Regulatory Reform Bill

Mr Speaker, the Committee finds itself in—[Interruption] Is this microphone going? Mr Speaker, I think the technical difficulties that the Committee has been enduring are now apparent by the activities that took place when you came in. About 15 minutes ago there was a bit of a pop, and the sound went dead in here. I asked for the Committee to show some tolerance, and, by and large, it did that, but then we became aware that various parts of the Chamber were being broadcast on radio and on TV without pictures, or at least that is what was reported. [Interruption] Order! Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker. Consequently, an issue has arisen: Standing Order 44(1), which states: “The proceedings of the House are broadcast on radio during all hours of sitting …”, became a bit of an issue. We are not entirely sure in how many positions around the Chamber that was happening. The Clerk arrived with the temporary microphone, which I have now seen. We are still not exactly sure how widely this is being broadcast. As you are aware, sound is being amplified inside the Chamber. So it was determined that your advice be sought on this, and that possibly also gives some time for remedial action to take place technically. We look forward to your advice on the matter, Mr Speaker.

I just reiterate my commitment: I have agreed not to sing. I want to say, for the record, that normally when the Speaker is recalled it is a negative on the Chair. The Chair has done an admirable job to try to navigate through this. The simple proposition is that I and other colleagues have ascertained that from time to time the Chair and the Minister in the chair could be heard. A colleague over there could be heard at one point. I sat up in my office, after having made a speech, and a number of colleagues, the acting whip, and my colleague Lianne Dalziel could not be heard audibly. A member was asked to leave the Chamber for a variety of reasons, including, perhaps, that he could not hear. The question we simply wanted to ask and be answered—and this is no implication at all on the Chair—is whether the proceedings of the House should continue whilst there is no audible noise through Radio New Zealand, the broadcasting system, our internal system, or the television broadcast. We have not checked the internet. It cannot be heard. It may be that it is sporadic or patchy through here, but we wish to seek your advice in respect of that.

I have not found anywhere in the Standing Orders that there is a requirement for Parliament to be broadcast. Surely, the debate occurs within this Chamber. I would like to request that we continue.

I think from the Opposition side we are most concerned that the Opposition is not being heard, but not just in New Zealand, because across the world people are live streaming. Admittedly, in Finland and Hungary they have turned off from New Zealand, but we do not want the rest of the world to think we cannot operate a simple sound system. So please take that into consideration in your ruling. Thank you.

I thank honourable members for their comments.

💬 Clare Curran: Mr Speaker—

Does Clare Curran wish to speak?

The member made a very valid point around the importance of the internet. I think this has actually thrown into relief that the issue we are dealing with here, particularly on this side of the House, is that members cannot be heard. Whether it is just the Opposition side of the House or not, it is unknown whether or not they are able to be heard on radio. The member made a very important point about the internet and the importance of being able to communicate the proceedings of Parliament via the internet. The other point I would like to make is that since the sound went off there have been issues of order in the House, and one member has been ejected because of the amount of disorder. So I would ask you to take that into account.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent to state that unless Parliament was being broadcast by television and radio it could not continue with its important proceedings. The Chair of the Committee quite appropriately ruled that the Committee should be able to continue. In fact, this Parliament performed for over 70 years without microphones and without radio, and the precedent that would be set in the event that you rule that we must have Parliament broadcast for it to be able to proceed with the business of the House, in my view, would be quite detrimental. With a little bit of courtesy, there is no reason why Parliament cannot continue with its important functions.

There are two points. Firstly, we seem to be in a vacuum here in terms of anyone with technical expertise who has come and advised us. Much of this seems to be done just from various people’s opinions. I am somewhat aghast that perhaps the Chairman and the Speaker have just simply not asked the technical people to advise what the situation is. Is it a temporary situation, or could this be ongoing? If it is ongoing, then obviously it causes a more difficult situation. Secondly, I think the point that has been made by several of my colleagues is the fact that one side of the House still appears to have a reasonable amount of amplification, although the Opposition side of the House does not. Therefore, if it was evenly balanced, it would not be too much of a problem. But the fact that the people out there who are listening to the broadcast are simply not hearing the Opposition viewpoint does compromise the whole debate, and, therefore, on the basis that it compromises the whole debate and that only the Government’s position, essentially, can be heard, it must put the whole debate into question.

I thank honourable members.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Mr Speaker—

I will hear finally from the Hon Simon Bridges.

I appreciate that we want to get on with this, but it is a relatively rare point that we are not likely to deal with commonly. I concur with Louise Upston. I do not think there is a rule directly on this. I would also just make the point, which is really related to the point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made, that this is a debating chamber, and the central point of this Chamber is that members can hear each other. We can now do that with that microphone. Anything else, I would suggest, is really ancillary to that point. The other point I would make, which relates, is that because this is now being done by microphone, it is not as if Hansard cannot transcribe and record this. It can do that. So anyone who wishes to, following this debate, will be able to see what is said verbatim. In fact, people outside of this Chamber, whether it is being broadcast live or not, will be able to pick up what is said.

Honourable members, I appreciate your restraint in this difficult situation. I must say—if I could be a little bit facetious for a moment myself—I was watching this while chairing another meeting, and when I saw my colleague here, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, with a microphone in his hand, I wondered whether he was actually singing to the Committee. I was most impressed. I thought this was a new talent that one of my parliamentary colleagues was demonstrating to the Committee. Little did I realise the reality of the difficulties being confronted by members.

I think some of the points being raised by members are very important. Were the situation to result in some parties’ contributions to this debate being heard in public and other parties’ contributions not being heard, that would be a pretty unacceptable situation. That would result in the views of one party getting through to the public and another party’s views not getting through, and I think it would be hard to argue that that was not an unacceptable situation. Some members have asked why this technically cannot be fixed up right away. Apparently, one of the problems is that the system is highly computerised. Work is going on at this moment to try to rectify the problem. The first job was to find out exactly what was going wrong. Now work is going on to rectify it, but it will not be done immediately.

