Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, we have been debating Part 1 of the bill. There has been some challenge around the fact that I took a closure motion. I had listened to the debate in my office. My colleague prior to me in the Chair had taken detailed notes about the content of speeches. I had alerted members that I was looking for new material. There had been quite a lot of repetition in the information that I was hearing, and, on that basis, I took the closure motion.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first acknowledge this is an extremely rare situation that often members refer to. The position of the Labour Party is that this is the only step that was made available to us in light of a number of calls that were being sought by members that were not taken up. There was an instruction or a view of the Chair that she was looking for new information. We took one call following that instruction, where the member, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, made some rather salient points and suggested that the Minister in the chair may wish to take advice around that, after which there was no further opportunity for any other member of the Opposition to take any calls on a bill that is currently progressing through the House under urgency, without any select committee scrutiny. So on that basis we felt that there was no other option but to seek to recall the Speaker to ensure that members of this House have an equitable opportunity to raise the questions as part of scrutiny that many New Zealanders would expect us to be doing on this side of the House.

Acknowledging the comments by Tangi Utikere that this is not done lightly, I would invite you to review the Hansard record, because part of the challenge that I had, particularly with the point around new questions, is, for example, I asked a question around wage gaps and the impact of wage scarring, and that was subsequently used to labour the point that there were no new points being asked. I find that concerning because, like I said, those questions were in good faith—it was not filibustering. So I just would invite you to look at the Hansard record to review the nature of the questions being asked to evaluate whether we were being repetitive or not.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My inquiry is a genuine one into the well-established tradition of ensuring that points are covered and that when there is dispute as to whether things were getting repetitive—but even so, what is the convention about ensuring equitable speaking across members? Because then it becomes about not just traversing new material but also equitable speakers across a really crucial committee stage of the House. We are impacting on people’s lives here, and I would have thought this House can give it the fullest committee stage that we possibly can.

Kia ora. From our perspective as the only tangata w’enua party here and the way that Māori are going to be impacted, we did expect to be able to have some speaking time. We weren’t able to be heard at all. To be fair, we also are rushing as a small party to try and collect ourselves on everything that’s coming down in a state of urgency. So, with respect to our Chair, we were hoping to ask questions. We weren’t repetitive; we weren’t heard at all. Kia ora.

Given that my contribution was the last one before the Chair attempted to close down or closed down the debate, I think it’s important for me to stand up and speak to that. I did repeat questions because—and you can revisit the Hansard and check whether you feel this is the case—I very genuinely do not think that the questions I asked, which were very important, were answered. We received new information in this committee that contradicted the modelling that follows the actual bill. So I asked very specific questions about the implications of that on certain things and I didn’t receive that information. But I didn’t even receive a response to say that the modelling had not been updated. It wasn’t addressed at all, and so I was trying to get those questions answered. I actually had other questions. Again, not an attempt to filibuster, but trying to wrap up that particular area of questioning was difficult. And to have that closed down by the Chair, actually, is not fitting with what committee of the whole House stages should allow us to do when scrutinising a bill in the way we’re expected to during committee stages.

I’d just like to reflect on the fact that while there’s two arguments being put forward—one, that we felt that questions were being not answered. But the second point I think it’s important for you to be aware of is that we genuinely felt that debate was prematurely concluded. As an example of that, as the associate spokesperson for Labour, I did not have an opportunity to speak on this bill, and I think at the very least it’s important that you give key spokespeople an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister on this bill, particularly given we don’t have that opportunity at select committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I want to raise is that I did seek the call on more than one occasion from the Chair, and I had new material. So the key point seems to be here around that new material. There were members on this side of the House seeking the call, and I sought the call twice and intended to continue to seek the call, because I did have questions to put to the Minister that had not been asked by any other member on this side of the House. As other members have pointed out, we did not have a select committee process. And so I actually came to the House specifically with some questions, for the Minister, to ask, and I would still like to have the opportunity to ask them. So, Mr Speaker, I do urge that you take into consideration the fact that multiple members from the Labour Party and from other parties of Opposition sought to take the call and did not receive an opportunity to even take a call. So it’s difficult to ascertain how you could make a judgment that we were being repetitive when members with different items that they wished to interrogate weren’t even given the opportunity to take the call.

