Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled to pass judgment. I believe that the motion said it is on whether seven calls were sufficient on the first three clauses of this bill. Let me put that in context. We have been debating this issue for about 1 hour and 10 minutes. It is clauses 1 and 2 of the bill. There have been 15 calls, 12 of them from members of the Opposition. Can I also say that from a Chair’s point of view there have been a number of calls before new information was brought in. I determined that it was time for the Committee to decide whether or not it wished to continue the debate, so after three closure attempt calls, I did accept the closure motion. Furthermore, a party vote had been agreed, and we were very close to calling the result of the party vote when the point of order was made and a motion was moved to recall you.

I think that a relatively accurate summary of the situation has been given by the Chairman. The debate had been going for about 1 hour, rather than 1 hour and 10 minutes, according to our record. Six Labour members and one Green member had had the opportunity to speak. There were a number of members who were going for the call. Mr Speaker, I have asked for you to be recalled, more in hope than expectation, because this is a very important bill. It is one for which I think there is no doubt—there is unanimity in the Chamber—that at issue are the liberties of New Zealanders, and that is a reason why this bill should be treated in the Committee generously rather than in the tight manner that it has been. As part of this, and probably in the House, rather than in the Committee, I want to apologise to the Chairman for the rather intemperate comments that I made to him during the party vote, because they were not appropriate, but they were a result of my surprise at the closure being called so quickly.

My expectation for this sort of debate would be that it would go on for at least 50 percent longer and probably twice as long as it has, given the importance of the bill. This is not a minor fisheries regulation, fixing up - type bill. It is not a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is probably the most important bill affecting the liberties of New Zealanders that we will be dealing with in the term of this Parliament. Therefore, to cut out members, when I think at least six members were prepared and wanting the call, appears to me not to have the fairness that we expect in a Chamber and in a democracy.

We are dealing with clauses 1 and 2. I was sitting in the Minister’s chair throughout. The last contribution from the member for Mana focused mainly on why Government members were not taking a call. It was becoming very repetitious. As the Chair of the Committee said, the question that the motion be agreed to had been voted on, and just as he was about to begin voting on the substantive motion, the point of order was raised, but not before the member for Hutt South had screamed out hysterically that the Chair of the Committee was patently biased. That was a comment that at least he has had the decency—well, it would be hard to say that he has had the decency, because he has none, but the semi-decency—to apologise for.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. Dr Russel Norman.

From the Green Party’s point of view, this is a very important bill, and there has been only one Green speaker on the title clause, although I do acknowledge that the Chair gave me two slots, and I appreciate that. My colleague Mr Browning has been seeking the call for some time, and as the third-largest party in Parliament we would expect to get more than one speaker on the title clause of such an important bill. So we were quite disturbed when the Chair accepted the closure motion.

I thank all members for their contributions. I have been watching the debate from my office anyway. I certainly want to acknowledge the apology from Trevor Mallard for the way it was raised. I do appreciate that this has been a lively debate. It is one that people clearly have very deep feelings and beliefs on, and that is fully accepted. However, I want to refer to two Speakers’ rulings that might assist in making my decision: Speakers’ rulings 64(4) and 64(5). Speakers’ ruling 64(4), which has been reinforced a number of times by different Speakers, clearly says that the Chairperson is in the best position to judge. He is the person who has listened to the debate. Speaker’s ruling 64(5), of course, says that it is not for the Speaker to second-guess what might happen if the question is put. So I accept and thank members for their contributions. The question has been put. It is now for the Committee to determine whether it is accepted.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)