Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill

Last night, when the instruction to the committee was moved, the question should have been proposed. So the question now is that the motion be agreed to and the Hon Chris Hipkins’ amendment to it be agreed to.

When the House was suspended last night, we were debating the instruction to the committee of the whole House and the amendment proposed to it. Chris Bishop has the call and has one minute and 51 seconds remaining if he so wishes.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry to interrupt the member who was speaking. I have reflected very carefully on where the House got to last night and on both of the questions currently before the House, and I do not believe it is in the best interests of the House for this to continue. I therefore seek leave to withdraw my amendment to the motion that is currently before the House.

Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I welcome the move by the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion. The motion that was moved—the amendment last night—was an absolute affront—

Order! [Interruption] No. The member will resume his seat. The member has not referred to a point of order. [Interruption] The member cannot take a point of order while I’m on my feet. Whether or not I agree with him—and I do agree with him—that both these motions are an affront to the House, and that motion would certainly not have had my support, I do want to make it clear that that motion can now not be debated. The only motion that can be debated currently is the one in the name of Jami-Lee Ross, and I will not have points of order which purport to reflect on a motion now no longer before the House. And I want to warn the Hon Dr Nick Smith that the consequences will be serious.

I’ve been a member of this House for 27 years, and I should be able to raise a serious point of order without being—

The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. And the member is absolutely right; if the member had raised a serious point of order, he would have been heard. He didn’t. He abused the process. He referred to a motion no longer before the House and did not have a point of order on that.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The member will resume his seat. I’m going to warn the member now that if he takes a point of order that is not within order, then the consequences for his party today will be serious.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That point is completely understood, and I do ask you to give me a moment to explain my point of order, because it’s a serious one and it is one that welcomes the comments that you have made in resuming the Chair in the House this morning. The unfortunate precedent, though, that has been established is that the motion to give an instruction to the committee was accepted by the Speaker last night. That has created—even though the motion has been withdrawn—an unfortunate precedent. What I am seeking from you, Mr Speaker, under Standing Order 176 is a ruling that the motion that was moved was not within the Standing Orders, and the reason—

Well, the member will now resume his seat. The motion was accepted by the Speaker last night. If it had been a matter that had been accepted by the Chair, in the Chair, then it would be appropriate for me to rule on that. The Speaker in this Chair last night made a decision; that decision is final and is not appealable to me. There might be some cause to reflect on it, and it could well be a matter that the Standing Orders Committee, either in the short term or the longer term, has a look at, probably along with the motion that is currently before the House. And I just want to say to Dr Nick Smith that he is sailing very, very close to the wind. He is the father of the House. He does know that one cannot appeal the rulings of an acting Speaker to the Speaker.

Debate interrupted.