My advice is that sound is getting through on Radio New Zealand, television, and web streaming—members raised that issue earlier. But what would be needed from members is a preparedness to be a little helpful in this situation. Where the microphones are working—which seems to be more on the Government side of the House—that is fine, but what I would ask the Chair of the Committee to do is to allow a little more time for one of these handheld mikes to be made available to all other members, because where they are being used the sound is being transmitted, I am advised, and is being received over radio, television, and web streaming.

So if members could just be a little more—well, not more cooperative; you have been very cooperative so far. I ask members to be prepared to be that little bit cooperative during these difficult times, and perhaps, Mr Chairman, you could make sure that the time on a member’s contribution during the Committee stage is set from the time the member has a microphone in their hand. I think, under those circumstances, as long as the public is getting equal feed from all sides of the Chamber—and that is, I am advised, what will happen if these handheld mikes are used where the desk mikes are not working—and if we just make sure time is allowed, no member will be disadvantaged through waiting for a handheld mike to be delivered. And I ask the support staff here in the House to assist with making sure these microphones are delivered to members as quickly as possible. I really appreciate members’ preparedness to be constructive during a difficult time.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that. I just wanted to touch on one point. You have been advised that the sound is audible through the normal systems—correct? My question simply would be this. If there is a failure later this evening, or whenever, what is the position of the House if that does drop out? I would just like some guidance, so we do not have to go through this again.

Obviously, we do not know whether that is going to happen, but, to me, the issue that I would find—and this is me as Speaker almost thinking off the top of my head here—unacceptable would be for some parties in the House, some members in this House, to be heard by the public during a debate when other members cannot be heard. That, to me, would be an unsatisfactory situation. However, members have also pointed out that there is no Standing Order requirement for the broadcasts. If, in fact, there was unfairness on what was going through, it would be totally within the Standing Orders of the House to close down the broadcasts. As members have pointed out, the rules cover the debate in this House. They facilitate the broadcasting of the debate.

But, to me, the thing that would be unreasonable would be if any one member’s or party’s views were getting through to the public on important issues and other members’ or parties’ views were not. I personally would find that unreasonable, and I stress I am talking off the top of my head here. It would seem to me that the only fair way to deal with that would be to actually close down that unbalanced broadcast. I do not know, but I imagine that it is technically possible to close it down. I think that would be the most sensible way to deal with that situation. The Standing Orders do not require the broadcast; they facilitate it. If it is an unfair broadcast, I think we should not allow an unfair broadcast.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order that I raise is in regard to a tweet from Parliament today, from @ParliamentNZ, which states: “Sound problems hit Parliament again. Dalziel plows on undeterred and Minister in chair does not realise his mike is on”. And that was the point my colleague Clayton Cosgrove made when he came down to the Chamber, which is that the broadcast system was picking up the Minister in the chair’s mike but not anyone else’s mike. That does indicate that, in fact, there is an unfair disadvantage, in that some members are able to be heard publicly but not others.

I want to make sure that the Minister in the chair is aware of this issue. I think it is pretty easy to tell which mikes are working, and I think we must make sure that before a member’s time has started, the Chair of the Committee is satisfied that the member’s microphone is working, and then—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: And it’s being broadcast.

Because if it is working, it will be broadcast. If the—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Publicly.

My advice is that where there is a microphone that is working, it will get through in the public system. That is my advice. So if a member starts to speak—and it is quickly obvious whether the microphone is working or not—I would ask that the time be stopped until the member is delivered a hand mike. Then the broadcast is fair to all members in that their contributions to the debate are getting through in a fair and reasonable manner. I do apologise. I apologise to all members in the House. This is unsatisfactory. It is beyond the control, I think, of any of us, but I appreciate very much your cooperation during a difficult time. I want to make sure no member is disadvantaged by it. And I ask the Chair of the Committee to ensure for me that no member is disadvantaged by it.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order. Prior to your being recalled, Mr Cosgrove was speaking in the Chamber, and the Hon Tau Henare was called upon to leave the Chamber. I was sitting closer to both the Chair and the speaker at the time in the debate, and it was not clear to me—let alone, I would assume, Mr Henare—whether it was a speech or a point of order that was made. We have heard from members in the points of order previous to this that there was difficulty with microphones on the Opposition side of the House, and that it was extremely difficult to be heard. Indeed, the Chair at the time said that he was able to see Mr Henare, but actually to be able to see somebody and to hear the instruction on whether it was a point of order or a speech, I would suggest, are different things, so I wonder—

Order! I see where the member is going, and I must point out to him, and to save the House’s time, that that is a matter for the Chair of the Committee. The Speaker cannot interfere in that matter. That is a matter for the Chair of the Committee.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong this any further, and I think it is probably a discussion that will need to happen in another forum. This is not the first time the House has had difficulties with the sound system. In fact, we have encountered difficulties before where everything that occurred in the debating chamber was broadcast, whether the member’s microphone was audible within the Chamber or not. I want to raise with you that I think this is becoming quite a problem, and I would like some assurance that it is going to be dealt with finally, so that we do not have these recurring problems. It has been a recurring problem the entire time I have been a member of Parliament—4 years—since, I understand, this current sound system was put in place.

I hear the member’s point. Every endeavour will be made to ensure that it does not happen again. Sadly, modern electronic systems are not totally foolproof yet. But the member makes a perfectly good point. Every effort will be made to ensure we are not let down like this again. I do apologise to members.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 (continued)