudly as Mr Tremain and very clearly, for the call at that time. It is my understanding that he has not had a call. The question, then, is not so much the acceptability of the Chair accepting the closure motion from Chris Tremain, because if he properly had the call there would not be a problem; the question is whether the rules have changed. Clearly, it is different for a Minister in the chair; if a Minister is in the chair, it has always been the case that that person has precedence and can take multiple calls.

I accept it is a general question, and there have been multiple Speakers’ rulings that the Speaker or the Chair has the discretion as to who gets a call, but that has always been within a particular context. The context has changed over a period of time—clearly, since MMP, and there have been some more—[Interruption] Sorry?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was talking to my colleagues.

All right. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): A point of order is being heard. There should be silence.

Clearly, there have been some changes and some reordering of the way that things work. Certainly, Mr Dunne will remember, because the event probably led to our coming to Parliament very soon after, the question of the exclusion of the ability of Marilyn Waring to speak on nuclear legislation. The system of putting up a senior colleague was used to stop her, but in the Committee stage it had to be a separate senior colleague on each occasion. As Mr Dunne will remember, as it happened in the end I think the Hon Richard Prebble gave her—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Yielded.

—he yielded, and she managed to take a call that way.

The last point I want to make is that I do not want to make any reflection on the Chair of the Committee. He was acting in good faith. Clearly, this is an unusual point of order. I have never seen, when a closure motion is being sought, two members standing together to compete for the call.

Given the quality of the debate this afternoon, I am not surprised that two members were competing to close it down. But let me suggest that Standing Order 132 in its various provisions makes it abundantly clear that any member can move a closure motion. Further, the issue of yielding has not been a factor in the Standing Orders since the beginning of the MMP Parliament, which was some 14-odd years ago. My third point is that it is not unusual for the Speaker to look to the more senior MP and give him or her the opportunity to speak, and in this case that was the senior whip. It is hard to imagine who in Parliament at the time might have been more senior. There is no breach of the Standing Orders here nor is there any breach of convention here. The closure motion was properly put according to the prescribed words that are required to be used. The Chairman of the Committee—or, I should say, the Acting Speaker—has done totally the right thing in accepting that closure motion, putting to the vote the question whether the debate should be closed, and now being in a position to put the question.

Thank you, members, for your contributions. I think an interesting point has been raised. I have had some time to scrutinise various Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders. I am guided pretty much by Standing Order 102. It states the factors to take into account when the Speaker is calling a member. Of course, the Speaker in this case is the Chair, to whom the same rules apply. Who gets that call is entirely the prerogative of the Chair, or the Speaker. There is no obligation for the Chair, or the Speaker, to give a call to a member who has not taken a call, more so in Committee, where members do have multiple calls. I also make the observation that the Chair in accepting a call in the Committee of the whole House has no knowledge of what the nature of the call might be—whether it is to make a contribution to the debate or to seek a closure. The Chair simply has no knowledge of the nature of the call.

I also make this observation, which I think obliquely relates to the matter of when or how the closure might have occurred. The Chair does not decide that it is time for the closure; the Chair decides that it is time for the Committee of the whole House to determine whether it wants to seek the closure. There is a pertinent difference on that matter.

So let me affirm that the Chair is under no obligation to give a call to a member who has not spoken.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to seem to be trifling at all with your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, but I think there is a very basic point that you have misunderstood in making your ruling, and that is the difference between the role of the Speaker and the role of the Chair. You have gone to factors to be taken into account by the Speaker under Standing Order 102. That, of course, is subject to Standing Order 105, which is about members being able to speak only once, except where otherwise provided, to any question before the House. Of course, there is no occasion when the Speaker is in the Chair where there is an ability for a member to speak other than in reply, and I do not think anyone is suggesting that this is the case. There are very few occasions these days when there are motions before the House where there is a reply; it used to be something that was more frequent. I do not think anyone would suggest that in this case Mr Tremain was speaking in reply, because he was not the Minister in the chair and he was not moving the motion.

Standing Order 102 works on the assumption that people do not have multiple calls. In fact, it does recognise the seniority of members and the interests and expertise of members who want to speak—that is clear. It recognises that there is a system of priority. But that is the system that is used by the Speaker, and it does not take into account the exception in Standing Order 105, the first clause of which states: “Except as otherwise provided,”. We know that it is otherwise provided that there are multiple calls on a Committee stage. Clearly, a number of us have had them, and we know that Mr Tremain is entitled to have a second call in order to seek the closure.

Can I just put in brackets that although some of us might be unhappy with the closure being granted, none of us is arguing about the Chairman’s right to put the question to the House. That is not in contention as part of this point of order, which, Mr Assistant Speaker, you seemed to indicate in your earlier ruling. My submission to you is that although you were absolutely accurate as far as Standing Order 102 is concerned, you failed to take into account the additional factor that has come through on a regular basis in rulings from Chairs—certainly, in all the time that I have been here—which is that in the Committee stage they tend to give the call to those members who have not had the call previously. You may want to refer this matter to the Standing Orders Committee, which might find it appropriate to add a paragraph (e) to Standing Order 102 that states that in the Committee stage the Chairman should take into account whether a member has had the call previously.

As to whether the Standing Orders Committee should look at this matter, any member can raise that issue, and I advise the member that if he believes it to be a significant issue, he should actually do that. I refer the member to Standing Order 169, “Conduct of proceedings”, which expressly states that the same rules apply for the conduct of proceedings in a Committee of the whole House as apply in the House. That affirms Standing Order 102. Members might also like to look at Speaker’s ruling 26/3, which again affirms the issues around seniority. So I am upholding the ruling that I have made, and I declare the House in Committee.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 3 Amendments to Tax Administration Act 1994 (continued)

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 3 be agreed to.