Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled at the request of a motion moved in the Committee of the whole House, principally because I took a closure. I consider the matter very carefully every time a closure motion is moved, and I did so on this occasion. The Committee of the whole House had been debating Part 1A of the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There had been some 14 calls. Every single member who was seeking the call had had a call. I did not accept a previous closure motion that had been put; I wanted to hear more debate on the matter. Because all members had taken a call—one member who had already had two calls was seeking the call; no one else was seeking a call at the time—and the debate had been quite fulsome and robust, I considered it was therefore time to test the position of the House by accepting the closure. Accordingly I did so.

I think the matter is entirely as the Chair has put it. I know that Speakers’ rulings on this matter have been relatively clear in the past, but it is Labour’s view that this is an egregious breach of reasonable practice. This part of the Telecommunications (TSO, Broadband, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill deals with the structural separation of Telecom and the regulatory requirements for telecommunications in New Zealand going forward in regard to these broadband matters. It is a vital part. The entire structural separation is in this part, as is the entire legislative framework for it. It includes the entire fining system, the competition requirements, the separation requirements, and what can and cannot be shared.

Maybe I am taking it a little personally, but I ran through and asked over a dozen questions of the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, that were absolutely detailed. I think the Chairperson will confirm that they were all relevant and important. On the face of the bill it was not clear what the story is on any of those questions. There is an exceptional constitutional arrangement within this bill whereby instead of having a regulation-making power an offer document from 2009 is apparently now written into the law, but not provided within the bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I urge the member to focus on the issue of order, not to deliver another speech.

Yes, sure. I am trying to say that there is a very serious concern about what we think is a very important part of this legislation. Only one member went for the call, because the Labour Party has been organising its speeches in order. The honourable member Stuart Nash went for the call. A number of other members of the Committee want to speak on this part, and my view is that 14 calls, which is about an hour, is very short for something so important.

I hear what the member says. I do not believe that it is reasonable to argue that taking 14 calls, from my experience in this place, is egregious. Be that as it may, that is not really the issue.

The issue is that in this House, it has been the practice that in the Committee of the whole House the Chair is the sole judge of when a closure motion may be taken. Speaker’s ruling 65/3 makes that very clear. The Speaker cannot second-guess the Chair of the Committee, because the Speaker has not been party to the debate. That is a very important reason why the Speaker, in my experience in this House, has never overruled the Chair of the Committee in terms of when a closure motion might be accepted. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Committee of the whole House to decide when the question on a closure motion is put. I understand that the Committee is in the process of taking that vote, and it is most unusual practice for the Speaker to be recalled while the Committee is actually voting. But I confirm that as Speaker I am not about to overrule the decision of the Chair of the Committee. Therefore, I declare the House back in Committee to carry on with the vote.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1A Structural separation of Telecom (continued)

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Clare Curran to clause 23B be agreed to:

to add to subclause (3) the following paragraphs after paragraph (c):

(d) specify how systems and data are to be partitioned and allocated; and

(e) provide a general explanation of the allocations that are made.