New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled on the basis that a closure motion was put. I accepted the closure motion and put it to the Committee. At that stage the Green Party asked specifically for a personal vote. I denied a personal vote, and subsequently I have used the letter that you have written to the parties, as it is your prerogative to do, stating that Part 1, because they are procedural matters, would be on the basis of a party vote, if a party vote were called for, and that Part 2, because they are conscience matters, if a personal were called for, a personal vote would be allowed. I have quoted the letter from your office, signed by you on 5 November, which states the position quite clearly. On that basis the ruling that I made was that we would accept a party vote on Part 1 but not a personal vote. That is the decision and the ruling that I made.

I think it is fair to say that Mr Tisch has summarised the situation well. I have now received a copy of the letter that you sent to the party whips. I do want to point out that nowhere in this letter does it say that Part 1 will be treated as a party vote. What it does is indicate that certain matters will be treated as conscience issues.

One of those, in the dot point at the top of page 2—and I am researching this relatively quickly—is changes to the regulatory regime for gambling and the application of proceeds of gambling. I refer you, in Part 1, to clause 4(1), which defines “regulatory concessions” and brings them into the Act. From just a very brief reading of your letter, it is clear that, in fact, that amendment at least comes within the ambit of your letter and therefore should allow for a personal vote. So that is No. 1. I apologise. It is not a matter that I was aware of before, or I would have brought it up. I have just read your letter and compared it with the bill.

The next point that I want to make is the indication from the Chairman that he had been directed by you. That is actually a quote. “The direction of the Speaker” were the words used by the Chairman of the Committee. Of course, that cannot be because you, I am sure, would give guidance and not direction in these matters, because otherwise the right of the Chair, in following the debate, to act as he sees would be fettered.

I turn to the last point, and I do want to say that we might have been, if you like, one vote premature in calling for a personal vote. There might be a good debate around—I think we can have a debate around whether the closure motion is a personal vote or not. It might be that there could be an argument, as far as the closure motion is concerned, to do with Government business and getting it through, that those votes might be a party vote. But given the ruling from the Chairman that this is part of Part 1, as opposed to a procedural motion, it might be worth considering it as a package.

The last point that I would make is that if one looks through these definitions, we go to “licence” in clause 4(1) and we also go to the legislative implementation of the agreement, which is not counted in the schedules. So if one looks at clause 4(2), that is the clause that gives effect to the agreement, and therefore is a major operative clause in the extension of gambling and the implementation of those provisions.

My submission to you is that this part includes three or four provisions that change gambling, and McGee and other learned people who have written on the matter have made very clear in the past that gaming provisions are matters of conscience. I am asking you to rule that your letter stands and that that is guidance, but not direction, to the Chairman and that it would be appropriate for him to review his mistaken assumptions as to the effect of this part in relation to the letter that you have provided.

I just want to indicate that the Chairman did not indicate to the Committee that he was in any way being directed by you, Mr Speaker. What he did make very clear, for the guidance of the Committee, was that you had, after discussion in the Business Committee, written to members to indicate that all parties had agreed on the procedure that was to be followed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Chairman was simply upholding the intent of that letter and the agreement that was reached by all the other parties. I also want to indicate that in this instance we were dealing with a procedural motion, and the suggestion that anything other than a party vote should be taken on a procedural motion is, I would have thought, quite extraordinary.

We too have seen the letter. It is our understanding in the Greens that unless we call for a personal vote no such vote will be held. There has been no express indication from the Chair or from any other official as to which parts of the legislation may or may not be considered appropriate for a personal vote. So we are in no position other than to call for a personal vote at every opportunity so that those personal votes will be held. If there is no indication, then we may well unduly miss the opportunity to hold a personal vote, which we consider as very important. So without further indication we have no choice but to continually call for a personal vote in these circumstances.

Firstly, I think that you did a good thing in providing guidance to all parties about how, as the primary presiding officer of this Parliament, you would see this bill being dealt with, where there is clearly disagreement among parties about what should be a conscience vote and what should not.

I have to say that we have heard from some speakers this afternoon on this point who were not present at the Business Committee yesterday, where this matter was further discussed, and it would be unfair and unreasonable to suggest that there had not been a discussion about which parts are most likely to attract the personal vote requirement or to see that called for. There were some understandings reached and I think that one of the difficulties that we are faced with now is that although that Business Committee has functioned extremely well for the last 5 years, in my opinion, we might be at a point where it is going to start turning on itself. I would ask that perhaps some of those who have spoken this afternoon speak to their representatives who were at the Business Committee to get a better understanding of exactly what I understood to be agreed positions.

The first thing I would like to do is say that I think I received an indication from Mr Tisch that he did not use the words “Speaker’s direction”. If that is the case, if he did not use those words, I apologise. I thought that he had. The second point that I would like to make is that there is no provision in Speakers’ rulings or in Standing Orders for the Business Committee to remove the right of an individual member to vote on a personal vote on a conscience matter. You cannot trade away amongst senior members the right of individual members to have personal votes.

I made no such suggestion, but the member Trevor Mallard has huge experience in this House and also in the Business Committee and knows the sorts of agreements that can be reached there. No one is suggesting that anyone’s rights are cut off, but on a procedural motion it would seem rather unusual to expect there to be a personal vote, unless there was some compelling reason for there to be so.

Can I just ask whether the Chairman wishes to make any further comment. Can I thank all members for their contribution. I thought long and hard about the letter that I sent out, and, in actual fact, if you follow a previous gambling bill that was before this House, a member’s bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell, we on that occasion followed a very similar system to what I have established today. I took substantial advice from the Clerk in determining whether Part 1 was largely procedural, and on the basis of that advice that was my conclusion.

I then sent a letter out that I think is relatively specific to members, and I appreciate that at the time the Hon Trevor Mallard recalled the Speaker he had not actually seen a copy of that letter. But that letter quite specifically says that I will allow a personal vote on the second part. I refer members to Standing Order 139, which states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue, the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.”

I can assure all members of the House that I respect the role of the Chairman and I certainly did not instruct Mr Tisch in any way. Having said that, I say that this matter was discussed at the Business Committee. I was personally not at the Business Committee yesterday, and I think it would be a very dangerous situation, having followed the way this House has evolved over a period of time as we have adjusted Standing Orders to our electoral system, if at any time the working and the consensus arrangement of that Business Committee were put at risk. On this occasion there will be adequate opportunities for people to cast personal votes where I have determined that there is more of a gambling issue at stake rather than a procedural matter. So on this basis I adhere to the ruling made by Mr Chairman, and the House will return to being in Committee.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)