Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

Mr Speaker, the Committee of the whole House has determined that you should be recalled to rule on my decision to take a closure on Part 1 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Debate on Part 1 has included clauses 3 to 10 and schedule 1. There have been a number of amendments to the bill, but the debate has been going for just on 2½ hours. There have been 27 calls. Every single member in the Chamber who has been seeking a call has had an opportunity to have at least one call; some members have called three times. I considered that the debate had reached a conclusion, so I accepted the call for the closure.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could speak to the reasons I have asked for you to come back to the Chamber. It is hard to imagine a more important and wide-ranging bill before this House in this 3-year parliamentary term. The ACT Party has strong opposition to this bill. We have lodged hundreds of amendments; some are very substantial. We gave notice to the Chair that we wanted to debate those amendments, and we gave notice to the Speaker of a number of issues that we wanted to raise. For example, clause 4(1)(a) talks about protecting the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders. We think this bill protects the legitimate interests of only some New Zealanders. We are being denied the chance to put our arguments. We think that the closure has been put far too early and we ask that you rule that the ACT Party has the right to speak to its amendments and to oppose this bill in the vigorous way it deserves to be opposed.

Mr Speaker, I do not want to comment on the substance of the motion moved by Mr Boscawen to recall you; he has given his reasons to you for that. The only thing I would note—not by way of challenging the Chairman—is that we started the debate on Part 1, the part we are currently on, at a quarter to 5. So we have spent about an hour and three-quarters on Part 1. I think the Chairman has added together the debate on the preamble and the debate on Part 1 to get to that figure he used of 2½ hours. It has certainly been a substantial debate and I think that has been because there have been so many amendments set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That might be of some help to you as you are reflecting on the ruling you will inevitably make.

I will make one additional point, Mr Speaker. One of the reasons we are having to debate the amendments in the Committee is, as you may be aware, the Māori Affairs Committee met to consider a 520-page report—

I do not believe that is helpful to the House. The member made a perfectly fair point of order a moment ago, but I do not think we need to get into that detail. The Speakers’ rulings on this issue have been in place for some time, and in fact in our current Speakers’ rulings go back to 1931. There is good reason why Speakers’ rulings are the way they are, and that is that the Chair of the Committee of the whole House is obviously in the best position to assess the state of the debate. The Chair has reported to me that there have been 27 calls on Part 1 and that some members have had up to three calls. The Chair of the Committee of the whole House is clearly in the best position to assess whether a closure motion, when put, should be accepted. Speakers’ ruling 65/3 is particularly clear on this matter: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion, and it must be left entirely in his hands.” Excuse the sexist language, but obviously it was a male Chair of the Committee back in those days. What is more, Speaker’s ruling 65/4 goes on to state: “It is not for the Speaker to second-guess the Chair’s judgment [on the closure].”

If the Committee of the whole House does not agree that the closure should be accepted, then the Committee votes on the matter, and is at liberty to vote down a closure motion. So I must, I believe, in all conscience stick with the existing Speakers’ rulings on this matter—that the Chair of the Committee must be the sole judge of whether the closure motion should be accepted and put to the Committee for the vote. I must, on that basis, return the matter to the Chair of the Committee.

💬 Stuart Nash: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

I will briefly hear a point of order from the member.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just very briefly. You mentioned there had been 27 calls on this debate and that some people had spoken three times. Speakers’ ruling 65/1 states: “The moving of a closure motion is treated as a speech.” I think you may find that a number of those 27 calls, if not half, were probably closure motions, because at the end of every Labour, Opposition, ACT, or other speech, a closure motion was put by the Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have made a ruling and, therefore, the matter is now closed. I declare the House back in Committee.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have declared the House back in Committee. I have made my ruling on the matter and declared the House back in Committee on the bill.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)