Urgency

I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. You can start again in a moment. We’ve got another point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’m in the middle of—

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s a new point of order.

I’ve called him because he’s called a point of order, OK?

Sorry, this is a new point of order—if I may. I was waiting for this to conclude so—

SPEAKER: That’s good—get on with it. It’s all right.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —that I could raise it in relation to question time. So this is in relation to Speaker’s ruling 23/6, and I’ve raised Speaker’s ruling 24/2 in relation to occurrences that happen during question time, particularly from interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly around that a point of order should use absolutely objective language and not accusatory language, and the language involved when raising points of order is very different from the language involved in debate, as well as constantly raising trifling points of orders being itself disorderly. I just want to reflect that there has been, throughout several question times, constant interjections from the Deputy Prime Minister which they themselves don’t amount to legitimate points of order. And what I want to get a sense of understanding and reflection about is the standards that we’re setting for the rest of us in terms of us also therefore being allowed to make interjections which they in themselves don’t actually—

Well, that’s a very good point. I’ll take that under advisement. I will come back to the House on that. It’s not something that—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A separate point of order?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s a separate point of order, but it has insight with respect to what was just said, because that objection is being raised long after the time he should have raised it, and, for that reason, you should have ruled it out. We’ve got people who don’t understand Speakers’ rulings here, or Standing Orders, and they’re getting up and showing their ignorance every day—

Hon Member: Thank you—sit down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and he gets offended by it. But that should have been ruled by the fact that when he saw objection—[Interruption] And by the way, points of order are heard in silence.

SPEAKER: That’s right; they are, but there has to be a point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, my point of order has been succinctly made. If he had any point of order, it had to be raised at the time he saw offence, not some time later. That’s the old Standing Order.

I move, That urgency be accorded—

Point of order. I move, that this House hold an urgent debate on the appropriate use of urgency. The manner in which this Government has used urgency to progress its agenda, including the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, is an abuse of power.

Well, that would be great if it were down on the Order Paper or if you had sought leave for such a motion; you simply cannot move it.

I seek leave of the House to hold an urgent debate on the appropriate use of urgency. The manner in which this Government has used urgency to progress its agenda, including this disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, is an abuse of power.

The leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Point of order. The Government’s use of urgency has deprived this House and the public the ability to scrutinise significant legislative measures—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sit down!

Sit down. You can’t use a point—sit down.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, I’ll sit down because you said sit down; not because he said sit down.

Yes, sit down because the Speaker stood.

Rawiri Waititi: Yes, but not because he told me to sit down.

No, of course not—you wouldn’t listen to him; you’d be focusing on me. So the thing is, you can’t use a point of order to make a statement; it has to relate to a point, and the House has made it very clear to me that I must now no longer indulge, on the basis of his seniority in this House, the Rt Hon Winston Peters—and I won’t—but you cannot do that today.

Point of order. I move, That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill—

SPEAKER: No. You can’t do that.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Well, I seek leave from the House that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is out of order while it is currently subject to an inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal as of Standing Order 116.

Well, I hate to, you know, keep on getting pedantic about the rules here, but the bill that you’re talking about is not on the Table of the House. Therefore, the leave cannot be put.

I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading—

Point of order. I’m just wanting clarification from the Speaker that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is not going to be discussed in the House through urgency. Is that what you’re telling me?

That’s not what I said.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order.

No, sit down please Mr Seymour. What I said is quite simply, (1) you cannot move without leave of the House; (2) you can’t seek leave of the House to, effectively, discharge a bill that at this point is not tabled. It may well be tabled later today, but it is not tabled currently.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I suspect I speak for quite a few members who are having their patience—

Well, it would be good if you had spoken to yourself and made it a real point—[Interruption] Enough! Thank you.

Rawiri Waititi: You speak for yourself!

Hey!

Mr Speaker, with respect, I think I have a right to raise a point of order without you interrupting. I think it’s probably not just me but it’s certainly me who is a little bit tired of repetitive trifling points of order from someone who hasn’t taken the time to understand the rules, and I’d like you to take a tougher line on him because we’re all getting a little tired of it.

It’s an interesting view, but the Speaker will always make his own decision about what advice he might give anybody in the House any time they might need it.

Point of order. I’d like to record—and take that particular Minister to task—that it is inappropriate to give a personal reflection which puts one of the parties in disrepute because we are using the Speakers’ rulings in a way that he doesn’t think is appropriate.

I’m sorry; it’s an interesting point, but it’s a debating matter. This is the end of this. I’ll now call on the Hon Chris Bishop.

I move, That urgency be accorded the continued second reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill; the introduction and passing through all stages of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill; and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill; and the passing through all stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.

There’s been a bit of debate about urgency in the House, and can I just say to the House the reason why the Government is seeking this urgency motion is to progress the necessary stages of our 100-day plan. The coalition parties collectively campaigned on repealing the Māori Health Authority not because we have an objection to improving Māori health outcomes—in fact, quite the converse—but we campaigned on it because we don’t think a giant new bureaucracy is the right way to go about doing that.

We also campaigned on repealing the Auckland regional fuel tax. The National Party—and I think I’m right in saying that the ACT Party said the same thing—at two successive election campaigns sought a mandate from the New Zealand people to repeal the Auckland regional fuel tax, going all the way back to early 2018 when it was introduced. And news flash for the Opposition: at the election in October last year, that mandate was delivered by the New Zealand people, and we have pulled together our 100-day plan and we are now proceeding to implement it.