Well, I’ve heard enough, thank you. Look, while, firstly, I have been watching this debate throughout the morning—watching the parliamentary proceedings throughout the morning—and while my opinion in this case about repetition or other such is obviously of guidance, it’s not particularly relevant, because the Standing Orders have for a very long time made it clear that the sole judge of relevance and whether or not there is repetition or new material or otherwise is the Chair of the committee of the whole House. And I’m not about to overturn something that has been in the Standing Orders for a very long time.

This is, interestingly, an argument that—well, the arguments that I have heard this morning, interestingly, are arguments that I have made myself on a number of occasions over a long number of years. So Speaker’s ruling 81/1 stands. The closure can be taken.

Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We accept that ruling. There are two things I’d like to raise and we’d appreciate if you would reflect on that. Conscious that last night during urgency and today there have been a number of occasions where spokespeople haven’t had the opportunity to make a call, and there were questions that were simply not answered by Ministers—other questions were, but there were certain questions that weren’t; I suspect deliberately to play for time. I’m conscious that presiding officers are required to take into consideration a number of factors, one of which is if Ministers answer questions. I think it would be useful for the House if you were to perhaps look over that and report back.

But the other thing that I would like to pose to you is the situation where we have a formal Opposition but two other parties, all three of which are contributing to a committee of the whole House stage debate. I haven’t seen it done before, but I would like your view—perhaps after some reflection—about the possibility of presiding officers indicating that a particular party have had their fair share, while the other two parties in the Opposition can continue. The reason I raise this as my concern is that the Labour Party, as the formal Opposition, could potentially be deprived of an opportunity to contribute constructively at a committee of the whole House stage if other parties, theoretically, aren’t contributing and meeting the requirements of a presiding officer. Given the particular make-up of this Parliament, I think it would be useful for the House if that was something you reflected on.

💬 SPEAKER: I thank the member for that contribution. I think it’s quite a valid point and it is a matter that I think would be best delt with by the Standing Orders Committee. At a number of junctures in the parliamentary process this situation where you not only have a three-party Government but a multi-party opposition is something that we are obviously having to wrestle with. If there needs to be guidance through the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings, that’s something that the Standing Orders Committee can suggest and I’m very open to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to unpack this as well in other spaces. But just for the place in which we are now, the Speaker’s ruling that you mentioned, I mean, it does cover relevancy and repetition, but, for example, for my colleagues from Te Pāti Māori who didn’t get a chance to ask, that’s not really covered in terms of that proportionality element. So, while I totally understand that according to Speakers’ rulings you will not reverse or interfere with the Chairperson’s rulings on those matters, I don’t see anything that speaks about that other element around other parties being able to contribute to the debate. So I guess, what I’m pointing to is would you be able to guide me if there are Speakers’ rulings that allow you to, on the basis of those arguments beyond the relevancy and repetition, that you would be able to intervene to enable, actually, that fair contribution of parties that (a) for example, didn’t get a single call in Part 1, and others who only had one spokesperson.

💬 SPEAKER: No, I’m not hearing any more on this because I have ruled. So I appreciate the point that Ricardo Menéndez March—look, I’ll tell you what, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, I’ll hear what you have to say.

Kia ora. Thank you, e te Pika. I just want to remind in the Business Committee section of Standing Orders, 78(3) that “Before determining … the Speaker must be satisfied that, having regard to the party [and parties] … does not discriminate against or oppress a minority party or minority parties.” In this case, we didn’t get a word said, and I think that’s really unfair.

In respect to what’s before us, it’s so important—it’s so critical for our communities that I do ask that the Speaker consider that ruling.

💬 SPEAKER: I will have a look at the Hansard record. I understand that there were 12 speeches before this closure motion was taken, and I will see exactly how those were distributed and make a decision from there. But, for now, the ruling stands and the committee is resumed.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Social Security Act 2018 (continued)