Health and Safety Reform Bill

Mr Speaker, you have been recalled by a member of the Opposition on the basis that I accepted a closure motion when there were other speakers who wished to be heard. The Committee made the decision to accept the closure motion; I only put it. The Committee as a whole makes that decision, not the presiding officer or the Chairperson at the time.

On Part 1 we have had 23 calls. It has been quite a wide-ranging debate, and, in fact, after 1 hour and 10 minutes I made it clear that we should then move back to the specifics of the clauses in Part 1. I noted at that stage that the speeches up until that stage had set the scene, and that was fair, because the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety had done so in his opening comments. It had been a general discussion of workplace safety, and that was accepted, and I accepted that as well. But following that, when I made the decision then to focus on the quite narrow context of Part 1, we allowed that debate then to continue.

Up until the first closure motion every member who wanted a call had received a call, because I have a list. It was only when the closure motion was actually moved by a Government member that other members decided to go for the call. In my notes here every member who wanted a call up until the first closure motion actually had received a call. So, on that basis, I believed there to have been fair and wide-ranging comments. They had been done in good humour and they had canvassed the points of Part 1. I was prepared to put the motion and, of course, the Committee decided to accept the closure motion. Subsequent to that, of course, you have been recalled.

Mr Speaker, I did ask that you be recalled. I felt that for the reasons I am about to set out, the Chair’s decision to accept a closure motion was premature. At the time we had six Labour members on their feet seeking the call when the closure motion was taken, some of whom had not spoken on Part 1 yet. I was amongst those. Yes, I have spoken on Part 1, and as the acting spokesperson I would expect to have a good opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the bill, which does include the purpose clause of a very dense bill—a bill that is very complex.

The acceptance of a closure motion is about the content of the part, and Part 1 is an extensive part. There are many parts that have yet to be debated. The member Kris Faafoi, who was on his feet immediately prior to the closure motion being accepted, was debating clause 17, which had not been raised before by any other speaker. At the outset of this debate we had been given an undertaking by the Chair that if there were reasonable questions being asked of the Minister, the Chair would ensure that closure motions were not accepted, in order to allow those questions to be answered by the Minister. My colleague Kris Faafoi, in his contribution, did in fact ask for a question that had been asked earlier in the debate but that he felt had not been responded to, to be addressed by the Minister, and we would like to have that opportunity.

I would also like to note that we have heard from Denise Roche from the Green Party, who has put forward amendments on this part. She has had the opportunity to take one call. In that one call she indicated that she wanted to speak further to one of her amendments, and she did not get the opportunity to do so.

I would like to point out that there were Labour members who were on their feet seeking the call before and after the closure motions that the Chair referred to, but they did not get the opportunity to actually take those calls.

Can I just ask the member how many times she was called and had the opportunity to speak.

I have had two 5-minute calls, consecutively.

I have had three calls, and I was intending on taking another call. I did actually rise to my feet the time before time was called, but I was looking at the clock thinking that I would leave it until we got back from the dinner break. I did have some more questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about clause 10 that have not been brought up yet, and I also would like to have one more opportunity to speak to Part 1.

Just in response to Sue Moroney’s comments about questions to the Minister, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has been very receptive in answering questions. In fact, the Minister took five calls, which is virtually unheard of for a Minister in part by part debate. I think by answering those questions he allayed many of the fears. So for the member to say that there were additional questions for the Minister—they actually had not come up during the course of the debate. The Minister took those calls and adequately answered those questions. So that was one of the reasons I made the decision to accept the closure motion.

Just in response to that, my question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety was a recasting of a question that my colleague Chris Hipkins put to the Minister while he was in the chair. I do acknowledge that the Minister acknowledged nearly all of the questions. It is just the one that I asked and Mr Hipkins asked that we did not think was addressed.

I thank all members for their contributions. Whilst in my office doing other work I have been watching the debate. I have not listened intently to every part of it. I want to congratulate all members who have taken part in the debate on the solemn nature with which their contributions have been delivered. We are dealing with a particularly important issue and I certainly want to see Parliament have plenty of time to debate the issue. I also acknowledge the point just made by Lindsay Tisch. I have seen many sensible questions being put to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and I commend the Minister for the way he has then tried to answer those questions to the best of his ability, answering them in a very fulsome way.

I want to refer members to a number of Speakers’ rulings on pages 70 and 71 that, in essence, conclude that the person best placed to judge when to allow a closure motion to be put is, indeed, the person who is chairing the Committee—in this case, my Assistant Speaker Lindsay Tisch. He has done that. It is then for the Committee to subsequently decide whether the closure motion is accepted. The presiding officer simply allows the question to be put; the determination is then made by this Committee itself. I am not absolutely sure whether that vote has been taken.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): It has been taken.

It has been taken and I then assume it has been accepted, in which case that is the final matter in this case.

💬 Sue Moroney: Point of order.

No. Does the member want to question the decision?

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not to question the decision but just to point out that I attempted to take a point of order prior to the vote being taken, and that was not allowed by the Chair.

That does not change the ruling I have just given. I return the House to Committee.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Health and safety at work (continued)