Members opposite cry crocodile tears about urgency, because I’ve sat where they sit for six years and I realise it’s grim times, and I know exactly what they are going through.

Mr Speaker, point of order. I refer you to Speakers’ rulings 14/3, 14/4, and 14/5 around the need for reasons for moving urgency, and I won’t invite you, Mr Speaker, to reflect on whether or not Mr Bishop’s moving of this motion is in the spirit of those Speakers’ rulings, given that such a motion is not debatable. He is introducing debatable material into this, he is failing to actually fulfil his job to give specific reasons for the bills; rather, he’s attacking the former Government, the Opposition, for actions that he believes have been undertaken. That is not within the spirit of moving an urgency motion.

Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: I have been listening to the contribution or the reasons being given by the Hon Chris Bishop, who now may want to participate in the—point of order is it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ll speak to the point of order and say I think that’s fair enough. I’ll bring it back a bit.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, thank you very much for your generosity in that regard. I was going to direct you that way. Carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The very simple reason for urgency is that the coalition parties sought, at the election, a mandate to implement these policies. Two of them—in fact, all three bills in this urgency motion—

Hon James Shaw: Point of order. I mean, it is interesting hearing his justification for the over-use of urgency, but, given that it is not a debatable motion, if he is going to make those points, we do feel that we ought to have the ability to respond to those points, because they’re not valid.

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that Standing Orders don’t provide for that. I recall at the time that the Standing Orders Committee made the determination that there should be reasons given with no debate. I opposed that at the time. I wasn’t listened to. I’m now obliged to follow what Standing Orders require of us. I would ask Mr Bishop to conclude his commentary as quickly as possible.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The next point I was going to make is that all three of these bills are repeal bills—in other words, they wipe from the statute book bills that the Parliament passed. Many of them have been through select committees previously. The Government considers urgency is more than justified in this case, and we therefore move the motion.

I seek leave of the House for a debate laid down immediately on the Government’s use of urgency.

SPEAKER: Well, we’re actually in the middle of considering a motion, so you might want to think about putting that at a future point. Procedurally, we now need to go to the vote.

Point of order. I seek leave of the House for a debatable motion on the Government’s use of urgency.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I request a personal vote on that motion.

You can, but I’m not granting it, because the numbers are overwhelming. There’s no question about how the outcome can be interpreted. That’s the basis for a member requesting a personal vote.

Point of order.

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Hon JAMES SHAW: They were very even.

SPEAKER: I read them. I read the results. It also would require that there was some belief that votes cast weren’t legitimately cast.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I find it difficult to predetermine how you can rule on a use of a personal vote given that, until it happens, you don’t actually know whether it’s overwhelming or not.

Well, you do, because the Clerk hands you a bit of paper that says 68 to 54. That’s the basis of it. That is a large, substantial majority of the House making a decision. If there was a question about whether or not someone had appropriately or inappropriately cast their vote or whether, outside of a party’s leave allocation, there was a misquoting of a vote, those would be reasons, but simply calling for one is not enough.

Point of order. I seek leave from the House to move that the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill is out of order while it is currently subject to an inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal as to the Standing Order 116.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that?

Hon Members: Yes.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

Point of order. I move that the orders of the day for the first reading of the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be postponed until after the urgent claim before the Waitangi Tribunal regarding this bill can be heard.

There’s a small problem here. So there is a sequencing that goes on in any of these moves by the House, and you can’t have a successive number of leave applications that vary from a decision that the House has made in the current session. The House has made its decision that it’s in order, and, therefore, any other moves to defeat its progress under the urgency bill are, unfortunately, not permitted under Standing Orders.

Hon David Seymour: Unfortunately?

SPEAKER: Well, unfortunate for the member.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very clear that there are many members of this House that feel very strongly about the bills that were contained within the Government’s urgency motion. It is possible that members from all parties were moved by those contributions. In order to clarify whether that is the case, I seek leave of the House to hold a personal vote on that motion.

That’s not sufficient reason. Your belief doesn’t trump the fact that people have cast their vote, effectively, by holding their proxy with the whips.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I am seeking leave, however.

SPEAKER: Oh, are you seeking leave? All right. Leave is sought for a personal vote on—do you want to say what it is again so we get it all correct in the Hansard? I seek leave—

Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House to hold a personal vote on the Government’s urgency motion just voted on as a party vote.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, can you clarify for this House that Standing Order 116, “Matter subject to judicial decision: (1) Matters awaiting or under [judicial] or suppressed by an order of [a] New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion, debate, or question, including a supplementary question, subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on [a] matter or to consider [delegated] legislation.” Standing Order 3(b) of that “takes into account the constitutional relationship of mutual respect that exists between the legislative and judicial branches of government, and the risk of prejudicing a matter awaiting or under [the court system or under judiciary] in any New Zealand court, including one awaiting sentencing.” The tribunal meets on Thursday, and this goes against that particular standing order. Can you just give us some clarification around that, please, Mr Speaker?

Well, the simple clarification is that the tribunal is not a judicial body, and, for that reason, the Standing Order does not apply in this case.